(AGENPARL) – gio 05 dicembre 2024 Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Week XLX: 9th to 13th December
Thursday 12th December
Judgment in Case C-118/23 Getin Holding and Others
(Economic policy)
In December 2021, the Financial Supervisory Commission in Poland appointed a
temporary administrator to Getin Noble Bank to improve its financial situation,
according to Directive 2014/59/EU. This function has been entrusted to the Polish
Bank Guarantee Fund (‘the FGB’).
Under national legislation, the FGB is responsible, in particular, for guaranteeing bank
Niamh
deposits and for the resolution of credit institutions.
Leneghan
In September 2022, faced with the risk of insolvency of the bank in question, the FGB,
assisted in the
as resolution authority, decided to subject it to a resolution procedure.
preparation of
this Newsletter.
Getin Noble Bank’s supervisory board lodged an appeal against this decision with the
relevant Polish administrative court.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
The legality of the decision is also being challenged by other parties, including the
bank’s shareholders, bondholders and customers. In all, more than eight thousand
Twitter)
appeals have been lodged, which would correspond to the average number of appeals
that reach this court over a two-year period.
Download our
In the course of this litigation, the Administrative Court turned to the Court of Justice
with doubts of two sorts.
Firstly, it pointed out that a procedural provision obliged it to combine all the actions
with a view to a joint examination and decision. It would therefore be excessively
difficult, if not impossible, to meet the requirement of speedy judicial review.
Secondly, with regard to the adoption of the contested decision, the national court
seeks to ascertain what the requirements relating to the independence of the
resolution authority are, when it also performs the function of temporary
administrator and that of guaranteeing bank deposits.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
All times are 9:30
In this context, the Administrative Court doubts whether granting the right to bring an
unless otherwise
action before the administrative court to any person, whose legal interest has been
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
adversely affected by the contested decision, is indispensable to protect the rights
guaranteed by EU law.
Background Documents C-118/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 12th December
Judgment in Case C-419/23 Nemzeti Földügyi Központ
(Free movement of capital)
In 2013, Hungary adopted legislation abolishing, as of May 1, 2014, usufruct rights
belonging to persons not related to the owner of the agricultural land concerned
located in that Member State.
In its judgment of May 21, 2019 (C-235/17), the Court of Justice found that, by adopting
the national legislation at issue, Hungary had infringed the principle of the free
movement of capital and the right to property guaranteed by the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In 2021, Hungary adopted special provisions to implement this judgment: any natural
or legal person, whose usufruct rights had been removed from the land register in
accordance with the 2013 regulations, could apply/ask to have the removed usufruct
re-entered in the land register.
In 2022, the Hungarian National Centre for Land Affairs ordered the re-registration of
the usufruct of a national of a Member State other than Hungary in the Land Register
on the basis of those provisions.
The owner of the agricultural land in question, who resides in Germany, brought an
action before the Court of Gy?r (Hungary) for annulment of that re-registration order
on the ground that the usufruct in question had been unlawfully entered in the land
register in 2002.
That court asked the Court whether EU law precluded the re-registration of the
usufruct in question on the ground that it had initially been unlawfully entered in the
land register.
Background Documents C-419/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Week XLXI: 16th to 20th December
Wednesday 18th December
General Court
Judgment in Case T-776/22 TP v Commission
(European Union public contracts)
In 2009, the European Commission launched a procedure for awarding public works
contracts for modernising a structure. It awarded the contract to two companies,
including TP, which had previously entered into a consortium contract with each other.
On completion of the works, after noting certain malfunctions in the structure, the
Commission sent them notice of early termination of the contract and initiated
arbitration proceedings under the aegis of the International Chamber of Commerce
(ICC).
The Arbitral Tribunal ruled that the two companies were jointly and severally liable to
pay the European Union an amount corresponding to the costs necessary to repair
the work. It also qualified the consortium’s conduct as gross negligence.
