The General Court’s judgment in Case T-30/10 Reagens SpA v Commission EU:T:2014:253 (alternative link here) doesn’t really break new ground. But it does remind applicants of a few basic truths. In some ways you can sense the impatience of the Court with applicants who forget them.
First, the Court reminds everyone that if you make a plea, you have to argue it and substantiate it. Mere assertions don’t work.
Second, don’t just complain about the duration of administrative proceedings: show how it affected your rights of the defence. Continue reading →
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 Commissionfound, 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.
The two applicants had applied for a health claim – a reduction of disease risk claim in particular – to be authorised and included in an EU list of permitted claims in accordance with Article 14, 15 and following of Regulation 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. What was the reduction of disease risk claim in question ? Something to the effect that drinking lots of water regularly can reduce the risk of dehydration and a concomitant reduction of performance.
Been thirsty, anyone ? And before you drown yourself in fluids, take note of the Boston Athletic Association’s warning on hyponatremia…. Trust me, you don’t want to suffer from hyponatremia. But I digress…
The Court of Justice handed down an interesting judgment in Case C-209/13 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2014:283 in what promises to be the first of a number of cases about the proposed common system of financial transaction tax.
The United Kingdom took the matter to the Court of Justice as a precautionary matter. It lost.
Now and again a judgment comes out which has an importance that transcends the issue being litigated in the case. If we, the authors of this blog, were betting types, we’d bet that the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2014 in Case C-427/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council is such a judgment.
Why do we think that ? Because it is, we think, the first judgment that adumbrates expressly a “reasonableness” test for judicial review of legislative activity. If we are wrong about that, please leave a comment setting us right (and I take responsibility for the oversight, not Maria).
Here we go again…. Two more judgments of the Court of Justice on the issue of standing and the “regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures” business in Article 263 (4), third limb, TFEU. On this, se our previous posts here, here and here.
First, it held that even if the plaintiffs did not meet all the conditions required for their actions to be admissible under the amendment to Article 263 (4) TFEU made by the Lisbon Treaty which relaxed the conditions of admissibility of actions for annulment brought by natural and legal persons against acts of the EU institutions, the General Court made a mistake in law by failing to examine whether they did or not. And that is an interesting insight about how that new, relaxed rule on standing should be applied.
Second – not so exciting – it held that the actions for annulment in these cases were admissible according to the traditional test of individual and direct concern in Plaumann.