(AGENPARL) – gio 06 luglio 2023 Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
Contact us
@ENDesk
Week XXVIII – 10th to 14th July
Jacques René
Wednesday 12th July
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
EN Desk Email
Follow
General Court
Judgment in Case T-34/22 Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi – Consortium des
Charcutiers Corses and Others v Commission
(Agriculture and Fisheries)
The names ‘Jambon sec de Corse’/’Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’, ‘Lonzo de
Corse’/’Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse’/’Coppa de Corse – Coppa di
Corsica’ were registered as protected designations of origin (PDO) in 2014.
@EUCourtPress
In 2015, the Cunsorziu di i Salamaghji Corsi – Consortium des Charcutiers Corses
on Twitter
(hereinafter the “Consortium”) applied to the French national authorities, pursuant to
Regulation No 1151/2012, to register the names “Jambon sec de l’Île de Beauté”,
“Lonzo de l’?le de Beauté” and “Coppa de l’?le de Beauté” as protected geographical
Download our
indications (PGI).
In 2018, these authorities issued orders approving the corresponding specifications,
with a view to forwarding them to the European Commission for approval.
The union holding the specifications for the PDOs ‘Jambon sec de Corse – Prisuttu’,
‘Lonzo de Corse – Lonzu’ and ‘Coppa de Corse – Coppa di Corsica’ applied to the
Conseil d’État (France) to have these decrees annulled.
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
It argued that the term “Île de Beauté” imitated or evoked the term “Corse” and
stated.
therefore introduced confusion with the names already registered as PDOs. The
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Conseil d’État rejected the claim on the grounds that the use of different terms and
the difference in the protection afforded by a PDO and a PGI were such as to rule out
the risk of confusion.
The Conseil d’État rejected this application, on the grounds, in particular, that the use
of different terms and the difference in the protection conferred by a PDO, on the one
hand, and by a PGI, on the other, were such as to rule out this risk of confusion.
However, in its implementing decision 2021/1879, the Commission refused to register
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
the names ‘Jambon sec de l’?le de Beauté’, ‘Lonzo de l’?le de Beauté’ and ‘Coppa de l’Île
de Beauté’ as PGIs. It considered, inter alia, that it was common knowledge that the
name ‘Île de Beauté’ was a customary circumlocution univocally designating Corsica in
the eyes of French consumers. The proposed names would therefore infringe the
protection granted to the PDOs concerned by Regulation 1151/2012. As a result, they
do not meet the conditions for eligibility for registration.
The Consortium and certain of its members brought an action against this decision
before the General Court.
Background Documents T-34/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Wednesday 12th July
General Court
Judgment in Case T-8/21 IFIC Holding v Commission
(Commercial policy)
In 2018, the United States of America withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, signed in
2015 to control Iran’s nuclear programme and lift economic sanctions against Iran. As
a result of this withdrawal, on the basis of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation
Act of 2012, the United States once again imposed sanctions on Iran and a list of
specific individuals. Since that date, all persons outside the United States have been
prohibited from doing business with persons on the SDN list.
Following this decision, in order to protect its interests, the EU adopted Delegated
Regulation 2018/1100 amending the Annex to Regulation 2271/96 to include a
reference to the Iran Proliferation and Freedom Act of 2012. It also adopted
Implementing Regulation 2018/1101 laying down criteria for the application of the
second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96.
IFIC Holding AG is a German company whose shares are indirectly held by the Iranian
state and which itself holds stakes in various German companies, in respect of which it
is entitled to dividends. Clearstream Banking AG is the only authorised securities
depository bank in Germany. Following IFIC’s inclusion on the US SDN list in November
2018, Clearstream Banking AG suspended dividend payments to IFIC and blocked the
dividends in a separate account.
On 28 April 2020, following a request for authorisation, within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation No 2271/96, from Clearstream Banking,
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
the Commission adopted implementing decision C(2020) 2813 final, by which it
authorised that bank to comply with certain US laws in relation to the applicant’s
securities or funds, for a period of 12 months (hereinafter “the contested
authorisation”).
That authorisation was subsequently renewed in 2021 and 2022 by implementing
decisions C(2021) 3021 final and C(2022) 2775 final.
