(AGENPARL) – gio 18 luglio 2024 Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Week XXX 22nd to 26th July & Week XXXI 29th July
The Court is in summer recess.
Jacques René
The Newsletter will resume from week XXXV (29th August).
Zammit
An exceptional session for the reading of judgments
Press Officer
will be held on 29th July.
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Monday 29th July
Judgment in Case C-591/21 P Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission
(State aid)
On June 23, 2020, Austria notified the Commission of an aid measure in the form of a
Graziella
subordinated loan (convertible into a grant) of €150 million in favour of Austrian
Schembri
Airlines (AUA), which together with other airlines, such as Brussels Airlines, Swiss
assisted in the
International Air Lines et Edelweiss Air, forms part of the Lufthansa group. The
preparation of
purpose of the measure was to compensate AUA for the damage caused from the
this Newsletter.
cancellation or rescheduling of its flights due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
By decision of July 6, 2020, the Commission approved this aid.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Ryanair and Laudamotion unsuccessfully challenged the Commission’s decision before
Twitter)
the General Court of the European Union (T-677/20, see also press release 125/21). By
its judgment dated July 14, 2021, the General Court dismissed their action. In
particular, it found that the aid in question, when deducted from the subsidies granted
Download our
by Germany to the Lufthansa group in the same context, did not constitute
overcompensation in its favour.
Ryanair and Laudamotion appealed against the judgment of the General Court of to
the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-591/21 P
There will be a press release in this case.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
Judgment in Joined Cases C-112/22 CU and C-223/22 ND (Social assistance All times are 9:30
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
Indirect discrimination)
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Asylum policy – Non-discrimination on grounds of
nationality – Freedom of movement for workers)
Two non-EU-country nationals who are long-term residents in Italy were accused of
committing a criminal offence.
other cases.
They allegedly signed applications for the “citizenship income”, a social assistance
benefit designed to ensure a minimum standard of subsistence. They are alleged to
have falsely certified that they met the conditions for entitlement to this benefit, in
particular the requisite that they had been resident in Italy for at least ten years, the
last two of which were continuous.
They are said to have unduly received a total of €3,414.40 and €3,186.66 respectively.
The Court of Naples, Italy asks the Court of Justice whether this residence requirement
complies with the Directive 2003/109/CE on third-country nationals who are long-term
residents.
Background Documents C-112/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-298/22 Banco BPN v BIC Português and Others
(Competition)
In September 2019, the Portuguese Competition Authority (“AdC”) fined 14 credit
institutions (including the six largest in Portugal) a total sum of €225 million.
The AdC considered that these institutions infringed national and EU competition law
by participating in an extensive monthly reciprocal exchange of sensitive information
over a period of more than ten years, between 2002 and 2013. The information
exchanged concerned the mortgage, consumer credit and business credit markets.
This information covered the current and future conditions applicable to the
transactions, including interest rate spreads and risk variables, and the individual
production figures of the participants in this exchange.
Considering this exchange of information was “autonomous”, AdC did not allege that it
was linked to a concerted practice restricting competition, such as an agreement on
prices or on the allocation of markets. However, AdC did consider such practice to
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
constitute a restriction of competition by object. This means that the infringement is
so serious that it is not necessary to examine its possible effects on the market.
Most of the participating credit institutions appealed the AdC’s decision to the
Portuguese Competition Court.
They claim that the exchange of information in question was not, in itself, sufficiently
harmful to competition to qualify as a restriction of competition by object and
therefore an examination of its effects would be required. They added that, in any
event, the AdC should have taken account of the economic, legal and regulatory
context surrounding that exchange.
The referring Portuguese court (Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court) asked
the Court of Justice about the concept of restriction of competition by object in
relation to autonomous and informal exchanges of information.
Background Documents C-298/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-436/22 ASCEL
(Environment)
The Habitats Directive was adopted to achieve an essential objective of general
interest pursued by the European Union: preserving, protecting and improving the
quality of the environment by helping to ensure biodiversity through the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
In Spain, in accordance with the directive, the Iberian wolf populations are subject to
separate protection regimes: those located south of the Duero river benefit from strict
protection, whilst those located north of this river are classified as an animal species
of EU interest likely to be the subject of management measures.
Under a regional law, the wolf was designated as a huntable species in north of the
River Duero in Castilla y León (Spain). In 2019, the government of this autonomous
community approved a plan for the local exploitation of the wolf in said areas for the
2019/2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 seasons. This plan allowed a total of 339 wolves
to be hunted. The Association for the Conservation and Study of the Iberian Wolf
(ASCEL) appealed against this plan to the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León.
The Spanish court has doubts as to whether the regional law is compatible with the
directive and has referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
In 2019, Spain sent a report to the Commission for the period between 2013-2018,
according to which the wolf was in an “unfavourable inadequate” conservation status
in the three regions it occupied in Spain (Mediterranean, Atlantic and Alpine), the first
two including Castilla y León.
