(AGENPARL) – gio 07 dicembre 2023 Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week XLX – 11th to 15th December
Thursday 14th December
Judgment in Case C-457/21 P Commission v Amazon.com and Others
(State aid)
A Commission decision in 2017 found that a Luxembourg tax ruling granted to the
Amazon group constituted aid incompatible with the internal market. By means of this
tax ruling, the Amazon group had requested confirmation of the treatment of two of
its subsidiaries for Luxembourg corporation tax purposes. Luxembourg and Amazon
challenged the Commission’s decision before the General Court.
In May 2021, the General Court ruled that the Commission, in failing to demonstrate
Sorchadh
that a European subsidiary of the Amazon group benefited from an undue reduction,
Higgins & Olivia
Moore assisted
in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
had not met the requisite legal standard The General Court found that there was no
selective advantage in favour of a Luxembourg subsidiary of the Amazon group.
Consequently, the Commission’s decision was annulled.
The Commission is appealing the General Court judgment.
Background Documents C-457/21 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th December
Judgment in Case C-206/22 Sparkasse Südpfalz
(Social policy)
This case arises in the context of a dispute between a citizen (claimant) and their
employer, Sparkasse Südpfalz. The dispute in question relates to the claimant’s annual
leave entitlements remaining after having to quarantine due to COVID-19 during their
planned annual leave.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
The person had been employed by the Sparkasse since 2013 as a private customer
advisor and works full time. The collective agreement for the civil service in the savings
bank sector applies to his employment contract.
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
The Sparkasse granted the claimant leave from 3 to 11 December 2020.
By letter dated 2 December 2020, the Germersheim District Administration in
Don’t forget to
Germany decided to place the claimant in quarantine in accordance with national
check the diary
regulations in the context of the pandemic linked to COVID-19 between 2 and 11
on our website
December 2020, as the claimant had been a close contact with a colleague who had
for details of
tested positive for COVID-19.
other cases.
The claimant spent the quarantine period in the bedroom and bathroom of his home
in order to avoid contaminating other members of his family. The claimant is
requesting that the Sparkasse deduct the days of quarantine from his annual leave.
The national court seeks to ascertain whether the Working Time Directive and the EU
Charter on Fundamental Rights precludes national provisions or practices under which
the right to leave is also enforced in a situation in which the worker is affected by an
unforeseeable event, such as an official quarantine measure, which prevents the
unrestricted exercise of the right to leave.
Background Documents C-206/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th December
Judgment in Case C-340/21 Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
(Approximation of laws)
The Bulgarian National Agency for Public Revenues (NAP) is an authority attached to
the Bulgarian Minister of Finance. In addition to its usual debt collection duties, it is
also responsible for processing personal data.
On 15 July 2019, the Bulgarian media announced that there had been unauthorised
access to NAP’s computer system and that, as a result of this cyber-attack, personal
data concerning millions of people had been published on the Internet. Many of these
people took NAP to court to obtain compensation for non-material damage resulting
from their concerns and fears about the future misuse of their personal data.
The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court referred several questions to the Court
of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). It requested clarification on the conditions for compensation for
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
non-material damage claimed by an individual whose personal data, in the possession
of a public agency, was published on the internet following an attack by hackers.
Background Documents C-340/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th December
Judgment in Case C-109/22 Commission v Romania (Decommissioning of
landfills)
(Environment)
EU law aims to prevent or reduce, as far as possible, the negative effects of landfills on
the environment.
In 2018, the Court ruled that Romania had failed to fulfil its obligations to refrain from
engaging in the process of landfilling and to close 68 non-authorised landfills. The
Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations in 2022, taking the view
that Romania had still not complied with this judgment.
Background Documents C-109/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th December
Opinion in Case C-626/22 Ilva and Others
(Environment)
Several residents of the southern Italian city of Taranto are taking legal action in a
Milan court against the continued operation of the Ilva Steelworks located in Taranto.
They believe that the steel mill’s emissions jeopardise their health and claim that it
does not comply with the EU Industrial Emissions Directive.
