![Logo](https://i0.wp.com/agenparl.eu/wp-content/plugins/Plugin%20Logo/Agenparl.png?w=788&ssl=1)
(AGENPARL) – gio 18 aprile 2024 Newsletter
Week XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Graziella
Schembri
assisted in the
preparation of
Week XVII 22nd to 26th April
Wednesday 24th April
General Court
Judgment in Case T-205/22 Naass et Sea-Watch v Frontex
(Provisions governing the institutions – Access to documents)
Sea-Watch is a non-profit humanitarian organisation based in Berlin (Germany), which
conducts civilian search and rescue operations in the central Mediterranean.
In October 2021, Sea-Watch applied to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency
(Frontex) for access to a list of documents. The documents in question all related to a
Frontex air operation in the central Mediterranean which took place on July 30, 2021.
The type of documents varied between reports, communications, minutes as well as
photographs and videos related to the operation.
this Newsletter.
Frontex refused access to a total of 73 documents identified as falling within the lists
requested.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
According to Frontex, the documents fell under an exception allowed by the Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents. Under this exception, Frontex would be entitled to refuse
access if the disclosure of the document could materially or effectively undermine
public security.
Download our
In addition, Frontex refused partial disclosure of the same documents on the grounds
that the amount of information to be redacted would be disproportionate to the
residual information that could be disclosed and that such a process would undermine
the principle of good administration.
Background Documents T-205/22
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
Wednesday 24th April
General Court
Judgment in Case T-157/23 Kneipp v EUIPO-Patou (Joyful by nature)
other cases.
(Intellectual, industrial and commercial property – Trade marks)
Kneipp is challenging a decision of Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of
January 19, 2023 in Case R 532/2022-2, whereby the EUIPO refused an application for
the word mark “Joyful by nature” with respect to a number of goods and services.
Kneipp GmbH has filed an application with the EUIPO to register the wordmark
“Freudig von Natur aus”. Jean Patou filed an opposition against this. This was upheld.
The opposition was based on earlier rights from the registered trade mark “JOY”.
It was decided that consumers would probably associate the newer trade mark with
the earlier one.
Kneipp GmbH lodged an appeal against the decision and requested its complete
cancellation. It argues that the signs can only be regarded as highly similar.
Background Documents T-157/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 25th April
Judgment in Cases C-420/22 NW (Classified Information) and C-528/22 PQ
(Classified information)
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Fundamental Rights & Citizenship of the Union)
Two non-EU-country nationals of Turkish and Nigerian nationality have been legally
resident in Hungary for several years. Both live with Hungarian nationals and have
Hungarian children.
In two unreasoned opinions dated 2020 and 2021, the Office for the Protection of the
Constitution found that their presence on Hungarian territory was detrimental to
national security interests. This specialised body classified the data on which it based
its opinion as classified information.
Following these opinions, the Police Authority responsible for foreigners withdrew the
long-term resident status of the first person and rejected an application for a national
settlement permit, submitted by the second person.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
In addition, according to Hungarian regulations, the person concerned and his or her
representative do not have the opportunity to express their views on an unmotivated
decision by the competent bodies. Even though they can request access to classified
information, the protection of the public interest takes precedence over their right to
information. Moreover, even if they obtain access to such information, they may not
use it in administrative or judicial proceedings.
The Court of Szeged (Hungary), before which these cases were brought, asks the Court
of Justice about the compatibility of these rules of national legislation with EU law.
Background Documents C-420/22
Background Documents C-528/22
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 25th April
Judgment in Joined Cases C-684/22 Stadt Duisburg (Loss of German citizenship),
C-685/22 Stadt Wuppertal (Loss of German citizenship) and C-686/22 Stadt
Krefeld (Loss of German citizenship)
(Citizenship of the Union)
Several Turkish nationals are challenging before a German court the loss of their
German nationality, acquired through naturalisation in 1999. To become German, they
had to renounce their Turkish nationality.
However, after their naturalisation in Germany, and more specifically after January 1,
2000, they again acquired Turkish nationality at their own request. By virtue of an
amendment to German legislation coming into force on January 1, 2000, this recovery
of Turkish nationality resulted in the automatic loss of German nationality.
The referring German court has doubts as to whether this automatic loss of German
nationality is compatible with European Union law. Since the persons concerned do
not possess the nationality of another Member State, it also entails the loss of EU
citizenship and therefore of the right to move and reside freely throughout the EU.
The German court therefore referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-684/22
Background Documents C-685/22
Background Documents C-686/22
There will be one press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
Thursday 25th April
Opinion in Case C-446/21 Schrems (Communicating data to the public)
(Data protection)
The Austrian Supreme Court has referred questions in proceedings between Mr
Maximilian Schrems – a user of the social network ‘Facebook’ – and Meta Platforms
Ireland (“the defendant”), the company headquartered in Ireland, which manages
Facebook, concerning the alleged unlawful processing of his personal data by said
company.
Meta Platforms’ business model is essentially to offer free social network services to
its private users and to sell online advertising, including advertising targeted at its
users. This advertising is mainly based on the automated creation of relatively detailed
profiles of the social network’s users.
