(AGENPARL) – gio 19 settembre 2024 Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Download our
Week XXXIX 23rd to 27th September
Wednesday 25th September
General Court
Judgments in Cases T-446/21 Commission de régulation de l’énergie v ACER, T472/21 RTE v ACER, T-476/21 TransnetBW v ACER, T-482/21 TenneT TSO and
TenneT TSO v ACER, T-484/21 Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER and T485/21 BNetzA v ACER
(Energy)
Under EU law (Regulation (EU) 2015/1222), the transmission system operators (TSOs)
of each region must propose a common methodology for allocating the costs of
redispatching and counterparty exchanges.
The proposal of the region comprising Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, France,
Croatia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia
and Slovakia (CORE region) should have been submitted by March 17, 2018 at the
latest.
The TSOs of the CORE region submitted such a proposal to all the national regulatory
authorities (NRAs) of this region after the deadline: i.e. March 27, 2019. These NRAs
had six months to decide on this proposal.
On September 26, 2019, at the request of those NRAs, the European Union Agency for
the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) decided to extend by six months the
time-limit set for them to approve that proposal, i.e. until March 27, 2020.
On March 27, 2020, the Chairman of the Forum of Energy Regulators of the CORE
region announced that the NRAs of the CORE region were not in a position to take a
decision on the submitted proposal by the same day, as the proposal was considered
to be largely incomplete to such an extent that the NRAs were not in a position either
All times are 9:30
to approve it or to request a modification.
unless otherwise
stated.
On the same day, ACER declared itself competent to adopt a decision on the proposal.
On November 30, 2020, ACER adopted, by Decision No 30/2020, the methodology for
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Don’t forget to
cost allocation.
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
Following actions for annulment of that decision before ACER’s Board of Appeal, on
May 28, 2021 ACER confirmed the decision. Several NRAs brought actions before the
General Court of the European Union against the decision of the Board of Appeal (‘the
Decision’).
Background Documents T-446/21
Background Documents T-472/21
Background Documents T-476/21
Background Documents T-482/21
Background Documents T-484/21
Background Documents T-485/21
There will be one press release for these cases.
Wednesday 25th September
General Court
Judgment in Case T-483/21 Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne v ACER
(Energy)
The European legislator has put in place a legal framework to guarantee the proper
functioning of the internal electricity market and, in particular, the operational security
of regional electricity networks (see in particular Regulation (EU) 2019/943 on the
internal market for electricity and Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1485 establishing
a guideline on electricity transmission system operation).
One of the measures for coordinating this safety is the development of a ‘safety
methodology (ROSC)’. In particular, this document identifies the risks associated with
network operation and develops common procedures in the event of incidents.
The safety methodology (ROSC) is proposed jointly by all the entities responsible
(TSOs) for the management, maintenance and development of the electricity network
in the region concerned. It also requires the approval of the national regulatory
authorities. If the national regulatory authorities fail to reach an agreement within a
given timeframe, or at their joint request, the European Union Agency for the
Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) decides on such a proposal.
On December 4, 2020, following an extensive period of consultation and discussion,
ACER took a decision containing the security methodology (ROSC) for the region
comprising thirteen Member States.
Polskie sieci elektroenergetyczne S.A. – the TSO responsible for the electricity network
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
in Poland – applied to have this decision annulled. Having lost the case before the
ACER Board of Appeal, the company brought an action before the General Court of the
European Union.
In particular, it contested ACER’s power to depart from the initial proposal drawn up
by the TSOs. In addition, it considers that certain elements of the contested
methodology infringe the powers of the TSOs in a way that is incompatible with EU
Background Documents T-483/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Wednesday 25th September
General Court
Judgments in Cases T-570/22 Herbert Smith Freehills v Commission and T-311/23
British American Tobacco Polska Trading v Commission
(Provisions governing the institutions – Access to documents)
The applicants – Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (case T-570/22) as well as British American
Tobacco Polska Trading sp. z o.o. on its own behalf and on behalf of 4 other British
American Tobacco group companies (case T-311/23) – asked the General Court for the
annulment of two Commission decisions pursuant Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents:
Commission Decisions C (2022) 4816 and C (2023) 5443.
