NRE European Edition 2018 nr - rechtspraak.nl · Rechtspraak Europe, 2018, nr. 11 (November) 33 applications raised questions concerning the fairness of the procedures before the

Rechtspraak Europa

Get connected to Europe with one click

Monthly overview of the case law of the European Court of Human rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Judgments that are not available in English are summarized in French

Chief editors Joanne Bik Founding editor Marc de Werd

This newsletter is an extract from the Dutch edition

If you would like to receive the newsletter please send an email to RechtspraakEuroparechtspraaknl to be listed on the mailing list The same email can be used for any suggestions concerning the translations

Follow Rechtspraak Europa on Twitter europeancourts and joannebik1

Copyright copy2018 Marc de Werd copy2018 Joanne BikLBVr

European edition nr 11 (2018)

Rechtspraak Europe 2018 nr 11 (November)

Index Index 2

Reading guide 4

Part 1 ndash Jurisprudence 5

Access to documents 5

Agriculture and fisheries 5

Asylum migration VISA 5

Aviation 9

Brexit 9

Competition 10

Consumers 10

Criminal law 11

Customs 11

Detention and treatment by the police investigation 11

Energy market 13

Environment nature renewable energy 13

Family life and family law 15

Financial services and markets 16

Freedom of assembly 18

Freedom of religion 19

Freedom of speech and thought 19

Fundamental rights (Charter) en ECtHR general 21

GBVB 21

Health medicines 22

Institutional 23

Insurance 23

IP - Intellectual property23

IPL ndash International private law25

Labelling 28

Labour law social security and free movement of employees 28

LGTB-rights 30

Preliminary procedure at the ECJ 31

Privacy and data protection 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trial ndash administrative law 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash civil 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash criminal law 33

Public procurement tender 35

Right to life medical negligence 38

Right to peaceful enjoyment of property 38

Rule of law 41

Schengen 41

Search 42

State aid42

Taxation 42

Taxation Customs and tariff classification 43

Taxation companies 43

Taxation VAT 43

Tobacco 45

Trade and anti-dumping 45

Transport 46

Part II ndash General 47

Newsletters 47

Reading guide - To scroll if you click on the second icon from above rdquoBookmarksrdquo the index will appear in

the left column

- The subjects in the newsletter are ordered alphabetically

Part 1 ndash Jurisprudence

Access to documents

PUBLICATION

Factsheet ECJ Public access to environmental information (curia)

Agriculture and fisheries

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G WAHL ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-58717 P ndash Belgium Commission ndash

ECLIEUC2018821 ndash opinion

Expenses excluded from financing by the European Union mdash Extend of the obligation of Member

States to recover unduly paid sums in the context of the EAGF

Regulation (EC) No 12902005 Decision (EU) 2016417 By its appeal Belgium asks the Court to set aside the judgment of 20 July 2017 Belgium v Commissionby which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016417 in so far as it excluded Belgium from financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (lsquoEAGFrsquo) of a sum of EUR 9 601 619 The present appeal gives the Court an opportunity to clarify the extent of the obligation of Member States to recover unduly paid sums in the context of the EAGF More specifically the Court must decide whether the General Court was right to hold that in the

circumstances of the case at hand a decision taken by the competent Belgian authorities not to exhaust all domestic remedies in attempting to recover unduly paid export refunds constitutes negligence attributable to the Kingdom of Belgium within the meaning of Article 32(8)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12902005

A-G the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 July 2017 Belgium v Commission T-28716 and refer the case back to the General Court

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Italy ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case C-56918 - Caseificio Cirigliana

srl ea

Regulation (EC) No 11512012

Asylum migration VISA

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Assem Hassan-Al v Denmark ndash press release ndash

judgment (level 3) ndash ECLICEECHR20181023JUD002559314

Danish courts were justified in expelling a Jordanian national after his conviction for serious drugs

Article 8 ECHR The case concerned the expulsion from Denmark of a Jordanian national who has six children of Danish nationality He was deported in 2014 following convictions for drugs offences

The Court was not convinced that the best interests of the applicantrsquos six children had been so

adversely affected by his deportation that they should outweigh the other criteria to be taken into account such as the prevention of disorder or crime Overall the domestic courts had carefully balanced the competing interests and explicitly taken into account the criteria set out in the Courtrsquos case-law when deciding to expel the applicant

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Levakovic v Denmark ndash press release ndash judgment

(level 3) ndash ECLICEECHR20181023JUD000784114

Danish courts gave ldquorelevant and sufficientrdquo reasons for expelling long-term migrant after court

convictions

Article 8 ECHR The Court found that the domestic courts had made a thorough assessment of his personal circumstances balancing the competing interests and taking Strasbourg case-law into account The domestic courts had been aware that very strong reasons were necessary to justify the

expulsion of a migrant who has been settled for a long time but had found that his crimes were

serious enough to warrant such a measure The courts had found that he did not have any children whose interests needed to be taken into account and that he was poorly integrated into society as he had lived a life of crime and shown a lack of will to comply with Danish law Overall the authorities had based their decisions on relevant and sufficient reasons and there was no sign his Roma origin had influenced them

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-65216 ndash Ahmedbekova ndash Bulgary -

ECLIEUC2018801 ndash opinion - judgment

Applications for international protection lodged separately by family members

Directive 201195EU Directive 201332EU In large part the nine questions concern aspects both procedural and substantive of the processing of applications for international protection made by members of a single family group The second third eighth and ninth questions on the other hand

touch upon the examination of the admissibility of applications for international protection and the

scope of the judicial review of decisions refusing international protection that may be carried out by courts of first instance which are aspects that have already been raised albeit from a partly different angle by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court Sofia) in Alheto a case in which I delivered an Opinion on 17 May of this year (C-58516 EUC2018327)

Court In carrying out the assessment of an application for international protection on an individual basis account must be taken of the threat of persecution and of serious harm in respect of a family member of the applicant for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is because of his family tie to the person at risk himself exposed to such a threat

Directive 201195 and Directive 201332EU must be interpreted as not precluding applications for international protection lodged separately by members of a single family from being subject to

measures intended to address any interaction between applications but as precluding those applications from being subject to a single assessment They also preclude the assessment of one of those applications from being suspended until the conclusion of the examination procedure in respect of another of those applications

Article 3 of Directive 201195 must be interpreted as permitting a Member State when granting

international protection to a family member pursuant to the system established by that directive to provide for an extension of the scope of that protection to other family members provided that they do not fall within the scope of a ground for exclusion laid down in Article 12 of that directive and that their situation is due to the need to maintain family unity consistent with the rationale of international protection

Article 33(2)(e) of Directive 201332 does not cover a situation such as that at issue in the main

proceedings in which an adult lodges in her own name and on behalf of her minor child an application for international protection which is based inter alia on a family tie with another person who has lodged a separate application for international protection

The involvement of an applicant for international protection in bringing a complaint against his country of origin before the European Court of Human Rights cannot in principle be regarded for the purposes of assessing the reasons for persecution referred to in Article 10 of Directive 201195 as proof of that applicantrsquos membership of a lsquoparticular social grouprsquo within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of that directive but must be regarded as a reason for persecution for lsquopolitical opinionrsquo within the meaning of Article 10(1)(e) of the directive if there are valid grounds for fearing

that involvement in bringing that claim would be perceived by that country as an act of political dissent against which it might consider taking retaliatory action

Article 46(3) of Directive 201332 read in conjunction with the reference to the appeal procedure contained in Article 40(1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that a court before which an action has been brought against a decision refusing international protection is in principle required to examine as lsquofurther representationsrsquo and having asked the determining authority for an assessment of those representations grounds for granting international protection or evidence which whilst relating to events or threats which allegedly took place before the adoption of the decision of refusal or even before the application for international protection was lodged have been

relied on for the first time during those proceedings That court is not however required to do so if it finds that those grounds or evidence were relied on in a late stage of the appeal proceedings or

are not presented in a sufficiently specific manner to be duly considered or in respect of evidence it finds that that evidence is not significant or insufficiently distinct from evidence which the determining authority was already able to take into account

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-5617 ndash Fathi ndash Bulgary - ECLIEUC2018803

ndash opinion (f) - judgment

Motifs de perseacutecution fondeacutes sur la religion

Regraveglement (UE) no 6042013 Directive 201332UE M Fathi est un ressortissant iranien drsquoorigine kurde qui a introduit une demande de protection internationale fondeacutee sur la perseacutecution dont il

aurait eacuteteacute victime de la part des autoriteacutes iraniennes pour des motifs religieux et en particulier en raison de sa conversion au christianisme entre la fin de lrsquoanneacutee 2008 et le deacutebut de lrsquoanneacutee 2009

La demande de protection internationale de M Fathi a eacuteteacute rejeteacute comme eacutetant non fondeacutee consideacuterant que le reacutecit de M Fathi comportait des contradictions substantielles et que ni lrsquoexistence drsquoune perseacutecution ou drsquoun risque de perseacutecution agrave lrsquoavenir ni celle drsquoun risque de peine de mort nrsquoavaient eacuteteacute eacutetablies

Court Lrsquoarticle 3 paragraphe 1 du regraveglement (UE) no 6042013 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoil

ne srsquooppose pas agrave ce que les autoriteacutes drsquoun Eacutetat membre procegravedent agrave lrsquoexamen au fond drsquoune demande de protection internationale au sens de lrsquoarticle 2 sous d) de ce regraveglement en lrsquoabsence drsquoune deacutecision explicite de ces autoriteacutes eacutetablissant sur la base des critegraveres preacutevus par ledit regraveglement que la responsabiliteacute de proceacuteder agrave un tel examen incombait agrave cet Eacutetat membre

Lrsquoarticle 46 paragraphe 3 de la directive 201332UE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que dans le cadre drsquoun recours intenteacute par un demandeur de protection internationale contre une deacutecision

consideacuterant comme infondeacutee sa demande de protection internationale la juridiction compeacutetente drsquoun Eacutetat membre nrsquoest pas tenue drsquoexaminer drsquooffice si les critegraveres et meacutecanismes de deacutetermination de lrsquoEacutetat membre responsable de lrsquoexamen de ladite demande tels que preacutevus par le regraveglement no 6042013ont eacuteteacute correctement appliqueacutes

Lrsquoarticle 10 paragraphe 1 sous b) de la directive 201195UE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoun demandeur de protection internationale qui invoque au soutien de sa demande un risque de perseacutecution pour des motifs fondeacutes sur la religion ne doit pas afin drsquoeacutetayer ses alleacutegations concernant ses croyances religieuses preacutesenter des deacuteclarations ou produire des documents relatifs agrave tous les eacuteleacutements de la notion de laquo religion raquo viseacutee agrave cette disposition Il incombe toutefois au demandeur

drsquoeacutetayer drsquoune maniegravere creacutedible lesdites alleacutegations en preacutesentant des eacuteleacutements qui permettent agrave lrsquoautoriteacute compeacutetente de srsquoassurer de la veacuteraciteacute de celles-ci

Lrsquoarticle 9 paragraphes 1 et 2 de la directive 201195 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que lrsquointerdiction sous peine drsquoexeacutecution ou drsquoemprisonnement drsquoagissements allant agrave lrsquoencontre de la religion drsquoEacutetat du pays drsquoorigine du demandeur de protection internationale peut constituer un laquo acte de perseacutecution raquo au sens de cet article pour autant que cette interdiction est en pratique assortie de telles sanctions par les autoriteacutes de ce pays ce qursquoil appartient agrave la juridiction de renvoi de veacuterifier

ECJ ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-66217 - EG ndash Slovenia -

ECLIEUC2018847 ndash no opinion - judgment (f)

Recours contre une deacutecision refusant lrsquooctroi du statut de reacutefugieacute mais accordant le statut confeacutereacute

par la protection subsidiaire

Directive 201332UE EG a demandeacute le beacuteneacutefice de la protection internationale Le ministegravere a consideacutereacute que celui-ci ne remplissait pas les conditions pour se voir accorder le statut de reacutefugieacute

mais que le statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire pouvait lui ecirctre octroyeacute jusqursquoagrave sa majoriteacute soit jusqursquoau 31 deacutecembre 2019 Cette deacutecision eacutetait notamment fondeacutee sur le motif selon lequel si EG eacutetait renvoyeacute en Afghanistan il serait livreacute agrave lui-mecircme sans soutien familial et serait en tant que mineur une cible facile de violences physiques de traite des ecirctres humains drsquoabus sexuels ou de travail dans des conditions inhumaines et dangereuses de telle sorte qursquoil existerait un risque

seacuterieux qursquoil subisse un traitement inhumain ou deacutegradant EG a contesteacute le rejet de sa demande tendant agrave lrsquoobtention du statut de reacutefugieacute La juridiction de renvoi estime que compte tenu de lrsquoidentiteacute des droits que confegraverent les deux statuts de protection internationale dans le droit slovegravene se pose la question de savoir si au regard tant du droit slovegravene que du droit de lrsquoUnion en particulier de lrsquoarticle 46 paragraphe 2 de la directive 201332 le recours introduit contre la deacutecision contesteacutee en tant qursquoelle rejette la demande drsquoobtention du statut de reacutefugieacute est irrecevable en

raison de lrsquointeacuterecirct insuffisant du demandeur auquel est accordeacute le statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire agrave poursuivre la proceacutedure

Court Lrsquoarticle 46 paragraphe 2 second alineacutea de la directive 201332UE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que le statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire accordeacute par une leacutegislation drsquoun Eacutetat membre telle que celle en cause au principal nrsquooffre pas les laquo mecircmes droits et avantages que ceux offerts par le statut de reacutefugieacute au titre du droit de lrsquoUnion et du droit national raquo au sens de cette disposition de telle sorte qursquoune juridiction de cet Eacutetat membre ne peut rejeter comme irrecevable

un recours introduit contre une deacutecision consideacuterant une demande infondeacutee quant agrave lrsquooctroi du statut de reacutefugieacute mais accordant le statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire en raison de lrsquointeacuterecirct insuffisant du demandeur agrave ce que la proceacutedure soit poursuivie lorsqursquoil est veacuterifieacute que selon la leacutegislation nationale applicable ces droits et avantages que confegraverent ces deux statuts de protection internationale ne sont pas effectivement identiques

Un tel recours ne peut ecirctre rejeteacute comme irrecevable mecircme srsquoil est constateacute au vu de la situation concregravete du demandeur que lrsquooctroi du statut de reacutefugieacute ne serait pas susceptible de lui apporter plus de droits et drsquoavantages que lrsquooctroi du statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire degraves lors que le demandeur nrsquoinvoque pas ou nrsquoinvoque pas encore des droits qui sont accordeacutes en vertu du statut

de reacutefugieacute mais qui ne le sont pas ou ne le sont que dans une moindre mesure en vertu du statut confeacutereacute par la protection subsidiaire

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G SZPUNAR ndash 17 October 2018 ndash case C-44417 ndash Arib ndash France ndash

ECLIEUC2018836 ndash press release (en) ndash opinion (f)

A-G the lsquoReturns Directiversquo must be applied to third-country national where internal border

controls have been reinstated

Directive 20081152 Mr Abdelaziz Arib of Moroccan nationality was checked in French territory near to the land border between France and Spain aboard a coach coming from Morocco He had

previously been subject to an expulsion order removing him from French territory Suspected of having entered French territory illegally he was arrested and held in police custody and the preacutefet des Pyreacuteneacutees- adopted an order requiring him to leave French territory and ordered his administrative detention His detention in police custody was rescinded by the Regional Court and as a consequence the subsequent proceedings including the administrative detention since it was not possible to place him in custody The court of Appeal confirmed the decision and the preacutefet appealed to the Court of Cassation

The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) asks the Court of Justice whether border controls reintroduced at an internal border of a Member State may be equated with border controls at an

external border when that border is crossed by a third-country national and whether in consequence France may decide not to apply the return procedure laid down in Directive 20081152 known as the lsquoReturns Directiversquo That directive in fact authorises the Member States not to apply to third-country nationals stopped or intercepted by the competent authorities when making an irregular crossing of the external border of a Member State and who have not subsequently obtained an authorisation or a right to stay in that Member State

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G MENGOZZI ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-55717 ndash YZ ea ndash Netherlands

ndash Raad van State - ECLIEUC2018820 ndash opinion (f)

Conseacutequences du retrait du titre de seacutejour ou perte du statut pour cause de fraude pour les autres

membres de la famille

Directive 200386CE Directive 2003109CE Le Conseil drsquoEacutetat cherche agrave savoir si le titre de seacutejour

deacutelivreacute au membre de la famille drsquoun ressortissant de pays tiers conformeacutement agrave la directive 200386CE peut ecirctre retireacute lorsque son titulaire nrsquoavait pas connaissance du caractegravere frauduleux desdites informations De maniegravere similaire par sa seconde question preacutejudicielle la juridiction de renvoi cherche agrave deacuteterminer si pour perdre le statut de reacutesident de longue dureacutee tel qursquoil deacutecoule de la directive 2003109CE du Conseil du 25 novembre 2003 relative au statut des ressortissants

de pays tiers reacutesidents de longue dureacutee il est neacutecessaire que le titulaire dudit statut ait eu connaissance de la fraude au motif que ledit statut aurait eacuteteacute obtenu sur le fondement drsquoinformations frauduleuses

