Category: Case notes

Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 

Sandra Fernandes  (Master Student in Judicial Law, School of Law, University of Minho)
▪           

On the 15th of January 2020, the Portuguese Supreme Court issued a decision concerning a dispute on copyright relating to clothing designs.

The process began in August 2013 with an action brought before a Portuguese court of first instance by G-Star Raw, against Cofemel, requesting the latter to be ordered to cease several acts constituting infringement of the former’s copyright and unfair competition. G-Star Raw further requested compensation for the harm suffered in consequence of such acts taken by Cofemel, by means of a penalty payment. Specifically, G-Star Raw argued that some designs of jeans, sweatshirts and t-shirts manufactured by Cofemel were comparable to some of their own designs in a way that violated copyright, given that those designs constituted original intellectual creations and, as such, ought to be classified and protected as ‘works of art’. This status would place G-Star Raw’s creations under protection of article 2 of Portuguese Code on Copyright and Related Rights.

Continue reading “Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision n. º 268/13.2YHLSB.L1.S1 in relation to CJEU case C-683/17: portraying the empirical importance of preliminary rulings” →

“Brexit means Brexit” for the EU citizenship rights of British nationals – The Court of Justice conclusions in Préfet du Gers

On By officialblogunioIn Case notes1 Comment 
By Joana Gama Gomes (Assistant Professor of European and International Law, University of Lisbon School of Law)
▪

The United Kingdom (UK) officially withdrew from the European Union (EU) on February 1st, 2020, the date in which the Withdrawal Agreement (WA)[1] entered into force. As a result, and after the end of the transition period, all EU law stopped being applicable to and in the United Kingdom, including the provisions of EU law regarding the rights attached to EU citizenship.

EU citizenship is established in Article 9 TEU, which prescribes that “Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union”. In particular, in accordance with Articles 20 (2) (b) and 22 (1) TFEU, EU citizenship grants its citizens the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections in the Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

Continue reading ““Brexit means Brexit” for the EU citizenship rights of British nationals – The Court of Justice conclusions in Préfet du Gers” →

Again: on the prohibition of generalised and indiscriminate retention of metadata for the purpose of combating serious crime

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)
▪

The CJEU has recently added further pieces to the puzzle of retention of traffic and location data by providers of electronic communications services for the purpose of making them available to competent national authorities in the fight against serious crime.[1] In addition to reiterating its constant jurisprudence on the matter, this CJEU judgment is particularly valuable to Member States that are legislating in order to adapt to EU law – as is the case of Portugal (judgment of 20 September 2022, SpaceNet, joined cases C-793/19 and C‑794/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:702).[2]

In several Recitals of the judgment, the CJEU left some clues as to its resistance to the generalised and indiscriminate retention of metadata, and it is possible to perceive that it lies in the uncontrolled profiling of users of electronic communications services. Profiling is often used to make such predictions about individuals. It involves the collection of information about a person and the assessment of their characteristics or behavioural patterns in order to place them in a certain category or group and drawing upon that an inference or prediction – be it of their ability to perform a task, of their interest or presumed behaviour.[3]

Continue reading “Again: on the prohibition of generalised and indiscriminate retention of metadata for the purpose of combating serious crime” →

Can a judge’s request for a preliminary ruling be illegal and lead to disciplinary action? – The Court of Justice conclusions in case C-564/19

On By revistaunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
By Joana Gama Gomes (Master in International and European Law from the University of Coimbra / Researcher at CIDEEFF - Centro de Investigação em Direito Europeu, Económico, Financeiro e Fiscal)
▪

The request for a preliminary ruling was submitted by a Hungarian court in criminal proceedings brought against a Swedish national, for infringement of the provisions of Hungarian law governing the acquisition or transport of firearms or ammunition. Although the facts of this case seem unrelated to the problem at hand, subsequent developments in Hungary during the course of this procedure raised a fundamental issue of EU law.

A declaration of illegality from the Hungarian Supreme Court and disciplinary proceeding against the referring judge led him to ask the Court two crucial questions – whether EU law precludes a national court of last instance from declaring as unlawful a decision by which a lower court makes a request for a preliminary ruling, and whether the principle of judicial independence precludes disciplinary proceedings being brought against a judge for having made such a request for a preliminary ruling.

Continue reading “Can a judge’s request for a preliminary ruling be illegal and lead to disciplinary action? – The Court of Justice conclusions in case C-564/19” →

Venezuela as a third country before the ECJ

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
Tiago Paixão (Master’s in Administrative Law - The Author’s opinions are his own and do not bind any other person or entity)
▪

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (“Venezuela”) brought an action for annulment before the General Court to annul certain restrictive measures imposed by the Council of the European Union here. Those restrictive measures were imposed because of concerns about democracy, rule of law and human rights principles and are set out on Regulation 2017/2063, Regulation of Execution 2018/1653 and Decision 2018/1656.

Concretely, the General Court had to solve two major questions, before the substance of the annulment. On the one hand, to determine if Venezuela is a legal person for Article 263 TFUE and, in case of having given a positive answer, if Venezuela is directly affected by those measures.

Continue reading “Venezuela as a third country before the ECJ” →

The Household Mask – The Fundamental Right to the Access to Justice and to Online Court Sessions in times of COVID-19

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment

mosaics of the villa romana del casale

 by Marcílio Franca, Professor at Federal University of Paraíba (Brazil)
 and Inês Virgínia Prado Soares, Federal Judge (Brazil)

▪

The application of contention measures and social isolation due to COVID-19 has caused a great impact on the operation of the whole justice system – in courtrooms, law firms etc. in the world and in Brazil alike. Brazil’s National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça – CNJ) has been working from home since March 12 as a way to administer justice during the most critical period of the pandemic. On March 26, The National Council of the Prosecution Office (Conselho Nacional do Ministério Público – CNMP) determined the uniformization of the measures to prevent Coronavirus at all branches of the Prosecution Office in Brazil, making remote work and conference calls mandatory.