In October 2022, the Commission adopted a decision under which TP was excluded,
for a period of two years, from participation in award procedures governed by the
2018 Financial Regulation or financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and
from any selection for implementation of EU funds.
The Commission based its decision on the 2018 Financial Regulation, which sets out
the conditions for exclusion. The authorising officer responsible may exclude a person
or entity in particular where that person or entity has seriously failed to fulfil essential
obligations in the performance of a legal commitment financed by the EU budget,
which has led to the early termination of that commitment.
TP brought an action before the General Court of the European Union for annulment
of this decision.
Background Documents T-776/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Wednesday 18th December
General Court
Judgment in Cases T-489/23 Mironovich Shor v Council and T-493/23 Tauber v
Council
(External relations – Common Foreign and Security Policy)
In April 2023, in response to the destabilising actions in Moldova, the European Union
adopted restrictive measures for the first time. In particular, they target those
responsible for threats to Moldova’s sovereignty, democracy, rule of law, stability or
security.
Mr Ilan Mironovich Shor, former leader of the ?OR political party and Moldovan-Israeli
businessman, and Ms Marina Tauber, former Vice-President of the ?OR party of
Moldovan nationality, had their funds frozen in particular for their role in the
organisation of violent, illegally financed anti-government demonstrations threatening
the sovereignty, democracy and stability of Moldova.
In 2023, they were included, and then maintained in 2024, by the Council of the
European Union on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures on
account of the situation in the Republic of Moldova. Mr Shor and Ms Tauber asked the
General Court to annul those measures.
Background Documents T-489/23
Background Documents T-493/23
There will be one press release for these cases.
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Case C-295/23 Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
(Free movement of capital)
The German law firm Halmer Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft challenged before the
Bavarian Bar Disciplinary Board (Germany) a decision of the Munich Bar Association of
November 9, 2021 to disbar it, on the grounds that an Austrian limited liability
company had acquired shares in it for purely financial purposes.
Under the German regulations applicable at the time, only lawyers and members of
certain liberal professions could become partners in a law firm.
The Bavarian Lawyers’ Disciplinary Board has referred questions to the Court of Justice
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
on the compatibility of these rules with EU law.
Background Documents C-295/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Case C-157/23 Ford Italia
On July 4, 2001, ZP purchased a Ford Mondeo car from the company Stracciari, a
dealer for the Ford brand having its registered office in Italy.
The vehicle had been manufactured by Ford WAG, a company established in Germany
which distributes its vehicles in Italy through Ford Italia. Ford Italia is an intra-EU
importer and supplied the vehicle to the Ford dealer (Stracciari).
Ford WAG and Ford Italia belong to the same group of companies. On December 27,
2001, ZP was involved in a traffic accident in which the vehicle’s airbag did not work
and on January 8, 2004, ZP brought a claim for compensation for the damage suffered
before the District Court, Bologna (Italy). The claim was brought against Stracciari, in
its capacity as a vendor, and against Ford Italia.
Ford Italia appeared in the proceedings, stated that it had not manufactured the
vehicle and designated Ford WAG as the producer. It argued that, as the supplier, it
was not responsible for the defect in the vehicle and that, by identifying the producer,
it was exempted from liability.
On November 5, 2012, the District Court, Bologna found Ford Italia liable in tort for the
damage caused as a result of the defective product.
Ford Italia appealed the judgment among others before the Supreme Court of
Cassation, Italy, which refers to the Court of Justice for guidance. The Italian court asks
whether a supplier can be held liable as the producer if it has not marked the product
with its own name, trademark, or distinguishing feature, but its name or trademark is
the same or similar to that of the actual producer.
At issue in the original dispute is whether, in that case, in accordance with Directive
85/374/EEC, it should be the manufacturer of the vehicle in Germany (Ford WAG) or its
supplier in Italy (Ford Italia) which should be held liable.
