(AGENPARL) – gio 29 febbraio 2024 Newsletter
Week X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Week X – 4th to 8th March
Tuesday 5th March
Judgment in Case C-234/21 Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes and Others
(Approximation of laws – Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Monica Pizzo
The association Défense Active des Amateurs d’Armes ASBL (DAAA) and two Belgian
Assistant
citizens are in dispute with the Belgian Council of Ministers over the reform of the law
on weapons that came into force in 2019. Under this legislation, certain types of semiautomatic weapons converted to fire blank ammunition, which were on free sale in
Desk Email
Sorchadh
Higgins & Olivia
Moore assisted
Belgium until the beginning of June 2019, have been banned. Since then, holders of
this type of weapon no longer have the choice to keep them, as they have become
owners of a prohibited weapon.
However, owners of genuine semi-automatic firearms (which have not been converted
and are therefore capable of propelling bullets) who legally purchased and registered
in the
such firearms before June 13, 2017, benefit from a transitional regime that allows
preparation of
them to keep them.
this Newsletter.
According to the DAAA, this situation would lead to a difference in treatment between
people in these two categories of weapons and the EU directive that the Belgian
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
reform was intended to transpose would infringe, in particular, the right to property as
well as the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and the protection of
legitimate expectations.
The Belgian Constitutional Court, before which the case has been brought, has asked
Download our
the Court whether, by not allowing the Member States to provide for transitional
arrangements for the benefit of persons who have lawfully acquired and registered
before 13 June 2017 a semi-automatic firearm which has been converted for use solely
for firing blank ammunition, the relevant provision of the directive is invalid.
Background Documents C-234/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
Tuesday 5th March
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
Judgment in Case C-588/21 P Public.Resource.Org et Right to Know v Commission
and Others
stated.
(Provisions governing the institutions – Access to documents)
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know are two non-profit organisations whose
common mission is to make the law freely accessible to all citizens.
In 2018, the organisations asked the Commission to grant them access to harmonised
technical standards at European Union-level concerning toy safety. These standards
concerned, specifically, chemical toys and sets.
The Commission rejected their request, and the General Court confirmed this
rejection (T-185/19).
The Court must now rule on the appeal.
Background Documents C-588/21 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 5th March
Judgment in Case C-755/21 P Ko?ner / Europol
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties – Data protection – Provisions governing the
institutions)
Following the murder of a Slovak journalist and his fiancée, Mr. Ján Kuciak and
Ms. Martina Kušnírová, in Slovakia on February 21, 2018, the Slovak authorities
conducted an extensive investigation.
At the request of the Slovak authorities, the European Union Agency for the
Cooperation of Law Enforcement Services (Europol) extracted data stored on
two cell phones allegedly belonging to Mr. Marian Ko?ner and on a USB key. Europol
provided these authorities with its forensic reports and handed
over a hard disk containing the extracted encrypted data.
In May 2019, the press published information relating to Mr. Ko?ner from his cell
phones, including transcripts of his intimate communications. Furthermore, in
one of its reports, Europol stated that Mr. Ko?ner had been in custody for
suspected financial crime since 2018 and that his name was, inter alia, directly
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
linked to the “so-called Mafia lists” and the “Panama Papers”.
Mr. Ko?ner brought an action before the General Court seeking compensation
to the amount of €100,000 for the non-material damage he claims to have suffered
as a result of Europol’s unlawful processing of his data.
By judgment of September 29, 2021, the General Court dismissed his action
(T-528/20). It concluded, firstly, that Mr. Ko?ner had not proved a causal link
between the alleged damage and Europol’s conduct. Secondly, he had not proved that
the so-called “Mafia lists” had been drawn up and maintained by a European Union
institution and in particular by Europol.
Mr. Ko?ner appealed this decision to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-755/21 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 6th March
General Court
Judgment in Case T-647/22 Puma v EUIPO – Handelsmaatschappij J.
Van Hilst (Shoes)
(Intellectual, industrial and commercial property – Designs)
The applicant, Puma SE, seeks annulment of the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of
August 11, 2022 (the “contested decision”).
By decision of EUIPO of 11 August 2022, Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (HJVH) had
succeeded in obtaining a declaration of invalidity of a Community design for sports
shoes that had been registered by Puma. The invalidation followed an application filed
by the sports goods manufacturer in July 2016. EUIPO considered that the contested
design lacked individual character and could not be registered because it had been
disclosed to the public by Puma before the twelve-month grace period preceding the
filing of the application for registration.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
Background Documents T-647/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 7th March
Judgment in Case C-604/22 IAB Europe
(Data protection)
When a user visits a website or application that contains advertising space, advertising
companies, brokers and platforms that represent thousands of advertisers can bid for
this advertising space in real time, to display ads tailored to the user’s profile (Real
Time Bidding).
