(AGENPARL) – gio 20 febbraio 2025 Newsletter
Weeks IX – X: 24th February to 07th March 2025
Contact us
@ENDesk
Jacques René
Zammit
Press Officer
Monica Pizzo
Assistant
Desk Email
Niamh
Week IX: 24th to 28th February
Tuesday 25th February
Judgment in Case C-233/23 Alphabet and Others
(Competition – Dominant position)
In 2018, Enel launched the JuicePass app in Italy, which allows drivers to locate and
reserve charging stations for their electric vehicles.
To facilitate navigation, Enel asked Google to make the app compatible with Android
Auto, Google’s system that allows access to applications on smartphones directly on
the car’s dashboard. Third-party developers can adapt their applications to Android
Auto using the templates provided by Google.
Leneghan
assisted in the
Google refused to take the necessary steps to ensure JuicePass’s interoperability with
preparation of
Android Auto.
this Newsletter.
The Italian competition authority then imposed a fine of more than €102 million on
Google, deeming that this behaviour constituted an abuse of a dominant position.
Follow
@EUCourtPress
on X (formerly
Twitter)
Google challenged this decision before the Italian Council of State, which referred the
matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Background Documents C-233/23
Download our
There will be a press release for this case.
Tuesday 25th February
Judgment in Joined Cases C-146/23 S?d Rejonowy w Bia?ymstoku and C-374/23
Adoreik?
(Principles of Community law – Fundamental rights)
The Court of Justice has been referred to by Polish and Lithuanian courts which are
questioning the compatibility of national provisions relating to the determination of
Communications Directorate
Press and Information unit
curia.europa.eu
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X: 24th February to 07th March 2025
All times are 9:30
judges‘ remuneration with EU law.
unless otherwise
stated.
Don’t forget to
check the diary
on our website
for details of
other cases.
In Poland, a law provides that judges’ basic salaries are set objectively, based on the
average salary communicated by the Central Statistical Office. However, three periodic
laws have modified this calculation method, resulting in a ‘freeze’ on the revaluation of
judges’ remuneration for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. This derogatory measure
was justified by budgetary constraints linked to the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s
aggression against Ukraine.
Challenging this amendment, a judge is claiming a sum corresponding to the
difference between the salary received and the salary that would have been due had
the revaluation not been ‘frozen’.
In Lithuania, two judges have brought an action for damages against this Member
State. They claim that the level of their remuneration depends directly on the political
will of the executive and legislative branches. Furthermore, they criticise the lack of a
legal mechanism for setting a decent remuneration, commensurate with the
responsibilities of judges and comparable to the salaries of representatives of other
legal professions.
Background Documents C-146/23
Background Documents C-374/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th February
Judgment in Case C-203/22 Dun & Bradstreet Austria
(Data protection – Approximation of laws)
In Austria, a mobile phone operator refused to allow a customer to conclude a
contract on the grounds that she was not sufficiently solvent. The operator based its
decision on an automated credit assessment of the customer carried out by Dun &
Bradstreet Austria, a company specialising in the provision of such assessments. The
contract would have involved a monthly payment of €10.
In the ensuing dispute, an Austrian court found, in a final decision, that Dun &
Bradstreet Austria had violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Dun &
Bradstreet Austria had allegedly failed to provide the client with ‘meaningful
information about the logic involved’ in the automated decision-making in question. At
the very least, the company had allegedly failed to provide sufficient reasons as to why
it was unable to provide this information.
The court to which the client had referred the matter for the enforcement of this court
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X: 24th February to 07th March 2025
decision wondered what Dun & Bradstreet Austria should actually do in this regard. It
therefore asked the Court of Justice to interpret the GDPR and the Trade Secrets
Directive.
Background Documents C-203/22
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th February
Judgment in Case C-517/23 Apothekerkammer Nordrhein
(Approximation of laws)
Since 2012, DocMorris, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy, has been running various
advertising campaigns for customers in Germany for the purchase of prescription
drugs.
On the one hand, these were price reductions and exact payments for unspecified
prescription drugs and, on the other hand, a gratuity of between €2.50 and 20 that
gave rise to a payment, but the exact amount of which was not known in advance.
Furthermore, DocMorris offered vouchers for the purchase of other products with the
purchase of prescription drugs, namely for non-prescription drugs and health and
care products.
At the request of the North Rhine Chamber of Pharmacists, the Cologne Regional
Court adopted interim measures prohibiting the advertising activities carried out by
DocMorris.
However, as most of these interim measures were subsequently annulled, DocMorris
is claiming damages of approximately €18.5 million from the Chamber of Pharmacists
before the German courts. According to DocMorris, the interim measures were
unjustified from the outset.
The German Federal Court of Justice asked the Court of Justice whether German law,
which allowed advertising campaigns involving price reductions and exact change
payments, but prohibited other advertising campaigns, was in accordance with
Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
human use.
Background Documents C-517/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X: 24th February to 07th March 2025
Thursday 27th February
Judgment in Case C-674/23 AEON NEPREMI?NINE and Others
(Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Internal market – Principles)
The Slovenian Constitutional Court is examining the constitutionality of the law on real
estate brokerage services.
This law caps the commission charged for these services in the case of the purchase,
sale or rental of real estate. In the case of purchase or sale, the commission may not
exceed 4% of the contract price. As for rentals, the ceiling is 4% of the product of the
monthly rental amount and the number of months for which the property is rented.
An intermediation contract that contravenes this ceiling is considered null and void.
Uncertain as to the compliance of this measure with Union law, the Slovenian
Constitutional Court referred the matter to the Court of Justice. Its doubts relate to the
cap applied to intermediation services relating to a single-family house, flat or
residential unit, acquired or rented by a natural person.
Background Documents C-674/23
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th February
Opinion in Case C-59/23 P Austria v Commission (Nuclear power plant Paks II)
(Competition – State aid)
By decision of March 6, 2017, the European Commission approved the investment aid
that Hungary planned to grant to the state-owned company MVM Paks II for the
development of two new nuclear reactors on the site of the Paks nuclear power plant,
south of Budapest.
These new reactors were to gradually replace the four existing reactors. MVM Paks II
was supposed to become the owner and operator of the two new reactors free of
charge. Their construction was to be fully financed by the Hungarian State.
The construction of the new reactors was entrusted, by way of direct award, to the
Russian company Nizhny Novgorod Engineering, in accordance with an agreement
between Russia and Hungary on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
In the same agreement, Russia undertook to grant Hungary a state loan to finance the
new reactors. Austria challenged the Commission’s approval decision before the
Newsletter
Weeks IX – X: 24th February to 07th March 2025
General Court of the European Union.
By judgment of November 30, 2022 (T-101/18 – see also press release No 192/22), the
General Court dismissed the action.
Austria then lodged an appeal against the General Court’s judgment before the Court
of Justice.
Background Documents C-59/23 P
There will be a press release for this case.
Thursday 27th February
Opinion in Case C-271/23 Commission v Hungary (Reclassification of cannabis)
(Law governing the institutions)
During a session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), when
voting on an amendment of the Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Convention), Hungary
vote against and made a declaration against a Council Decision (Council’s Decision)that
established the joint position of the European Union. That decision concerns
essentially the position to be taken by the Member States on behalf of the European
Union with respect to the reclassification of cannabis and cannabis-related substances
in the vote at the CND.
The Convention has four Schedules, numbered I to IV, comprising lists of narcotic
drugs or preparations containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Cannabis and cannabis resin were for many years included in Schedules I (drugs with
significant potential for abuse and risk of harm and Schedule IV (high risk to public