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).
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).
A lot has already been written concerning this judgment. I was trying to post a meaningful summary of the interesting points of the judgment but I gave up since it seems to be very important in its entirety. I apologise in advance for the lengthy text that follows.
The issue is the application of Directive 95/46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data (“Directive 95/46” or “the Directive”) vis-a-vis search engine operators, in particular Google in the case referred for a preliminary ruling.
The Court of Justice (“CoJ”) gave on 10 April 2014 its judgment on appeal in the gas insulated switchgear case C-231/11 P. The dispute concerns a cartel relating to the sale of gas insulated switchgear (“GIS”), a heavy electrical equipment which is used to control energy flow in electricity grids. The case commenced with a leniency application; the Commission then initiated its investigation, which was concluded with the imposition of a fine on several undertakings. Parent undertakings were found jointly and severally liable with their subsidiaries. The Commission decision was challenged before the General Court, which in its judgment in Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens AG Österreich a.o v Commission found, inter alia, that the Commission failed to determine the exact amount, i.e. the shares of the fine to by paid by each of the undertakings (both parents and subsidiaries) imposed severally and jointly on them. The General Court even went on to determine itself these shares of the fine to be paid by each undertaking. Its judgment was cross-appealed by the Commission and the undertakings.
In this preliminary reference case coming from Germany, the Court of Justice (“CoJ”) applied the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality enshrined in Article 18 TFEU to an interesting set of facts.
International Jet Management (“IJM”) is an airline company with its seat in Austria. It operates charter flights within the European Union (“EU”) but it also uses its fleet for flights from third countries to the EU. At the material time, the company held an operating licence and an air operator certificate (“AOC”) issued in Austria. Between December 2008 and March 2009, IJM operated private flights to Germany from Moscow, on six occasions, and Ankara, on one occasion.
On 12 March 2014 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice (“CoJ”) delivered two judgments in preliminary reference cases upon request by the Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands). In both cases, namely Case C-456/12 O. and B. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Case C-457/12 S. and G. v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, the Netherlands’ authorities had refused to grant a right of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of an EU citizen of Netherlands nationality.
In a previous post, we have looked at the protection guaranteed under EU law, and especially Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, for women in relation to pregnancy and maternity. However what about mothers who have had a baby through a surrogacy agreement? Does EU law also apply to them?
On 18 March 2014 the Court of Justice (“CoJ”) delivered its judgments in two preliminary reference cases (see jugdment in Case C-167/12 and judgment in Case C-363/12) answering this question in the negative.
On 6 March 2014, the Court of Justice (“CoJ”) delivered its judgment on a preliminary reference case (Case C-595/12 Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia) regarding the interpretation of Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.