Background Documents C-436/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-623/22 Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others
(Taxation)
Directive 2011/16/UE stipulates that all intermediaries and, failing that, the taxpayer,
involved in potentially aggressive cross-border tax arrangements (which may lead to
tax evasion or fraud) must be declared to the competent tax authorities (hereinafter
referred to as the “obligation to declare”).
In 2020, organisations of lawyers and tax advisers and the Bar Associations referred
the matter to the Belgian Constitutional Court. In their view, the Belgian law
transposing the EU directive should be annulled because, in their view, said infringes a
number of provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
and general principles of EU law.
The Belgian Constitutional Court has decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-623/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Joined Cases C-771/22 HDI Global and C-45/23 MS Amlin Insurance
(Approximation of laws)
In 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, travellers in Austria and Belgium cancelled
their package holidays to Gran Canaria and the Dominican Republic, respectively.
After their tour operators went bankrupt, they asked their insurers to reimburse them
for the payments made.
The insurers refused to make these reimbursements on the grounds that they would
only insure in the event that the trip is not carried out due to the organiser’s
insolvency. However, in the present cases, the trips were cancelled by the travellers,
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
and the organiser’s insolvency occurred at a later date.
The Austrian and Belgian courts hearing these cases have asked the Court of Justice to
interpret the Package Travel Directive. This directive stipulates that Member States
must ensure that organisers provide a guarantee for the reimbursement of all
payments made by travellers if the services concerned are not carried out due to the
organisers’ insolvency.
Background Documents C-771/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-774/22 FTI Touristik (Foreign element)
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters)
A consumer living in Nuremberg (Germany) entered into a contract for a trip abroad
with tour operator FTI Touristik, which has its registered office in Munich (Germany).
The consumer considered that he had not been sufficiently informed about entry
conditions and the necessary visas and therefore, brought an action for damages
against FTI Touristik before the Nuremberg District Court.
FTI Touristik argued that that court lacked territorial jurisdiction. In particular, the
Brussels Ia Regulation on jurisdiction does not apply where both parties are domiciled
in the same Member State.
The District Court of Nuremberg asked the Court of Justice for guidance.
Background Documents C-774/22
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-14/23 Perle
(Area of freedom, security and justice – Immigration policy)
In August 2020, a Cameroonian national applied for a visa to study in Belgium. The
Belgian government refused the application on the grounds that the applicant’s study
plan was inconsistent. It considered that her application was in fact for purposes other
than studying. The young woman contested this decision before the Aliens Litigation
Council (Belgium), which subsequently rejected her appeal. In January 2021, she
appealed to the Council of State (Belgium).
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
The Council of State asked the Court of Justice whether a Member State that intends to
reject an application for a residence permit or ‘student’ visa on the basis of EU law,
namely Directive (EU) 2016/801, is obliged to expressly provide for such an option in
its domestic law, i.e. by having necessarily transposed the ground for refusal set out in
the directive in question.
By the same token, it questions the Member States’ ability to verify the non-EUcountry national’s desire and intention to pursue studies, to combat the risks of
misuse of the residence permit or “student” visa.
Finally, the Council of State asked the Court about the procedural arrangements for
appealing against a decision rejecting an application.
In this regard, the Cameroonian national referred to the fact that the Council for Alien
Law Litigation could only annul a rejection decision, without being able to take a new
decision: in her view, this lack of a power of reversal was contrary to EU law.
Background Documents C-14/23
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-119/23 Valan?ius
(Provisions governing the institutions)
Mr Virgilijus Valan?ius was appointed Judge of the General Court of the European
Union in 2016. Following the expiry of his term of office in 2019, the Lithuanian
government published a call for applications and established a procedure for the
selection of a candidate for this post. In accordance with this procedure, a working
group composed mainly of independent experts drew up a merit list of candidates,
sorted in descending order according to the score obtained.
The highest-ranked candidate on the merit list was Mr Valan?ius. By decision of May 4,
2022, the Lithuanian Government proposed the person in second place on the merit
list as a candidate for the post of judge at the General Court.
Following an unfavourable opinion on that candidate by the “255 Committee”, the
Lithuanian Government, by decision of April 19, 2023, proposed the person appearing
third on the merit list, namely Mr Saulius Lukas Kal?da, as a candidate for that post.
By a decision of September 15, 2023, taken following a favourable opinion of the 255
Committee, the Governments of the Member States appointed Mr Kal?da Judge of the
General Court.