Back in 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the steelworks
– one of the largest in Europe with around 11,000 employees and approximately 1,500
hectares – had a significant negative impact on the environment and affected the
health of local residents. Measures to reduce the adverse environmental impact have
been included in the authorisation conditions since 2012, but the deadlines for their
implementation have been repeatedly extended.
The referring court has asked the Court to clarify the authorisation requirements
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
under the Industrial Emissions Directive. It wants to know the importance of certain
information on the impact of the steelworks on human health as well as information
on certain emissions, and whether it is permissible to repeatedly extend the deadline
for the implementation of certain authorisation conditions.
Background Documents C-626/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XLXI – 18th to 22nd December
Wednesday 20th December
Judgment in Case T-415/21 Banca Popolare di Bari v Commission
(State aid)
In 2013, the Italian bankBanca Popolare di Bari SpA (BPB) expressed an interest in
subscribing to a capital increase in Banca Tercas (another privately-owned Italian bank
that had been placed under extraordinary administration following irregularities
identified by Banca d’Italia).
However, BPB proposed a condition whereby Tercas’ asset deficit would be fully
covered by the Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi (FITD)
The FITD is a consortium of banks under private law, which can also support, on a
preventive and voluntary basis, a member placed under extraordinary administration.
In 2014, the FITD decided to cover Tercas’ negative equity and grant it certain
guarantees. Since October 1, 2014, BPB has held all of Tercas’ assets.
By decision of December 23, 2015, the Commission found that this FITD intervention
in favour of Tercas constituted unlawful state aid granted by Italy to Tercas and
ordered its recovery. In a judgment of March 19, 2019, the General Court annulled the
Commission’s decision.
The Court of Justice confirmed this reasoning in a judgment delivered on March 2,
2021 (C-425/19 P). BPB applied to the General Court to have the European Union pay
compensation for the damage it had allegedly suffered as a result of the adoption of
the Commission’s decision.
Background Documents T-415/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
Wednesday 20th December
Judgments in Cases T-53/21 EVH v Commission, T-55/21 Stadtwerke Leipzig v
Commission, T-56/21 TEAG v Commission, T-58/21 Stadtwerke Hameln
Weserbergland v Commission, T-59/21 eins energie in sachsen v Commission, T60/21 Naturstrom v Commission, T-61/21 EnergieVerbund Dresden v
Commission, T-62/21 GGEW v Commission, T-63/21 Stadtwerke Frankfurt am
Main v Commission, T-64/21 Mainova v Commission and T-65/21 enercity v
Commission
(Competition)
In March 2018, German energy companies RWE and E.ON announced their intention
to carry out a complex exchange of assets through three merger transactions.
Through the first transaction, RWE – operating across the entire energy supply chain in
several European countries – wished to acquire sole or joint control of certain
generation assets of E.ON, an electricity supplier operating in several European
countries.
The second transaction involved E.ON’s acquisition of sole control of the energy
distribution and retail activities, as well as certain generation assets, of Innogy, a
subsidiary of RWE.
The third transaction involved the acquisition by RWE of a 16.67% stake in E.ON.
The first and second mergers were reviewed and approved by the European
Commission, while the third merger was reviewed and approved by the German
Federal Cartel Office.
Eleven German municipal utilities challenged the Commission’s two approval decisions
before the General Court of the European Union.
On May 17, 2023, the General Court dismissed the appeals against approval of the first
transaction (purchase of E.ON’s generation assets by RWE), some on the merits, others
on the grounds of inadmissibility (case T-312/20 | EVH v Commission).
The General Court must now decide on the municipal authorities’ challenges against
the second transaction (E.ON’s acquisition of Innogy’s energy distribution and retail
activities, as well as certain generation assets).
Background Documents T-53/21
Background Documents T-55/21
Background Documents T-56/21
Background Documents T-58/21
Background Documents T-59/21
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
Background Documents T-60/21
Background Documents T-61/21
Background Documents T-62/21
Background Documents T-63/21
Background Documents T-64/21
Background Documents T-65/21
There will be one press release for these cases.