The applicants asked for access to documents the Commission used to adopt the
Delegated Directive 2022/2100, amending Directive 2014/40/EU as regards the
withdrawal of certain exemptions in respect of heated tobacco products.
They included, inter alia, all documents containing data from the EU’s common
electronic entry point on the volume of sales of tobacco products by category
(expressed in number of cigarettes/cigars/cigarillos or in weight) per Member State
between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020.
Also, they requested documents containing supporting data and interim documents
created within the Commission (including relevant statistics and findings) relating to
the Commission’s conclusion (recorded in the summary record of the Tobacco Policy
Expert Group meeting of December 2, 2021 and presented to the same Group) that
developments in the market for heated tobacco products constituted a significant
change in the situation within the meaning of Directive 2014/40.
Indeed, after that Tobacco Policy Expert Group meeting, the Commission had
informed the representatives of the Member States that “developments in the market
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
for heated tobacco products constituted a significant change in the situation” within
the meaning of Directive 2014/40.
On June 15, 2022, the Commission published a report setting out significant
developments in the situation for heated tobacco products under Directive 2014/40.
Following the report, on June 29, 2022, the Commission adopted Delegated Directive
2022/2100.
On March 11, 2022 (T-570/22) and on November 4, 2022 (T-311/23), the applicants
made distinct applications to the Commission for access to documents under
Regulation No 1049/2001. The documents requested were based on elements
extracted from three different databases, namely Euromonitor, the “EU-CEP” and the
“Tracking System”.
On April 8, 2022 and on January 17, 2023, the Commission partially rejected the
requests of access, however disclosing access to some documents corresponding to
the subject of the requests the Commission had identified (the “disclosed
documents”).
The applicants took the view, first, that the Commission had not disclosed all the
relevant interim documents and, second, that the Commission should have given it
access to information from the relevant underlying databases which can be regarded
as existing documents.
On July 3, 2022 and on August 4, 2023, the Commission adopted the two contested
decisions (Commissions decisions C (2022) 4816 and C (2023) 5443, maintaining that it
did not hold any documents other than those it had already disclosed.
The applicants challenged both decisions, asking the General Court to annul them,
contesting that the Commission had no other documents than those disclosed.
In support of their action, the applicants raise, inter alia, the alleged infringement of
Regulation No 1049/2001, by refusing access to the data contained in the three
databases which it used to prepare the report: Euromonitor, the ‘EU-ECP’ and the
‘traceability system’.
Background Documents T-570/22
Background Documents T-311/23
There will be one Info Rapide for these cases (available on request).
Thursday 26th September
Judgment in Case C-768/21 Land Hessen (Data protection authority’s duty to act)
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties – Data protection)
In Germany, a savings bank found that one of its employees had consulted a
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
customer’s personal data on several occasions without being authorised to do so.
The savings bank did not inform the customer, as its data protection officer had
deemed that there was no high risk to him.
In fact, the employee had confirmed in writing that she had not copied or stored the
data, that she had not passed it on to third parties and that she would not do so in the
future. In addition, the Sparkasse had taken disciplinary action against her. The
Sparkasse nevertheless notified the Land’s data protection commissioner of this
violation.
After incidentally becoming aware of this incident, the customer lodged a complaint
with the Data Protection Commissioner. After hearing the Sparkasse, the data
protection commissioner informed the customer that he did not consider it necessary
to take any remedial action against the Sparkasse.
The customer then brought an action before a German court, asking it to order the
Data Protection Commissioner to take action against the Sparkasse and, in particular,
to impose a fine.
The German court asked the Court of Justice to interpret the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) in this regard.
Background Documents C-768/21
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26th September
Judgment in Case C-600/22 P Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v
Parliament
(Law governing the institutions)
Following the holding, on October 1, 2017, of the referendum on the selfdetermination of Catalonia (Spain), criminal proceedings were brought against Carles
Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres (who, at the time, were President
and Member of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, respectively).
They fled Spain. National arrest warrants were issued against them. Mr Puigdemont
and Mr Comín subsequently stood as candidates and were elected in the elections to
the European Parliament which were held in Spain on May 26, 2019.