IFIC applied to the General Court for annulment of the decisions adopted by the
Commission at the request of Clearstream Banking, which intervened in the
proceedings.
Background Documents T-8/21
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Judgment in Case C-376/20 P Commission v CK Telecoms UK Investments
(Competition)
On 11 May 2016, the Commission adopted a decision in which it blocked, under the
Merger Regulation, the proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK (now “O2”) by
Hutchison 3G UK (now “Three”). Three applied to the General Court of the European
Union to have this decision annulled. By judgment of 28 May 2020, the General Court
upheld the action and annulled the Commission’s decision. (See Press Release 65/20).
The Commission is challenging that judgment before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-376/20 P
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Judgment in Joined Cases C-615/20 YP and others (Lifting of immunity and
suspension of a judge) & C-671/20 M. M. (Lifting of immunity and suspension of a
judge)
(Principles of Community law)
Extract from AG Collins’ Opinion – 15 December 2022
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
These requests for preliminary rulings again raise issues as to the compatibility with
EU law of certain aspects of the recent reform of the Polish judicial system. They
concern authorisations granted by the Izba Dyscyplinarna (Disciplinary Chamber) of
the S?d Najwy?szy (Supreme Court, Poland) to prosecute and to suspend a judge from
office, thereby preventing him or her from ruling on certain criminal cases to which he
or she had been assigned.
For that purpose, the referring court asks the Court of Justice to interpret Article 2 and
the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, and the principles of primacy of EU law, sincere
cooperation and legal certainty.
Should the Court decide that, as a matter of EU law, the Disciplinary Chamber could
not lawfully grant those authorisations the referring court seeks to ascertain the
consequences that conclusion has for the composition of the court seised of the
criminal proceedings.
Background Documents C-615/20
Background Documents C-671/20
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Judgment in Case C-106/22 Xella Magyarország
(Free movement of capital)
The Hungarian company Xella Magyarország, which manufactures concrete
construction elements, is challenging before a Hungarian court the decision of the
Hungarian Minister for Innovation and Technology prohibiting it from acquiring the
Hungarian company Janes and Társa, which operates a gravel, sand and clay quarry.
Xella Magyarország is owned by a German company, which in turn is owned by a
Luxembourg company, which in turn is indirectly owned by an umbrella company
established in Bermuda and ultimately owned by an Irish national.
The Minister considered that Janes and Társa must be considered strategic within the
meaning of Hungarian legislation establishing a foreign investment screening
mechanism, which was adopted in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
According to the Minister, the assumption that Janes and Társa would indirectly
become the property of a company registered in a third State, namely in Bermuda,
posed a longer-term risk to the security of supply of raw materials for the construction
sector, particularly in the region where that company was established.
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
The Hungarian court asked the Court of Justice whether the foreign investment
screening mechanism in question, as applied in the present case, was compatible with
EU law.
Background Documents C-106/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Judgment in Case C-134/22 G GmbH
(Social Policy)
On 28 January 2020, an employee who had worked for the German company G GmbH
since 1981 was informed that his employment contract with the company would be
terminated. On 1 October 2019, insolvency proceedings were opened in respect of G
GmbH and on 17 January 2020, it was decided that G GmbH would cease trading
completely by 30 April 2020 at the latest and that more than 10% of the 195
employees it employed would be made redundant (including the employee
concerned).
On the same 17 January 2020, the consultation procedure with the works council,
acting as the employees’ representative, was initiated. In the context of this
consultation, the information referred to in the EU Directive on collective redundancies
was communicated to the Works Council. However, no copy of this written
communication was sent to the competent public authority, in this case the public
employment agency in Osnabrück, Germany.
On 22 January 2020, the works council noted that it saw no possibility of avoiding the
envisaged redundancies. On 23 January 2020, the public employment agency in
Osnabrück was notified of the planned collective redundancies. The public
employment office subsequently arranged counselling appointments for 153
employees affected by the planned redundancies.
In an action before the German courts, the employee concerned claimed that no copy
of the communication sent to the works council on 17 January 2020 had been
forwarded to the competent public employment agency, arguing that such forwarding
constitutes a condition for the validity of the dismissal.