Wednesday 20th December
Judgment in Cases T-216/21 Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission (Air France;
COVID-19) and T-494/21 Ryanair and Malta Air v Commission (Air France-KLM and
Air France; COVID-19)
(State aid)
In April 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, France notified the European
Commission of an individual aid measure in favour of Air France. This state aid would
comprise first of a 90% State guarantee on a loan of up to €4 billion – which would be
granted by a consortium of banks. In addition to this, there would be a State
shareholder loan of up to €3 billion.
In March 2021, France also notified the Commission of individual aid in the form of a
recapitalization of Air France and the Air France-KLM holding company in the sum ofof
€4 billion. This measure consisted of France’s participation in a planned capital
increase of up to €1 billion, as well the conversion of the shareholder loan into a
hybrid instrument.
In both cases, the Commission decided not to raise any objections: in its view, the
measures constituted aid compatible with the internal market.
Ryanair and Malta Air contest these decisions, arguing in substance that the measures
in question are contrary to EU law.
Background Documents T-216/21
Background Documents T-494/21
There will be one press release for these cases.
Wednesday 20th December
Judgment in Cases T-113/17 Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and
Investment Bank v Commission, T-106/17 JPMorgan Chase and Others v
Commission
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
(Competition)
By its decision dated December 7, 2016, the Commission found that Crédit Agricole,
the HSBC Group and JPMorgan Chase had participated in an infringement of EU law
consisting of the restriction or distortion of competition in the Euro Interest Rate
Derivatives (EIRD) sector. The Commission imposed a fine of € 33,606,000 on HSBC, €
114,654,000 on Crédit Agricole and € 337,196,000 on JP Morgan Chase for this
infringement
The three financial institutions challenged the Commission’s decision before the
General Court of the European Union.
The General Court must now rule on the two challenges brought against the
Commission’s 2016 decision by JP Morgan Chase (Judgment T-106/17) and Crédit
Agricole (Judgment T-113/17).
Background Documents T-113/17
Background Documents T-106/17
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-333/21 European Superleague Company
(Competition)
In 2021, several football clubs proposed to organise a new independent football
competition.
Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Union of European
Football Associations (UEFA) refused to recognise the European Superleague, stating
that any of their players or clubs who played in it would be banned from competing in
FIFA or UEFA events.
The European Superleague company deemed these acts to be contrary to EU
competition law and brought proceedings before the Madrid Commercial Court.
The Spanish Court requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice as to
whether these provisions breached EU competition law and/or infringed the
fundamental freedoms of movement, workers and establishment under the EU
Treaties.
In December of 2022, Advocate General Rantos delivered an Opinion, suggesting that
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
the Court find that UEFA and FIFA’s acts were compatible with EU law, stating that EU
competition rules do not prohibit organisations restricting competition where such
restrictions are proportionate in achieving the legitimate objectives of the promotion
of sport.
Background Documents C-333/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-124/21 P International Skating Union v Commission
(Competition)
The International Skating Union (ISU) is the only organisation recognised by the
International Olympic Federation in terms of ice skating and speed skating.
ISU has certain provisions concerning the organisation of skating competitions. If an
organiser has not obtained the prior authorisation in the correct manner, then ISU
refuses to recognise it. Moreover, ISU penalises any athlete who takes part in such
non-authorised competitions.
In 2014, this penalty consisted of a lifetime ban from organised skating.
In 2016, the rule was amended so that any athlete who took part in a non-authorised
event would be penalised – the penalty would range from a warning to a 10-year ban
depending on the seriousness of the infringement by the athlete.
In 2017, the Commission adopted a decision against ISU, stating that its rules on
eligibility, authorisation of competitions and arbitration procedures were contrary to
EU competition law in that they restricted competition in the international skating
market.
ISU sought an annulment of this decision by the General Court. In 2020, the General
Court partly dismissed ISU’s action. Now, the Court of Justice has to decide on the ISU’s
appeal.