A-G Lrsquoarticle 16 paragraphe 2 sous a) de la directive 200386CE ne srsquooppose pas au retrait drsquoun permis de seacutejour octroyeacute dans le cadre drsquoun regroupement familial qui a eacuteteacute obtenu sur le fondement drsquoinformations frauduleuses lorsque est eacutetablie dans le chef de la personne ayant deacuteposeacute la demande

de regroupement familial lrsquointention de contourner ou drsquoeacuteluder les conditions drsquooctroi de ce permis et ce mecircme dans le cas ougrave le titulaire de celui-ci nrsquoeacutetait pas au courant du caractegravere frauduleux desdites informations Il incombe aux autoriteacutes compeacutetentes des Eacutetats membres avant de proceacuteder

agrave un tel retrait drsquoappreacutecier conformeacutement agrave lrsquoarticle 17 de la directive 200386 tous les inteacuterecircts en

jeu et de conduire cette appreacuteciation agrave la lumiegravere de lrsquoensemble des circonstances pertinentes du cas drsquoespegravece au nombre desquelles figurent le fait que le titulaire du titre de seacutejour nrsquoeacutetait pas agrave lrsquoorigine de la fraude ayant conduit agrave lrsquooctroi de ce titre ni nrsquoavait connaissance de celle-ci

Lrsquoarticle 9 paragraphe 1 sous a) de la directive 2003109CE srsquooppose au retrait du statut de reacutesident de longue dureacutee lorsque le titulaire de ce statut nrsquoeacutetait pas au courant du caractegravere frauduleux des informations qursquoil a preacutesenteacutees agrave lrsquoappui de sa demande et sur la base desquelles ledit statut a eacuteteacute octroyeacute

PUBLICATION

Study European Parliament Brexit and Migration October 2018 (EP) EASO publishes a Country of Origin Information (COI) report on the security situation in Pakistan (EASO)

The Case of the Administrative Arrangement on Asylum-Seekers between Greece and Germany A

tale of ldquoparaDublin activityrdquo (EU law analysis)

Aviation

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 12 October 2018 ndash case C-55718 ndash Eurowings

Regulation (EC) no 2612004

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 15 October 2018 ndash case C-56618 - Austrian Airlines

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Cyprus ndash 29 October 2018 - case C-58418 - DZ

Schengen Regulation 5392001 Regulation (EC) no 2612004 Regulation (EC) no 5622006

Regulation (EU) 2016399 Decision no 5652014EU

Brexit

Study European Parliament Brexit and Migration October 2018 (EP)

Legal implications of Brexit (EU publications)

ldquoDoes the principle of the autonomy of the EU legal order allow for a Member State to

revoke the notification of its withdrawal from the EUrdquo (European law blog)

Competition

ECtHR- JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Koumlnyv-Taacuter Kft t Hongarije ndash legal summary - press

release ndash judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181016JUD002162313

Protection of property State monopoly of the schoolbook distribution market violation

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-37917 ndash Societagrave Immobiliare Al Bosco ndash

ECLIEUC2018806 ndash press release ndash judgment

Time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment

Regulation (EC) no 442001 The Brussels I Regulation does not preclude legislation of a Member

State which provides for the application of a time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment order from being applied in the case of such an order which has been adopted in another Member State and is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought

GENERAL COURT EU ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 ndash case T-64016 ndash GEA group -

ECLIEUT2018700 - judgment

Agreements and anticompetitive arrangements or concerted practices

Regulation No 12003 The applicant is seeking the annulment of the contested decision By this Decision C(2009) 8682 the Commission found that a number of undertakings had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by participating in two sets of agreements and anticompetitive arrangements or concerted practices covering the territory

of the EEA and concerning first the tin stabiliser sector and second the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector (lsquothe ESBOesters sectorrsquo) In support of its action the applicant puts forward five pleas in law The first plea alleges breach of the rules on limitation The second plea alleges infringement of Article 266 TFEU and the rights of defence The third plea alleges infringement of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation No 12003 The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the fifth plea alleges misuse of power and failure to state reasons The court annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 3920

Consumers

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-10517 - Kamenova ndash Bulgary -

Sale of goods published on a website - Concepts of lsquotraderrsquo and lsquocommercial practicesrsquo

Directive 200529EC Directive 201183EU By its question the referring court asks in essence whether a natural person who simultaneously publishes on a website a number of advertisements offering new and second-hand goods for sale may be classified as a lsquotraderrsquo within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 200529 and secondly whether such activity constitutes a lsquocommercial practicersquo within the meaning of Article 2(d) of that directive

Court Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 200529EC and Article 2(2) of Directive 201183EU must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who publishes simultaneously on a website a number of advertisements offering new and second-hand goods for sale can be classified as a lsquotraderrsquo

and such an activity can constitute a lsquocommercial practicersquo only if that person is acting for purposes

relating to his trade business craft or profession this being a matter for the national court to determine in the light of all relevant circumstances of the individual case

Becoming a trader in the platform economy CJEU rules in Kamenova (ECLB)

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-58318

Verbraucherzentrale Berlin

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case C-23417 ndash XC ea ndash Grand Chamber ndash

Principle of ne bis in idem

Article 4 par 3 TEU Article 50 EU Charter Article 54 CISA XC YB and ZA are the subject of proceedings in connection with suspected tax evasion and other offences in Switzerland Following the criminal proceedings in Austria the parties concerned submitted an application before the

referring court for a rehearing of criminal proceedings closed by means of a decision with the force of res judicata in the event of an infringement of the ECHR or one of the protocols thereto (lsquoECHRrsquo) By their action the parties concerned alleged inter alia an infringement of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 50 ECHR and Article 54 of the CISA By its question the referring court asks in essence whether EU law and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that the national court is required to assess in the context of such an action whether there has been an infringement of EU law mdash in particular an alleged violation of

the fundamental right enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter and Article 54 of the CISA mdash even though national law provides for such a review only with respect to alleged infringements of the ECHR

Court EU law in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as meaning that a national court is not required to extend to infringements of EU law in particular to infringements of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 EU Charter and Article 54 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement a remedy under national law permitting only in the event of infringement of the ECHR or one of the protocols thereto the rehearing of criminal proceedings closed by a national decision having the force of res judicata

JUDGMENTS MEMBER STATES - Netherlands ndash Hoge Raad - 9 Ocktober 2018 -

ECLINLHR20181872

Plate-profiling Dutch Supreme Court questions discriminatory police road checks (fair trials)

Customs

PUBLICATION

Facsheet Customs (EU publications)

Detention and treatment by the police investigation

ECtHR ndash ADMISSIBILITY DECISION ndash 18 September 2018 ndash Mazziotti v France - press

release 11102018 ndash decision - ECLICEECHR20180918DEC006508913

The short-term disciplinary sanction imposed on a prisoner did not amount to inhuman or

degrading treatment

Article 3 ECHR The case concerned the imposition of a disciplinary measure on a prisoner who was found in possession of a mobile phone The Court acknowledged the validity of the disciplinary

reasons for the sanction and its necessity on security grounds It observed that the length of the applicantrsquos placement in the disciplinary cell had been relatively short and that the last two days of the penalty had been replaced by work to benefit the community this demonstrated that the

authorities had kept the circumstances and the prisonerrsquos situation under review The applicant had been seen by a psychiatrist and a nurse both before being placed in the disciplinary wing and on the day on which the penalty was enforced thus enabling the authorities to verify that the measure was compatible with his state of health He had also been seen regularly by a doctor or a psychologist during the period concerned

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 - Lingura ea v Romania ndash press release ndash

judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181016JUD000588615

Excessive and unjustified use of force during a police operation in a Roma community and

inadequate investigation

Article 3 ECHR Article 14 ECHR The case concerned two police operations in the Roma community of Pata Racirct to locate individuals suspected of theft The Court found that the use of force by the police against Mr Lingurar and Mr Lăcătuş had been excessive and unjustified in the circumstances Mr Lingurar had been thrown to the ground by a police officer and Mr Lăcătuş had been struck by a truncheon although he was putting up no resistance and had been immobilised by two police officers The Court considered that these acts of brutality were intended to give rise to feelings of fear anguish

and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him No investigation had been carried out by the authorities to ascertain whether the police actions complained of by Mr Lingurar had been necessary in view of his conduct or possible resistance The investigation into the allegations made by Mr Lăcătuş had lasted more than eight years Lastly without accepting that there had been a racist motive to the police conduct during the operation the Court considered that the authoritiesrsquo investigation into the applicantsrsquo allegations of racism had not been sufficiently thorough

ECtHR ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 22 October 2018 - SV and A v Denmark ndash Grand Chamber ndash legal

summary - press release ndash judgement (level 1) - ECLICEECHR20181022JUD003555312

Detention of football supporters for eight hours without charge with a view to preventing violence

no violation

Article 5 ECHR In 2009 the applicants three Danish nationals were in Copenhagen to attend a

football match between Denmark and Sweden The three applicants were each detained for slightly

less than eight hours without being charged with a criminal offence They sought compensation in

the Danish courts for unlawful detention but were unsuccessful The Court In the present case the

offence which the authorities had sought to avert was undoubtedly a serious one Before the first

fight had broken out the police had applied a very careful approach with lenient measures such as

dialogue to prevent hooligan clashes They had also parked their armoured personnel carriers

crosswise to prevent the group of Danish fans from meeting the Swedish group Thereafter they had

turned the group of Danish fans into a side street to register and search them

It was at that moment of intense action in the immediate vicinity of an ongoing fight that the second

and third applicants had been detained with four other individuals in full compliance with the strategy

of detaining only the instigators of the fighting About forty-four persons from the Danish group

including the first applicant had thus been left at liberty in the side street The first applicant had

not been detained until after he had been heard inciting others to take part in a fight The police had

therefore not resorted to excessive detentions Accordingly the Court saw no reason to cast doubt

on the first-instance courtrsquos conclusion that ldquoless radical measures could not be deemed sufficient to

avert the risk of additional unrest in those circumstancesrdquo It was therefore established that the

applicantsrsquo detention could reasonably have been considered ldquonecessaryrdquo to prevent their instigating

or continuing to instigate acts of hooliganism given that less stringent measures would not have

sufficed As regards the duration of the detention the applicants had been released as soon as the

imminent risk had passed they had been detained for no longer than had been necessary and this

risk assessment had been sufficiently monitored on an ongoing basis Accordingly the domestic

courts had struck a fair balance between the importance of the right to liberty and the importance

of preventing the applicants from organising or taking part in a hooligan brawl

Factsheet Sport and the European Convention on Human Rights

La reacutetention preacuteventive des hooligans devant la CEDH (Liberteacutes cheacuteries)

VB vom Blatt Zehn Gedanken zum bdquoHooliganldquo-Urteil des EGMR (Verfassungsblog)

ANNOTATION ndash ECHR 20 September 2018 Aliyev v Azerbaijan

Is the European Court of Human Rights capable of changing legal systems Judgment in Aliyev v Azerbaijan (strasbourgobservers)

Energy market

GENERAL COURT EU - JUDGMENT - 18 October 2018 - case T-38716 ndash Terna -

Projets drsquointeacuterecirct commun dans le domaine des reacuteseaux transeuropeacuteens de lrsquoeacutenergie ndash

Deacutetermination du montant final du concours financier

PRELIMINARY RULING - Finland ndash 29 October 2018 - case C-57818 - Energiavirasto

Directive 200972EC

Environment nature renewable energy

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-66816 ndash CommissionGermany ndash

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Limits on emissions from the air conditioning

systems of motor vehicles

Directive 200746EC Directive 200640EC The European Commission has brought an action before the Court seeking a declaration that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under certain

provisions of the uniform approval system for vehicles Furthermore the Commission claims that Germany has acted in a manner which constitutes circumvention of Directive 200640EC In particular the present action asks the Court to rule on the discretion granted to the Member States within the ex post control system of vehicle conformity laid down by the Framework Directive the penalties which the Member States are obliged to impose on a manufacturer who has failed to fulfil the obligations on it and the scope of the concept of lsquotype of vehiclersquo as set out in the Framework Directive

Court Declares that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 200640EC by failing to take the measures necessary within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion to re-establish

conformity to their approved types of 133 713 vehicles of types 246 176 and 117 sold by Daimler between 1 January and 26 June 2013 when they were fitted not with the refrigerant R1234yf

declared for those approved types but a refrigerant having a global warming potential which was greater than 150 contrary to the limit laid down in Article 5(4) of Directive 200640 and under Directive 200640 and the combined provisions of Articles 46 5 and 18 of Directive 200746 by failing to take the measures necessary to apply the penalties referred to in Article 46 of Directive

200746 within the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion in order to ensure that manufacturers comply with Articles 5 and 18 of that directive relating to the conformity of production and the issue of a certificate of conformity Dismisses the action as to the remainder

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 17 October 2018 - case C-16717 - Klohn ndash Ireland -

ECLIEUC2018833 ndash opinion ndash judgment

Impact assessment mdash Requirement that review procedure is not prohibitively expensive

Directive 200335EC Klohn requested leave to challenge before the Irish courts a decision by the Planning Appeals Board Ireland granting planning permission for the construction of a fallen animal inspection facility close to his farm He was granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings

However his claim was subsequently rejected on the merits and an order against him awarding costs was adopted in May of 2008 Those costs were set at around EUR 86 000Klohn challenged the

decision on the basis that it failed to respect the requirement contained in Directive 200335EC that review procedures be lsquonot prohibitively expensiversquo It is in this context that the referring court asks whether (a) the NPE rule is applicable ratione temporis(b) the NPE rule is directly effective or there is an obligation of conform interpretation in relation to it and (c) the Taxing Master andor the national court reviewing his decision has an obligation to apply the NPE rule notwithstanding that the order for costs has become final

Court The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Council Directive 85337EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not

be prohibitively expensive which it lays down does not have direct effect Where that article has not

been transposed by a Member State the national courts of that Member State are nonetheless required to interpret national law to the fullest extent possible once the time limit for transposing that article has expired in such a way that persons should not be prevented from seeking or pursuing

a claim for a review by the courts which falls within the scope of that article by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result

The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85337 as amended by Directive 200335 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member Statersquos courts are under an obligation to interpret national

law in conformity with that directive when deciding on the allocation of costs in judicial proceedings which were ongoing as at the date on which the time limit for transposing the requirement laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 10a that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive expired irrespective of the date on which those costs were incurred during the proceedings concerned

The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85337 as amended by Directive 200335 must be interpreted as meaning that in a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings the national court called upon to rule on the amount of costs is under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive in so far as the force of res judicata attaching to the decision as to

how the costs are to be borne which has become final does not preclude this which it is for the national court to determine

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-66916 ndash European CommissionUK and

Northern Ireland - ECLIEUC2018844 - judgment

Failure to fulfil obligations - Natura 2000 - Harbour porpoise

Directive 9243EEC By failing to propose and transmit within the period prescribed pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annexes II and III of Council Directive 9243EEC a list indicating a sufficient number of sites hosting the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and by failing to that extent to contribute pursuant to Article 3(2) of that directive to the creation of the Natura 2000 network in proportion to the representation within its territory of the habitats of that species the UK and

Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-24217 ndash LEGO ndash Italy -

ECLIEUC2018804 ndash persbericht (EN) ndash opinion (F) - arrest (F)

Systegravemes volontaires de certification de la durabiliteacute approuveacutes par la Commission

Directive 200928CE Article 34 TFUE Dans lrsquoarrecirct EON Biofor Sverige la Cour srsquoest prononceacutee sur lrsquoincidence de certaines mesures adopteacutees par le Royaume de Suegravede pour controcircler la durabiliteacute des biogaz provenant de la biomasse lorsqursquoils faisaient lrsquoobjet de commerce intracommunautaire (ils traversaient plusieurs Eacutetats membres agrave travers des gazoducs) Le preacutesent renvoi preacutejudiciel ne porte

pas sur les biogaz mais sur les bioliquides durables (en fait sur lrsquohuile de palme provenant drsquoIndoneacutesie qui est commercialiseacutee en libre pratique au sein de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne) Si les premiers sont issus de la biomasse afin drsquoecirctre utiliseacutes pour le transport les seconds sont eacutegalement issus de la biomasse mais ils se destinent agrave des utilisations eacutenergeacutetiques autres que le transport notamment la production drsquoeacutelectriciteacute le chauffage et le refroidissement Dans le preacutesent litige il est neacutecessaire drsquoanalyser la relation entre deux types de systegravemes de certification de la durabiliteacute des bioliquides

les systegravemes nationaux drsquoune part et les systegravemes volontaires approuveacutes par la Commission europeacuteenne drsquoautre part La Cour devra notamment interpreacuteter la porteacutee de lrsquoarticle 18 paragraphe 7 de la directive 200928CE lu conjointement avec la deacutecision drsquoexeacutecution 2011438UE Agrave partir de cette preacutemisse lrsquoarrecirct devra preacuteciser si lrsquoapplication des uns ou des autres systegravemes (les systegravemes nationaux et les systegravemes volontaires) aux fins de certifier la durabiliteacute des bioliquides est alternative et exclusive ou si elle est simplement compleacutementaire

