The EFTA Court delivered its judgment in Case E-21/13 FIFA v EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 October 2014. As I was the agent for the defendant in that case, I wanted to publish a post to it, even though it is… no big news as the EFTA Court reiterates the case-law of the Court of Justice (“CoJ”).
Background to the case/Contested decision:
In that case, FIFA challenged a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (“the Authority”), in which the latter approved the inclusion in the Norwegian list of events of all the matches played at the final stage of the FIFA World Cup.
The Court of Justice (“CoJ”) gave last week its judgment in Case C- 67/13 P Groupement des cartes bancaires (“CB”) v European Commission.
This post will focus of the issue of judicial review without going about a detailed presentation of the points relevant to a “by object” restriction and the application of Article 101(1) TFEU. Such presentation might follow in a later post.
Case C-184/13 concerns the compatibility with EU law, and in particular with Article 101 TFEU, of national legislation pursuant to which the price of road haulage services for hire and reward cannot be lower than the minimum operating costs. These costs are fixed primarily in the framework of voluntary sectoral agreements concluded by professional associations of carriers and customers, or in the absence of such agreements by the Osservatorio (a national body in Italy carrying out, inter alia, monitoring tasks concerning compliance with the provisions on road safety and social security and updating the practices and customs applicable to haulage contracts concluded orally), and if not by the latter, directly by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport.
The Court of Justice (“CoJ”) handed down its judgment in a very interesting abuse of dominance case, namely Case C-295/12 P Telefónica SA v Commission on 10 July 2014. The judgment deals with many interesting 102 TFEU related issues; so several posts will follow. In this post though, I would like to touch upon the very well-structured reiteration of the previous case-law of the CoJ regarding the EU judicature’s obligation to carry out a review exercising its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, basically Case C-386/10 P Chalkor v Commission, Case C-272/09 P KME v Commission and Case C-501/11 P Schinlder Holding v Commission. Continue reading
Here is an interesting judgment coming from the EFTA Court in Case E-26/13 The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson on 27 June 2014.
The case concerned Mr. Gunnarsson and his wife, Icelandic citizens, who resided in Denmark from 24 January 2004 to 3 September 2009. At the time, the couple’s total income consisted of unemployment benefit that Mr Gunnarsson’s wife received in Iceland and of Mr Gunnarsson’s own disability benefit together with benefit payments he received from two Icelandic pension funds. Mr Gunnarsson paid taxes on his income in Iceland, and claimed that he was overcharged in the period from 1 May 2004 to 1 October 2009 because he was prevented from utilising his wife’s personal tax credit while they resided in Denmark. Under the Icelandic tax legislation applicable at the time, the couple had to reside in Iceland for Mr Gunnarsson to be entitled to utilise his wife’s personal tax credit in addition to his own.
The Court of Justice (“the Court”) has given its judgment in Case C-83/13 Fonnship A/S v Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet and Others today. The case concerned the question whether a vessel flying a third-country flag (Panamanian in this case) can benefit from the freedom to provide maritime transport services on the basis of Regulation No 4055/86 on the freedom to provide maritime transport services (“the Regulation” or “Regulation No 4055/86).
The Court of Justice gave its judgment in the preliminary reference Case C-507/12 Jessy Saint Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensionson 19 June 2014.
This case concerned a French teacher, resident in the UK and undertaking agency work during pregnancy. She stopped working 11 weeks before the expected date for the birth, and resumed work three months after the birth. She made a claim for Income Support (a form of social security benefit) for this period. The UK Government refused her claim, as under UK law Income Support is not granted to “persons from abroad”. Ms Saint Prix sought to challenge the Government’s decision before the UK courts, arguing that the UK legislation is contrary to EU law, and specifically to its obligations under Directive 2004/38/EC (the Citizenship Directive).