Here’s a rather amusing case. Well, the way the Court of Justice dealt with the case will make folks who have been left stuck in airports smile. What actually happened to the plaintiffs in the main proceedings was not so funny.
In Case C-394/14 Sandy Siewert and others v Condor Flugdienst, EU:C:2014:2377, the Court of Justice handed down swift and decisive justice. In just under three months, the Court handed down an order responding to a reference from a national court to the effect that the plaintiffs in the national proceedings were indeed entitled to compensation under Regulation 261/2004 because their had been delayed for more than six hours. That’s right: question received by the Court of Justice on 18 August 2014, answer given on 14 November 2014. Bang !
Here’s what happened. Continue reading
In its judgment of 3 December 2014 in De Clercq and others, C-315/13, EU:C:2014:2408, the Court of Justice examines whether a Belgian system of declarations is a restriction on the freedom to provide services and if so, whether it is justified for some reason. There’s nothing new or earth shattering in the judgment, really, but it is a good synthesis of the current case law.
Today, 1st December 2014, marks the fifth anniversary of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. More particularly, 1st December 2014 is an important date for the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in respect of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The 5 year transitional period laid down in Article 10 (1) of Protocol 36 to the TEU and TFEU comes to an end. Consequently from now on the Court of Justice can exercise its normal jurisdiction to answer preliminary references from national courts in respect of measures adopted by the EU before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Also, the Commission can take infringement proceedings against Member States in this field from now on. Continue reading
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 November 2014 in Mario Vital Pérez v Ayuntamiento de Oviedo, C-416/13, EU:C:2014:2371, concerns a sensitive subject for me: age discrimination !
The Court held that Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) precludes national legislation which sets at 30 years the maximum age for recruitment of local police officers.
Here’s what happened. Continue reading
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 November 2014 in Guardian Industries Corp and Guardian Europe Sarl v Commission, C-580/12 P, EU:C:2014:2363, is a rare instance of the Court of Justice on appeal reducing the amount of a fine imposed for the breach of the competition rules that had been upheld at first instance by the General Court. Continue reading
In its recent judgment of 23 October 2014 in flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS in liquidation v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS, C-302/13, EU:C:2014:2319, the Court of Justice confirmed that actions brought by undertakings seeking redress or compensation for damage resulting from alleged infringements of EU competition law, come within the definition of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Thus such actions, whether they are “follow on” or stand alone actions, are subject to the rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement contained in Regulation No 44/2001. Continue reading
Back on 11 September 2014 (how time flies !) the Court of Justice handed down an interesting judgment in Case C-112/13 A v B and Others in a rather unusual case. It dealt with the role – and duty – of the national court when faced with national legislation which seemed incompatible with both EU law and with the national constitution.
Indeed, the Court of Justice had some really interesting to say about how national courts should ensure the primacy of EU law. It builds on the important judgment in Melki and Abdeli C‑188/10 and C‑189/10, EU:C:2010:363. The case turned on substance on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) no 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. I won’t deal with the substance issues, leaving them to our friends at the excellent Conflict of Laws blog. Just the primacy issue here.
Apologies for the hiatus.
Maria and I have day jobs that have kept us busy. Meanwhile, the Courts have handed down some interesting judgments which we shall post about soon for your reading pleasure.
Fear not, blogging will resume.
The Court of Justice does not often interfere, on appeal, with the way fines for competition cases are calculated and scrutinised by the General Court. It will do so, however, if an error of law is made, for example.
In Case C-408/12 P YKK Corporation and others v Commission EU:C:2014:66 the Court of Justice did find an error and it did readjust the amount of the fine imposed on a company for infringing the competition rules. Here’s what happened….
The General Court’s judgment in Case T-572/11 Samir Hassan v Council EU:T:2014:682 is interesting in a number of respects but I’ll concentrate on just one issue that it deals with: when can an application be amended to take account of amendments or repeals of the act the annulment of which is sought? Continue reading