Court The requirement to submit sustainability certificates imposed by Italy on intermediaries which do not take physical possession of the bioliquids which are the subject of the transaction in which those intermediaries are involved complies with EU law Access to the green certificate (GC) incentive

scheme by a company using using bioliquids for a thermal energy plant is subject to certain conditions Lrsquoarticle 18 paragraphe 7 de la directive 200928CE lu en combinaison avec la deacutecision drsquoexeacutecution 2011438UE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoil ne srsquooppose pas agrave une reacuteglementation nationale telle que celle en cause au principal imposant aux opeacuterateurs eacuteconomiques des conditions speacutecifiques diffeacuterentes et plus importantes pour la certification de la durabiliteacute des bioliquides que celles preacutevues par un systegraveme volontaire de certification de la durabiliteacute tel que le systegraveme ISCC reconnu par ladite deacutecision drsquoexeacutecution adopteacutee par la Commission europeacuteenne conformeacutement agrave

lrsquoarticle 18 paragraphe 4 de ladite directive dans la mesure ougrave ce systegraveme a eacuteteacute approuveacute pour les seuls biocarburants et ougrave lesdites conditions ne concernent que les bioliquides

Le droit de lrsquoUnion en particulier lrsquoarticle 34 TFUE et lrsquoarticle 18 paragraphes 1 et 3 de la directive 200928 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoil ne srsquooppose pas agrave ce qursquoune reacuteglementation nationale telle que celle en cause au principal impose un systegraveme national de veacuterification de la durabiliteacute des bioliquides qui preacutevoit que tous les opeacuterateurs eacuteconomiques intervenant dans la chaicircne drsquoapprovisionnement du produit mecircme lorsqursquoil srsquoagit drsquointermeacutediaires qui nrsquoentrent pas

physiquement en possession des lots de bioliquides sont tenus agrave certaines obligations de certification de communication et drsquoinformation deacutecoulant dudit systegraveme

JUDGMENTS MEMBER STATES - Netherlands ndash Court of appeal ndash 9 October 2018 ndash

ECLINLGHDHA20182610 (en)

Climate case Urgenda

Articles 2 and 8 ECHR Duty of care under articles 2 and 8 ECHR Reduction greenhouse gas emissions Disclaimer The translation of this judgment on appeal is solely intended to provide information The text of the translation is an unofficial translation Liability cannot be claimed for

possible errors andor omissions in this translation The Dutch text of the judgment is the only authentic and formal text (ECLI-number ECLINLGHDHA20182591)

Climate change human rights claim wins in the Dutch courts (UK human rights blog)

The Dutch Climate Case Judgment Human Rights Potential and Constitutional Unease (Verfassungsblog)

The Dutch Climate Case Judgment Human Rights Potential and Constitutional Unease (Leiden law blog)

The case brought by Urgenda ndash a citizensrsquo platform striving for a fast transition towards a sustainable society ndash has received ample international attention especially after the verdict of the District Court of The Hague in 2015 which ordered the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 by 2020 Last week the The Hague Court of Appeals upheld this judgment

ANNOTATION ndash General Court EU 27 September 2018 case T-1217 Mellifera (f)

Glyphosate en Convention drsquoAarhus

The ldquoMelliferardquo case and access to environmental justice under the Aarhus Regulation new findings

old story (EU law analysis)

ANNOTATION - ECJ 4 September 2018 case C-5716P Client Earth

Case C-5716P ClientEarth v Commission Citizenrsquos participation in EU decision-making and the

Commissionrsquos right of initiative (European law blog)

PUBLICATION

Family life and family law

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 - Pojatina v Croatia ndash press release ndash judgment

(level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181004JUD001856812

Legislation preventing health professionals assisting with home births no violation

Article 8 ECHR The applicant had given birth at home with the assistance of a midwife from abroad She complained that the Croatian law had dissuaded health professionals from assisting her when giving birth at home in violation of her right to private life

There was a requirement under domestic law obliging women giving birth at home to submit medical

documents to prove their motherhood Such a requirement was understandable and was clearly

directed at avoiding possible abuses in situations where there was no official information on the birth

of a child or its biological parents The applicantrsquos complaint that she and her child had been denied

postnatal care was unsubstantiated and in any event it was undisputed that they had eventually

received post-delivery medical care While the applicant had complained that women giving birth at

home experienced difficulties in registering their children in State registers the Court noted that her

child had been born on 15 February 2012 and that she had succeeded in registering the birth on 23

February 2012 The interference with the applicantrsquos right to respect for her private life had not been

disproportionate No violation (unanimously)

Croatia European court urges authorities to ldquoregulate more clearlyrdquo home births legislation

(humanrightseurope)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Petrov and X v Russia ndash legal summary ndash press

Insufficient examination of fatherrsquos case in child care proceedings violation

Article 8 ECHR The second applicant was born in 2012 and until 2013 lived with his mother and his

father the first applicant in St Petersburg In 2013 the childrsquos parents separated and his mother

took him to live in Nizhniy Novgorod In 2014 the domestic authorities granted a divorce and the

motherrsquos application for a residence order The court The domestic courtsrsquo examination of the case

had not been sufficiently thorough It followed that the decision-making process had been deficient

and had not therefore allowed the best interests of the child to be established By not adhering to

the principles of proportionality and effectiveness the authorities had not fulfilled their duty to secure

the practical and effective protection of the applicantsrsquo rights as was required by Articles 1 and 8 of

the Convention The domestic authorities had not adduced relevant and sufficient reasons for their

decision to make a residence order in favour of the childrsquos mother Notwithstanding the domestic

authoritiesrsquo margin of appreciation the interference had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim

pursued Violation (four votes to three)

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 15 October 2018 ndash case C-39318 PPU ndash UD ndash the UK -

IPL Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility

IPL Concept of lsquohabitual residence of the childrsquo mdashDetention of the mother and child in a third

country against the will of the mother

Financial services and markets

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-57116 ndash Kantarev ndash Bulgary -

Definition of lsquounavailable depositrsquo mdash Liability of a Member State for harm caused to individuals by

breaches of EU law

Directive 9419EC Article 4(3) TEU From 1994 the directive had a twofold objective pursuing both the protection of depositors and the stability of the banking system the two being closely connected It poses a high risk to the banking system if depositors mdash whether on the basis of speculation or on

the basis of reliable information mdash all withdraw their deposits at the same time as lsquono bank hellip holds enough liquid funds to redeem all or a significant share of its deposits on the spotrsquo Such lsquobank runsrsquo must therefore be prevented by ensuring that depositors believe that their deposits are safe by virtue of a guarantee In the present case the amount guaranteed by Directive 9419 was paid in full to the applicant in the main proceedings by the deposit-guarantee scheme after a Bulgarian bank

experienced liquidity problems However the applicant considers that the payment was late as he was unable to access his deposits for a period of around six months He is therefore claiming a breach of EU law before the referring court According to the applicant the Directive on deposit-guarantee

schemes has been transposed and applied incorrectly in Bulgaria The determination that the deposit

is unavailable which is a condition for the activation of the deposit-guarantee scheme was made contingent on the withdrawal of the banking licence even though the directive lays down a fixed time limit for that determination which is independent of that occurrence

Court Article 1(3) and Article 10(1) of Directive 9419EC must be interpreted as precluding first national legislation according to which the determination that deposits have become unavailable is concomitant with the insolvency of that credit institution and the withdrawal of that institutionrsquos banking licence and second derogation from the time limits provided by those provisions for the purposes of determining that deposits have become unavailable and of reimbursing those deposits on the ground that the credit institution must be placed under special supervision

Article 1(3)(i) of Directive 9419 must be interpreted as meaning that the unavailability of deposits within the meaning of that provision must be determined expressly by the competent national authority and cannot be inferred from other acts of the national authorities mdash such as the decision

of the Balgarska Narodna Banka (Bulgarian Central Bank) to place Korporativna Targovska Banka under special supervision mdash nor presumed from circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings

Article 1(3)(i) of Directive 9419 must be interpreted as meaning that a determination that a bank deposit is unavailable within the meaning of that provision cannot be subject to the condition that the account holder must first make an unsuccessful request for payment of funds from the credit institution

Article 1(3)(i) of Directive 9419 has direct effect and constitutes a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals allowing depositors to bring an action for damages for the harm sustained by late repayment of deposits It is for the referring court to ascertain first whether the failure to determine that deposits were unavailable within the time limit of five working days laid down in that

provision despite the fact that the conditions which were clearly set out in that provision were satisfied on the facts of the case in the main proceedings amounts to a sufficiently serious breach within the meaning of EU law and second whether there is a direct causal link between that breach and the harm sustained by a depositor such as Mr Nikolay Kantarev

Article 4(3) TEU and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as in the absence of a specific procedure in Bulgaria holding that Member State liable for harm caused by a national authorityrsquos breach of EU law

ndash not precluding national legislation which provides for two different remedies falling within the jurisdiction of different courts subject to different conditions provided that the referring court ascertains whether in respect of national law a national authority such as the Bulgarian Central Bank must be held liable on the basis of the Zakon za otgovornostta na darzhavata i obshtinite za

vredi (Law on Liability of the State and of Municipalities for Damage) or the Zakon za zadalzheniata i dogovorite (Law on Obligations and Contracts) and that each of the two remedies complies with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

ndash precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages to the additional condition that the national authority in question intended to cause the harm

ndash not precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages to the duty of providing proof of fault provided that which it is for the referring court to ascertain the concept of lsquofaultrsquo does not go beyond that of a lsquosufficiently serious breachrsquo

ndash not precluding national legislation which provides for the payment of a fixed-fee or fee proportional to the value in dispute provided that which it is for the referring court to ascertain the

payment of a fixed-fee or fee proportional to the value in dispute is not contrary to the principle of effectiveness in the light of the amount and level of the fee whether or not that fee might represent an insurmountable obstacle to access to the courts whether it is mandatory and of the possibilities of exemption and

ndash not precluding national legislation which subjects the right of individuals to obtain damages

to prior annulment of the administrative measure which caused the harm provided that which it is for the referring court to ascertain that requirement may reasonably be required of the injured party

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-19117 ndash ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria ndash

Notion of lsquopayment accountrsquo mdash Online direct savings account

Directive 200764EC The key issue raised by this reference for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court by the Supreme Court Austria concerns whether a particular kind of bank account referred

to as an online direct savings account whereby the customer has unlimited access to the funds in the account but all transfers to and from that account to third parties must be carried out through another account called a reference account falls within the notion of a lsquopayment accountrsquo under Article 4(14) of Directive 200764EC on payment services in the internal market

Court Article 4(14) of Directive 200764EC must be interpreted as meaning that a savings account which allows for sums deposited without notice and from which payment and withdrawal transactions may be made solely by means of a current account does not come within the concept of lsquopayment accountrsquo

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G WATHELET ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-38917 ndash Paysera LT ndash Lithuania

- ECLIEUC2018817 ndash opinion (f)

La monnaie eacutelectronique est-elle de la fausse monnaie voire de la monnaie de singe

Directive 2009110CE Paysera est une socieacuteteacute lituanienne posseacutedant des licences drsquoeacutetablissement

de monnaie eacutelectronique et drsquoeacutetablissement de paiement attribueacutees par la Banque de Lituanie lui confeacuterant le droit drsquoeacutemettre de la monnaie eacutelectronique et de fournir des services lieacutes agrave lrsquoeacutemission de cette monnaie ainsi que drsquoautres services de paiement Agrave la suite du controcircle de lrsquoactiviteacute de la requeacuterante au principal opeacutereacute par le conseil de surveillance de la Banque de Lituanie il a eacuteteacute constateacute par la deacutecision attaqueacutee que cette requeacuterante nrsquoavait pas respecteacute les meacutethodes de calcul des fonds propres requis degraves lors que la Banque de Lituanie a consideacutereacute que les services en cause nrsquoeacutetaient pas lieacutes agrave lrsquoeacutemission de monnaie eacutelectronique

A-G Lrsquoarticle 5 paragraphe 2 de la directive 2009110CE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que dans les circonstances de lrsquoespegravece sont consideacutereacutes comme des services de paiement lieacutes agrave lrsquoeacutemission de monnaie eacutelectronique les services de paiement

a) par lesquels le deacutetenteur de monnaie eacutelectronique demande agrave lrsquoeacutetablissement de monnaie

eacutelectronique qui eacutemet la monnaie eacutelectronique drsquoeffectuer une seule opeacuteration comprenant agrave la fois le remboursement de la monnaie eacutelectronique et le transfert des fonds sur le compte bancaire drsquoun tiers et

b) par lesquels sur lrsquoordre du vendeur lrsquoacheteur (le payeur) des biens etou services transfegravere des fonds au titre des biens etou services agrave lrsquoeacutetablissement de monnaie eacutelectronique (eacutemetteur de monnaie eacutelectronique) qui apregraves la reacuteception de ces fonds eacutemet la monnaie eacutelectronique au profit du vendeur (deacutetenteur de la monnaie eacutelectronique) agrave la valeur nominale des fonds reccedilus

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G WATHELET ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-49317 ndash Weiss ea ndash

ECLIEUC2018815 ndash press release ndash opinion

Programme for the purchase of government bonds on secondary markets

A-G Examination of Decision (EU) 2015774 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting its validity

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Italy ndash 15 October 2018 - case C-56518 - Socieacuteteacute Geacuteneacuterale

Articles 18 56 en 63 TFEU

Freedom of assembly

ECtHR ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 11 October 2018 ndash Tuskia v Georgia - legal summary - press release

ndash judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181011JUD001423707

University professors removed by police and fined following unauthorised entry into Rectorrsquos office

during protest

Article 11 ECHR The applicants professors working at Tbilisi State University opposed university reforms In July 2006 an authorised meeting took place in the Grand Hall of the main University

building At that meeting one of the applicants was ldquoelectedrdquo as the new Rector of the University Thereafter a group of about twenty people including the applicants forced their way into the office of the acting Rector and demanded his resignation They were subsequently removed from his office by the police and found guilty of administrative offences The administrative proceedings conducted against the applicants had resulted in the imposition of fines in the amount of approximately EUR 45 None of the applicants had been arrested or detained In view of the overall context of the events

minus in particular the fact that the applicants had been allowed to protest against the ongoing University reform for months by among other ways holding meetings on the premises of the University and in view of the nature of the protest in July 2006 which had culminated with the forceful entry of the applicants into the Rectorrsquos office the disruption to the work of the University administration and the refusal to obey explicit and reiterated requests of the police for them to leave the office was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the interference with the applicantsrsquo rights under Article 11 read through the prism of Article 10 had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society No violation (unanimously)

Freedom of religion

The UN Human Rights Committee and the French niqab ban (lawampreligion)

Yadh Ben Achour opinion dissidente sous les constatations du Comiteacute des droits de

lhomme relative agrave la loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans lespace public (liberteacutes

cheacuteries)

Freedom of speech and thought

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash ES v Austria - legal summary ndash press release ndash

Criminal conviction and fine for statements accusing the Prophet Muhammad of paedophilia no

violation

Article 10 ECHR In conclusion the domestic courts had comprehensively assessed the wider context

of the applicantrsquos statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the

rights of others to have their religious feelings protected and to have religious peace preserved in

Austrian society They had discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus

their disparagement and found that the applicantrsquos statements had been likely to arouse justified

indignation in Muslims In addition the impugned statements had not been phrased in a neutral

manner aimed at being an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages but

rather amounted to a generalisation without factual basis Thus by considering them as going beyond

the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet

of Islam which was capable of stirring up prejudice and putting at risk religious peace the domestic

courts had come to the conclusion that the facts at issue contained elements of incitement to religious

intolerance They had thereby put forward relevant and sufficient reasons and had not overstepped

their ndash wide ndash margin of appreciation The interference with the applicantrsquos rights under Article 10

had indeed corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the legitimate aim

pursued No violation (unanimously)

Criminal conviction over disparaging religious doctrines not a violation of freedom of

expression potential IP implications of the latest ECtHR ruling (IPKat)

Court backs Austria over Prophet Muhammad insult conviction (humanrightseurope) Freedom to insult Balancing freedom of expression with religious tolerance in ECHR case

law (EU law analysis)

Legitimizing Blasphemy Laws Through the Backdoor The European Courtrsquos Judgment in

ES v Austria (EJILtalk)

Freedom of expression or criminal blasphemy ES v Austria (lawampreligion)

La Cour europeacuteenne nest pas Charlie (liberteacutes cheacuteries)

Criminal fine for discussion of Mohamedrsquos wives did not interfere with freedom of

expression ndash Strasbourg (UK human rights blog)

Toleranz ja Aber gegenuumlber wem Der oumlsterreichische Blasphemiestraftatbestand vor dem

EGMR (Verfassungsblog)

ECtHR- JUDGMENT ndash 30 October 2018 ndash Kaboglu and Oran v Turkey ndash legal summary ndash

press release ndash judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181030JUD000175908