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
Mr Valan?ius asked the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (Lithuania) to annul the
Lithuanian Government’s two nomination decisions. Having doubts as to the impact of
European Union law on national procedures for proposing candidates for the office of
judge of the General Court, that court referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-119/23
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-202/24 Alchaster
(Charter of Fundamental Rights – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation
in criminal matter)
On November 26, 2021, the District Judge of the Magistrates’ Courts of Northern
Ireland (UK) issued four warrants for the arrest of MA (anonymised) in respect to four
offences involving terrorism, alleged to have been committed between 18th and
20th July 2020. By judgment of October 24, 2022 and orders dated October 24 and
7 November 2022, the High Court (Ireland) ordered MA’s surrender to the UK, while
refusing him leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Ireland).
By decision of January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court granted MA leave to appeal
against the above-mentioned High Court’s (Ireland) judgement and orders
MA submitted that his surrender is incompatible with the principle of the legality of
criminal offences and penalties.
The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) provides that surrender
mechanisms apply between the UK and the Member States. It considers that,
pursuant to the applicable Irish legislation and to Council Framework Decision
2002/584/JHA on European Arrest Warrant, the UK must be treated as if it were a
Member State.
The referring court noted that, if MA was to be surrendered to the UK and sentenced
to imprisonment, his right to conditional release would be governed by the relative UK
legislation adopted after the alleged commission of the offences subject to criminal
proceedings. The regime permitting conditional release in Northern Ireland was
amended with effect from April 30, 2021.
Prior to this change, a person convicted of certain terrorism-related offences was
eligible for automatic parole after serving half of the sentence. Under the regime
applicable from that date, the conditional release of such a person will have to be
approved by a specialised authority and may only take place after the person
concerned has served two thirds of the sentence.
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
The compatibility of UK legislation in question with the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECFHR) has already been reviewed by UK courts and MA’s argument of
a risk of breach of rights was dismissed in that context.
The referring court wonders whether it was possible to reach a similar conclusion as
regards a risk of breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Since the Court of Justice has not yet ruled on the implications of Article 49 of the
Charter as regards an amendment to the provisions on conditional release, the Irish
Court Supreme Court referred the case.
Background Documents C-202/24
There will be a press release in this case.
Judgment in Case C-318/24 PPU Breian
(Charter of Fundamental Rights – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation
in criminal matter – Police cooperation)
This case concerns a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued on the basis of Framework
Decision 2002/584 for the enforcement of a custodial sentence in Romania. On
December 17, 2020 the Court of Appeal of Bra?ov, Romania, the referring court, issued
a EAW against P.P.R. to enforce a prison sentence imposed on him.
On June 28, 2022, P.P.R. was arrested in Paris (France) and surrender proceedings
were initiated against him. Said proceedings were terminated by a judgment of the
Court of Appeal of Paris, France dated November 29, 2023. The executing judicial
authority in France has refused, in a decision that has become final, to surrender the
requested person (hereinafter the “sentenced person”).
According to the referring court, the Paris Court of Appeal based its refusal on the
existence of a risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial by an independent
and impartial tribunal established in advance by law, enshrined in the second
paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter.
The Paris Court of Appeal also considers that there are systemic or general failings in
Romania with regard to the swearing in of judges, and in particular it doubts whether
two of the three judges who handed down the prison sentence actually took the oath.
The Paris Court of Appeal also took into consideration the decision of deletion from
Interpol’s database of the international wanted persons notice for P.P.R., on the
grounds that the data concerning him did not comply with Interpol’s rules on the
processing of personal data. The Paris Court of Appeal considered that this decision
highlighted the existence of serious concerns about the existence of political elements
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024
in the general context and about respect for the principles of fundamental rights
during the proceedings against P.P.R. in Romania.
P.P.R. was arrested in Malta pursuant to the EAW issued against him. On the same
day, the Romanian court responsible for enforcing the custodial sentence referred a
question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling seeking clarification of the
scope of the decision rejecting the EAW.
The main issues are the effect that the res judicata effect of the refusal decision –
preventing from bringing a claim once that particular claim got to a final judgment in
some previous lawsuit – has on the other Member States and doubts concerning the
oath.
The referring court also wondered about the scope of an Interpol decision relied on by
the French executing judicial authority, and about the possibility of intervening itself in
the proceedings before the executing judicial authority or, at the very least, of
approaching the Commission.
In the meantime, another executing judicial authority in Malta, where the sentenced
person had again been arrested, was considering whether to surrender him to
Romania.
The Maltese executing judicial authority asked the referring court for further
information, stating that P.P.R. had relied on the judgment of the Paris Court of
Appeal.
As the Maltese court of first instance had refused to execute the EAW because of
doubts about the conditions of detention in Romania, the Romanian court referred a
new question to the Court.
This question concerned, on the one hand, cooperation with the Maltese court and, on
the other, the level of protection of fundamental rights applied by the Maltese court.
Background Documents C-318/24
We would like to wish a happy summer to all our readers.
Newsletter
Week XXX – XXXI: 22nd to 29th July 2024