On May 29, 2019, the then President of the European Parliament issued an instruction
for the purposes of (i) refusing all the candidates elected in Spain access to the “special
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
welcome service” provided to persons newly elected to the European Parliament and
(ii) suspending those candidates’ accreditation until official confirmation of their
election.
On June 14, 2019, Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín requested the President of the
European Parliament to take note of the results of the elections, as set out in the list of
elected candidates declared by the Spanish Central Electoral Commission on June 13,
2019, in which their names were included. They also requested the President to
withdraw the Instruction of May 29, 2019 so that they could, inter alia, take their seats
and enjoy their rights as Members of the European Parliament from July 2, 2019, the
date of the first plenary session following the elections.
On June 17, 2019, the Spanish Central Electoral Commission notified the European
Parliament of the list of candidates elected in Spain. The names of Mr Puigdemont and
Mr Comín were not on that list because they had not taken the oath to respect the
Spanish Constitution, as required by national law.
The Central Electoral Commission therefore declared that their seats were vacant and
that all the prerogatives attaching to their duties were suspended.
By letter of June 27, 2019, the President of the European Parliament informed Mr
Puigdemont and Mr Comín that he could not regard them as future Members of the
European Parliament because their names were not on the list of elected candidates
officially communicated by the Spanish authorities.
The following day, Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín brought an action for annulment
before the General Court of the European Union, essentially directed against the
refusals of the President of the European Parliament to grant them access to the
special welcome service and to recognise their status as Members of the European
Parliament (Case T-388/19).
At the plenary session of January 13, 2020, the European Parliament decided to take
note, following the delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the case
Junqueras Vies (C-502/19 – see also Press Release No 161/19) of the election of Mr
Puigdemont and Mr Comín to the Parliament with effect from July 2, 2019.
By judgment of July 6, 2022, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr
Puigdemont and Mr Comín as inadmissible on the ground that the disputed refusals
of the President of the European Parliament were not open to challenge.
Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín then brought an appeal before the Court of Justice.
Background Documents C-600/22 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Thursday 26th September
Judgment in Case C-792/22 Energotehnica
(Charter of Fundamental Rights – Social policy)
Following the death of an electrician due to electrocution during an intervention,
administrative proceedings were opened against his employer. At the same time,
criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were opened against the
foreman. The victim’s family also joined the criminal proceedings.
The administrative court hearing the case concluded that this was not an ‘accident at
work’. It annulled the administrative sanctions imposed on the employer and foreman.
According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court,
this administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whether
the accident was an accident at work.
In this context, the Court of Appeal of Bra?ov (Romania) questions the Court of Justice
on the compatibility between this national law, as interpreted by the Constitutional
Court, and EU law on the safety of workers (Council Directive 89/391/EEC).
Background Documents C-792/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 26th September
Judgment in Case C-330/23 Aldi Süd
(Consumer protection)
A German consumer association is challenging before a German court the way in
which the discounter Aldi Süd advertises in its weekly leaflets by means of price
reductions or ‘shock prices’ such as, for example, for bananas and pineapples.
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
According to the consumers’ association, Aldi is not entitled to calculate a price
reduction on the basis of the price immediately prior to the offer (in the first example
€1.69), but, in accordance with EU law, should do so on the basis of the lowest price
charged by Aldi in the last 30 days (in the first example EUR 1.29; however, that price is
identical to the allegedly “reduced” price).
It would not be sufficient simply to mention the lowest price over the last 30 days in
the advertisement. The same considerations would apply to the designation of a price
as a ‘shock price’.
The German court asked the Court of Justice about this.
Background Documents C-330/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Week XXXX 30th September to 4th October
Wednesday 2nd October
General Court
Judgments in Cases T-797/22 Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de
Bruxelles and Others v Council, T-798/22 Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and
Couturier v Council and T-828/22 ACE v Council
(External relations – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures – Ukraine)
In 2022, in response to Russia’s escalating aggression against Ukraine, the Council of
the European Union adopted a series of restrictive measures designed to put pressure
on Russia to end its war of aggression. The measures include a ban on the provision of
legal advice.