Failure by the courts to protect authors of a report on minority rights from verbal abuse and

physical threats published in the press violation

Article 10 ECHR The applicants are university lecturers specialising in human rights Insults and

threats were directed against them in the press on account of certain ideas they had expressed in a report on minority rights and cultural rights prepared by the Advisory Council on Human Rights a

body in which they held high office The report departed from existing law and practice in the protection of minority rights in Turkey at the material time particularly on account of ideas and proposals which suggested a fundamental change in mentality in such matters and advocated a transition from the idea of a homogenous and monocultural society towards a multi-identity multicultural democratic liberal and pluralistic society The applicants had exercised their freedom

of expression through the report at issue by presenting their views without however using derogatory or insulting language against the advocates of a different perspective on such matters By contrast the verbal attacks and threats of physical harm made against the applicants in the offending articles sought to undermine their intellectual personality causing them feelings of fear anxiety and vulnerability in order to humiliate them and break their will to defend their ideas

The judgments of the domestic courts had dismissed all the applicantsrsquo claims for damages on account of the articles Those courts without explicitly classifying the articles in a given category (statement of fact value judgment or even hate speech or violent speech) had concluded (i) that they were not directly targeting the applicants and that they did not contain gratuitous attacks on

them (ii) that the applicants had to tolerate the harsh criticisms levelled against them both because of their status and because of their own criticisms in the report against their ideological opponents

and (iii) that the articles fell within the legislation protecting the freedom of expression of their authors The courts paid no particular attention to the threatening and violent expressions contained in the articles except for the District Court which found that the sentence ldquothe price of our land has to be paid in blood and if necessary blood will be shedrdquo was well known to the general public and did not constitute a threat to the applicants and that ldquothose who want to see the Turkish nation as

a minority in this country will find us in their wayrdquo was a mere criticism in response to the opinions in the report The Court cannot agree with the findings of the domestic courts for the reasons given above It could not be seen from the domestic courtsrsquo findings that they had properly balanced the applicantsrsquo right to respect for their private life and the freedom of the press Their judgments had not provided a satisfactory answer to the question whether freedom of the press could justify in the circumstances of the case the damage caused to the applicantsrsquo right to respect for their private life

by passages that constituted hate speech and incitement to violence thus being likely to expose them to public contempt Therefore the national courts had not struck a fair balance between the applicantsrsquo right to respect for their private life and the freedom of the press Violation (unanimously)

ANNOTATION ndash ECtHR 4 September 2018 Fatih Tas v Turkey (no 5)

Prosecution of a publisher for lsquodenigrationrsquo of Turkey violated Article 10 (strasbourgobservers)

ANNOTATION - ECtHR 5 July 2018 Mendrei v Hungary

Role of the constitutional courts in the system of the effective domestic remedies ndash a new approach on the horizon Criticism of the Mendrei v Hungary decision (strasbourgobservers)

Fundamental rights (Charter) en ECtHR general

ECtHR ndash ADVISORY OPINION Protocol no 16

First request for an advisory opinion under Protocol No 16 (EHRM)

Court First request under Protocol No16 (humanrightseurope)

Legal parentage of children born of a surrogate mother what about the intended mother

(conflict of laws)

Factsheet ECJ Field of application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (curia)

An introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights (2018) (COE) ECHR Articles in Latest HRLR (ECHRblog) Sloveniarsquos Supreme Court rejects the European Court of Human Rights (Verfassungsblog)

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G MENGOZZI ndash 3 October 2018 ndash case C-16817 ndash SH ndash

ECLIEUC2018798 ndash Hungary ndash opinion (f)

Mesures restrictives en raison de la situation en Libye

Regraveglement (UE) no 2042011 Ces questions tirent leur origine drsquoun litige entre deux banques SH et TG toutes deux eacutetablies dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne portant sur le paiement par la premiegravere de commissions et autres frais de garantie agrave la seconde dans le cadre de deux contrats tendant agrave contre-garantir les obligations de garanties prises par une banque libyenne agrave lrsquoeacutegard drsquoune entiteacute libyenne concernant un marcheacute public conclu entre cette entiteacute et une entreprise hongroise

A-G Lrsquoarticle 5 paragraphe 2 du regraveglement (UE) no 2042011 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que

ndash le paiement de la part drsquoune banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne agrave une banque libyenne inscrite sur la liste de lrsquoannexe III dudit regraveglement des coucircts de constitution drsquoune garantie en faveur drsquoune entiteacute elle aussi inscrite sur cette liste constitue une mise agrave disposition de fonds interdite

ndash le paiement de la part drsquoune banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne agrave une banque libyenne non inscrite sur les listes des annexes II et III du regraveglement no 2042011 des coucircts de constitution drsquoune garantie en faveur drsquoune entiteacute inscrite sur une de ces listes ne constitue pas une mise agrave disposition ou une utilisation de fonds interdite agrave condition que

ndash les sommes drsquoargent faisant lrsquoobjet de ces paiements ne soient pas reverseacutees agrave une personne physique une entiteacute ou un organisme inscrit sur ces listes

ndash il nrsquoexiste pas entre lrsquoun de ces sujets de droit et la personne morale de droit libyen recevant

le paiement un lien juridique ou financier tel qursquoil permettrait agrave ce sujet drsquoacqueacuterir le pouvoir de disposer des sommes en question

ndash les paiements preacuteciteacutes nrsquoaient pas drsquoincidence directe ou indirecte sur la possibiliteacute pour

lrsquoentiteacute libyenne beacuteneacuteficiaire drsquoobtenir de la banque libyenne lrsquoexeacutecution de la garantie et qursquoils ne constituent pas une prise en charge de la part de la banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne de coucircts qui contractuellement incomberaient agrave ce beacuteneacuteficiaire

ndash dans les mecircmes conditions le paiement de la part drsquoune banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne agrave une autre banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne des coucircts de constitution drsquoune contre-garantie en faveur drsquoune banque libyenne non inscrite sur les listes des annexes II et III du regraveglement no 2042011 aux fins de lrsquoeacutemission drsquoune garantie en faveur drsquoune entiteacute inscrite sur lesdites listes posteacuterieurement agrave cette eacutemission ne constitue pas une mise agrave disposition ou une utilisation de fonds interdite

2) Lrsquoarticle 12 du regraveglement no 2042011 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que la demande de paiement des coucircts relatifs agrave lrsquoeacutemission drsquoune garantie ou drsquoune contre-garantie nrsquoest pas exclue de

lrsquointerdiction de satisfaire aux demandes preacutevue agrave cet article si elle est preacutesenteacutee par un des sujets mentionneacutes dans cet article et si les mesures institueacutees conformeacutement au regraveglement no 2042011

ont affecteacute directement ou indirectement inteacutegralement ou en partie lrsquoexeacutecution du contrat de garantie ou de contre-garantie ou lrsquoopeacuteration dans laquelle srsquoinscrit ledit contrat

3) Lrsquoarticle 12 paragraphe 1 du regraveglement no 2042011 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoune banque eacutetablie dans lrsquoUnion qui est tenue en vertu drsquoun contrat de contre-garantie srsquoinscrivant dans le cadre drsquoune chaicircne de contrats lieacutes tendant agrave constituer une garantie en faveur drsquoune entiteacute libyenne agrave verser agrave une banque libyenne les coucircts drsquoeacutemission de la garantie ne fait pas partie des sujets viseacutes au sous c) de cette disposition en lrsquoabsence drsquoeacuteleacutements permettant de conclure qursquoelle agit au nom ou pour le compte de la banque libyenne

4) Lrsquoarticle 9 du regraveglement no 2042011 ne srsquoapplique pas aux paiements tels que ceux en cause

dans lrsquoaffaire au principal effectueacutes ou devant ecirctre effectueacutes en faveur de sujets qui ne sont pas frappeacutes par les mesures restrictives institueacutees par ce regraveglement

Health medicines

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-52717 ndash Boston Scientific ndash

ECLIEUC2018867 ndash no opinion - judgment

Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products

Regulation (EC) No 4692009 Directive 9342EEC The request has been made in proceedings brought by Boston Scientific concerning the refusal by German Patent and Trade Mark Office to issue a supplementary protection certificate (lsquothe SPCrsquo)

Court Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 4692009 must be interpreted as meaning that a prior authorisation procedure under Council Directive 9342EEC for a device incorporating as an integral part a substance within the meaning of Article 1(4) of that directive cannot be treated in the same way for the purposes of applying that regulation as a marketing authorisation procedure for that substance under Directive 200183EC even if that substance was the subject of the assessment

provided for in the first and second paragraphs of section 74 of Annex I to Directive 9342 as amended by Directive 200747

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G KOKOTT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-42317 ndash Warner-Lambert

Company ndash Netherlands ndash Gerechtshof Den Haag - ECLIEUC2018822 ndash opinion

Generic medicinal products mdash Summary of product characteristics mdash Carve-out for still patented

indications of the reference medicinal product

Directive 200183 In order to allow the possibility of a generic medicinal product being placed on the market only for indications and dosage forms of the reference medicinal product which are no

longer patented Directive 200183 permits an exception to the principle of the uniformity of the reference medicinal product and the generic medicinal product manufacturers of generic medicinal products can introduce a lsquocarve-outrsquo whereby still patented indications or dosage forms of the reference medicinal product are deleted from the summary of characteristics of the generic medicinal product The summary of characteristics is part of the authorisation documentation and contains information inter alia on applications and dosage of the medicinal product It is aimed primarily at healthcare professionals but also forms the basis for the package leaflet A carve-out therefore

means in particular that the still patented indications or dosage forms of the reference medicinal

product do not appear in the package leaflet for the generic medicinal product even though from a purely medical point of view that product mdash which is identical to the reference medicinal product mdash can also be used and thus prescribed for the indications in question and in the dosage forms in question It is not expressly regulated what effects the introduction of a carve-out in the summary of characteristics of a generic medicinal product has on the scope of the marketing authorisation for that generic medicinal product In particular it is unclear whether if a carve-out is introduced after

a marketing authorisation has already been granted for the generic medicinal product concerned this marketing authorisation still applies to the indications or dosage forms which were deleted from the summary of characteristics by the carve-out or whether in contrast the subsequent notification of a carve-out means that the marketing authorisation must be limited to the remaining indications and dosage forms not affected by the carve-out That is the central question in this request for a preliminary ruling It arises against the background of the practice of the Netherlands College ter

Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen (CBG) the Netherlands authority responsible for authorising medicinal products of publishing on its website the summary of characteristics of generic medicinal products in its full label version without taking into consideration a subsequently introduced carve-out

A-G Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 200183EC must be interpreted as meaning that a communication whereby the marketing authorisation applicant or holder for a generic medicine within the meaning of Article 10 notifies the authority that he is not including in the summary of

product characteristics and the package leaflet pursuant to the second sentence of Article 11 those parts of the summary of product characteristics for the reference medicine referring to indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party should be considered as a request to limit the marketing authorisation for that generic medicinal product to the remaining indications or dosage forms

Article 11 and Article 21(3) of Directive 200183 must be interpreted as precluding the competent authority from making public the summary of characteristics and the package leaflet of a medicinal product including those parts referring to indications or dosage forms which are covered by patent law in a situation where the marketing authorisation applicant or holder has notified the authority

that in accordance with the second sentence of Article 11 of the directive he is not including such indications or dosage forms in the summary of characteristics and the package leaflet

Institutional

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 2 October 2018 ndash case C-7317 ndash France Parliament - Grand Chamber

ndash ECLIEUC2018787 ndash press release ndash opinion - judgment

Location of the seats of the institutions - Concept of lsquobudget sessionrsquo held in Strasbourg (France)

Article 314 VWEU In view of the importance of the adoption of the annual budget for the actions of the European Union the President of the Parliament cannot be required to wait until the next period of ordinary plenary part-session in Strasbourg to declare the budgetary procedure definitively

concluded and to confer binding force on the annual budget of the EU Accordingly the President of the Parliament could without making any error of assessment declare during the plenary sitting held on 1 December 2016 in Brussels that the annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017 was definitively adopted The European Parliament may exercise some of its budgetary powers in Brussels instead of Strasbourg if that is required for the proper functioning of the budgetary procedure The European Parliament was entitled to adopt the annual budget of the EU for 2017 in

Brussels at second reading The Court dismisses the action

Insurance

PRELMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 25 October 2018 - case C-58118 - TUumlV Rheinland LGA

Products

Directive 9342EEC Directive 200312EC

IP - Intellectual property

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-14917 - Bastei Luumlbbe ndash Germany -

ECLIEUC2018841 ndash press release - opinion ndash judgment

The owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot

be exonerated from liability simply by naming a family member who might have had access to that

connection

Directive 200129EC Directive 200448EC Bastei Luumlbbe AG a company governed by German law is the holder as a phonogram producer of the copyright and related rights in the audio version of a book Mr Strotzer is the owner of an internet connection through which that phonogram was

shared for the purpose of downloading by an unlimited number of users of a peer-to-peer internet exchange An expert correctly attributed the IP address to Mr Strotzer Bastei Luumlbbe warned Mr Strotzer to cease and desist the infringement of copyright That warning notice was unsuccessful and Bastei Luumlbbe brought an action before the court against Mr Strotzer as the owner of the IP

address in question seeking damages However Mr Strotzer denies having himself infringed the copyright and maintains that his internet connection was sufficiently secure In addition he asserts that his parents who live in the same household also had access to that connection but that to his

knowledge they did not have the work in question on their computer were not aware of the existence

of the work and did not use the online exchange software In addition the computer was switched off at the time when the infringement in question was committed The court dismissed Bastei Luumlbbersquos action for damages on the ground that Mr Strotzer could not be deemed to have committed the alleged infringement of copyright because he had stated that his parents were also capable of having committed the infringement in question Bastei Luumlbbe then appealed

Court Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 200129EC read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof and Article 3(2) of Directive 200448EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which as interpreted by the relevant national courts the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be

held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case T-12217 ndash Devin EUIPO - Haskovo (DEVIN)

ndash ECLIEUT2018719 ndash press release ndash judgment

European Union word mark DEVIN mdash Geographical name

Regulation (EC) no 2072009 now regulation (EU) 20171001 DEVIN the name of a Bulgarian town can be registered as an EU trade mark for mineral water The geographical name remains available to third parties not only for descriptive use such as the promotion of tourism in that town but also as a distinctive sign in cases of lsquodue causersquo and where there is no likelihood of confusion

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G SZPUNAR ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-46917 ndash Funke Medien NRW ndash

Grand Chamber ndash Germany - ECLIEUC2018870 ndash press release ndash opinion

Copyright and related rights mdash Reproduction right mdash Does a military report enjoy copyright

protection

Directive 200129EG According to Advocate General Szpunar a simple military report cannot enjoy

copyright protection First such a report does not satisfy the requirements in order to be treated as a work eligible for copyright protection and second such protection would constitute an unjustified limitation on freedom of expression

AG Szpunar advises CJEU to rule that copyright cannot subsist in military report in important fundamental rights case (IPKat)

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G CAMPOS SAacuteNCHEZ-BORDONA ndash 3 October 2018 ndash case C-57217 ndash

Syed ndash Sweden - ECLIEUC2018796 ndash opinion (F)

Droit de distribution ndashVecirctements portant des signes identiques ou similaires agrave certaines marques

enregistreacutees de lrsquoUnion ndash Entreposage agrave des fins commerciales ndash Entrepocirct seacutepareacute du magasin

Directive 200129CE Le juge sueacutedois doit statuer sur un pourvoi formeacute contre lrsquoarrecirct de deuxiegraveme instance condamnant un commerccedilant pour avoir vendu dans sa boutique et stockeacute dans ses entrepocircts lrsquoun attenant agrave la boutique et lrsquoautre situeacute dans une banlieue de Stockholm un certain nombre de produits textiles qui incluaient sans lrsquoautorisation de leurs titulaires des images et des

motifs ayant pour thegraveme la musique rock proteacutegeacutes par un droit drsquoauteur Lrsquointerrogation que la juridiction de renvoi soumet agrave la Cour porte sur les limites de lrsquoun des droits drsquoauteur celui drsquoautoriser ou drsquointerdire la distribution de lrsquoœuvre ou de copies de celle-ci au public preacutevu par la directive 200129CE La juridiction nationale souhaite plus particuliegraverement savoir si et dans quelle mesure ce droit englobe outre les objets vendus les marchandises stockeacutees

A-G Lrsquoarticle 4 paragraphe 1 de la directive 200129CE doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que le droit exclusif des auteurs drsquoautoriser ou drsquointerdire toute forme de distribution au public de lrsquooriginal de leurs œuvres ou de copies de celles-ci preacutevu par cette disposition srsquoapplique aux marchandises qui stockeacutees dans les entrepocircts drsquoun commerccedilant comportent des motifs proteacutegeacutes identiques agrave ceux

qui sont apposeacutes sur les marchandises que ce dernier propose agrave la vente dans une boutique lui appartenant Agrave ces fins la distance entre les entrepocircts et la boutique est sans incidence

GENERAL COURT EU ndash JUDGMENT - 15 October 2018 - case T-717 - John Mills -

Application for EU word mark MINERAL MAGIC mdash Earlier national word mark MAGIC MINERALS BY

JEROME ALEXANDER

Regulation (EC) No 2072009 now Regulation (EU) 20171001 Annuls the decision of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 20872015-1)

GENERAL COURT EU ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case T-43512 ndash Bacardi EUIPO

- ECLIEUT2018715 ndash judgment

Application for the EU figurative mark 42 BELOW mdash Non-registered earlier national figurative mark

VODKA 42

Regulation (EC) No 2072009 now Regulation (EU) 20171001 The general court dismisses the action

