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.
The Court of Justice handed down an interesting decision on 6 March 2014 in Case C-206/13 Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia. The judgment does two things: it declines to answer a preliminary question referred to it on the grounds it has no jurisdiction and it describes when the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the general principles of EU law come into play and when they don’t.
In short, the judgment doesn’t say anything especially new but it does set out clearly when there is a connection can be established between national litigation and EU law. Continue reading
In this preliminary reference case, the question was whether a Spanish tax on retail sales of certain hydrocarbons (“Impuesto sobre las Ventas Minoristas de Deteminados Hidrocarburos” or the “IVMDH”) was in compliance with Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12.
Readers interested in the facts and the tax aspects of this case may have a look at the press release by the Court here. For those not interested, the CoJ found, in a nutshell, that a tax on the retail sale of mineral oils such as the IVMDH is not in compliance with Article 3(2) of the Directive as it cannot be regarded as pursuing a specific purpose, i.e. it is not itself directed at protecting health and the environment.
We consider more interesting the second part of the CoJ judgment regarding the possibility and the conditions for limiting its temporal effects. Continue reading
The Court of Justice has, by its Order of 13 February 2014 in Case C-555/13 Merck Canada Inc, accepted to answer a question referred by an arbitration tribunal.
Does that order mean the end of the Court’s traditional rule that an arbitration tribunal is not a “court or tribunal of a Member State” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU and its case law resulting from Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ Deutsche Hochseefischerei  ECR 1095, paragraphs 10 to 12, and Case C-126/97Eco Swiss  ECR I-3055, paragraph 34 ? No, not at all.