In 2018, following the entry into force of the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), Meta
Platforms presented new Facebook terms of use to its users within the European
Union to obtain their consent. The latter is required to be able to register or access the
accounts and services provided by Facebook. The new terms of use also give users
insight into and control over the data stored.
Mr Schrems accepted the new terms of use submitted by Facebook. He publicly stated
that he was homosexual, but he never mentioned his sexual orientation and did not
publish any sensitive data on his Facebook profile. Nor did he authorise the defendant
to use, for the purposes of targeted advertising, the fields in his profile relating to his
romantic situation, his employer, his job or his education.
Mr Schrems would regularly receive advertisements targeting homosexuals and
invitations to corresponding events. These advertisements or invitations were not
based directly on his sexual orientation and of his ‘friends’ on the social network, but
on an analysis of their centres of interest. In addition, Meta Platforms would record all
data relating to him, including that obtained via third parties or plugins, and store it
for an indefinite period of time.
The referring court asks, inter alia, whether the GDPR principle of data minimisation
(aiming to limit the collection of personal information to what is directly relevant and
necessary to accomplish a specified purpose) allows personal data to be processed
without any limitation in time or according to the nature of the data. Additionally,
whether a person’s comments, relating to his own sexual orientation, made during a
round table discussion, authorise the processing of other data relating to that person’s
sexual orientation for the purposes of personalised advertising.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
Background Documents C-446/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 25th April
Judgment in Case C-301/22 Sweetman
(Environment)
The Irish High court referred a number of questions concerning the obligation of the
Member States to characterize and then classify the ecological status of the lakes
within its territory in the application of Directive 2000/60/EC (EU Water Framework
Directive).
The referring Court asks whether this responsibility covers all lakes, including the ones
with a surface area of less than 0.5 km2 (the minimum threshold). If this is answered in
the negative, the High Court asks whether the directive creates any obligations on
Member States to ensure the protection of such a water body when a development
project is likely to affect it.
These questions follow the judgment of July 1, 2015, Bund für Umwelt und
Naturschutz Deutschland (C-461/13), in which the Court held that, subject to the
granting of a derogation, any deterioration in the status of a body of water must be
avoided, irrespective of the longer-term planning provided for by management plans
and programmes of measures.
The dispute between M. Peter Sweetman and An Bord Pleanála (the Agency) stems
from the authorization granted by the Agency to the Bradán Beo Teoranta company to
extract fresh water from Loch an Mhuilinn, under specific conditions and in specific
amounts.
The plan was for the water to be pumped from the lake, through a pipeline, to bathe
sick salmon to rid them of amoebic gill disease and sea lice. The lake in question is a
private inland non-tidal lake located on Gorumna Island, County Galway, Ireland, with
a surface area of 0.083 km2 or 8.3 hectares. It had not been identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a body of water covered by the Water
Directive, because it did not meet the criteria relating to surface area or location in a
protected area. As a result, the EPA had not classified the lake’s ecological status.
Mr Sweetman appealed against this decision to the High Court, arguing that, by
authorizing the development project, the Agency had breached its obligation to take
the necessary measures to prevent deterioration in the status of this body of surface
water.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
Background Documents C-301/22
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
Week XVIII 29th April to 3rd May
Tuesday 30th April
Judgment in Case C-470/21 La Quadrature du Net and Others (Personal data and
the fight against counterfeiting)
(Approximation of laws – Telecommunications – Fundamental rights)
A French decree has introduced two automated processes for personal data to protect
certain intellectual works on the Internet. The first process is activated upstream by
sworn agents, while the second is carried out by Internet service providers at the
request of the Haute autorité pour la diffusion des œuvres et la protection des droits sur
internet (“HADOPI”).
In both cases, those automated processes enable this independent public authority to
send to identified individuals some recommendations, which are aimed at combating
counterfeiting on the Internet, as part of a so-called “graduated response” procedure
(combining educational and repressive measures).
However, this processing is not subject to any prior control by a court or independent
administrative authority. In 2019, four associations for the protection of rights and
freedoms on the Internet (La Quadrature du Net, the Fédération des fournisseurs
d’accès à Internet associatifs, Franciliens.net and the French Data Network)
unsuccessfully asked the French Prime Minister to annul this decree.
The associations consider the restriction on fundamental rights, entailed by a public
authority accessing civil identity data corresponding to an IP address, not to be
compatible with EU law. They therefore referred the matter to France’s Conseil d’État.
The latter is questioning the compatibility with EU law not only of the collection of civil
identity data corresponding to IP addresses, but also of the automated processing of
such data to prevent infringements of intellectual property rights.
Background Documents C-470/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks XVII – XVIII: 22nd April – 3rd May 2024
Tuesday 30th April
Judgment in Case C-178/22 Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di
Bolzano
(Approximation of laws – Telecommunications)
As part of a criminal investigation into the theft of two mobile phones, the Bolzano
Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the Italian judge (District Court, Bolzano) to be
authorised to collect the telephone records of the stolen phones from all the
telephone companies in order to identify those responsible for the theft. That would
make it possible, inter alia, to trace and identify the source and destination of
communications from mobile telephones.
However, the Italian judge considered that the prosecution of this offence, which