(AGENPARL) – gio 20 giugno 2024 Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week XXVI 24th to 28th June
Tuesday 25th June
Judgment in Case C-626/22 Ilva and Others
(Environment)
The case concerns a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of
the Industrial Emission Directive sent by the Tribunale di Milano (Italy).
This directive lays down the requirements governing industrial installations and the
rules to prevent or at least to reduce industrial emissions into air, water and land. All
installations covered by the directive must prevent and reduce pollution by applying
the best available techniques (BATs), so-called BAT conclusions, which the European
Graziella
Commission draws up and updates regularly with stakeholders and representatives of
Schembri
Member States.
assisted in the
preparation of
The present application was made in the context of a collective dispute between C. Z.
this Newsletter.
and others, residents of the municipality of Taranto (Italy) and neighbouring
municipalities, against the defendants: Ilva SpA in Amministrazione Straordinaria (‘Ilva’),
a company owning a steelworks situated in that municipality (‘the Ilva works’), Acciaierie
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
d’Italia Holding SpA and Acciaierie d’Italia SpA.
Twitter)
The Ilva steelworks is one of the largest installations of its kind in Europe and an
important economic factor. The European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) found,
however, that it has significant adverse effects on the environment and causes harm to
Download our
the health of local residents.
The applicants are seeking protection of their rights to health, to peace and tranquillity
in the conduct of their lives and also their right to the climate, which they allege the
defendants are adversely affecting as a consequence of their deliberate conduct, due
to the emissions coming from the plants at Ilva’s steelworks in Taranto which are
causing severe pollution.
This dispute concerns whether the Ilva steelworks is operating in accordance with the
Directive and BATS requirements. In the present case, the Court is being asked about
the importance of certain information concerning the effects of the steelworks on
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
human health and about which emissions are to be taken into account. It is also being
All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
asked whether it is permitted to repeatedly extend the period for the implementation
of certain permit conditions.
The Court recently had an opportunity to explore certain questions relating to the
setting of limit values in connection with the grant of permits to installations. However,
this request for a preliminary ruling gives it an opportunity to examine more closely the
general permit conditions under the Industrial Emissions Directive.
other cases.
Background Documents C-626/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th June
Judgments in Cases:
C-144/19 P Lupin v Commission
C-151/19 P Commission v Krka
C-164/19 P Niche Generics v Commission
C-166/19 P Unichem Laboratories v Commission
C-176/19 P Commission v Servier and Others
C-197/19 P Mylan Laboratories and Mylan v Commission
C-198/19 P Teva UK and others v Commission
C-201/19 P Servier and others v Commission
C-207/19 P Biogaran v Commission
(Competition)
This series of cases concerns challenges instituted by a number of companies against
Commission decisions concerning abusive agreements in the market for perindopril – a
medication used in cardiovascular illnesses.
The companies had entered into agreements with Servier SAS – a company specialising
in the development of originator medicines. The Commission held that the agreements
were intended to delay or even prevent the market entry of generic versions of
perindopril.
The companies in question are appealing the General Court’s rejection of their
challenge.
Background Documents C-144/19 P
Background Documents C-151/19 P
Background Documents C-164/19 P
Background Documents C-166/19 P
Background Documents C-176/19 P
Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
Background Documents C-197/19 P
Background Documents C-198/19 P
Background Documents C-201/19 P
Background Documents C-207/19 P
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 27th June
Judgment in Case C-284/23 Haus Jacobus
(Social policy)
An employee of a care home challenged her dismissal before the German Federal
Labour Court, claiming it is prohibited to dismiss a pregnant woman. The Labour Court
ruled that it should normally have dismissed the claim as untimely.
In fact, when the employee became aware of her pregnancy and lodged the appeal,
the three-week period following written notification of dismissal, provided for under
German law, had already expired. In addition, the employee failed to lodge an
application for admission of the late appeal within a further two-week period.
The Labour Court wondered, however, whether the German rules at issue were
compatible with the relevant EU law (Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction
of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).
Therefore, the German Federal Labour Court referred the matter to the Court of
Justice for guidance.
Background Documents C-284/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th June
Opinion in Case C-202/24 Alchaster
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters)
The Irish Supreme Court made a reference for a preliminary ruling in proceedings
concerning the execution in Ireland of four arrest warrants relating to terrorism,
issued on November 26, 2021. Three of the offences are punishable by life
imprisonment. The offences are deemed to have been committed by the person
concerned between July 18 and 20, 2020.
Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
The request was made in the context of the execution in Ireland of an arrest warrant
issued by the judicial authorities of the United Kingdom for MA for the purpose of
conducting a criminal prosecution. The referring court seeks to determine the
obligations of a judicial authority executing an arrest warrant where the requested
person argues that his fundamental rights will be breached by the authorities of the
issuing state.
