(AGENPARL) – gio 19 ottobre 2023 Newsletter
Weeks XLIII – XLIV: 23rd October to 3rd November 2023
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
EN Desk Email
Sorchadh
Week XLIII – 23rd to 27th October
Wednesday 25th October
General Court
Judgment in Case T-136/19 Bulgarian Energy Holding and others v Commission
(Competition)
Bulgarian Energy Holding (BEH), a company wholly owned by the Bulgarian state, has
several subsidiaries operating in the energy sector, including Bulgargaz and
Bulgartransgaz. The former is the country’s public gas supplier. Bulgartransgaz
manages and operates the gas transmission network. It also controls the country’s
only natural gas storage facility, located underground at Chiren.
Bulgaria’s gas supply depended almost entirely on imports from Russia. It was
Higgins & Olivia
transported via Ukraine and then Romania via three gas pipelines: Romanian transit
Moore assisted
pipelines 1, 2 and 3, administered by Transgaz, the Romanian gas transmission system
in the
operator.
preparation of
this Newsletter.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Since 1974, an intergovernmental agreement between Bulgaria and Romania has
guaranteed the conditions for operating Romanian gas pipeline 1. In 2005, a new
agreement was concluded under which Bulgargaz was granted exclusive use of the
pipeline until the end of 2011, before being extended until 2016. In return, the
Bulgarian company paid Transgaz a fixed annual fee, independent of the capacity
actually used.
Download our
In 2010, Overgas, a player in the Bulgarian gas supply market, lodged a complaint with
the European Commission against BEH and its two subsidiaries for infringing EU
competition rules. Following in-depth investigations, in a decision dated 17 December
2018, the Commission found that these companies had abused their dominant
position on the market for the supply of gas in Bulgaria. Between 30 July 2010 and 1
January 2015, the infringement consisted of a refusal to grant third parties access to
several gas infrastructures. As a result, it imposed a fine of approximately € 77 million
on the companies concerned.
Following this decision, BEH and its subsidiaries brought an action before the General
Court of the European Union seeking annulment of the decision or, failing that, a
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLIII – XLIV: 23rd October to 3rd November 2023
reduction of the fine.
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
Background Documents T-136/19
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26th October
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Judgment in Case C-307/22 FT (Copy of medical records)
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties)
A patient received dental treatment but suspected that his dentist had made mistakes.
He asked the dentist for a copy of his medical records. The dentist required his patient
to bear the costs of providing a copy of the medical records, as provided for under
German national law.
Taking the view that he was entitled to a free copy, the patient brought the matter
before the German courts. In this context, the German Federal Court of Justice
referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, since the German
court considered that the resolution of the dispute depended on the interpretation to
be given to the provisions of European Union law, namely the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR).
Background Documents C-307/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26th October
Judgment in Case C-238/22 LATAM Airlines Group
(Transport)
When a passenger was unable to check in for the flight from Frankfurt am Main to
Madrid that she had booked for the following day, she contacted LATAM Airlines.
LATAM Airlines informed her that it had transferred her to a flight that had taken place
the previous day without informing her. It also informed her that her reservation for
the return flight, which was due to take place more than two weeks later, had been
blocked on the grounds that she had not taken the outbound flight. The passenger
asked LATAM Airlines for lump-sum compensation of €250 because she had been
denied boarding on the return flight.
The German court, to which the passenger appealed, asked the Court of Justice
whether such compensation presupposes, under the regulation on air passenger
Newsletter
Weeks XLIII – XLIV: 23rd October to 3rd November 2023
rights, that the passenger presented himself at check-in despite the fact that the
airline had informed him in advance that he would not be allowed to board. The court
also wishes to know whether the airline can, as in the case of flight cancellations,
exempt itself from the obligation to pay compensation if it informs the passenger of
the denied boarding sufficiently in advance, i.e. at least two weeks before the
scheduled departure time of the flight.
Background Documents C-238/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26th October
Opinion in Case C-670/22 Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin (EncroChat)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
A European Investigation Order (EIO) is an EU instrument that enables cross-border
cooperation in criminal investigations. It is regulated by the EIO Directive. In this
reference, the Court is invited for the first time to interpret that directive in a situation
where an EIO was issued for the transfer of evidence already in the possession of
another State.
For the purposes of a criminal investigation in Germany, the Public Prosecutor’s Office,
Frankfurt, Germany issued several EIOs requesting the transfer of evidence gathered
during a joint French-Dutch criminal investigation of EncroChat users. EncroChat was
an encrypted telecommunications network offering its users near-perfect anonymity.
The present reference results from one of the criminal proceedings initiated before
the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin, Germany) against a person based on
intercepted telecommunications data, transferred based on the abovementioned
EIOs. The question that arose before the referring court is whether the EIOs were
issued in breach of the EIO Directive, and if so, what consequences that may have for
the use of such evidence in the criminal procedure.
Background Documents C-670/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XLIV – 30th October to 3rd November
The Court is in All Saints recess from Monday 30th October to Sunday 5th
November.
Newsletter
Weeks XLIII – XLIV: 23rd October to 3rd November 2023
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 25th October: 09.30 – C-601/22 WWF Österreich and Others (Environment)
General Court
Monday 23rd October: 09.30 – T-734/22 Pumpyanskiy v Council (Restrictive Measures)
Wednesday 25th October: 09.30 – T-116/22 Belavia v Council (Restrictive Measures)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.