Subject to certain exceptions and exemptions, these acts prohibit any person who
may provide legal advice (including those practising within the EU) from providing such
services to the Russian government and to legal persons, entities or bodies
established in Russia. The prohibition is intended to make it more difficult for the
Russian Government and Russian companies to obtain goods and services or capital in
the EU, by depriving them of the technical and legal assistance necessary for such
operations.
The Dutch Bar Association of the Brussels Bar, the Paris Bar Association and Julie
Couturier (a lawyer registered with the Bar Association), as well as the trade
association Avocats Ensemble (ACE), applied to the General Court of the European
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Union for the ban to be annulled.
In their view, the ban lacked a statement of reasons and infringed their fundamental
rights (access to legal advice from a lawyer and interference with professional secrecy)
as well as the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, such a ban would infringe the right of lawyers to provide legal advice
without any particular restrictions.
Background Documents T-797/22
Background Documents T-798/22
Background Documents T-828/22
There will be one press release for these cases.
Friday 4th October
Judgments in Joined Cases C-541/20 to C-555/20 Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania,
Cyprus, Hungary, Malta and Poland v Parliament and Council (Mobility Package)
(Transport)
Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, the Republic of Cyprus, Hungary, Malta and Poland have
brought actions before the Court of Justice for annulment of the ‘Mobility Package’,
which was adopted by the EU legislature, i.e. the Parliament and the Council, in 2020.
The package encompasses several pieces of legislation:
1) Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards
minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times,
minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No
165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs;
2) Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No
1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to
developments in the road transport sector;
3) Directive (EU) 2020/1057 laying down specific rules with respect to Directive
96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport
sector and amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement
requirements and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012.
In particular, these Member States are challenging:
the ban on drivers taking the normal weekly rest period or compensatory rest
period on board the vehicle;
the obligation for transport undertakings to organise their drivers’ work in
such a way that drivers are able to return, during working time, every three or
four weeks to the undertaking’s operational centre or to their place of
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
residence, in order to start or spend at least their normal or compensatory
weekly rest period there;
bringing forward the date of entry into force of the obligation to install secondgeneration intelligent tachographs and, in general, the date of entry into force
of Regulation 2020/1054 providing for the prohibition and obligations
mentioned above;
the obligation, for vehicles used for international transport, to return to an
operational centre located in the Member State of establishment of the
transport undertaking concerned every eight weeks;
the obligation for transport undertakings to have at their disposal on a regular
and continuous basis a number of vehicles and drivers who are normally
attached to an operational centre in their Member State of establishment, in
both cases in proportion to the number of transport operations they carry out;
the four-day waiting period during which, following a cabotage round in a host
Member State, (non-resident) hauliers are not authorised to carry out
cabotage operations with the same vehicle in the same Member State;
the qualification of drivers of posted workers, so that they benefit from the
working and employment conditions, in particular as regards pay, in the host
Member State, in principle when they carry out cabotage operations, transport
operations from one country to another, none of which is the Member State of
establishment, or certain combined transport operations.
Background Documents C-541/20
Background Documents C-542/20
Background Documents C-543/20
Background Documents C-544/20
Background Documents C-545/20
Background Documents C-546/20
Background Documents C-547/20
Background Documents C-548/20
Background Documents C-549/20
Background Documents C-550/20
Background Documents C-551/20
Background Documents C-552/20
Background Documents C-553/20
Background Documents C-554/20
Background Documents C-555/20
There will be a press release for these cases.
Friday 4th October
Judgment in Case C-581/22 P thyssenkrupp v Commission
(Competition)
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Thyssenkrupp, a German industrial group, and Tata Steel, a company headquartered
in India, are active in the manufacture and supply of flat carbon steel and magnetic
steel products. Their production centres are located in Germany, the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands respectively. The companies also have finishing plants in other
Member States.
On September 25, 2018, the two companies notified the Commission under the
Merger Regulation of their plans to acquire joint control of a newly created joint
venture. The project mainly concerned metal-coated and rolled steel products for
packaging and hot-dip galvanised steel products used in the automotive sector.
Following discussions with the companies involved and requests for information from
a number of market participants, including competitors and customers, the
Commission declared the transaction incompatible with the internal market and the
European Economic Area by decision of June 11, 2019 (see summary of the decision).