Background Documents C-124/21 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-680/21 Royal Antwerp Football Club
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
(Competition)
A football player (UL) and Royal Antwerp Football Club brought an action to the
Belgian Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) in 2020, concerning the Home-grown Player
(HGP) rules, set out by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), and
expanded upon by Royal Belgian Football Association (URSBFA).
According to this rule, clubs in List A could designate minimum 8 players, out of 25, as
trained by clubs from the same national league, with 4 of them coming from the club’s
own youth system. In UEFA competitions, however maximum 17 foreigners for the
club could participate.
The joint parties were seeking a declaration that HGP rules were infringing the right to
freedom of movement of workers, as well as competition rules at EU level. The Belgian
CAS dismissed this action.
The joint applicants brought their case to the Court of First Instance in Brussels,
seeking the annulment of the CAS arbitration award.
The Court of First Instance (Brussels) made a request to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling concerning issues of interpretation of EU law regarding the
Freedom of Movement of Workers and competition rules.
Background Documents C-680/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Joined Cases C-38/21 BMW Bank – C-47/21 C. Bank and Bank D. K. –
C-232/21 Volkswagen Bank and Audi Bank
(Consumer protection)
Some consumers claimed before the Ravensburg Regional Court, in Germany that
they had validly withdrawn from leasing or credit contracts concluded with banks
linked to car manufacturers (BMW Bank, Volkswagen Bank and Audi Bank). These
contracts related respectively to the leasing of a car with no obligation to purchase,
and the financing of a used car.
In the case of the leasing contract, the consumer had visited a car dealership
authorized to provide information on the contract, which was then concluded directly
between the consumer and the bank by means of remote communication.
In the case of the credit contracts, the dealers acted as intermediaries for the banks.
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
All these consumers withdrew several months or even years after concluding the
contract, although one of them made use of his right of withdrawal once the credit
had been repaid in full. In their view, the 14-day withdrawal period provided for under
EU law did not begin to run, because they had not been sufficiently informed of their
rights and obligations when the contract was concluded.
The banks argue that, in any case, a withdrawal after such a long time must be
qualified as abusive. The Ravensburg Regional Court referred this issue to the Court of
Justice for its interpretation of the banks’ argument.
Background Documents C-38/21
Background Documents C-232/21
Background Documents C-47/21
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-488/21 Chief Appeals Officer and Others
(Citizenship of the Union)
A Romanian citizen, who had already been living and working in Ireland for some time
and had become naturalized in Ireland, was joined by her mother in 2017. The mother
of the applicant has enjoyed a right of residence in Ireland ever since, derived from
her dependency on her daughter, who is an EU citizen working in Ireland.
For the past 15 years, she has been financially dependent on her daughter.
In 2017, the mother’s state of health deteriorated due to degenerative deformities of
her arthritis. Consequently, the daughter applied for a disability allowance under Irish
The application was rejected because, under the relevant Irish law, the mother should
not become an unreasonable burden on the national welfare system. If this occurs,
the mother would lose her right of residence.
An Irish judge asked the Court of Justice whether the European Union law allows Irish
legislation to refuse such an application.
Background Documents C-488/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
Judgment in Case C-261/22 GN (Reason for refusal based on the child’s best
interests)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters)
A Belgian judicial authority issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for a woman to
serve a five-year prison sentence. A few months later, this person was arrested in
Bologna, Italy.
At the time of her arrest, her minor son was living with her. She was also pregnant
with a second child, so her detention was replaced by house arrest.
The Italian judge submitted a request to the issuing judicial authority for information
on how mothers living with their minor children could serve a sentence in Belgium.
Having received no reply, she refused the request.
The Supreme Court of Cassation (the highest court of appeal in Italy) asked the Court
of Justice whether it was possible to refuse or postpone the execution of an EAW,
when the person subject to such EAW is a mother living with her minor children.
Indeed, it is submitted that the surrender might infringe the fundamental right to
family life or the child’s best interests. However, the Framework Decision on the EAW
does not mention this as one of the grounds for mandatory or optional non-execution
of the EAW.