GENERAL COURT EU ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case T-44716 ndash Pirelli Tyre EUIPO

- Yokohama Rubber ndash ECLIEUT2018709 ndash judgment

Regulation (EC) no 4094 Regulation no 2072009 now regulation 20171001 Regulation (EU) 20152424

General court Annuls paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 April 2016 (Case R 25832014-5)

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 18 October 2018 ndash case C-56718 - Coty Germany

Regulation (EC) no 2072009 Regulation (EU) no 20171001

JUDGMENTS FROM MEMBER STATES

Italy Italian Supreme Court holds that an unauthorized derivative work may be both infringing and protectable (IPkat)

IPL ndash International private law

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash Case C-33717 ndash Feniks ndash Poland -

Special jurisdiction mdashConcept of lsquomatters relating to a contractrsquo mdash Actio pauliana

Regulation No 12152012 Coliseum established in Poland acting as a general contractor concluded with Feniks also established in Poland acting as an investor a contract concerning the performance of construction works as part of an immovable property investment project located in Gdańsk (Poland) For the purpose of fulfilling the contract Coliseum concluded a number of subcontracts As Coliseum had not been able to meet its obligations in respect of some of its subcontractors Feniks was required to pay a sum of money to them on account of the provisions in the Civil Code on the joint and several liability of the investor and thus became a creditor of Coliseum Pursuant to

agreements Coliseum sold to Azteca established in Spain immovable property located in Szczecin for a sum of PLN 6 079 275 (approximately EUR 1 463 445) in partial fulfilment of prior claims by Azteca The latter was nevertheless still required to pay to Coliseum the sum of approximately EUR 262 732 Coliseum being insolvent Feniks brought an action based on Article 527 et seq of the

Civil Code against Azteca before Polish court seeking a declaration that the contract of sale referred to above is ineffective in relation to it because of the fact that it was concluded by his debtor in fraud of the creditorrsquos rights

Court In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings an actio pauliana whereby the person entitled to a debt arising under a contract requests that an act by which his debtor has transferred an asset to a third party and which is allegedly detrimental to his rights be declared ineffective in relation to the creditor is covered by the rule of international jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 12152012

Forcing a Square Peg into a Round Hole ndash The Actio Pauliana and the Brussels Ia Regulation (conflict of laws)

Feniks CJEU holds in my view incorrectly that Actio Pauliana falls under forum contractus (GAVL)

ECJ ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-37917 ndash Societagrave Immobiliare Al Bosco ndash

Germany - ECLIEUC2018806 ndash press release ndash opinion - judgment

Regulation (EG) no 442001 Under Regulation (EC) No 442001 a preventive attachment order

made in one Member State is in principle enforceable in another Member State after it has been

declared enforceable there However the procedures for enforcing preventive attachment orders

vary significantly It is therefore not clear which provisions of the law of the Member State in which

enforcement is sought are applicable in the enforcement of foreign judgments This is the context of

the main proceedings This reference for a preliminary ruling will enable the Court to decide whether

under the system introduced by Regulation No 442001 a provision of the national law of the Member

State in which enforcement is sought which fixes the time limit within which a creditor must enforce

a preventive attachment order applies to such orders issued in other Member States

However the relevance of the judgment which the Court will deliver in the present case goes beyond

the context of the States to which this case relates This is an issue which may be important for all

Member States in which national law lays down a time limit for submitting an application for

enforcement of a preventive attachment order Moreover this issue also arises in connection with

Regulation (EU) No 12152012 which replaced Regulation No 442001

The Brussels I Regulation does not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides for the

application of a time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment order from being applied

in the case of such an order which has been adopted in another Member State and is enforceable in

the Member State in which enforcement is sought

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-47817 ndash IQ ndash Romania - ECLIEUC2018812

- opinion ndash judgment

Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility

Regulation (EC) No 22012003 Three children were born during JP and IQrsquos marriage Those children

have lived in the United Kingdom with IQ their mother since 2012 IQ initiated divorce proceedings before the Romanian court against her husband JP who resides in Romania She also asked the court to grant her sole parental responsibility for the three children of the marriage to award her custody of the children and to order JP to pay an allowance for their maintenance and education JP made a counter-claim by which he sought divorce on grounds of mutual consent or in the alternative on grounds of joint fault the award of joint parental responsibility for the three children of the marriage and the establishment of a programme for maintaining contact with the children

Court Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 22012003 must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in which both courts seised have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under Articles 12 and 8 respectively of that regulation

Concept of lsquohabitual residence of the childrsquo mdash Detention of the mother and child in a third country

against the will of the mother

Regulation (EC) No 22012003 The request has been submitted in the context of a dispute between the mother of Bangladeshi nationality and the father of British nationality of a child aged around

one year at the time when that court was seised The child was conceived and born and has continuously resided in Bangladesh The mother alleges that the father is detaining her against her will in that third State to which she travelled after residing for around six months in the United Kingdom with the father with the sole intention of making a temporary visit Owing to the coercion exercised by the father the mother was forced to give birth in Bangladesh and to remain there with the child The mother asks the referring court to order that the child be made a ward of that court

and to order that she and the child return to England and Wales in order to participate in the judicial proceedings

Court Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 22012003 must be interpreted to the effect that a

child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State for the purposes of that provision Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings assuming that they are proven that is to say first the fact that the fatherrsquos coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since and secondly the breach of the motherrsquos or the childrsquos rights do not have any bearing in that regard

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case C-59517 ndash Apple Sales International ea ndash

France - ECLIEUC2018854 ndash opinion - judgment

Jurisdiction clause in a distribution agreement

Regulation (EC) No 442001 Article 102 TFEU The request was submitted in the context of

proceedings between Apple Sales International Apple Inc and Apple retail France EURL and MJA in its capacity as liquidator of eBizcusscom (lsquoeBizcussrsquo) concerning an action for damages brought by eBizcusscom for infringement of Article 102 TFEU The Court is thus requested to clarify whether and within what limits a jurisdiction clause may be disapplied in order to ensure the effectiveness of actions for compensation for the loss resulting from the conduct of undertakings which is alleged to constitute an abuse of a dominant position The case thus offers a further opportunity having regard to the solution reached by the Court in the case that gave rise to the judgment of 21 May 2015 CDC

Hydrogen Peroxide in case C-35213 to provide clarification to the operators concerned in their capacity as drafters of jurisdiction clauses and in addition as persons wishing to bring proceedings

for compensation for losses the source of which is alleged to lie in an infringement of competition law in particular of Article 102 TFEU in what is commonly designated private enforcement

Court Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 442001 must be interpreted as meaning that the application in the context of an action for damages brought by a distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU of a jurisdiction clause within the contract binding the parties is not excluded on the sole ground that that clause does not expressly refer to disputes relating to liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law

Article 23 of Regulation No 442001 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not a prerequisite for the application of a jurisdiction clause in the context of an action for damages brought by a

distributor against its supplier on the basis of Article 102 TFEU that there be a finding of an infringement of competition law by a national or European authority

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G BOT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-57917 ndash GRADBENIŠTVO KORANA -

Austria ndash ECLIEUC2018863 ndash opinion (f)

Deacutelivrance du certificat ndash Proceacutedure administrative ou juridictionnelle

Regraveglement (UE) nordm 12152012 Cette demande a eacuteteacute preacutesenteacutee dans le cadre drsquoune proceacutedure engageacutee par la Caisse de congeacutes payeacutes et drsquoindemniteacutes de cessation drsquoemploi des ouvriers du secteur du bacirctiment Autriche tendant agrave la deacutelivrance drsquoun certificat conformeacutement agrave lrsquoarticle 53 du regraveglement nordm 12152012 aux fins drsquoexeacutecution drsquoun jugement deacutefinitif rendu par deacutefaut contre la socieacuteteacute Gradbeništvo Korana eacutetablie en Sloveacutenie Selon les articles 37 et 42 du regraveglement

nordm 12152012 la production drsquoun tel certificat est obligatoire aux fins de reconnaissance et drsquoexeacutecution dans un Eacutetat membre des deacutecisions rendues dans un autre Eacutetat membre Ce document vient confirmer sans proceacutedure speacuteciale preacutealable le caractegravere exeacutecutoire de ces deacutecisions et a eacuteteacute conccedilu comme une reproduction de celles-ci sous forme drsquoextraits afin de favoriser leur libre

circulation et leur exeacutecution directe Dans ces conditions ainsi que lrsquoa releveacute la Commission europeacuteenne la recevabiliteacute de la question preacutejudicielle deacutepend de la nature administrative ou juridictionnelle des fonctions exerceacutees par la juridiction drsquoorigine au stade de la deacutelivrance de ce

certificat Cette question de droit portant sur lrsquoapplication de lrsquoarticle 53 du regraveglement nordm 12152012

est nouvelle agrave la diffeacuterence de celle poseacutee par la juridiction de renvoi relative agrave la qualification du litige afin de deacuteterminer srsquoil relegraveve ou non de la laquo matiegravere civile et commerciale raquo Degraves lors que cette derniegravere ne preacutesente pas de difficulteacutes particuliegraveres au regard de la jurisprudence de la Cour nos conclusions porteront exclusivement sur la recevabiliteacute de la demande de deacutecision preacutejudicielle que la Cour doit veacuterifier avant drsquoexaminer celle-ci au fond

A-G Eu eacutegard aux consideacuterations qui preacutecegravedent nous proposons agrave la Cour de constater que en cas drsquoincertitude sur lrsquoapplicabiliteacute du regraveglement (UE) nordm 12152012 la deacutelivrance du certificat conformeacutement agrave lrsquoarticle 53 de ce regraveglement exige un examen juridictionnel dans le cadre duquel la juridiction nationale est habiliteacutee agrave saisir la Cour drsquoune question preacutejudicielle et par conseacutequent de dire que la demande de deacutecision preacutejudicielle est recevable

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 1 October 2018 - case C-54818 - BGL BNP Paribas

Regulation (EC) no 5932008 (Rome I) Regulation (EC) no 8642007 (Rome II)

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Bulgary ndash 1 October 2018 ndash 3 October 2018 ndash case C-55518 -

Regulation (EU) no 6552014

Sweden Swedish Court orders ISP to block access to The Pirate Bay and other Torrent sites (IPKat)

Labelling

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 Ocktober 2018 ndash case C-46217 ndash Taumlnzer amp Trasper ndash Germany -

Labelling of egg liqueur

Regulation (EC) No 1102008 The request has been made in proceedings between Taumlnzer amp Trasper GmbH and Altenweddinger Gefluumlgelhof KG with respect to the sales denomination lsquoegg liqueurrsquo borne by the latterrsquos products

Court Category 41 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1102008 must be interpreted as meaning that in order to be able to bear the sales denomination lsquoegg liqueurrsquo a spirit drink cannot contain ingredients other than those mentioned in that provision

Labour law social security and free movement of

employees

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-1217 ndash Dicu ndash Grand Chamber ndash Romania -

ECLIEUC2018799 ndash press release ndash opinion - judgment

Right to paid annual leave mdash Parental leave

Directive 200388EC Directive 201018EU Ms Dicu is a judge Pursuant to Romanian law which provides for 35 daysrsquo paid annual leave Ms Dicu asked the court to which she had been appointed

to grant her the five remaining days of paid annual leave for 2015 which she intended to take on working days over the end-of-year holiday period Her request was refused on the ground that under Romanian law the duration of paid annual leave is commensurate with the period of time actually worked during the current year and in that regard that the period of parental leave she took in

2015 could not be regarded as a period of actual work for the purpose of determining her paid annual leave entitlement The Romanian Court also indicated that the paid annual leave taken by Ms Dicu between 17 September and 17 October 2015 in respect of 2015 included 7 daysrsquo leave taken in advance in respect of 2016

The court A provision of national law which for the purpose of determining the duration of paid annual leave to which a worker is entitled does not include a period of parental leave taken by that worker complies with EU law The period of parental leave cannot be treated as a period of actual work

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-33117 ndash Sciotto ndash ECLIEUC2018859 ndash no

opinion ndash press release - judgment

Workers in the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations cannot be excluded from

protection against the abuse of fixed-term employment contracts

Directive 199970EC Clause 5 Framework agreement The request has been made in proceedings

between Martina Sciotto and the Fondazione Teatro dellrsquoOpera di Roma concerning a request that

her successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded for services carried out between 2007

and 2011 be reclassified as an employment relationship of an indefinite duration

Court Clause 5 of the framework agreement must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which the common law rules governing employment relationships and intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by the automatic transformation of the fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration if the employment relationship goes beyond a specific date are not applicable to the sector of activity of operatic and orchestral foundations where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system penalising abuses identified in that sector

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-26017 ndash Anodiki Services EPE ndash Greece -

Decisions of public hospitals to conclude fixed-term labour contracts for the purposes of catering

the provision of meals and cleaning

Directive 201424EU Directive 89665EEC The request has been made in two sets of proceedings between in the first set of proceedings concerning decisions taken by the administration boards of those public hospitals to conclude a number of fixed-term labour contracts under private law in order to meet their needs in relation to catering the provision of meals and cleaning

Court Article 10(g) of Directive 201424EU must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of lsquoemployment contractsrsquo referred to in that provision covers labour contracts such as those at issue

in the main proceedings that is to say fixed-term individual labour contracts which are concluded with persons selected on the basis of objective criteria such as the duration of unemployment previous experience and the number of minor dependent children they have

The provisions of Directive 201424 Articles 49 and 56 TFEU the principles of equal treatment transparency and proportionality and Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union do not apply to a decision of a public authority to make use of employment contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings in order to perform certain tasks falling within its public interest obligations

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89665EEC must be interpreted to the effect that a decision of a

contracting authority to conclude employment contracts with natural persons for the provision of certain services without using a public procurement procedure in accordance with Directive 201424

as amended by Delegated Regulation 20152170 on the ground that in its opinion those contracts do not fall within the scope of that directive may be challenged under that provision by an economic operator with an interest in participating in a public procurement procedure with the same purpose as those contracts and which considers that those contracts do fall within the scope of that directive

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G MENGOZZI ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-32217 ndash Bogatu ndash Ireland -

Application of the priority rules in the event of overlapping entitlements to family benefits -

Unemployment - Concept of lsquoactivity as an employed personrsquo

Regulation No 8832004 Mr Eugen Bogatu is a Romanian national who has lived in Ireland since 2003 After losing his job in February 2009 he received a number of social benefits In particular between 25 May 2010 and 4 January 2013 he received a non-contributory unemployment benefit (jobseekerrsquos allowance) In January 2015 he was refused family benefits for his children residing in Romania for the period during which he received that unemployment benefit on the ground that in the view of the Minister Mr Bogatu could not be regarded as pursuing an activity as an employed person for the purposes of Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 8832004 Subsequently in his action

before the High Court (Ireland) Mr Bogatu contested that interpretation of the scope of the concept of lsquoactivity as an employed personrsquo However in view of the fact that it seems apparent from the documents before the Court that Mr Bogatursquos children are also entitled to family benefits under Romanian law the question of determining the scope of the concept of activity as an employed person arises rather in the light of the application of the priority rules in the event of overlapping entitlements to family benefits laid down in Article 68 of Regulation No 8832004

The question of determining the scope of the concept of activity as an employed person arises rather in the light of the application of the priority rules in the event of overlapping entitlements to family benefits laid down in Article 68 of Regulation No 8832004

A-G Article 68(1) of Regulation (EC) No 8832004 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who after having been employed in the host Member State receives only non-contributory benefits

from that State whilst remaining insured under the social security scheme of that State is entitled to the payment of family benefits by virtue of such status for the purposes of determining the Member State having primary responsibility for paying such benefits provided that his situation is covered by the concept of lsquoactivity as an employed personrsquo or lsquoequivalent situationrsquo as defined by Article 1(a) of Regulation No 8832004 It is for the referring court to ascertain whether that is the case

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Spain ndash 25 October 2018 - case C-16718 - Union Insular

Directive 200123EC

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Spain ndash 31 October 2018 - case C-58818 - FETICO ea

Directive 200388EG

ANOTATION - ECtHR 19 July 2018 Hovhannisyan v Armenia

Inhumane and degrading treatment in the workplace a first for the European Court of Human Rights

(strasbourgobservers)

LGTB-rights

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 11 October 2018 ndash SV v Italy ndash legal summary - press release ndash

Lack of possibility for transgender person to change forename before reassignment surgery

Article 8 ECHR Following a District Court judgment of May 2001 authorising her gender reassignment surgery the applicantrsquos request to have her forename changed was refused by a prefectrsquos decision in July 2001 on the grounds that an individualrsquos forename had to correspond to his or her gender and that any change to the civil-status records of transgender persons had to be ordered by a judge in the context of the proceedings confirming the gender reassignment In Recommendation CMRec(2010)5 on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe had urged States to make possible the

change of name and gender in official documents in a quick transparent and accessible way Accordingly the applicantrsquos inability to obtain a change of forename over a period of two and a half years on the grounds that the gender transition process had not been completed by means of gender

reassignment surgery amounted in the circumstances of the case to a failure on the part of the

respondent State to comply with its positive obligation to secure the applicantrsquos right to respect for her private life Violation (unanimously)

Court rules against Italy in transgender name human rights dispute (humanrightseurope)