Thyssenkrupp brought an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision before
the General Court of the European Union. In its judgment of June 22, 2022, the
General Court rejected all the arguments put forward by the company and confirmed
the Commission’s decision (T-584/19, see also press release 110/22).
Thyssenkrupp then appealed to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the
General Court.
Background Documents C-581/22 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 4th October
Judgments in Joined Cases C-29/23 P Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia
Investimenti v Commission and C-30/23 P Alfa Acciai v Commission
(Competition)
By decision of 17 December 2002, the European Commission found that eight
undertakings and an association of undertakings had infringed Article 65(1) of the
Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) by participating in
a cartel on the Italian concrete reinforcing bar market which had as its object or effect
the fixing of prices and the limitation and control of production between December
1989 and July 2000 (hereinafter the ‘First Decision’).
The General Court annulled that decision on the ground that its legal basis, namely
Article 65(4) and (5) of the ECSC Treaty, was no longer in force at the time of its
adoption, the ECSC Treaty having expired on July 23, 2002 (see judgments October 25,
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
2007, SP e.a./Commission: T-27/03, T-46/03, T-58/03, T-79/03, T-80/03, T-97/03, T98/03, T-45/03, T-77/03 and T-94/03 and press release n. 78/07).
Consequently, the Commission adopted a new decision, on September 30 and
December 8, 2009, finding the same infringement but based on the EC Treaty and
Regulation (EC) No 1/20033 (hereinafter the ‘Second Decision’), based on Article 65(4)
of the ECSC Treaty.
That decision, confirmed by the General Court by judgments of December 9, 2014 (T472/09 and T-55/10, T-69/10, T-70/10, T-83/10, T-85/10, T-90/10, T-91/10, T-92/10, T489/09, T-490/09 and T-56/10) was annulled by the Court.
According to the latter, the General Court had erred in law in holding that the
Commission was not required to organise a new hearing in the context of the
procedure which led to the adoption of the second decision, the omission of such a
hearing constituting an infringement of essential procedural requirements.
Accordingly, the Court held that the first hearing organised with a view to the adoption
of the first decision did not comply with the procedural requirements for the adoption
of a decision on the basis of Regulation 1/2003, insofar as the competition authorities
of the Member States had not participated in it. The Court had therefore annulled the
judgments of 9 December 2014 in their entirety (see Judgments September 21, 2017,
Ferriera Valsabbia e.a./Commission, C-85/15 P, C-86/15 P, C-87/15 P, C-88/15 P and C89/15 P).
Resuming the procedure at the point at which the illegality had been found by the
Court, the Commission organised a new hearing and, by decision of July 4, 2019 (the
‘third decision’) again found the infringement which was the subject of the second
decision.
However, due to the length of the procedure, a 50% reduction in the amount of all the
fines imposed on the addressees was granted. Four of the eight undertakings
concerned, namely Ferriera Valsabbia SpA and Valsabbia Investimenti SpA, Alfa Acciai
SpA, Feralpi Holdings SpA and Ferriere Nord SpA brought actions for annulment of the
contested decision, which imposed penalties on them ranging from € 2.2 million to €
5.1 million.
The General Court rejected all these appeals.
Ferriera Valsabbia and Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai challenged the decisions
before the Court.
Background Documents C-29/23 P
There will be a press release for these cases.
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Friday 4th October
Judgment in Case C-240/23 Herbaria Kräuterparadies II
(Agriculture and Fisheries)
The request for a preliminary ruling of the Federal Administrative Court, Germany
concerns the interpretation of different articles of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic
production and labelling of organic products as well as of Article 20 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
This reference for a preliminary ruling is made in proceedings between Herbaria
Kräuterparadies GmbH, a company incorporated under German law (‘Herbaria’), and
the Land of Bavaria, Germany, concerning the possibility of using the organic
production method in the labelling, advertising and marketing of a mixture of fruit
juices and herbal extracts.
Herbaria is the manufacturer of ‘Blutquick’, a blend of fruit juices and herbal extracts
containing, in addition to organic plant products, non-organic vitamins and iron
gluconate. Blutquick is presented and marketed as a food supplement. Its packaging
contains the organic production logo of the European Union, the national organic label
and a reference to the origin of the ingredients from ‘controlled organic cultivation’.
