(AGENPARL) – gio 25 gennaio 2024 Newsletter
Week V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week V – 29th January to 2nd February
Tuesday 30th January
Judgment in Case C-560/20 Landeshauptmann von Wien (Family reunification
with a refugee minor)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum policy)
After an unaccompanied Syrian minor was granted refugee status in Austria, his
parents and his adult sister applied for residence permits so that they could join him.
The Austrian authorities rejected these applications on the grounds that, in the
interim, the young Syrian had become an adult. Their subsequent applications for
family reunification were rejected on the grounds that they had not been submitted
Sorchadh
within three months of the young Syrian’s refugee status being recognised.
Higgins & Olivia
Moore assisted
in the
preparation of
this Newsletter.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
The parents and sister challenged this latest refusal before the Vienna Administrative
Court.
The Austrian referring court asked the Court of Justice to interpret the directive on the
right to family reunification. It stated, among other things, that due to a serious illness,
the sister was totally and permanently dependent on the assistance of her parents, to
the extent that they could not leave her alone in Syria.
Background Documents C-560/20
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 30th January
Judgment in Case C-118/22 Direktor na Glavna direktsia „Natsionalna politsia“
pri MVR – Sofia
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters)
Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria) referred
questions concerning the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2016/680, the data
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
protection law enforcement directive (the ‘LED Directive’). The directive ensures
the protection of personal data of individuals involved in criminal proceedings, be it as
witnesses, victims or suspects.
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
The request was made in the context of a dispute between NG and the Director of the
General Directorate “National Police” at the Ministry of the Interior, Bulgaria (“the
DGPN”). The DGPN had rejected NG’s request to be removed from the police national
Don’t forget to
register, in which the Bulgarian police authorities enter persons prosecuted for an
check the diary
intentional criminal offence subject to public prosecution.
on our website
for details of
other cases.
The request was based on NG’s rehabilitation/pardon granted on March 14, 2020,
following his final criminal conviction for perjury on December 2, 2016, for which NG
had been sentenced to a one-year probationary term. The DGPN rejected the request,
considering that a final criminal conviction, even in the event of a pardon, is not one of
the grounds for removal from the police register.
The referring court asked the Court whether the interpretation of the LED Directive
precludes national legislative measures that would lead to a virtually unlimited right to
the processing of personal data by the competent authorities for the purposes of the
prevention and detection of criminal offences, investigation and prosecution of
criminal offences, or the execution of criminal penalties.
Background Documents C-118/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 30th January
Judgment in Case C-442/22 Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie
(Employee fraud)
(Taxation)
The Polish Supreme Administrative Court submitted a reference for a preliminary
ruling concerning the interpretation of the VAT Directive (Council Directive
2006/112/EC).
Between January 2010 and April 2014, an employee of the company based in Poland
issued 1,679 invoices that did not reflect actual sales of goods, for a total value
equivalent to around €320,000. The company was named as the issuer of these
fraudulent invoices, even though they were issued without the consent or knowledge
of its management; nor were they accounted for in the company’s tax returns. The
invoices were used to obtain undue VAT refunds from their recipients, without the
corresponding tax having been paid into the State budget.
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
Following an audit, the Polish tax authorities issued a ruling determining the amount
of VAT owed by the company. According to the tax authorities, the fraudulent actions
of the employee in question were possible due to the lack of supervision and proper
organisation within the company.
The company contested this decision before the national court, which in turn referred
the matter to the Court of Justice. The referring court wishes the Court of Justice to
clarify who, in the present circumstances, is the person who mentions the VAT on the
invoice, within the meaning of the VAT Directive and is therefore liable for VAT: the
company whose data was used illegally on the invoice, or the employee who used this
data to issue false invoices.
Background Documents C-442/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 30th January
Judgment in Case C-255/21 Reti Televisive Italiane
(Freedom to provide services, Freedom of Establishment)
Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (“RTI”) is an Italian audiovisual media services company,
owner of the TV channels Canale 5, Italia 1 e Rete 4.
In 2017, the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (“AGCOM”) imposed penalties
on RTI for violating national legislation on the broadcasting of television advertising,
having breached the maximum hourly limit on advertising space.
To calculate the hourly broadcasting time devoted to advertising, AGCOM took into
account the promotional messages of radio station R101 broadcast on the television
channels owned by RTI.
This radio station, like RTI, is part of the Mediaset group of companies. As a result, RTI
argues that Radio R101’s promotional messages should be qualified as selfpromotional messages (i.e. messages advertising its own programs) and,
consequently, excluded from the hourly broadcasting time for television advertising.
The reference for a preliminary ruling of the referring court concerns the
interpretation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive – Directive 2010/13/EU, as
amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808.
