Another judgment of the Court of Justice on Article 263 (4) TFEU and what is a “regulatory act not entailing implementing measures”. And again, the Court held on 28 April 2015 in Case C-456/13 P T & L Sugars v Commission that the measure challenged was not “regulatory act not entailing implementing measures”. Does that judgment end the hopes of those who wished for a broader interpretation of Article 263 (4) TFEU and for a loosening of the rules on standing ?
After all, AG Cruz Villalòn was sympathetic to the idea in his Opinion of 14 October 2014 that the measures challenged were indeed “regulatory acts not entailing implementing measures” and advised that the action should be declared admissible.
The Court, in its judgment of 28 April 2015 disagreed and relied on its judgment in Telefonica v Commission C-274/12 P, EU:C:2013:852 (which we noted up in our very first post).
Let’s get back to the judgment of the Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 March 2015 in Case C-286/13 P Dole Food Company and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, EU:C:2015:184 and look at a couple of procedural points that came up. The post on an interesting substantive aspect is here.
The Court of Justice’s recent judgment of 26 March 2015 in Case C-596/13 P Commission v Moravia Gas Storage EU:C:2015:203 sets out – not for the first time – the principle according to which procedural rules in a new directive apply immediately to pending procedures.
Here’s what happened. Continue reading
The Court of Justice handed down two interesting judgments back in January 2015 on the rights of environmental NGOs and the compatibility of EU legislation with international agreements. The two judgments – in Joined Cases C-401/12 P to C-403/12 P Council v Vereniging Milieudefensie and others, EU:C:2015:4, and Joined Cases C-404/12 P and C-405/12 P Council v Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Pesticide Action Network Europe, EU:C:2015:5 – clarify when applicants can rely an international agreement which does not have direct effect. Continue reading
Every now and again, the idea pops up that the EU Institutions should be liable in damages for their legislative activities on a no fault basis. The Court of Justice handed down two judgments in October 2014 one of which expressly deals with that issue. The judgments in Case C-611/12 P Giordano v Commission, EU:C:2014:2282, and in Joined Cases C-12/13 P and C-13/13 P Buono and others v Commission, EU:C:2014:2284, are interesting not just for that reason but because they address several issues:
- Whether the EU institutions could be liable to pay damages because of measures they had adopted that were legal and thus be liable without fault;
- Whether the fishing ban could result in “actual and certain” harm;
- Whether a judgment of the Court of Justice constituted a new element of law, and
- Whether the oral proceedings should be reopened after the Advocate general had delivered his opinion.
Let’s look at each of those aspects of the case in turn. But first, 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
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.
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….
Revisions of judgments are not very common. It is possible though, pursuant to Article 44 of the Statute and Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure, to ask the General Court to revise a judgment that has already become final and definitive (res judicata). The conditions that have to be met to obtain revision are strict, as you will see from this order in Case T-82/08 REV Guardian Industries and others v Commission EU:T:2014:693.
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