SV v Italy on temporality and transgender persons (strasbourgobservers)

ECtHR Rules Against Italy in Transgender Name Dispute (liberties)

Polandrsquos Supreme Administrative Court recognizes Same-sex Parents (Verfassungsblog)

Preliminary procedure at the ECJ

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash Case C-41617 ndash CommissionFrance -

ECLIEUC2018811 - opinion - judgment

Difference in treatment according to the Member State of residence of the sub-subsidiary mdash

Reimbursement of the advance payment of tax unduly paid mdash Obligation to make a reference for a

preliminary ruling

Article 49 Article 63 and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFUE By its application the European Commission asks the Court to declare that by its discriminatory and disproportionate treatment of French parent companies which receive dividends from foreign subsidiaries with regard to the right to reimbursement of tax levied in breach of EU law as interpreted by the Court in its judgment of 15 September 2011 Accor (C-31009 EUC2011581) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its

obligations under Article 49 Article 63 and the third paragraph of Article 267 TFUE along with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Court By refusing to take into account in order to calculate the reimbursement of the advance

payment made by a resident company in respect of the distribution of dividends paid by a non-

resident company via a non-resident subsidiary the tax incurred by that second company on the

profits underlying those dividends even though the national mechanism for the avoidance of

economic double taxation allows in the case of a purely domestic chain of interests the tax levied

on the dividends distributed by a company at every level of that chain of interests to be offset France

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 63 TFEU

Since the Council of State France failed to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European

Union in accordance with the procedure provided for in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU in

order to determine whether it was necessary to refuse to take into account for the purpose of

calculating the reimbursement of the advance payment made by a resident company in respect of

the distribution of dividends paid by a non-resident company via a non-resident subsidiary the tax

incurred by that second company on the profits underlying those dividends even though its

interpretation of the provisions of EU law in the judgments of 10 December 2012 Rhodia) and of

10 December 2012 Accor was not so obvious as to leave no scope for doubt the French Republic

failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU Dismisses the action as

to the remainder

For the sake of effectiveness a tightened approach to preliminary reference obligations of

the CJEU (Leiden law blog)

Judicial Infringements at the Court of Justice ndash A brief comment on the phenomenal

CommissionFrance (C-41617) (despite our differences)

Will Poland With Its Own Constitution Ablaze Now Set Fire to EU Law (Verfassungsblog)

Privacy and data protection

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 2 October 2018 ndash case C-20716 ndash Ministerio Fiscal - Spain -

ECLIEUC2018788 - opinion ndash judgment

Concept of lsquoserious crimersquo - Access of national authorities to the data for the purposes of an

investigation

Articles 7 and 8 EU Charter The case concerns the interpretation of the concept of lsquoserious crimersquo within the meaning of the case-law of the Court resulting from the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland and Others and then from the judgment in Tele2 Sverige and Watson and Others where that concept was used as a criterion for the assessment of the lawfulness and proportionality of an interference with the rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter This reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of an action brought against a judicial decision whereby the police authorities were denied the possibility of receiving communication of certain identification

data held by mobile telephony operators for the purpose of identifying individuals in the context of a criminal investigation The contested decision was based in particular on the consideration that the facts giving rise to that investigation did not constitute serious crime contrary to the requirements of the applicable Spanish legislation The referring court asks the Court in essence about the way in which the threshold of seriousness of infringements must be fixed beyond which there may be

justification in the light of the case-law referred to above for interfering with the fundamental rights protected by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter when the competent national authorities have access to personal data retained by electronic communications service providers

Court Article 15(1) of Directive 200258E read in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of EU Charter must

be interpreted as meaning that the access of public authorities to data for the purpose of identifying the owners of SIM cards activated with a stolen mobile telephone such as the surnames forenames and if need be addresses of the owners entails interference with their fundamental rights enshrined in those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is not sufficiently serious to entail that access being limited in the area of prevention investigation detection and prosecution of criminal offences to the objective of fighting serious crime

Mobile phone theft and EU eprivacy law the CJEU clarifies police powers (EU law analysis)

PUBLICATION

Factsheet ECJ Protection of personal data December 2017 (curia)

Procedural law and right to a fair trial ndash administrative law

ECtHR ndash ADMISSIBILITY DECISION ndash 11 September 2018 - Aumatell i Arniu v Spainndash

press release 4102018 ndash decision - ECLICEECHR20180911DEC007021917

Fines imposed on electoral board members after suspension of referendum on Catalonia

Spain European Court ruling in Catalonia referendum human rights dispute (humanrightseurope)

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash civil

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 2 October 2018 ndash Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland ndash press release

Arbitration for Sport - Disciplinary proceedings - Impartial and independent tribunal

Article 6 ECHR In the first application the applicant was a professional footballer who had been ordered to pay a very high sum to his club for a unilateral breach of contract The applicant in the second application was a speed skater on whom sanctions had been imposed for doping These two

applications raised questions concerning the fairness of the procedures before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 2 October 2018 ndash Kozemiakina v Lithuania ndash press release ndash

Civil liability for acts of a minor

Article 6 ECHR The applicant complained that her civil liability for the acts of her minor son had been established on the basis of the findings of courts in criminal proceedings in which her son had only been a witness and she had not had any procedural status The domestic courts had considered the

applicantrsquos sonrsquos actions to have been definitively established in the criminal proceedings in which he had been a witness and had therefore made it impossible for the applicant to question the facts on which her civil liability was based ndash an opportunity which she had not had in the criminal proceedings either since those proceedings had not concerned the actions of her son In such circumstances the Court could not accept that the civil proceedings against the applicant had been ldquofairrdquo within the meaning of Article 6 sect 1

ECtHR- JUDGMENT ndash 30 October 2018 ndash Kursun v Turkey ndash legal summary ndash press release

Excessively formalistic interpretation of procedural rule violation

Article 6 ECHR The applicantrsquos civil claim against Tuumlpraş Batman Oil Refinery following an explosion

which had damaged his property was dismissed as being time-barred The Court of Cassationrsquos interpretation and application of the relevant time-limit rule whereby the applicant had been required to institute proceedings at a moment when he could not realistically have had sufficient knowledge of the cause of the damage or the identity of those responsible seemed very formalistic bearing particularly in mind the possible practical and financial implications of such requirement for the applicant

The strict application by the domestic courts of a procedural rule which seemingly lacked clear and consistent precedential support had deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court to have his claims for compensation examined particularly given the extraordinary circumstances of the incident underlying the applicantrsquos claim

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash criminal law

ECHR ndash COMMUNICATED CASE ndash X v Netherlands - 2 October 2018 - statement of facts

The applicant complains under Article 6 sectsect 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that she had been denied the right to attend the hearing of the Court of Appeal in person Questions to the parties Was the applicant able to defend herself in person as required by Article 6 sect 3 (c) of the Convention (see Hokkeling v the Netherlands no 3074912 14 February 2017)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 2 October 2018 ndash Bivolaru v Romania (no 2) - press release ndash

Sexual intercourse with a minor conviction at appeal stage without hearing the accused in person

ECtHR ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Daineliene v Lithuania ndash press release ndash

Presence of prosecutorrsquos father on Supreme Court panel infringed the right to a fair and impartial

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 ndash Thiam v France - press release ndash judgment (level

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

A civil claim for damages by Nicolas Sarkozy then serving President of the Republic did not breach

the applicantrsquos right to a fair trial

Article 6 ECHR The case concerned criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in the course of which the former President of the French Republic Nicolas Sarkozy applied to join the proceedings

as a civil party The Court found that Mr Sarkozyrsquos intervention as a civil party in the criminal proceedings against Mr Thiam had not created an imbalance in the partiesrsquo rights and in the conduct of the proceedings The Court also held that the participation in the proceedings of a public figure who played an institutional role in the career development of judges was capable of casting a legitimate doubt on the latterrsquos independence and impartiality However after examining the manner in which judges were appointed their statutory condition and the particular circumstances of the

case it saw no reason to conclude that the judges called upon to decide in the applicantrsquos case were not independent for the purposes of Article 6 sect 1 of the Convention

France Court ruling on lsquoSarkozyrsquo human rights complaint (humanrightseurope)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Arrozpide Sarasol and Others v Spain ndash legal

summary press release - judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181023JUD006510116

No legitimate expectation as to the taking into account of sentences served in another EU member

State no violation

Article 6 ECHR Framework Decision 2008675JHA The three applicants were members of the

terrorist organisation ETA They were arrested in France between and were given prison sentences by French courts for offences committed in France Once extradited to Spain they were convicted and sentenced for attacks andor murders which had been committed by the ETA in Spain before their convictions in France The applicants asked the Spanish courts to take account of the length of sentences handed down and served in France for the purposes of calculating their new term of imprisonment within the maximum thirty-year term in Spain Those requests were upheld at first

instance but subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court In the present case the discrepancies between the various courts concerned as to the possibility of combining the terms of prison sentences served in other EU member States with the sentences to be served in Spain had lasted for only about ten months until the delivery by the Supreme Court ndash the highest Spanish court in criminal matters ndash of its leading judgment no 8742014 The solutions adopted in the applicantsrsquo cases had merely followed that judgment

Accordingly having regard to the relevant domestic law at the time when the applicants had committed the offences when the decisions on the calculation of the length andor ceiling of the

prison terms were adopted and when the applicants had requested that the sentences served in

France be taken into account the impugned decisions had not changed the scope of the sentences handed down The maximum length of the time to be served had always been set at thirty years as a result of the combination andor ceiling of individual sentences imposed on the applicants by the Spanish criminal courts without taking account of the sentences handed down and served in France The impugned decisions of the Supreme Court had not therefore led to any change in the scope of the applicantsrsquo sentences No violation (unanimously)

ECtHR- JUDGMENT ndash 30 October 2018 ndash Gestur Jonsson and Ragnar Halldor Hall v Iceland

ndash legal summary - press release ndash judgment (level 2) -

ECLICEECHR20181030JUD006827314

Fine imposed in absentia on defence counsel reasonably foreseeable no violation

Article 6 ECHR The applicant lawyersrsquo request that their appointment as defence counsel for defendants in a criminal trial be revoked was rejected by the District Court The applicants did not

attend the trial and they were later convicted in their absence of contempt of court and delaying the proceedings They were each fined approximately EUR 6200 Their appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed The Court rejected the applicantsrsquo argument that the relevant provisions lacked foreseeability The provisions provided a basis for imposing fines on ldquodefence counselrdquo Although it

would be the normal sequence of events that a defence counsel would be performing his or her function at the point in time when the fine would be imposed the wording of the provision did not exclude the imposition of a fine on a defence counsel who had been replaced resigned or been relieved of his or her duties The interpretation given to the provision by the national courts did not contravene the very essence of the offence in question

Article 7 could not be read as outlawing the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation from case to case provided that the resultant development was consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen It followed that the

mere fact that a provision of domestic law did not stipulate the maximum amount which might be

imposed in the form of a fine did not as such run counter to the requirements of Article 7 Moreover although it was undisputed that the fines imposed on the applicants were substantially higher than previously imposed fines under the relevant provision it was also clear that the applicantsrsquo case was the first of its kind and one in which the Supreme Court had considered that the nature and gravity of their actions had warranted the imposition of fines which were higher than those imposed in prior cases with different facts The amount of the fines in question had been consistent with the essence of the offence and could have been reasonably foreseen by the applicants No violation (unanimously)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Guerni v Belgium ndash press release ndash judgment

Use of undercover agents to dismantle a drug-trafficking network

Article 6 ECHR The case concerned criminal proceedings under which Mr Guerni had been convicted

of drug trafficking In the framework of their investigations the police had been authorised to call on the services of an informer and an undercover agent posing as a purchaser The Court found in particular that despite the absence of a legal framework the trial courtsrsquo review of the lawfulness of the uncover operation had provided a proper safeguard and that there was nothing to suggest that Mr Guernirsquos rights of the defence had been violated The courts had concluded on the basis of reliable

evidence on file ndash including Mr Guernirsquos statements and concurring statements from other defendants ndash that the intention of importing a consignment of drugs had pre-dated the involvement of the informer and the undercover agent and that the latter had not exerted any pressure The Court also held that the domestic courtsrsquo refusal to examine the informer and the undercover agent on the grounds that such questioning was unnecessary for establishing the truth had been properly grounded It therefore detected no arbitrariness and considered that the defence had benefited from sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings

Public procurement tender

EJC ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-60617 - IBA Molecular Italy Srl ndash Italy -

ECLIEUC2018843 - judgment

Contract awarded outside a public procurement procedure mdash Definition of lsquocontracts for pecuniary

interestrsquo mdash Definition of lsquopublic entityrsquo

Directive 200418EC IBA is an undertaking specialised in the production of radiopharmaceutical

products It is the exclusive distributor in Italy of the medicinal product 18-FDG which is an isotopic tracer used in certain radiological examinations By an action of 29 April 2015 it challenged before the administrative Court the measures and contractual arrangements by which the Local Health Authority No 3 and the Angelo di Mestre Hospital awarded directly and without a prior public tendering procedure a contract for the provision of medicinal product 18-FDG for a period of three years to the Sacro Cuore Although a faith-based institution governed by private law the Sacro Cuore forms part of the public system for healthcare planning of the Veneto region on the basis of a special agreement in its capacity as a lsquoclassifiedrsquo hospital equivalent to a public institution

Court Articles 1(2)(a) of Directive 200418EC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of

lsquocontract for pecuniary interestrsquo includes a decision by which a contracting authority directly awards

to a specific economic operator and therefore without organising a public tendering procedure specific-purpose funding for the manufacture of products to be supplied free of charge by that economic operator to various authorities which are exempt from payment of any consideration to the supplier except for the payment of a fixed sum of EUR 180 per delivery for transport costs

Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2 of Directive 200418 must be interpreted as precluding national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings which by treating private lsquoclassifiedrsquo hospitals as equivalent to public hospitals on account of their integration into the system of national public healthcare planning governed by special agreements that are distinct from ordinary accreditation

relationships with other private parties that participate in the system of provision of healthcare services take them outside the scope of national and EU rules on public contracts including in cases where such classified hospitals are entrusted with the manufacture and supply free of charge to

public healthcare establishments of specific products which are necessary for the provision of healthcare services and where at the same time they receive public funding specifically for the manufacture and supply of those products

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case C-12417 ndash Vossloh Laeis ndash Germany -

Demonstrate its reliability ndash Ground for exclusion ndash Collaboration to investigating authorities ndash

Collaboration tot contracting authority

Directive 201424EU Directive 201425EU An economic operator may be temporarily excluded from public procurement procedures if it has engaged in any of the behaviours set out in Article 57 of Directive 201424EU However that period of exclusion may be reduced if the economic operator can demonstrate to the contracting authority that notwithstanding its previous misconduct it has successfully reformed itself In order to be able to prove that it is again reliable paragraph 6 of that article establishes among other conditions that the economic operator must lsquoclarify the facts and

circumstances in a comprehensive manner by actively collaborating with the investigating authoritiesrsquo The interpretation of that phrase forms much of the subject matter of this dispute When incorporating Directive 201424 into national law the German legislature provided that that

collaboration must be afforded not only to the investigating authorities but also to the contracting authority In that context the Public Procurement Board for Southern Bavaria Germany has raised with the Court of Justice two issues which the Court has not previously addressed First it wishes to ascertain whether the additional requirement of collaboration (with the contracting authority)

imposed by the domestic legislature is compatible with EU law Secondly it seeks to determine the start date of the maximum period of exclusion (three years) provided for in Article 57(7) of Directive 201424 in the event that that period has not been set by final judgment and must run from lsquothe date of the relevant eventrsquo

Court Article 80 of Directive 201425EU read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of Directive 201424EU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which requires an economic operator wishing to demonstrate its reliability despite the existence of a relevant ground for exclusion to clarify the facts and circumstances relating to the criminal offence or the misconduct committed in a comprehensive manner by actively cooperating not only with the investigating

authority but also with the contracting authority in the context of the latterrsquos specific role in order to provide it with proof of the re-establishment of its reliability to the extent that that cooperation is limited to the measures strictly necessary for that examination

Article 57(7) of Directive 201424 must be interpreted as meaning that where an economic operator has been engaged in conduct falling within the ground for exclusion referred to in Article 57(4)(d) of that directive which has been penalised by a competent authority the maximum period of exclusion is calculated from the date of the decision of that authority

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-41317 ndash Roche Lietuva ndash Lithuania -

ECLIEUC2018865 ndash no opinion - arrest

Public supply contract for medical diagnostic equipment and materials ndash Technical specifications

Directive 201424EU Roche Lietuva argued in the context of a complaint that the technical specifications set out in Annex 1 to the contract documents unreasonably restricted competition

among suppliers due to their high specificity and in reality corresponded to the products of specific manufacturers of blood analysers The Polyclinic for the Dainava District of Kaunas by a decision of 14 July 2016 amended certain provisions of the technical specifications Unsatisfied with the amendments brought to the tender specifications following its complaint Roche Lietuva brought an application before the national courts

Court Articles 18 and 42 of Directive 201424EU must be interpreted as not imposing on the contracting authority in establishing technical specifications in a procurement procedure concerning the acquisition of medical supplies by principle prioritising either the importance of the individual characteristics of the medical supplies or the importance of the result of their functioning but

requiring that the technical specifications as a whole comply with the principles of equality of treatment and proportionality It is for the national court to assess whether in the dispute before it the technical specifications at issue comply with those requirements