Background Documents C-157/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Case C-531/23 Loredas
(Free movement of capital – Freedom of movement for workers – Social policy)
This reference for a preliminary ruling was made in a dispute between HJ, a domestic
worker, and her employer, a family consisting of two natural persons, US and MU,
concerning a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim for compensation.
On March 31, 2021, HJ filed a claim for unfair dismissal against US and MU, as well as a
claim for compensation for unpaid wages, alleging that she had worked longer hours
than those specified in her employment contract. However, the Spanish court of first
instance considered that this circumstance had not been proven by the claimant and
she was awarded less compensation than that claimed by HJ.
As the defendant had not appeared before the court, it had not provided the court
with any records of the time actually worked by HJ. The court stated that the absence
of these records could not mean that HJ’s allegations regarding the performance of
days longer than those indicated in his employment contract were accepted
absolutely.
HJ brought an action against that decision before the referring court, which
entertained doubts as to the compatibility of the national rules relating to the special
regime for domestic employees with Union law, in so far as the exception to the
general obligation to record working time may imply, for domestic employees,
treatment contrary to the provisions of Directive 2003/88/EC.
In addition, the fact that the group of domestic employees in Spain is heavily
feminised could also imply indirect discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to the
Charter and Directive 2006/54/EC.
In order to determine whether HJ should be awarded higher compensation,
corresponding to the working time and salary alleged by it, and having doubts as to
the compatibility with Union law of the provision establishing that registration of the
working time of domestic employees is not compulsory, the referring court decided to
refer the question to the Court.
Background Documents C-531/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Joined Cases C-244/24 Kaduna and C-290/24 Abkez
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum policy)
In 2022, following the invasion of Ukraine by Russian armed forces, the European
Union set up a temporary protection mechanism for displaced persons from Ukraine.
This European mechanism applies to three categories of displaced persons:
Ukrainian nationals,
stateless persons and nationals of non-EU countries other than Ukraine who
have been granted international protection or equivalent national protection
in Ukraine,
family members of these first two categories of persons, and
stateless persons and nationals of non-EU countries other than Ukraine who
have a permanent residence permit in Ukraine and who are unable to return
to their country or region of origin in safe and sustainable conditions.
However, Member States may extend this temporary protection to any category of
persons displaced for the same reasons from Ukraine, who were legally resident in
Ukraine and who are unable to return to their country or region of origin in safe and
durable conditions.
The Dutch authorities initially intended to implement this option by extending the
benefit of temporary protection to all holders of a Ukrainian residence permit,
including temporary ones, without assessing whether they were able to return to their
country or region of origin in safe and durable conditions.
However, those authorities subsequently decided to limit such protection to a more
restricted category of persons, namely holders of a permanent Ukrainian residence
permit.
A number of persons who did not have such a permanent Ukrainian residence permit,
but who had already been granted optional temporary protection, brought actions
before the Netherlands courts.
The Dutch Council of State and the Court of The Hague, sitting in Amsterdam,
Netherlands, referred questions to the Court of Justice on whether and how a Member
State may terminate the optional protection granted in this context.
Background Documents C-244/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Joined Cases C-185/24 and C-189/24 Tudmur
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – Asylum policy)
This case concerns the interpretation of the Dublin III Regulation, which establishes
the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for
examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member
States by a non-EU-country national or a stateless person.
Two Syrian nationals, RL and QS, have applied for asylum in Germany. However, Italy
was identified as the Member State responsible. The German Federal Office for
Migration and Refugees therefore asked Italy to take charge of RL and QS.
This request went unanswered. The German Federal Office then rejected the asylum
applications as inadmissible on the grounds that Italy was responsible for examining
their asylum applications. It also ordered to remove the applicants and send them
back to Italy.
The asylum seekers’ appeal against the Federal Office’s decision is currently before the
Higher Administrative Court of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia – the referring
court. During the appeal procedures, the Italian Dublin Unit sent a circular letter to the
network of all Dublin Units, asking Member States to temporarily suspend all transfers
to Italy for technical reasons.
