(AGENPARL) - Roma, 21 Settembre 2023 - (AGENPARL) – gio 21 settembre 2023 Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
Contact us
@ENDesk
Week XXIX– 25th to 29th September
Jacques René
Wednesday 27th September
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
EN Desk Email
Follow
General Court
Judgment in Case T-77/20 Ascenza Agro and Industrias Afrasa v Commission
(Agriculture and fisheries)
Two manufacturers of plant protection products, the Portuguese company Ascenza
Agro and the Spanish company Industrias Afrasa, are asking the General Court of the
European Union to annul a Commission implementing regulation by which the
marketing approval for the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl was not renewed.
@EUCourtPress
on Twitter
In June 2013, Ascenza (then known as Sapec Agro SA) and another company producing
CHP-methyl, Dow AgroSciences Ltd, each submitted an application for renewal of the
approval of CHP-methyl.
Download our
As part of the human health risk assessment for this substance, EFSA issued two
“statements” on 31 July and 8 November 2019, which contained considerations largely
arising from the application of the cross-referencing method. This method makes it
possible to take into account, for risk assessment purposes, data from studies carried
out with another active substance that is close (in this case, chlorpyrifos). On the basis
All times are 9:30
health set out in Regulation 1107/2009 were not met.
of these considerations, EFSA considered that the criteria for the protection of human
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
On 6 December 2019, the Member States, meeting within the Standing Committee on
Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, delivered a favourable opinion by qualified majority
on a draft regulation not renewing the approval of CHP-methyl.
On 10 January 2020, the Commission adopted the contested regulation, together with
another regulation not renewing the approval of chlorpyrifos. Ascenza and Industrias
Afrasa then brought an action for annulment of the contested regulation.
Background Documents T-77/20
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
There will be a press release in this case.
Wednesday 27th September
General Court
Judgment in Case T-172/21 Valve v Commission
(Competition)
Having received information relating to the geographic blocking of certain PC video
games on the Steam platform due to the geographic location of users, the Commission
opened an investigation. By decision of 20 January 2021, it found that the platform
operator, Valve, and five game publishers, namely Bandai, Capcom, Focus Home, Koch
Media and ZeniMax, had infringed EU competition law.
The Commission accused Valve and the five publishers of having participated in a
series of anti-competitive agreements or concerted practices. These allegedly aimed to
restrict cross-border sales of certain PC games compatible with the Steam platform by
implementing territorial control features during various periods between 2010 and
2015, in particular in the Baltic States and certain Central and Eastern European
countries.
Valve has brought an action before the General Court to have the decision annulled.
Background Documents T-172/21
There will be a press release in this case.
Wednesday 27th September
General Court
Judgments in cases :
T-826/14 Spain v Commission
T-12/15 Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission
T-158/15 Abertis Infraestructuras and Abertis Telecom Satélites v Commission
T-252/15 Ferrovial and others v Commission
T-253/15 Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona v Commission
T-256/15 Telefónica v Commission
T-257/15 Arcelormittal Spain Holding v Commission
T-258/15 Axa Mediterranean v Commission
T-260/15 Iberdrola v Commission
Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
(State Aid)
By their actions in nine separate cases, the applicants, seek the annulment of
Commission Decision (EU) 2015/314 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.35550 (13/C)
(ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain – Scheme relating to the tax depreciation
of financial goodwill in the event of the acquisition of foreign shareholdings (OJ 2015 L
56, p. 38).
Background Documents T-826/14
Background Documents T-12/15
Background Documents T-158/15
Background Documents T-252/15
Background Documents T-253/15
Background Documents T-256/15
Background Documents T-257/15
Background Documents T-258/15
Background Documents T-260/15
There will be one press release covering these cases.
Thursday 28th September
Judgment in Cases C-320/21 P Ryanair v Commission and C-321/21 P Ryanair v
Commission
(State Aid)
In April 2020 Denmark and Sweden notified the Commission of two separate aid
measures for SAS AB, each involving a guarantee on a revolving credit facility of up to
1.5 billion Swedish kronor (SEK). Those measures were intended to compensate SAS in
part for the damage resulting from the cancellation or rescheduling of its flights after
the imposition of travel restrictions amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
By decisions of 15 April 2020 2 and of 24 April 2020, 3 the Commission classified the
notified measures as State aid that was compatible with the internal market.