Autoritagrave Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato - Antitrust en Coopservice ndash

ECLIEUC2018797 ndash Italy - opinion (f)

Un pouvoir adjudicateur qui nrsquoa pas participeacute directement agrave la conclusion de lrsquoaccord-cadre

Directive 200418CE Les doutes portent sur le point de savoir si un organisme public de santeacute qui agit en tant que pouvoir adjudicateur pouvait en 2015 attribuer directement un marcheacute de prestation de certains services agrave la socieacuteteacute adjudicataire avec laquelle un autre organisme public analogue avait auparavant (en 2011) conclu un accord similaire qualifieacute par la juridiction de renvoi drsquoaccord cadre au sens de cette directive La juridiction de renvoi souhaite en outre savoir dans le mecircme contexte srsquoil est impeacuteratif de consigner dans lrsquoaccord-cadre le volume de prestations que les

pouvoirs adjudicateurs pourront requeacuterir lorsqursquoils concluront des marcheacutes posteacuterieurs et si dans ce cas cette information peut ecirctre fournie en reacutefeacuterence au critegravere des laquo besoins ordinaires raquo de ceux-ci

A-G Lrsquoarticle 1er paragraphe 5 et lrsquoarticle 32 de la directive 200418CE doivent ecirctre interpreacuteteacutes de la faccedilon suivante

ndash Ils ne font pas obstacle agrave un accord-cadre en vertu duquel un pouvoir adjudicateur qui nrsquoa pas participeacute directement agrave sa conclusion et ne lrsquoa pas signeacute peut ecirctre partie aux marcheacutes publics qui se

fondent sur cet accord sous reacuteserve que lrsquoidentiteacute de ce pouvoir adjudicateur figure dans lrsquoaccord-cadre lui-mecircme ou dans un document inteacutegreacute au cahier des charges dans les termes prescrits par la directive 200418

ndash Ils font obstacle agrave ce que le volume de prestations que ledit pouvoir adjudicateur pourra demander lors de la conclusion des marcheacutes posteacuterieurs preacutevus dans lrsquoaccord-cadre ne soit pas deacutetermineacute ou ne soit pas univoquement deacuteterminable dans celui-ci

ndash Ils ne font pas obstacle agrave ce que cette quantiteacute soit fixeacutee en reacutefeacuterence aux besoins ordinaires du pouvoir adjudicateur sous reacuteserve que lrsquoaccord-cadre donne des informations claires preacutecises et transparentes quant aux besoins que ce pouvoir adjudicateur a ducirc satisfaire par le passeacute

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G SAUGMANDSGAARD OslashE ndash 25 October 2018 ndash Joined cases C-35017

en C-35117 ndash Mobit en Autolinee Toscane ndash Italy - ECLIEUC2018869 ndash opinion (f)

Services publics de transport de voyageurs par chemin de fer et par route ndashAttribution de contrats

de services publics

Regraveglement (CE) ndeg 13702007 Ces demandes ont eacuteteacute preacutesenteacutees drsquoune part dans le cadre drsquoun litige opposant Mobit Soc un consortium regroupant plusieurs entreprises italiennes opeacuterant dans le secteur des transports agrave la reacutegion de Toscane au sujet de lrsquoadjudication deacutefinitive agrave Autolinee Toscane SpA entreprise controcircleacutee par la Reacutegie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP) drsquoun

contrat de services publics de transport local et drsquoautre part drsquoun litige srsquoinscrivant dans le mecircme cadre factuel et opposant Autolinee Toscane agrave Mobit Par ces questions la juridiction de renvoi cherche en substance agrave savoir si les articles 5 et 8 du regraveglement ndeg 13702007 doivent ecirctre interpreacuteteacutes en ce sens qursquoun opeacuterateur tel qursquoAutolinee Toscane dans le litige au principal doit ecirctre exclu drsquoune proceacutedure drsquoattribution par voie de mise en concurrence au motif que cet opeacuterateur est controcircleacute par un autre opeacuterateur agrave savoir la RATP dans ce litige ayant beacuteneacuteficieacute drsquoune attribution directe avant lrsquoentreacutee en vigueur de ce regraveglement

A-G Lrsquoarticle 8 paragraphe 2 du regraveglement (CE) nordm 13702007 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que lrsquoarticle 5 de ce regraveglement nrsquoest pas applicable dans le cadre drsquoune proceacutedure drsquoattribution reacutealiseacutee

avant lrsquoexpiration de la peacuteriode transitoire eacutetablie agrave lrsquoarticle 8 paragraphe 2 dudit regraveglement telle que celle en cause dans le litige au principal sauf dans lrsquohypothegravese ougrave cette attribution relegraveverait

drsquoun reacutegime national mettant en œuvre de maniegravere anticipeacutee ledit article 5 et ce dans la mesure deacutetermineacutee par ce reacutegime

Agrave titre subsidiaire lrsquoarticle 8 paragraphe 3 du regraveglement nordm 13702007 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que lrsquoarticle 5 de ce regraveglement nrsquoest pas applicable pendant un deacutelai de trente ans expirant le 3 deacutecembre 2039 agrave un contrat viseacute agrave lrsquoarticle 8 paragraphe 3 premier alineacutea sous b) dudit regraveglement et ce nonobstant le fait que ce contrat expire apregraves le 3 deacutecembre 2039

Agrave titre encore plus subsidiaire lrsquoarticle 5 du regraveglement nordm 13702007 doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens qursquoil ne srsquooppose pas agrave lrsquoattribution par voie de mise en concurrence drsquoun contrat de services publics de transport tel que celui en cause dans le litige au principal agrave un opeacuterateur controcircleacute par un autre opeacuterateur ayant beacuteneacuteficieacute drsquoune attribution directe avant lrsquoentreacutee en vigueur de ce regraveglement

Agrave titre infiniment subsidiaire lrsquoarticle 5 paragraphe 2 du regraveglement nordm 13702007 lu agrave la lumiegravere de lrsquoarticle 2 sous j) de ce regraveglement doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que peut ecirctre qualifieacutee drsquolaquo opeacuterateur interne raquo une personne morale de droit public qui est titulaire drsquoun contrat de service

public de transport local attribueacute directement par lrsquoautoriteacute eacutetatique agrave condition que cette autoriteacute exerce sur cette personne un laquo controcircle analogue raquo agrave celui qursquoelle exerce sur ses propres services

Par ailleurs lrsquoarticle 5 paragraphe 2 dudit regraveglement lu agrave la lumiegravere de lrsquoarticle 2 sous b) du mecircme regraveglement doit ecirctre interpreacuteteacute en ce sens que le transfert du pouvoir drsquoorganiser les services de

transport de lrsquoautoriteacute eacutetatique agrave un eacutetablissement nrsquoexerccedilant pas de laquo controcircle analogue raquo sur lrsquoattributaire nrsquoentraicircne pas lrsquoexclusion du champ drsquoapplication de cette disposition agrave condition drsquoune part que lrsquoautoriteacute eacutetatique conserve seule ou conjointement agrave cet eacutetablissement le pouvoir drsquointervenir dans les transports publics de voyageurs dans la zone geacuteographique concerneacutee (et partant puisse ecirctre qualifieacutee drsquolaquo autoriteacute compeacutetente raquo) et drsquoautre part que cette autoriteacute continue agrave exercer un laquo controcircle analogue raquo sur lrsquoattributaire

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Hungary - 3 October 2018 - Case C-49618 - HUNGEOD

Directive 200766EG Directive 9213EEG Directive 201424EU Directive 201425EU

Right to life medical negligence

ECtHR ndash ADMISSIBLITY DECISION ndash 11 September 2018 ndash Chong and Others v the UK ndash

Batang Kali killings by British soldiers

Article 2 ECHR The case concerned the killing of 24 men in December 1948 by British soldiers in the village of Batang Kali in Selangor which is now a state of Malaysia but at the time was part of the British Empire The official account was that the 24 men believed to be sympathisers in a communist insurgency had been killed when trying to escape while surviving villagers and the applicants in this case who are relatives of the deceased alleged that they had been murdered in cold blood The applicants complained before the European Court that there had never been a full and independent

public inquiry into the killings The Court found that the applicantsrsquo complaint was not within its jurisdiction (ratione temporis) because the deaths had occurred more than ten years before the United

Kingdom had given individual applicants the right to apply directly to the Court In any case new

evidence had come to light as early as 1970 when the soldiers had admitted that they had been ordered to carry out the massacre so the applicants had lodged their application long after the Convention time-limit

United Kingdom Court rejects complaint on 1948 Batang Kali killings by British soldiers

(humanrightseurope)

Right to peaceful enjoyment of property

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 9 October 2018 ndash Batkivska Turbota Foundation v Ukraine ndash press

State gained ownership of validly purchased property

Article 1 Protocol No 1 ECHR The case concerned the applicant organisation being deprived of its

ownership of parts of a sanatorium which it had bought from the property arm of Ukrainersquos Federation of Trade Unions in 2002 The Federation itself had gained control of the premises through a process which had begun in the Soviet era and its ownership of the assets had been confirmed in a 1997 court ruling However in 2011 a prosecutor claimed the property for the State The domestic courts ultimately ruled that the Federation had had no right to sell the premises as the sanatorium had remained State property and annulled the applicant organisationrsquos title The Court found in particular

that there was no clear law on who owned such Soviet-era properties ndash the Federation and its property arm or the State ndash and that domestic case-law was inconsistent in this respect The State had also imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicant organisation by depriving it of its property The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of its rights

ECtHR - JUDGEMENT - 9 October 2018 ndash Gyrlyan v Russia ndash press release ndash judgment

Confiscation of lawfully obtained cash following failure to declare it at customs violation

Article 1 Protocol No 1 ECHR The applicant complained that the decision of the domestic authorities

in administrative-offence proceedings to confiscate USD 90000 of his money for having failed to declare the sum of USD 100000 at customs had been excessive and disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued

The Court was not convinced by the Governmentrsquos argument that an assessment of proportionality had been incorporated in the domestic decisions The scope of the review carried out by the domestic courts had been too narrow to satisfy the requirement of seeking the ldquofair balancerdquo inherent in the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 Contrary to the Governmentrsquos claim that the court had opted for the most lenient penalty the relevant provision did not appear to leave the sentencing court any discretion Such a rigid system was incapable of ensuring the requisite fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of an individualrsquos right to property

The confiscation measure had imposed an individual and excessive burden on the applicant and had

been disproportionate to the offence committed Violation (unanimously)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 11 October 2018 ndash Osmanyan en Amiraghyan v Armenia ndash legal

summary - press release ndash judgment (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181011JUD007130611

Award of market value of expropriated land without addressing farmersrsquo loss of main source of

income

Article 1 Protocol No 1 ECHR The applicants are a family of five who make their living from agriculture They jointly owned a plot of arable land which became subject to expropriation for the purpose of a copperndashmolybdenum exploitation project implemented by a State owned company The applicants were awarded compensation representing the highest estimated market value of three

different evaluations with the addition of the 15 statutory surplus The courts had decided that despite the circumstances the applicants should be provided with compensation determined in relation to the prices of real estate situated in the area subject to expropriation thus not addressing the issue of whether the compensation granted would have covered the applicantsrsquo actual loss

involved in deprivation of means of subsistence or at least would have been sufficient for them to acquire equivalent land within the area in which they lived The applicants had therefore borne an excessive individual burden Violation (unanimously)

ECtHR- JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Koumlnyv-Taacuter Kft v Hungary ndash legal summary - press

release ndash judgement (level 2) - ECLICEECHR20181016JUD002162313

State monopoly of the schoolbook distribution market violation

Article 1 of Protocol No 1 ECHR Following new measures adopted in 2011 and 2012 the school system in Hungary had been entirely reorganised and formerly decentralised schools had become subject to centralised State management The new measures introduced a new system of schoolbook distribution according to which schoolbook supply was a public-interest responsibility of the State The lawmakerrsquos intention was to discharge those duties through a State-owned non-profit book distribution company

The three applicant companies schoolbook distributors complained that the creation of a State

monopoly in the schoolbook distribution market had deprived them of peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1

Having had regard to various factors including the fact that no measures had been put in place to protect the applicant companies from arbitrariness or to offer them redress in terms of compensation the impossibility for the applicant companies to continue or reconstitute their business outside the

schoolbook distribution and the absence of real benefits for the parents or pupils the interference with the applicant companiesrsquo right had been disproportionate to the aim pursued in that they had had to bear an individual and excessive burden Violation (six votes to one)

ECtHR - JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Barkanov v Russia ndash press release ndash judgment

Restrictions on the use of the applicantrsquos helicopter for almost nine years were without a legal basis

Article 1 of Protocol No 1 ECHR The case concerned restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities between 2008 and 2017 on the use of a helicopter belonging to Mr Barkanov The Court found in particular that there had been no legal basis for the restrictions on the use of the aircraft

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Zhidov ea v Russia ndash legal summary - press

Order to demolish unlawfully constructed buildings located near gas or oil pipelines without

payment of compensation no violation violation

Article 1 of Protocol No 1 ECHR All of the applicants were owners of various buildings located near gas or oil pipelines Any construction is forbidden in those zones without the written agreement of the entity operating the dangerous installations Following requests by the companies operating the

gas and oil pipelines the domestic courts ordered that the buildings in question be demolished at the applicantsrsquo expense without compensation as ldquoillegal constructionsrdquo

This house had all the characteristics of an illegal construction within the meaning of the Civil Code

in that it had been constructed on land that was not allocated for that purpose without the necessary permits and in flagrant violation of urban-planning and building standards The authorities who had been aware of the situation had admittedly contributed to the continuation of a situation which presented a risk to public safety and health However this tolerance on the part of the authorities was not such as to give the applicant the impression that proceedings would not be brought against him Firstly his house could not be rendered compliant for the purposes of the Civil Code and even

assuming that the applicant were to allege the contrary he had never brought any such compliance proceedings before the courts Secondly there was no time restriction for bringing an action against this type of construction It followed that the applicant had not suffered disproportionate interference with his property rights No violation (unanimously)

The applicants had not sought compensation for the loss of their property before the courts and had not attempted to bring a claim against the other party However it was the authorities who had been at the origin of the interference with the applicantsrsquo right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and not the previous owners who had obtained all the necessary permits for

construction and whose good faith had never been called into question by the domestic courts Lastly

any judicial proceedings brought by the applicants were likely to be declared inadmissible on account of the three-year limitation period for filing a claim In those circumstances it would be excessive to require the applicants to bring fresh judicial proceedings against the other party given the total uncertainty as to whether there was any reasonable prospect of success and without the Government having shown that such proceedings were effective

It followed that the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the demands of the public interest and the need to protect the applicantsrsquo right of property Violation (unanimously)

The demolition order in respect of the shed and auxiliary premises issued on the grounds that they were illegal constructions had not placed a disproportionately heavy burden on the applicant N no violation (unanimously)

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 23 October 2018 ndash Bradshaw ea v Malta ndash legal summary - press

Extremely low rent for owners of property rented out to band club violation

Article 1 Protocol no 1 ECHR The applicants were joint owners of a property located in a prime site in Maltarsquos capital city which they rented to a band club By law they were obliged to renew on an

annual basis the lease entered into by their ascendants in 1946 and could not demand an increase in rent Having regard to the use made of the property the extremely low rent of the premises and the lack of procedural safeguards in the application of the law a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicants who had had to bear and continued to bear a significant part of the social and financial costs of supporting a local custom by supplying the band club with premises for its activities including commercial activities It followed that the Maltese State had

failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicantsrsquo right to the enjoyment of their property Violation (unanimously)

ECtHR ndash ADMISSIBILITY DECISION ndash 25 September 2018 ndash Kvyatkovskiy v Russia ndash press

release 18102018 ndash decision (level 3) ndash ECLICEECHR20180925DEC000639018

An order to demolish two houses illegally constructed on agricultural land did not breach the

Convention

Article 1 Protocol no 1 ECHR The case concerned the domestic courtsrsquo decision to order the

demolition of two buildings belonging to the applicant The Court considered that the judicial order to demolish the buildings was intended to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest since the aim was to ensure compliance with urban planning and construction rules and to ensure that land was used in accordance with the purpose identified in the land-use plan In registering a title to immovable property on the basis of a system which was closer to a reporting procedure than to an authorisation procedure the authorities had not provided the applicant with

assurances that he would be safe from prosecution In addition as a result of their prompt response the authorities had done nothing to prolong any uncertainty which the applicant might have experienced as to the lawfulness of the construction

Rule of law

ECJ ndash DECISION - 19 October 2018 ndash Case C-61918 R ndash CommissionPoland ndash press

release

Lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges in Poland

Article 2 TEU The Vice-President of the Court Ms Rosario Silva de Lapuerta acting upon a request from the Commission and before the submission by Poland of its observations in the interim

proceedings grants 4 provisionally all the Commissionrsquos requests until such time as an order is made closing the interim proceedings Poland must immediately suspend the application of the provisions of national legislation relating to the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges

Interim Revolutions (despite our differences)

Interim Revolutions the CJEU gives its first interim measures ruling on the rule of law in