The Federal Labour Court, which is examining the case in Revision, considers that this
omission does indeed constitute a breach of the German law transposing the EU
Directive into national law. However, neither the directive nor national law provided
for an explicit sanction for such a breach. In these circumstances, the Federal Court
expressed doubts as to whether such a breach could also lead to nullity. Crucial to the
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
analysis is whether the rule in question is intended to confer individual protection on
workers.
The Federal Court has decided to refer this question to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-134/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Judgment in Case C-265/22 Banco Santander (Reference to an official index)
(Approximation of laws)
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation, of the Directive
concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market
and of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
That application was made in proceedings between ZR and PI and Banco Santander SA
concerning the validity of the clause providing for periodic review of the interest rate
applicable to a mortgage loan granted to ZR and PI by Banco Santander’s predecessor
in title.
Background Documents C-265/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Opinion in Case C-382/21 P EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann
(Intellectual property)
In 2018, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann Gbr (“KaiKai”) filed a multiple
application for the registration of gymnastic and sports equipment as twelve
Community designs and claimed priority. EUIPO refused the priority claim because the
date of the filing of KaiKai’s international application exceeded the six-month period
set out in the EU legislation.
KaiKai lodged an appeal against that decision, considering, that the applicable priority
period was twelve months, not six months, according to the Paris Convention. The
Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dismissed that appeal in 2019 and thus refused to
recognise the right of priority in the application submitted by Kaikai.
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
By judgement, the General Court annulled the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
EUIPO in 2021. It considered that EUIPO had erred in applying a six-month priority
period rather than a twelve-month priority period. Kaikais international application
under the PCT could be characterised as an international application for a patent, not
only for a utility model and that the EU-Law is silent as to the priority period arising
from an application for a patent. In order to fill that legislative gap, the General Court
held that account must be taken of the Paris Convention (international law).
EUIPO lodged the present appeal against the judgment of the General Court. In
EUIPO’s understanding, the Paris Convention does not have direct effect in the EU
legal order. It claims that the General Court filled the (non-existent) gap in the EU
legislation by giving direct effect to the Paris Convention. The Court is thus invited to
clarify when an international agreement has direct effect and whether it can have
interpretative effect if it lacks direct effect.
Background Documents C-382/21 P
There will be a press release in this case.
Thursday 13th July
Opinion in Case C-261/22 GN (Reason for refusal based on the best interest of the
child)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
A Belgian judicial authority issued a European Arrest Warrant against a woman for the
execution of a sentence of five years’ imprisonment. A few months later, she was
arrested in Bologna, Italy. At the time of the arrest, her minor son lived with her, so the
detention was replaced by house arrest to allow the child to be with the mother. The
Court of Appeal of Bologna submitted a request for information from the Belgian
judicial authority asking about the procedures for execution of a sentence in Belgium
for mothers living with minor children.
Not having received a reply, it refused to surrender the woman since it was not certain
that Belgian law recognised a system of custody similar to that of Italy. The Italian
system protects the right of the mother not to be deprived of her relationship with her
children and to ensure that her children receive the necessary maternal and family
assistance.
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation, hearing the appeals against the decision
refusing the surrender, referred to the Court of Justice for the interpretation of the
Europe Arrest Warrant Framework Decision. Namely, the Supreme Court of Cassation
asked if it is possible to refuse or postpone the execution of an EAW if the requested
Newsletter
Weeks XXVIII – XXXV – Summer Recess – 10th July to 3rd September 2023
person is a mother who lives with her minor children, when the surrender risks
breaching the fundamental right of family life or the best interest of the child.
Background Documents C-261/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Weeks XXIX – XXXV 16th July to 31st August
The Court is in summer recess.
The Newsletter will resume from week XXXVI.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Tuesday 11th July: 09:30 – T-249/22 Ponomarenko v Council (Restrictive Measures –
Ukraine)
Wednesday 12th July: 09:30 – T-313/22 Abramovich v Council (Restrictive Measures –
Ukraine)
Wednesday 12th July: 09:30 – C-221/22 P Commission v Deutsche Telekom
(Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.