Background Documents C-261/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-281/22 G. K. and Others (European Public Prosecutor’s Office)
(Judicial cooperation in criminal matters)
The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is vested with the power to investigate and
prosecute criminal offences against the European Union’s financial interests. The
European Public Prosecutor’s Office is organized on two levels: central and
decentralized. The latter level is made up of Deputy European Public Prosecutors
(DPPs), who are assigned to the Member States.
In the current case, several people are being prosecuted for fraud involving the import
of biodiesel into the EU.
This fraud is said to have resulted in a loss of customs revenue of approximately
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
€1,295,000. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is carrying out an investigation
through its DPP in charge of the case, assigned to Germany, where the main
investigation is taking place.
For the purposes of the investigation, it is necessary to search and seize assets in
Austria. The DPP in charge of the case has therefore delegated the execution of these
measures to an assistant DPP (assigned to Austria).
The defendants are contesting these investigative measures before the Austrian judge.
The latter has decided to ask questions to the Court of Justice to establish whether he
is empowered to carry out a full review (as he would in a purely domestic situation) or
whether his review should be limited to procedural issues relating to the
implementation of cross-border investigative measures.
Background Documents C-281/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Judgment in Case C-167/22 Commission v Denmark (Maximum parking time)
(Transport)
In 2018, Denmark introduced a rule limiting the maximum parking time at public rest
areas along the Danish motorway network to 25 hours.
The European Commission considers that this rule constitutes a restriction on the
freedom to provide transport services, as it does not affect Danish and non-resident
road hauliers in the same way. It has therefore initiated infringement proceedings
against Denmark.
Denmark maintains its position that the 25-hour rule complies with European Union
law. The rule applies to both Danish and non-resident hauliers. Moreover, the latter
have other parking options in Denmark.
Unconvinced by the Danish government’s arguments, the Commission brought an
action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-167/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 21st December
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
Judgment in Case C-297/22 P United Parcel Service v Commission
(Law governing the institutions)
In 2013, the Commission declared a proposed merger between UPS and TNT (two
companies specializing in the express delivery of small parcels) incompatible with the
internal market.
While publicly announcing that it was abandoning the merger, UPS brought an action
before the General Court for annulment of the Commission’s decision.
By judgment of March 7, 2017, the General Court upheld the action. By judgment of
January 16, 2019, the Court of Justice dismissed the Commission’s appeal against that
judgment.
In the interim, the Commission had declared a notified merger between TNT and
FedEx (a competitor of UPS) compatible with the internal market.
At the end of 2017, UPS lodged an action for damages against the Commission,
seeking compensation for the economic losses allegedly suffered resulting from the
illegality of the 2013 decision.
These damages included the costs associated with its participation in the control
procedure for the merger between FedEx and TNT, the payment to TNT of a
contractual termination indemnity following the termination of the merger agreement
concluded with TNT, and the loss of profit resulting from the impossibility of executing
this merger agreement.
The General Court dismissed this action in February 2022.
UPS asks the Court of Justice to set aside the General Court’s judgment of 2022.
Background Documents C-297/22 P
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Tuesday 12th December: 09:00 – Joined cases C-611/22 P and
C-625/22 P Grail v Commission and Illumina (Competition)
Wednesday 13th December: 09:30 – Joined cases C-758/22 Bayerische Ärzteversorgung
and Others – C-759/22 Sächsische Ärzteversorgung (Economic policy)
Newsletter
Weeks XLX – XLXI: 11th to 22nd December 2023
General Court
Tuesday 12th December: 09:30 – Joined cases T-309/22 and T-739/22 Rashevsky v
Council (Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Wednesday 13th December: 09:30 – Case T-522/22 QU v Council (Restrictive measures
– Ukraine)
Thursday 14th December: 14:30 – T-58/23 Supermac’s v EUIPO – McDonald’s
International Property (BIG MAC) (Intellectual property – trade marks)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.