The Italian Council of State, the referring court, asked by RTI to annul the sanctions,
asked the Court whether the notion of self-promotional messages broadcast by
television with regard to its own programs also covered promotional messages for a
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
radio station belonging to the same group of companies.
Background Documents C-255/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 31th January
Judgment in Case T-56/22 United Kingdom v Commission
(Agriculture and fisheries – European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF))
The United Kingdom (UK) seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision
(EU) 2021/2020, on the exclusion from EU financing of some expenditure incurred by
the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) at the General Court.
The decision was adopted on November 17, 2021, and the annulment sought
concerns the expenditure allegedly incurred by the UK in 2017 amounting to
€2,686,358.72.
In March 2018, the Commission had opened an inquiry into the UK’s handling of EAGF
and EAFRD funds to UK farmers to verify the conformity of UK’s control of those grant
funds with the EU legislation in the years 2015-2019, according to rules laid down in
the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013.
On December 22, 2020, before the date of the end of Brexit transition period, the
Commission sent their final conclusions to the UK, notifying the UK that the control
system on the award of EAGF and EAFRD funds to farmers by the UK was contrary to
EU law. This prompted the UK to provide a detailed description of the corrective
measures implemented.
After concluding the investigation, the Commission sent the UK a summary report on
May 18, 2021, claiming, among other things, that the UK failed to take into account
related companies in 2017 when checking the “status of active farmers” of the
applicants for aid under the EAGF and EAFRD – thus breaching Regulation (EU)
1307/2013.
As a result, it proposed to apply a financial correction amounting to €2,686,358.72.
Background Documents T-56/22
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
Thursday 1st February
Judgment in Case C-251/22 P Scania and Others v Commission
(Competition)
In its judgment of February 2, 2022 (T-799/17), the General Court dismissed Scania’s
action for annulment of a European Commission decision. In this decision, the
Commission found that Scania AB, Scania CV AB and Scania Deutschland GmbH, three
entities of the Scania group active in the production and sale of heavy trucks for longdistance transport, had infringed the rules of Union law prohibiting cartels.
These infringements consisted in their participation, from January 1997 to January
2011, with their competitors, in collusive arrangements aimed at limiting competition
on the market for medium and heavy trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA). The
Commission imposed a fine of €880,523,000 on Scania.
Scania has appealed against the judgment of the General Court to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-251/22 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Week VI – 5th to 9th February
Wednesday 7th February
Judgment in Case T-146/22 Ryanair v Commission (KLM II; COVID-19)
(State aid)
In 2020, the European Commission approved Dutch state aid to KLM, consisting of a
state guarantee for a bank loan and a state loan. The total aid budget was €3.4 billion.
The aim of the measure was to provide KLM with temporary liquidity in the context of
the COVID 19 pandemic.
However, in 2021, the General Court of the European Union annulled the
Commission’s decision for lack of reasoning as regards the determination of the
beneficiary of the measure in question (T-643/20). It also decided to suspend the
effects of the annulment until the Commission adopted a new decision.
Thus, on July 16, 2021, the Commission adopted a new decision, in which it considered
that the State aid was compatible with the internal market and that KLM and its
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
subsidiaries were the only beneficiaries of the aid, to the exclusion of the other
companies in the Air France-KLM group.
Ryanair referred to the General Court to have the matter decided.
Background Documents T-146/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 8th February
Opinion in Case C-633/22 Real Madrid Club de Fútbol
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters)
On December 7, 2006, the digital edition of the French newspaper Le Monde published
an article, entitled “Le Real Madrid et le Barça liés au docteur Fuentès” (“Real Madrid
and Barça linked to Dr Fuentès”). The following day, the article appeared in the print
edition, accompanied by an interview with the doctor in question. An extract from the
article appeared on the front page, along with a drawing captioned “Dopage: le
football après le cyclisme” (“Doping: first cycling, now football”).
The newspaper claimed that Real Madrid Club de Fútbol had retained the services of
Dr. Fuentès, the head of a blood-doping ring previously uncovered in the cycling
world.
Many media outlets, Spanish media outlets in particular, shared the article.
The club and a member of its medical team, brought actions before the Spanish courts
against the newspaper company Société Éditrice du Monde and the author of the
article for damage done to their honour.
By a judgment of February 27, 2009, the Court of First Instance, Madrid, Spain ordered
Société Éditrice du Monde and the article author to pay €300,000 to the club and
€30,000 to the member of the medical team. The court also ordered that its decision
be published on the inside pages of Le Monde and on the front page and given the
same level of prominence as that used to publish the material at issue – in addition to
publication in a Spanish newspaper.
Following different judicial steps in the courts of both Spain and France, by judgments
of September 15, 2020, the Court of Appeal, Paris held that the Spanish decisions
should not be enforced in France because they were clearly contrary to French
international public policy.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the orders to pay an exceptional amount made
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
against a journalist and a media organisation have a deterrent effect and curtail the
media’s ability to perform its information and monitoring role, hence interfering with
freedom of expression and, therefore, international public policy.