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of, first, the Trade
and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland and, second, Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
The person concerned objected to his surrender. He argued that new measures for
persons convicted of certain terrorism-related offences – which came into force in
Northern Ireland on April 30, 2021 – had the effect of retrospectively imposing a
harsher penalty on him than that provided for at the time the alleged offences were
committed. That would breach the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The High Court dismissed his appeal and he appealed to the referring court.
The Irish Supreme Court as referring court notes that the Court has already held that,
if a Member State receives a request from a non-EU State to extradite a national of
another Member State, the first Member State must verify that the extradition will not
adversely affect the rights referred to in Article 19 of the Charter.
Accordingly, the referring court wonders to what extent Article 49 of the Charter
applies in a surrender decision other than in the cases provided for in Article 19 of the
Charter, bearing in mind that the new measures are not subject to the Charter, and
the Charter will not apply to criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, it wonders whether it has an obligation to examine the compatibility of the
new measures with Article 49 of the Charter and, if so, what is the nature and scope of
such an examination.
Background Documents C-202/24
There will be an Info Rapide for the case (available on request).
Week XXVII 1st to 5th July
Thursday 4th July
Judgment in Case C-450/22 Caixabank and Others (Monitoring transparency in
Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
collective action)
(Consumer protection)
‘Floor clauses’ were standard terms contained in variable rate mortgage loan
agreements concluded with consumers by a significant number of financial
institutions in Spain. Those clauses set a threshold (or ‘floor’) below which the variable
interest rate could not fall, even if the reference rate (generally the Euribor) fell below
When the reference rates fell significantly below that threshold, the consumers
realised they could not benefit from that decrease and still had to pay the minimum
interest rate (usually between two and five percent), despite having a variable rate
mortgage. Individual consumers and consumer associations have filed several
thousands of lawsuits in Spain claiming the illegality of ‘floor clauses’ in the light of the
Directive on unfair terms, as well as the restitution of the overpaid interest (see
Judgment joined cases C-154/15, C-307/15 and C-308/15 and Press Release No 144/16).
The Spanish Association of Users of Banks, Savings Banks and Insurance (ADICAE)
brought a collective action against 101 financial institutions operating in Spain. ADICAE
aims at stopping the use by those institutions of ‘the floor clauses’ (‘action for an
injunction’) and at obtaining the reimbursement of the payments made under them
(‘action for recovery’). Following calls in the national media, 820 consumers supported
the collective action.
Having lost the case twice, the banks appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court. That
court has doubts about the suitability of the collective proceedings to carry out a
review of the transparency of the ‘floor clauses’ in order to ascertain whether they are
unfair, especially given the numerous consumers and financial institutions involved.
The Spanish High Court asked the Court of Justice guidance on the interpretation of
Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms and its compatibility with the Spanish system of
collective actions brought by a consumers’ association against floor clauses in
mortgage loan contracts concluded with consumers, which are used by all the
defendant banks.
Background Documents C-450/22
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Court of Justice
Monday 24th June 2024: 14:30 – Case C-318/24 PPU Breian (Area of freedom, security and
justice – Judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters – Police cooperation)
Newsletter
Week XXVI – XXVII: 24th June to 05th July 2024
Tuesday 25th June 2024: 09:30 – Joined Cases C-777/22 P ECB v Corneli and C-789/22 P
Commission v Corneli (Economic and monetary policy) (streamed on Curia)
Thursday 27th June 2024: 09:30 – Case C-517/23 Apothekerkammer Nordrhein
(Approximation of law)
Tuesday 02nd July 2024: 09:30 – Case C-492/23 Russmedia Digital and Inform Media Press
(Freedom to provide services – Data protection) (streamed on Curia)
Thursday 04nd July 2024: 09:30 – Case C-414/23 Metsä Fibre (Environment – Pollution)
General Court
Wednesday 26th June 2024: 09:30 – Joined Cases T-362/21 Telly v Commission and T363/21 ?eská asociace satelitních operátor? v Commission (State aid)
Thursday 27th June 2024: 09:30 – Case T-336/20 Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
(Contributions ex ante 2016) (Economic and monetary policy)
Thursday 27th June 2024: 14:30 – Case T-499/20 Banco Cooperativo Español v SRB
(Contributions ex ante 2016) (Economic and monetary policy)
Monday 01st July 2024: 09:30 – Cases T-270/23 Rosbank v Council and
T-275/23 Tinkoff Bank v Council (Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
Wednesday 03rd July 2024: 09:30 – Joined cases T-830/22 and T-156/23
Poland v Commission (Law governing the institutions)
Wednesday 03rd July 2024: 09:30 – Case T-193/23 MegaFon v Council
(Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.