However, before such targeted advertising is displayed, the user’s prior consent must
be obtained for the collection and processing of his or her data (notably concerning
location, age, search history and recent purchases) for marketing or advertising
purposes, or for the sharing of such data with certain suppliers. The user may also
object to this.
IAB Europe is a non-profit association based in Belgium representing companies
in the digital advertising and marketing industry at European level. IAB has
developed a solution that could make this auction system RGPD-compliant. Indeed,
user preferences are encoded and stored in a string made up of a combination of
letters and characters under the name “Transparency and Consent String” (TCString).
This is shared with personal data brokers and advertising platforms; in this way, they
know what the user has consented or objected to. A cookie is also placed on the user’s
device. When combined, the TCString and cookie can be linked to the user’s IP
address.
In 2022, the Belgian data protection authority considered that TCString constitutes
personal data within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
and that IAB had acted as a data controller.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
The authority imposed several corrective measures and an administrative fine. IAB is
contesting this decision and has referred the matter to the Brussels Court of Appeal,
which has referred questions to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-604/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 7th March
Opinion in Case C-652/22 Kolin In?aat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret
(Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Approximation of laws)
The Croatian Administrative Court of Appeal asked the Court of Justice to clarify the
circumstances in which, after the expiry of the deadline for the submission of bids,
contracting authorities may seek corrections or clarifications from tenderers in the
application of Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and postal services sectors.
Kolin In?aat Turizm Sanayi ve Ticaret (Kolin), a company established in Turkey,
had challenged a final award decision by the Croatian adjudicating authority
concerning a contract to upgrade railway infrastructure between two Croatian towns.
Background Documents C-652/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XI – 11th to 15st March
Thursday 14th March
Judgment in Case C-291/22 P D & A Pharma v Commission and EMA
(Public health)
By its appeal, Debrégeas et associés Pharma SAS (D & A Pharma) seeks annulment of
the judgment of the General Court of March 2, 2022, in Case T-556/20 D & A Pharma v
Commission and EMA.
The contested judgment had dismissed their action seeking, inter alia, to annul
Commission’s implementing decision of July 6, 2020,(the “contested decision”) refusing
the application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use
Hopveus – sodium oxybate (hereinafter “Hopveus”) under Regulation (EC) No
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
726/2004, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/5.
The regulation seeks to guarantee high standards of quality and safety of medicines in
the EU. It sets out procedures for authorising and supervising medicinal products for
human and veterinary use and sets up the European Medicines Agency (EMA),
responsible for providing scientific advice to the EU institutions and to the Member
States in the field of medicinal products, concerning the authorisation and supervision
of medicinal products.
EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) is in charge, inter alia,
of preparing opinions on the granting, variation, suspension or withdrawal of a
marketing authorisation for a medicinal product for human use, in accordance with
the regulation and pharmacovigilance.
On June 26, 2018,, D & A Pharma submitted a conditional marketing authorisation
application to the EMA for Hopveus under Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006,
falling within the scope of Regulation No 726/2004. Hopveus, containing sodium
oxybate as an active substance, is intended to combat alcohol dependence.
On October 17, 2019, the CHMP issued an unfavourable opinion on this application.
On October 29, 2019, D & A Pharma lodged a request for reconsideration of the
CHMP’s opinion.
For the purposes of that review, the CHMP convened an ad hoc group of experts.
Following a further unfavourable opinion of the CHMP dated April 30, 2020, the
European Commission, by the contested decision, again refused the application for
conditional marketing authorisation, on the ground, inter alia, of the lack of
demonstration of the efficacy of the Hopveus medicinal product.
Background Documents C-291/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th March
Judgment in Case C-516/22 Commission v United Kingdom (Supreme Court
judgment)
(Arbitration Clauses – Member State Obligations – Brexit)
The European Commission has alleged that the UK breached its obligations under EU law and the
Withdrawal Agreement as a result of a UK Supreme Court judgment on February 19, 2020.
Through its judgment, the UK Supreme Court had authorised the enforcement of the arbitral
award rendered in ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, notwithstanding the existence of a Commission
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
decision prohibiting Romania from paying the compensation awarded. The UK Supreme Court
concluded that the enforcement of that award was governed by a multilateral treaty – the ICSID
Convention – which the UK entered into before it acceded to the EU. This imposed obligations on
the UK, the performance of which can be required by non-EU countries that are party to that
agreement.
The Commission lodged an application for infringement proceedings with the Court in July 2022
but the UK refused to enter submissions to the proceedings.