In turn, Brazil’s highest Court, the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) published Resolution 672/2020 on March 27 to allow the use of conference calls on its trial sessions. Such document, as those issued by CNJ and CNMP, does not detail the formalities to be respected, which intuitively leads us to believe things must be done as they always have been, including themes such as language and the attire.
Continue reading “The Household Mask – The Fundamental Right to the Access to Justice and to Online Court Sessions in times of COVID-19” →

Human dignity, child protection and the case C-233-18 (12 of November 2019)

On By officialblogunioIn Case notes1 Comment
bcadq346754
  by Maria Inês Costa, Master's student in Human Rights at UMinho
▪


The first article of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights focuses on the preservation of the human being’s dignity. Gomes Canotilho and Vital Moreira highlight that the dignity of the human person is the mainstay of the principle of equality, in the sense that it is not possible to weight or grade “dignities”: it belongs to everyone, not just the “normal” people, but also the disabled, criminals and with “deviations”, not just to national citizens (and Europeans), but also to foreigners, stateless people, refugees and the exiles. This observation presents a vision of human dignity as something that belongs to everyone by virtue of being human, and not due to some exceptional condition. It is a right that is ours, and under no circumstances can it be taken away from us.

Having these ideas present in mind, it is of great relevance to pay attention to the process and conclusions that can be taken from the publishing of the judgement of the EU Court of Justice, written following the case C-233/18, that opposed Zubair Haqbin to Fedasil, the Federal Agency for the reception of asylum seekers, in Belgium.

Zubair, a young minor of Afghan nationality, applied for international protection to the Belgian authorities on 23 December 2015. He was taken to a center in Sugny and Brochem, and he was also appointed a tutor.

Continue reading “Human dignity, child protection and the case C-233-18 (12 of November 2019)” →

We are all in the same boat! On the legal principle of solidarity and its legal implications in the recent CJEU case law

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment

5443243347_f20715f9cb_o

by Alessandra Silveira, Editor
▪

The Opinion of the Advocate-General Eleanor Sharpston in the joined cases C-715/17, C‑718/17 and C‑719/17 (delivered on 31 October 2019) concluded by recalling an old story from the Jewish tradition that deserves wider circulation – particularly in times of COVID-19 pandemic. A group of men are travelling together in a boat. Suddenly, one of them takes out an auger and starts to bore a hole in the hull beneath himself. His companions remonstrate with him. ‘Why are you doing that?’ they cry. ‘What are you complaining about?’ says he. ‘Am I not drilling the hole under my own seat?’ ‘Yes,’ they reply, ‘but the water will come in and flood the boat for all of us’ (paragraph 255).

The story is recalled by the Advocate-General regarding the principle of solidarity provided in Article 80 TFEU: “The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter [‘Policies on border checks, asylum and immigration’] and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Wherever necessary, Union acts adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle”.

On this principle – which requires all Member States – the Advocate-General stated that “respecting the ‘rules of the club’ and playing one’s proper part in solidarity with fellow Europeans cannot be based on a penny-pinching cost-benefit analysis along the lines (familiar, alas, from Brexiteer rhetoric) of ‘what precisely does the EU cost me per week and what exactly do I personally get out of it?’ Such self-centredness is a betrayal of the founding fathers’ vision for a peaceful and prosperous continent. It is the antithesis of being a loyal Member State and being worthy, as an individual, of shared European citizenship. If the European project is to prosper and go forward, we must all do better than that” (paragraph 254 of the Opinion).
Continue reading “We are all in the same boat! On the legal principle of solidarity and its legal implications in the recent CJEU case law” →

The fundamental right to life in the case Soares Campos v. Portugal: where do we stand?

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
by Mariana Alvim, PhD candidate and member of CIDP
▪

Brief description of the Case

The present case[i] concerned the death of Mr. Soares Campos’s son who was swept out to sea while taking part in a gathering related to Praxe[ii] in a beach in Portugal.

Mr. Soares Campos (hereafter “applicant” or “claimant”) lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “Court” or “ECtHR”) on the 27 May 2016.

The applicant based his complain on the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter “ECHR” or “Convention”), sustaining that there was not an effective investigation capable of establishing the circumstances of his son’s death.

The claimant also grounded his complain in a substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, declaring that his son’s death had been caused by the lack of a legal framework regulating Praxe activities in the Portuguese Universities.
Continue reading “The fundamental right to life in the case Soares Campos v. Portugal: where do we stand?” →

Religious freedom, equal treatment in employment and occupation and case C-193/17 (22 January 2019)

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment

6128103657_7c1777e4bb_o

 by Maria João Lourenço, Assistant lecturer at UMinho

▪

The phenomenon of globalization, contrary to expectations, has made cultural diversity and pluralism even more evident[i]. Because of multiculturalism, States are confronted with an increasing number of conflicts between minority legal orders and their national law, which is intended for the cultural majority.

In this chronicle, based on a recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, we will reflect on a question which, although not new, continues to deserve particular attention since it violates the most basic principle of equality and, in the context of industrial relations, a clear discrimination on grounds of religion.

The case

A request for a preliminary ruling was made about the interpretation of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 11, Article 2(2)(a), Article 2(5) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC, which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation during professional activity.

The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute between Cresco Investigation GmbH and Markus Achatzi concerning the right of the applicant to receive a supplementary compensation in respect of the remuneration paid due to work on a Good Friday.
Continue reading “Religious freedom, equal treatment in employment and occupation and case C-193/17 (22 January 2019)” →