In accordance with that provision, aid to make good the damage caused by natural
disasters or exceptional occurrences is to be compatible with the internal market.
The airline Ryanair brought actions for annulment of those decisions, which were,
however, dismissed by the Tenth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the General
Court of the European Union. In that respect, the General Court confirmed for the first
time the legality of individual aid measures adopted in order to address the
consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
Ryanair appealed both judgments.
Background Documents C-320/21 P
Background Documents C-321/21 P
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 28th September
Opinion in Case C-470/21 La Quadrature du Net and others (Private data and
fight against counterfeiting)
(Approximation of Laws)
The role of the High Authority for the Distribution of Works and the Protection of
Rights on the Internet (Hadopi) in France is to ensure that property rights are
respected. When an infringement of copyright by a user of an online public
communication service is detected, Hadopi sends that person a recommendation to
refrain from any further infringement, followed by a further warning if the
infringement is repeated. If the first two warnings are ignored and a third infringement
occurs, Hadopi may refer the matter to the relevant judicial authority for criminal
prosecution.
This graduated response system presupposes that the rights protection commission
can identify the perpetrator of the infringement in order to send him or her these
recommendations. To do this, a decree adopted in 2010 enables Hadopi to collect
connection data, in particular IP addresses. It then passes this data on to electronic
communications operators so that they can return the civil identity data of the users to
whom these IP addresses are assigned.
Four associations for the protection of rights and freedoms on the Internet are
challenging the adoption of this decree in court, and the French Council of State is
questioning whether the collection of civil identity data corresponding to IP addresses,
as well as the automated processing of this data, for the purposes of preventing
infringements of intellectual property rights, without prior control by a court or an
administrative body, is compatible with European Union law.
Background Documents C-470/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
Thursday 28th September
Judgment in Case C-692/20 Commission v United Kingdom (Marked fuel)
(Taxation)
From AG Collins Opinion:
In its judgment of 17 October 2018 in Commission v United Kingdom (C?503/17), the
Court held (2) that, by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purpose of propelling
private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or
reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
had failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November
1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene.
On 21 December 2020, the European Commission brought the present action under
Article 260 TFEU against the United Kingdom, seeking a declaration that it had failed to
comply with the judgment in Case C?503/17 and requesting that the Court impose a
financial penalty.
The present action has at least three novel features. First, it is the only one of its kind
taken against the United Kingdom during its membership of the European Union.
Second, it commenced during the transition period laid down in the Agreement on the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the
European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (‘the Withdrawal
Agreement’). Third, at the expiry of that transition period, the United Kingdom was
obliged to comply with the judgment in Case C?503/17 in respect of Northern Ireland
only.
In ruling upon this action, the Court is thus required to determine whether the last of
these three features (a) mitigates the seriousness of the infringement and/or (b) has
the consequence that the gross domestic product (GDP) of Northern Ireland, as
distinct from that of the United Kingdom, is to be used to calculate the lump sum
payment.
Background Documents C-692/20
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XXIX – XL 25th September to 6th October 2023
Week XL – 2nd to 6th October
Thursday 5th October
Judgment in Case C-565/22 Sofatutor
(Approximation of Laws)
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the Directive on
consumer rights.
That application was made in proceedings between the Association for Consumer
Information, Austria (VKI’) and Sofatutor GmbH, a company incorporated under
German law, concerning VKI’s request that that company be ordered to inform
consumers of the conditions, time-limits and procedures for exercising their right to
withdraw from a contract concluded at a distance..
Background Documents C-565/22
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
General Court
Tuesday 26th September: 14:30 – T-235/22 Russian Direct Investment Fund v Council
(Restrictive Measures)
Wednesday 27th September: 09:30 – T-591/22 Polaroid IP v EUIPO – Klimeck
(Intellectual Property)
Thursday 5th October: 09:30 – T-489/21 Spain v Commission (State Aid)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.