Since 2012, Herbaria has disputed the decision of the Land of Bavaria prohibiting it
from using the reference to the organic production method in the labelling,
advertising and marketing of a mixture of fruit juice and herb extracts which contains,
in addition to the organic products, non-plant vitamins and ferrous gluconate not
coming from organic farming.
A first judgment of the Court of Justice confirmed the Land of Bavaria’s interpretation
that the organic production logo of the European Union and any reference to organic
production could not be used in such a situation (C-137/13).
Herbaria accepted that decision and relies on a breach of equality between its product
and a similar American product to which non-organic non-plant vitamins and ferrous
gluconate are added, but which is recognised as originating from organic production
in the United States of America and which, on that basis, may be marketed on the
territory of the European Union with the organic production logo of the European
Union by reason of the recognition of the United States as a non-EU country whose
rules on production and control are equivalent.
The request by the referring court will allow the Court to clarify the use that must be
made of the organic production logo of the European Union in the event of imports of
products originating from organic farming.
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
Background Documents C-240/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 4th October
Judgment in Case C-4/23 Mirin
(Citizenship of the Union)
A Romanian citizen was registered as female at birth in Romania.
After moving to the United Kingdom (UK), he acquired British nationality while
retaining his Romanian nationality. It was in this country that, in 2017, he changed his
first name and civil title from female to male and, in 2020, obtained legal recognition
of his male gender identity.
In May 2021, on the basis of two documents obtained in the UK attesting to these
changes, this citizen asked the Romanian administrative authorities to enter in his
birth certificate the particulars relating to his change of forename, sex and personal
identification number so that it corresponded to the male sex.
He also asked them to issue him with a new birth certificate containing these new
details. However, the Romanian authorities refused his requests while inviting him to
follow a new legal procedure in Romania, aimed directly at obtaining approval for the
change of sex.
Relying on his right to move and reside freely within the territory of the European
Union, the citizen concerned asked a Bucharest court to order that his birth certificate
be brought into line with his new forename and his gender identity, which had been
definitively recognised in the UK.
The court asked the Court of Justice whether the national legislation on which the
Romanian authorities’ refusal was based complied with EU law and whether Brexit
had any impact on the case.
Background Documents C-4/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 4th October
Judgment in Case C-650/22 FIFA
(Freedom of movement for persons)
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024
A former professional footballer is challenging the rules governing contractual
relations between players and clubs. The rules in question, entitled ‘Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players’ (RSTP), were adopted by the Fédération Internationale
de Football Association (FIFA) – an association responsible for organising football
competitions at world level.
These rules that are implemented both by FIFA and by its member national football
associations apply, among other things, to a situation where there is a dispute
between a player and a club as to a termination of a contract without just cause. In
such cases, that player and any club wishing to employ him are jointly and severally
liable for any compensation due to his former club.
The player and the new club are also liable to sporting and financial sanctions in case
of non-compliance. Furthermore, the association to which the player’s former club
belongs may refuse to deliver an International Transfer Certificate to the new
association where the player’s new club is registered as long as the dispute with the
former club is standing.
The professional football player had signed for the Russian football club Lokomotiv
Moscow only to see that contract terminated by this club one year later for an alleged
breach “and termination of contract without just cause”.
Lokomotiv Moscow applied to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber for compensation
and the player submitted a counterclaim seeking compensation of unpaid wages. The
player claims that the search for a new club proved to be difficult because, under the
RSTP, any new club would be held jointly and severally liable with himself to pay any
compensation due to Lokomotiv Moscow.
He claims that a potential deal with Belgian club Sporting du Pays de Charleroi fell
through because of the RSTP conditions and he sued FIFA and URBSFA (the governing
body for Belgian football) before a Belgian court for damages and loss of earnings of
€6 million.
Background Documents C-650/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Friday 4th October
Judgment in Case C-446/21 Schrems (Communication of data to the general
public)
(Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties – Data protection)
Maximilian Schrems is challenging Meta Platforms Ireland’s unlawful processing of his
Newsletter
Week XXXIX – XXXX: 23rd September to 4th October 2024