It then lodged a request for preliminary ruling to the Court.
The referring Court wonders whether a financial penalty imposed for harm caused to
the reputation of a sports club and of a member of its medical team by the publication
of a story in a newspaper can be deemed to be contrary to freedom of expression,
and therefore constitute grounds for refusing to recognise and enforce a judgment.
Background Documents C-633/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 8th February
Judgment in Case C-216/22 Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Admissibility of a
subsequent application)
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Border checks)
A Syrian who had left Syria in 2012, and claimed that he feared being called up for
military service or arrested if he refused to fulfill his military obligations, was granted
subsidiary protection in Germany in 2017.
However, he was refused refugee status according to the common standards for
qualification laid down in Directive 2011/95/EU.
Following a ruling by the Court of Justice on the situation of Syrian conscientious
objectors (C-238/19), he again applied for asylum (the so-called “subsequent
application”). He argued that this ruling constituted a change in the legal situation in
his favour. However, the subsequent application was rejected as inadmissible, i.e.
without examining whether the conditions required to claim for refugee status had
been met.
The applicant challenged this refusal before a German court.
The latter, as referring court, asked the Court in particular whether it is compatible
with European Union law to consider that, in principle, only a change in the applicable
rules, and not a judicial decision, can constitute a change in the legal situation
justifying, where appropriate, a full examination of the subsequent application.
Background Documents C-216/22
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 8th February
Judgments in Cases C-750/21 P and C-256/22 P Pilatus Bank plc v ECB
(Economic and monetary policy)
Pilatus Bank appealed in Court two decisions of the General Court.
In the Case C-750/21 P, Pilatus Bank appealed against the Order of the General Court
in Case T-139/19. In September 2021, the General Court had dismissed Pilatus Banks’
action for annulment of a decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) as manifestly
lacking any foundation in law. By that decision of December 21, 2018 the ECB had
informed Pilatus Bank, by way of e-mail, that it was no longer competent to carry out
its direct prudential supervision and to take measures concerning it.
In the Case C-256/22 P, Pilatus Bank was seeking annulment of judgment of the
General Court in Case T-27/19. In that judgment, the General Court dismissed the
action by Pilatus Bank seeking annulment of the decision of the ECB of November 2,
2018, withdrawing its authorisation for access to the business of credit institution.
The Court has now to decide on the two appeals.
Background documents C-750/21 P
Background documents C-256/22 P
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Wednesday 31st January: 09:30 – Case C-447/22 P Slovenia v Flašker and Commission
(State aid)
Wednesday 7th February: 09:30 – Case C-60/23 Digital Charging Solutions (Taxation)
Thursday 8th February: 09:30 – Case C-446/21 Schrems (Communicating data to the
general public) (Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties)
General Court
Tuesday 30th January: 09:30 – Case T-362/22 Bazhaev v Council (Restrictive measures –
Ukraine)
Newsletter
Weeks V – VI: 29th January – 9th February 2024
Friday 02nd February: 09:30 – Case T-453/22 BASF and Others v Commission (Public
health)
Tuesday 6th February: 09:30 – Case T-520/22 Kari? v Council (Restrictive measures –
Belarus)
Tuesday 6th February: 14:30 – Case T-742/22 Mazepin v Council (Restrictive measures –
Ukraine)
Wednesday 7th February: 09:30 – Cases T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg
v SRB, C-397/22 Bayerische Landesbank v SRB, T-398/22 Deutsche Bank v SRB, T399/22 Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale v SRB, T-400/22 Berlin Hyp v SRB,
T-401/22 DZ Bank v SRB, T-402/22 DZ Hyp v SRB, T-403/22 DZ Bank v SRB, T-404/22
Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB, T-405/22 UniCredit Bank v SRB, T-407/22 Norddeutsche
Landesbank – Girozentrale v SRB, T-430/22 Nordea Bank v SRB, T-431/22 Nordea
Kiinnitysluottopankki v SRB, T-432/22 Nordea Rahoitus Suomi v SRB (Economic policy)
Wednesday 7th February: 09:30 – Case T-738/22 Rotenberg v Council (Restrictive
measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 8th February: 09:30 – Cases T-391/22 Société générale and Others v SRB, T392/22 Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB, T-393/22 BPCE
and Others v SRB, T-394/22 Banque postale v SRB, T-395/22 Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v
SRB, T-406/22 Volkskreditbank v SRB, T-410/22 Crédit agricole and Others v SRB, T411/22 Dexia v SRB, T-420/22 BNP Paribas v SRB, T-599/22 Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v
SRB, T-641/22 Portigon v SRB (Economic policy)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.