In a second letter, the Italian Dublin Unit confirmed the unavailability of reception
facilities in view of the large number of arrivals, also taking into account the lack of
available reception places.
In this context, the referring court asks the Court to clarify the interpretation of the
Dublin III Regulation, in particular as regards the existence of systematic failings in a
Member State designated as responsible.
Background Documents C-185/24
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 19th December
Judgment in Case C-664/23 Caisse d’allocations familiales des Hauts-de-Seine
(Area of Freedom, Security and Justice)
This application was made in the context of a dispute between a national of a non-EU
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
country and the Caisse des allocations familiales des Hauts-de-Seine (France) concerning
a refusal to grant family benefits to that national on the grounds that two of his minor
children had entered France illegally.
The said national, of Armenian nationality, entered France illegally on January 7, 2008
with his wife and two minor children. Since 2014, he has held a temporary ‘private and
family life’ residence permit issued by the Hauts-de-Seine prefecture, authorising him
to work.
In April 2014, he applied to the fund for family benefits for his two minor children born
outside France in 2004 and 2005, and for his daughter born in France in 2011. In
August 2016, his application was refused for his two children born outside French
territory. After an unsuccessful application to the fund’s amicable appeals
commission, this same national challenged the refusal decision before the French
courts.
The referring court, before whom the matter currently lies, considers that there is
doubt as to the interpretation of Directive 2011/98/EU, and has referred the matter to
the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-664/23
There will be a press release for this case.
HEARINGS OF NOTE*
Information Note concerning streaming on the Curia website
Please note the following new conditions for streaming on the website including the new
length of availability of the video recordings:
In order to facilitate public access to its judicial activity, the Court of Justice of the
European Union offers a system for broadcasting hearings.
The delivery of judgments of the Court of Justice and the reading of opinions of the
Advocate Generals are broadcast live on this page. Broadcasting will be enabled at the
start of the hearing, at the time indicated in the judicial calendar.
Certain hearings of the Court of Justice involving oral pleadings are, however,
broadcast with a delay. This concerns, as a rule, hearings in cases referred to the full
Court, to the Grand Chamber, or, exceptionally, where this is justified by the
importance of the case, to a chamber of five judges. The video recordings of those
hearings will remain available on this website for a maximum period of one month
after the close of the hearing.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024
Court of Justice
Tuesday 10th December 2024: 09:30 – Case C-34/24 Stichting Right to Consumer Justice
and Stichting App Stores Claims (Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Competition)
(streamed on Curia)
Wednesday 11th December 2024: 09:30 – Case C-784/23 Voore Mets and Lemeks Põlva
(Environment – conservation of wild birds)
Wednesday 11th December 2024: 14:30 – Case C-653/23 TOODE (State aid)
Thursday 12th December 2024: 09:30 – Case C-549/23 American Express Europe and
Others (Freedom of establishment – Approximation of laws)
Thursday 12th December 2024: 09:30 – Case C-584/23 Alcampo and Others
(Fundamental rights – Social policy)
General Court
Tuesday 10th December 2024: 09:30 – Case T-256/23 Mylan Ireland v Commission
(Public health)
Tuesday 10th December 2024: 09:30 – Case T-218/18 RENV Deutsche Lufthansa v
Commission (Competition – State aid)
Wednesday 11th December 2024: 09:30 – Case T-283/23 Aven v Council (Restrictive
Measures – Ukraine)
Thursday 12th December 2024: 09:30 – Joined Cases T-1103/23 and T-1104/23 Ferrari v
EUIPO – Hesse (TESTAROSSA) (Intellectual, industrial and commercial property – Trade marks)
Friday 13th December 2024: 09:30 – Case T-399/23 ClientEarth and Collectif Nourrir v
Commission (Environment)
* This is a non-exhaustive list and does not include all the hearings over the next two
weeks.
Newsletter
Week XLX – XLXI: 9th to 20th December 2024