The Commission sought a declaration that, in authorising the enforcement of the arbitral award,
the UK had breached the principle of sincere cooperation. Additionally, it sought a declaration
that the UK had misinterpreted and misapplied a Treaty provision. It claimed that the UK failed to
refer a question of interpretation of EU law and so breached their obligation to do so. Finally, it
argued that the UK failed to inform the Commission of its plan to grant aid, putting its measures
into practice before the Commission made its final decision.
Background Documents C-516/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th March
Judgment in Case C-46/23 Újpesti Polgármesteri Hivatal
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties – Data protection)
In 2020, the municipal administration of Újpest (Hungary) decided to provide financial
assistance to people made vulnerable by the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, it has
asked the Hungarian Treasury and the Government Office of the Fourth District of
Budapest-Capital to provide it with the personal data needed to verify the eligibility
conditions for receiving the aid.
Subsequently, the Hungarian Data Protection Authority (“the supervisory authority”)
found that both the Újpest administration and the Hungarian State Treasury and
Government Office had violated rules of the General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR) and subsequently imposed a fine on them.
The supervisory authority noted that the Újpest administration had not informed the
data subjects of the use of their data nor of its purpose, or of their data protection
rights within the one-month time limit set by the Regulation. It also ordered Újpest’s
administration to delete the data of eligible individuals who had not applied for
assistance.
The Újpest administration contested this decision, arguing that the supervisory
authority does not have the power to order the deletion of personal data in the
absence of a prior request to that effect from the data subjects.
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
Background Documents C-46/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 14th March
Judgment in Case Case C-439/22 Commission v Ireland (European Electronic
Communications Code)
(Approximation of laws)
Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (‘the
Directive’) establishes a set of updated rules to regulate the internal market for very high capacity
electronic communications (telecoms) networks, telecoms services, and associated facilities and
services at EU level, including an efficient and effective management of the radio spectrum,
spectrum authorizations and market access rules.
The directive had to be transposed and incorporated into the Member States’ national law by
December 21, 2020: all internal laws, regulations and administrative rules necessary to comply
with the directive should be adopted and communicated to the Commission by that date (Article
124 of the Directive).
Having received no communication from Ireland, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice
on February 3, 2021 and a reasoned opinion on September 23, 2021, requesting Ireland to
comply with it by November 23, 2021. A new deadline, following Ireland’s request for extension,
was set for February 23, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, the Commission lodged the present action for failure.
On December 2, 2022, with reiteration on October 27, 2023, Ireland justified the transposition
delay with the impossibility to incorporate the Directive into national law according to the new
constitutional requirements before the Judgment of Ireland Supreme Court Zalewski v
Adjudication Office (Zalewski ruling) of April 6, 2021. That means after the Directive’s deadline for
transposition had expired. The ruling indeed greatly extended the number of powers considered
as involving the administration of justice under Irish constitutional law. It was therefore legally
impossible to transpose the Directive in accordance with Ireland’s Constitution beforehand.
On June 16, 2023, Ireland informed the Court to have communicated to the Commission the
completion of the transposition of the Directive, with the exception of Article 110, which was
transposed on November 29, 2023.
Background Documents C-439/22
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Newsletter
Weeks X – XI: 4th – 15th March 2024
Tuesday 05th March: 09:30 – Case C-144/23 KUBERA (Intellectual property)
Thursday 7th March: 09:30 – Case C-719/22 Profit Europe and Gosselin Forwarding
Services (Validity of an anti-dumping regulation) (Commercial policy – Dumping)
Thursday 7th March: 09:30 – Case C-23/23 Commission v Malta (Exemption for
research purposes) (Environment)
Monday 11th March: 14:30 – Case C-15/24 PPU Stachev (Fundamental rights – Charter of
Fundamental Rights – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal
matters)
Tuesday 12th March: 09:30 – Joined Cases C-146/23 S?d Rejonowy w Bia?ymstoku and
C-374/23 Adoreik? (Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights – Principles,
objectives and tasks of the Treaties)
Thursday 14th March: 09:00 – Case C-134/23 Elliniko Symvoulio gia tous Prosfyges (Area
of Freedom, Security and Justice – Border checks)
General Court
Monday 04th March and Tuesday 05th March: 09:30 – Joined Cases T-624/15 RENV, T694/14 RENV and T-704/15 RENV European Food and Others v Commission, Micula v
Commission, Micula and Others v Commission (State aid)
Thursday 7th March: 09:30 – Case T-84/22 UBS Group and Others v Commission
(Competition)
Tuesday 12th March: 09:30 – Case T-797/22 Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau
de Bruxelles and Others v Council, Case T-798/22 Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris
and Couturier v Council and Case T-828/22 ACE v Council (Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 14th March: 09:30 – Case T-692/20 Iliad Italia v Commission (Competition)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.