Poland (EU law analysis)

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Poland ndash 17 October 2018 ndash Joined cases C-55818 en C-56318

Miasto Łowicz ea

Rule of law situation in Poland - Judges - Article 19 TEU Article 6 ECHR Article 13 ECHR

Quod Licet Iovi non Licet Bovi The Appointment Process to the Court of Justice and the

Reform of Judiciary in Poland (European law blog)

What Being Left Behind by the Rule of Law Feels Like Part II (Verfassungsblog)

What Being Left Behind by the Rule of Law Feels Like Part I (Verfassungsblog)

Though this be Madness yet therersquos Method inrsquot Pitting the Polish Constitutional Tribunal

against the Luxembourg Court (Verfassungsblog)

Schengen

Regulation 5392001 Regulation (EC) no 2612004 Regulation (EC) no 5622006 Regulation (EU) 2016399 Decision no 5652014EU

Search

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash Leotsakos v Greece ndash press release ndash judgment

Search of office of a lawyer suspected of being involved in criminal offences

ECtHR ndash JUDGMENT ndash 16 October 2018 ndash Visy v Slovakia ndash legal summary ndash press release

Re-seizure of unlawfully seized materials five minutes after their restitution violation

Article 8 ECHR The applicant an Austrian national and businessman had an office in Bratislava

(Slovakia) In 2009 that office had been searched by the Public Prosecution Service of Slovakia (ldquothe PPSrdquo) at the request of the Austrian prosecution service Business documents and electronic storage media had been seized and handed over to the Austrian authorities The Constitutional Court subsequently found that the terms of the warrant had been exceeded and ordered the restitution of the unlawfully seized items At 910 am on 7 March 2012 those items were restored to the applicantrsquos lawyer and at 915 am they were re-seized The applicantrsquos complaints to the PPS were

dismissed and his complaint before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible The Court

noted that the re-seizure had been merely a preliminary measure with a view to making use of the re-seized items in the main proceedings in Austria and that had those items actually been transmitted to the Austrian authorities it might have been open to the applicant to assert his rights and interests before them as appropriate However the Convention was intended to guarantee rights and freedoms that were practical and effective as opposed to ones that were theoretical or illusory Therefore in relation to the re-seizure Slovakia remained bound by Article 1 of the Convention to secure the applicant his rights under the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and its

Protocols As the domestic authorities had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the applicantrsquos complaints in relation to the re-seizure in which respect he had not had the benefit of effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse the re-seizure could not be seen as having been proportionate to the legitimate aim it pursued and thus necessary in a democratic society Violation (unanimously)

State aid

GENERAL COURT EU ndash JUDGMENT ndash 15 October 2018 - case T-7916 - Vereniging

Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters ndash Netherlands - ECLIEUT2018680 - judgment

Reacutegime drsquoaide relatif agrave lrsquoacquisition subventionneacutee ou agrave la mise agrave disposition agrave titre gracieux de

zones naturelles

Court La deacutecision C(2015) 5929 final de la Commission du 2 septembre 2015 concernant lrsquoaide drsquoEacutetat SA27301 (2015NN) ndash Pays-Bas relative agrave lrsquoacquisition subventionneacutee ou agrave la mise agrave disposition gratuite de zones naturelles est annuleacutee

Taxation

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 24 October 2018 ndash case C-60217 ndash Sauvage and Lejeune ndash Belgium -

Convention for the avoidance of double taxation

Article 45 TFEU The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Benoicirct Sauvage and Ms Kristel Lejeune on the one hand and the Belgian tax authorities on the other regarding those authoritiesrsquo decision to tax the portion of Mr Sauvagersquos remuneration from Luxembourg relating to his employment and corresponding to the days on which he actually carried out his activity as an employed person outside Luxembourgish territory

Court Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax scheme of a Member State under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which makes the exemption of the income of a resident which arises in another

Member State and relates to employment in that State subject to the condition that the activity in respect of which the income is paid is actually performed in that State

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany ndash 22 October 2018 ndash case C-57318 en C-57418 - C

Sixth directive (77338EEC) Regulation (EC) no 220096 Regulation (EC) no 14332003

Taxation Customs and tariff classification

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Germany - 12 October 2018 - case C-55918 - TDK-Lambda

Germany

Regulation (EEC) no 265887

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Belgium ndash 29 October 2018 ndash case C-57915 - Comida Paralela

PUBLICATION

Factsheet Customs (EU publications)

Taxation companies

ECJ ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash Case C-41617 ndash CommissionFrance -

Preliminary procedure at the ECJ Difference in treatment according to the Member State of

residence of the sub-subsidiary mdash Reimbursement of the advance payment of tax unduly paid mdash-

Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling

PRELIMINARY RULING ndash Portugal - 30 October 2018 - case C-61318 - Canada

Articles 63 en 65 TFEU

Taxation VAT

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 17 October 2018 - case C-24917 - Ryanair ndash Ireland -

Expenditure for services procured in connection with the acquisition of an undertakingrsquos entire

share capital

Directive 77388EEC In 2006 the airline Ryanair made a bid to take over the Irish airline Aer Lingus

Although the takeover failed for reasons of competition law Ryanair had already incurred considerable costs for consultancy and other services in connection with the planned takeover

Ryanair therefore claimed deduction of the input tax paid which was refused by the Irish tax authorities

Court Articles 4 and 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77388EEC must be interpreted as conferring on a company such as that at issue in the main proceedings which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company the right to deduct in full input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid

even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity

ECJ - JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-15317 - Volkswagen Financial Services ndash UK

- ECLIEUC2018845 ndash opinion ndash judgment

VAT and vehicle hire purchase transactions

Directive 2006112EC The parties to the main proceedings are in disagreement as to the defendantrsquos right to deduct input value added tax (lsquoVATrsquo) paid on goods and services used for the purposes of its hire purchase transactions Under the legislation of that Member State such contracts

are to be treated as two distinct transactions one being the taxable supply of a vehicle and the other an exempt supply of credit The referring court is therefore uncertain as to the correct approach for the deduction of input VAT on the lessorrsquos overhead costs used to an extent for the purposes of the taxable supply of the vehicle but which are in fact covered by the revenue from the supply of credit which as an exempt transaction is not subject to output VAT

Court Article 168 and Article 173(2)(c) of Council Directive 2006112EC must be interpreted as meaning that first even where the general costs relating to supplies of moveable goods by hire

purchase such as the supplies at issue in the main proceedings are passed on not in the amount due by the customer in respect of the supply of the goods concerned that is to say the taxable part

of the transaction but in the amount of the interest due in respect of the lsquofinancersquo part of the transaction that is to say the exempt part thereof those general costs must nonetheless be considered for the purposes of value added tax (VAT) to be a component of the price of that supply and second Member States may not apply a method of apportionment which does not take account of the initial value of the goods concerned when they are supplied since that method is not capable of ensuring a more precise apportionment than that which would arise from the application of the turnover-based allocation key

ECJ ndash OPINION A-G MENGOZZI ndash 3 October 2018 ndash case C-16517 ndash Morgan Stanley amp Co

International ndash ECLIEUC2018792 ndash opinion (f)

Deacutetermination du prorata de deacuteduction applicable ndash Succursale drsquoune socieacuteteacute eacutetablie dans un autre

Eacutetat membre que celui de son siegravege

Directive 2006112CE Cette demande a eacuteteacute preacutesenteacutee dans le cadre drsquoun litige opposant la socieacuteteacute Morgan Stanley agrave lrsquoadministration fiscale franccedilaise au sujet de la deacuteduction de la taxe sur la valeur ajouteacutee (TVA) acquitteacutee par la succursale immatriculeacutee en France pour le paiement de la TVA de Morgan Stanley (ci-apregraves la laquo succursale franccedilaise raquo) aux fins des opeacuterations reacutealiseacutees en France

drsquoune part et des services au beacuteneacutefice du siegravege situeacute agrave Londres au Royaume-Uni (ci-apregraves le laquo siegravege londonien raquo) drsquoautre part

A-G Dans lrsquohypothegravese ougrave comme dans lrsquoaffaire au principal les deacutepenses supporteacutees par une

succursale drsquoun assujetti situeacutee dans un Eacutetat membre sont exclusivement affecteacutees agrave la reacutealisation des opeacuterations du siegravege de cet assujetti situeacute dans un autre Eacutetat membre les dispositions des articles 17 paragraphes 2 3 et 5 et 19 paragraphe 1 de la sixiegraveme directive 77388CEE doivent ecirctre interpreacuteteacutees en ce sens qursquoelles impliquent que lrsquoEacutetat membre drsquoimmatriculation de la succursale applique agrave ces deacutepenses le prorata de deacuteduction de la succursale deacutetermineacute en prenant en compte les opeacuterations en aval reacutealiseacutees par le siegravege avec les tiers en fonction des regravegles applicables dans ledit Eacutetat membre et dans celui ougrave est situeacute le siegravege de lrsquoassujetti

Le prorata de deacuteduction de la TVA ayant greveacute les deacutepenses supporteacutees par la succursale drsquoun

assujetti situeacutee dans un Eacutetat membre qui concourent agrave la fois agrave la reacutealisation drsquoopeacuterations de cette

succursale dans son Eacutetat membre drsquoimmatriculation et agrave la reacutealisation drsquoopeacuterations du siegravege de cet assujetti situeacute dans un autre Eacutetat membre doit ecirctre deacutetermineacute selon les mecircmes regravegles et modaliteacutes que pour les deacutepenses que cette succursale a exposeacutees qui sont exclusivement affecteacutees agrave la reacutealisation des opeacuterations de ce siegravege avec les tiers

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 25 October 2018 ndash case C-52817 ndash Božičevič Ježovnik - Slovenia ndash

ECLIEUC2018868 ndash no opinion ndash judgment

Value added tax (VAT) status of imports of bananas

Directive 2006112EC The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Ježovnik and Slovenia concerning a post-clearance tax assessment relating to the value added tax (VAT) status of imports of bananas from third countries

Court Article 143(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006112EC must be interpreted to the effect that in

circumstances where the taxable importer and supplier benefitted from an exemption from import value added tax on the basis of an authorisation issued after a prior examination by the competent customs authorities in the light of the evidence provided by that taxable person the latter is not required to pay value added tax after the event where it is revealed during a subsequent examination that the substantive conditions for the exemption had not been met except where it is established in the light of objective evidence that that taxable person knew or should have known

that the supplies subsequent to the imports at issue were involved in fraud committed by the customer and that he did not take all reasonable steps in his power to avoid that fraud which is a matter for the referring court to determine

Tobacco

ECJ ndash JUDGEMENT ndash 17 October 2018 - case C-42517 - Guumlnter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb ndash

Germany - ECLIEUC2018830 ndash judgment

Definitions of lsquochewing tobaccorsquo and lsquotobacco for oral usersquo

Directive 201440EU Do smokeless tobacco products such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall under the prohibition on placing tobacco for oral use on the market laid down in Article 17 of that directive

Court Article 2(8) of Directive 201440EU read in conjunction with Article 2(6) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that only tobacco products which can be consumed in the proper

sense only by chewing constitute tobacco products intended to be chewed within the meaning of those provisions which it is for the national court to determine on the basis of all the relevant objective characteristics of the products concerned such as their composition their consistency their method of dispensation and where appropriate their actual use by consumers

Trade and anti-dumping

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 17 October 2018 - case C-20717 - Rotho Blaas ndash Italy -

ECLIEUC2018840 ndash judgment

Anti-dumping duty on imports of certain goods originating in China

Regulation (EC) No 912009 The court rules that examination of the first question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 912009

ECJ ndash JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-14517 P - Internacional de Productos

Metaacutelicos - ECLIEUC2018839 ndash judgment

Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the Peoplersquos Republic of China or consigned

from Malaysia -WTO

Regulation (EC) No 912009 Regulation (EU) No 7232011 Regulation (EC) No 12252009 Regulation No 9242012 The Court dismisses the appeal This case raises the important question of what amounts to a continuing interest in bringing proceedings The Court will have the opportunity to assess whether having regard to the legal and factual situations that may arise the annulment

sought is capable of procuring this applicant a benefit More generally the Court has the opportunity to develop its case-law on certain procedural aspects concerning the assessment of that interest in particular the burden of proof and the procedural rights of the applicant

ECJ - JUDGMENT ndash 18 October 2018 - case C-10017 P - Gul Ahmed Textile Mills ndash opinion

- arrest

Imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan

Regulation (EC) No 3972004 Gul Ahmed Textile seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016 Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (T-19904

RENV) by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 3972004 in so far as it concerns it The court dismisses the appeal

GENERAL COURT EU - JUDGMENT - 18 October 2018 - case T-36416 - ArcelorMittal

Tubular Products - ECLIEUT2018696 - arrest

Regulation (EC) No 12252009 The Court annuls the Commission Decision of 3 June 2016 to take Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co Ltd out of the list of companies listed under TARIC additional code A 950 and to list it under TARIC additional code C 129 with respect to all the combined nomenclature (CN) codes referred to in Article 1(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 20152272 of 7 December 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and

tubes of iron or steel originating in the Peoplersquos Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 12252009

Transport

ECJ ndash JUDGENT ndash 4 October 2018 ndash case C-38417 ndash Link Logistik NampN ndash Hungary -

Toll - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures

Directive 199962EC The case concerns the imposition of a fine on Link Logistic NampN for using a section of motorway without paying the required toll

Court The requirement of proportionality in Article 9a of Directive 199962EC cannot be regarded as having direct effect The national court must by virtue of its duty to take all appropriate measures whether general or particular to ensure the implementation of that provision interpret national law

in conformity with that provision or if such an interpretation is not possible disapply any national

provision in so far as its application would in the circumstances of the case lead to a result contrary to EU law

Part II ndash General

Newsletters

General

Brussels law societies Information note ECHR

Data protection

European data protection supervisor (EDPS)

Asylum and immigration

EASO (European asylum support office) Centrum voor Migratierecht van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

CJEU Overview of judgments and pending cases

NEMIS newsletter on European migration issues

NEAIS newsletter on European asylum issues

NRE EUROPEAN EDITION 2018 nr 11

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling

Labour law social security and free movement of employees

LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Index Index 2

Reading guide 4

Part 1 ndash Jurisprudence 5

Access to documents 5

Agriculture and fisheries 5

Asylum migration VISA 5

Aviation 9

Brexit 9

Competition 10

Consumers 10

Criminal law 11

Customs 11

Detention and treatment by the police investigation 11

Energy market 13

Environment nature renewable energy 13

Family life and family law 15

Financial services and markets 16

Freedom of assembly 18

Freedom of religion 19

Freedom of speech and thought 19

Fundamental rights (Charter) en ECtHR general 21

GBVB 21

Health medicines 22

Institutional 23

Insurance 23

IP - Intellectual property23

IPL ndash International private law25

Labelling 28

Labour law social security and free movement of employees 28

LGTB-rights 30

Preliminary procedure at the ECJ 31

Privacy and data protection 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trial ndash administrative law 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash civil 32

Procedural law and right to a fair trialndash criminal law 33

Public procurement tender 35

Rule of law 41

Schengen 41

Search 42

State aid42

Taxation 42

Taxation VAT 43

Tobacco 45

Transport 46

Newsletters 47

the left column

Access to documents

PUBLICATION

srl ea

convictions

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Rule of law 41

Schengen 41

Search 42

State aid42

Taxation 42

Taxation VAT 43

Tobacco 45

Transport 46

Newsletters 47

the left column

Access to documents

PUBLICATION

srl ea

convictions

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

the left column

Access to documents

PUBLICATION

srl ea

convictions

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Access to documents

PUBLICATION

srl ea

convictions

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Competition

Consumers

Directive 201183EU

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Criminal law

ECLINLHR20181872

Customs

PUBLICATION

degrading treatment

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

no violation

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Energy market

Directive 200972EC

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

PUBLICATION

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

(humanrightseurope)

breaches of EU law

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Freedom of assembly

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

during protest

Freedom of religion

cheacuteries)

violation

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

(conflict of laws)

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Institutional

Insurance

Products

connection

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

protection

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

JEROME ALEXANDER

VODKA 42

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Labelling

employees

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Directive 200123EC

Directive 200388EG

LGTB-rights

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

preliminary ruling

to the remainder

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

investigation

PUBLICATION

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

2) - ECLICEECHR20181018JUD008001812

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

State no violation

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

de services publics

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

(humanrightseurope)

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

income

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Convention

Rule of law

release

Miasto Łowicz ea

Schengen

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Search

State aid

zones naturelles

Taxation

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Germany

PUBLICATION

Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

share capital

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Tobacco

from Malaysia -WTO

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

- arrest

Transport

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Newsletters

General

Data protection

Rechtspraak Europa

Index

Reading guide


Access to documents



Aviation

Brexit

Competition

Consumers

Criminal law

Customs


Energy market




Freedom of assembly

Freedom of religion



GBVB

Health medicines

Institutional

Insurance



Labelling


LGTB-rights









Rule of law

Schengen

Search

State aid

Taxation


Taxation companies

Taxation VAT

Tobacco


Transport


Newsletters

Documents

NRE European Edition 2018 nr - rechtspraak.nl · Rechtspraak Europe, 2018, nr. 11 (November) 33 applications raised questions concerning the fairness of the procedures before the