Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Grand Chamber), 14 May 2025,

Case T-36/23 Stevi and The New York Times v Commission

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to the text messages exchanged between the President of the Commission and the chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer – Refusal to grant access – Presumption of veracity associated with the declaration of lack of possession of documents – Absence of plausible explanations making it possible to establish the reasons for non-existence or lack of possession – Retention of documents – Principle of good administration

Facts

The General Court (hereinafter “GC”), sitting as grand chamber, upheld the action brought by Ms Matina Stevi, journalist of The New York Times, and by The New York Times Company, and annulled the final decision of the European Commission rejecting Ms Stevi’s request for access to all the text messages exchanged between Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, chief executive officer of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022, as part of the Commission’s purchase of vaccines from Pfizer in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In its decision (hereinafter “the contested decision”), sent to Ms Stevi on 16 November 2022 and adopted in accordance with the detailed rules for the application of Regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents,[1] the Commission stated that, since it did not hold any document corresponding to the description given in the initial application, it was not in a position to grant that application.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Stevi and the New York Times v Commission” →

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 5 february 2025

Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  

Law governing the institutions – Partial failure to comply with an order of the Court of Justice imposing interim measures in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations – Periodic penalty payment – Recovery of amounts receivable by offsetting – Article 101(1) and Article 102 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 – Jurisdiction of the General Court

Facts

On 1 April 2021, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations before the Court of Justice against Poland, seeking a declaration that certain legislative amendments to the organisation of the judicial system in Poland, adopted in December 2019, infringed EU law.

In the course of those proceedings, the Court required Poland, inter alia, to suspend the application of certain national provisions challenged by the Commission. Not having implemented that interim measure, Poland was ordered, on 27 October 2021, to pay the Commission a daily penalty payment of one million euro. That daily penalty payment began to run as of 3 November 2021.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission  | Case T-307/22 A2B Connect and Others v Council” →

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 18 December 2024,

Case T-776/22 TP v Commission

Public procurement – Financial Regulation – Exclusion from the proceedings of awarding of public contracts and the concession of grants financed by the Union’s budget and by the European Development Fund (EDF) for a period of two years – Significant deficiencies in complying with main obligations in the implementation of a prior contract – Article 136 (1)(e) of the Financial Regulation – No automatic link between a finding of a failure to comply with contractual obligations by the court having jurisdiction over the contract and the adoption of an exclusion measure by the authorising officer responsible – Obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the conduct of the person concerned – Prior contract awarded to a group of economic operators – Joint and several contractual liability

Facts

The General Court (henceforth “GC”), ruling in extended composition, ruled, for the first time, on the question of whether article 136(1)(e) of Regulation 2018/1046[1] (henceforth “Regulation”) imposes on the authorising officer responsible, in order to apply contractual sanctions, the obligation to conduct a specific and individual assessment of the behaviour of the person concerned before deciding to exclude from participating in award procedures.

The European Commission (henceforth “Commission”) organized a procurement procedure for the award of a public works contract concerning the upgrading of a facility. The contract was awarded in 5 October 2009 to the consortium composed by the company TP, the applicant, and its partner company. The works began in November 2009 and were concluded two years later.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: TP v Commission | Bindl v Commission” →

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judge and référendaire of the CJEU (Nuno Piçarra and Sophie Perez)

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2024, Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, Case C-633/22, EU:C:2024:843

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Articles 34 and 45 – Recognition and enforcement of judgments – Revocation of a declaration of enforceability of judgments – Grounds for refusal – Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought – Penalty imposed on a newspaper and one of its journalists for harm caused to the reputation of a sports club – Damages – Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Freedom of the press.

Facts

In 2014, the newspaper Le Monde and one of its journalists were convicted in Spain for the publication in 2006 of an article claiming that the football club Real Madrid had retained the services of the head of a doping ring in the cycling world. The Spanish court ordered them to pay EUR 300 000 to Real Madrid and EUR 30 000 to a member of the medical team of that club, by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA” →

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

 ▪

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 17 July 2024, Case T-1077/23 Bytedance/Commission

Digital services – Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 – Designation of gatekeepers – Online social networking service – Requirements – Presumptions – Rebuttal of the presumptions – Rights of the defence – Equal treatment.

Facts

The General Court (“GC”), interpreted for the first time the Digital Markets Act[1] (“DMA”), rejecting the action of annulment, brought by the Bytedance group (hereinafter, taken together, « Bytedance ») against the decision by the European Commission to designate Bytedance and the undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, as gatekeepers within the meaning of the DMA.

The DMA aims to contribute to the good functioning of the internal market by establishing rules that ensure the contestability and equity of the digital markets. According to the DMA, the Commission designates an undertaking as a “gatekeeper” when certain cumulative qualitative criteria are met, namely: (i) it has a significant weight on the internal market; (ii) it provides a core platform service (“CPS”) that is an important gateway that allows business users to reach end users; and (iii) enjoys a solid and long lasting position in its activities, or it will, in all likelihood, enjoy such position in the near future.

Additionally an undertaking is also presumed to be a gatekeeper when certain quantitative thresholds established based on its turnover, market value and number of users are met. However, if an undertaking meets these quantitative thresholds, it may still rebut its designation as a gatekeeper by presenting sufficiently substantiated arguments to demonstrate that, exceptionally, it does not meet the cumulative qualitative criteria required to be designated as a gatekeeper.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Bytedance v Commission” →

Summaries of judgments made in collaboration with the Portuguese judges and référendaire of the General Court (Maria José Costeira, Ricardo Silva Passos and Esperança Mealha)

 ▪

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) 17 July 2024, Cases T-635/22 | Fridman and Others v Council and T-644/22 | Timchenko and Timchenko v Council

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Obligation to report funds or economic resources belonging to or owned, held or controlled by the applicants – Obligation to cooperate with the competent national authority – Participation in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent restrictive measures – Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

Facts

In view of the increasing complexity of sanction evasion schemes, on 21 July 2022 the Council adopted a regulation laying down obligations to report funds and to cooperate with the competent authorities. Failure to comply with those obligations is treated as a circumvention of fund-freezing measures. In practical terms, the aim is to prevent use being made of complex legal and financial arrangements capable of making it, if not easier to circumvent measures, then at least more difficult for the competent national authorities to identify the funds or economic resources subject to restrictive measures.

The parties concerned brought actions before the General Court of the European Union seeking the annulment of those obligations to declare their funds or economic resources before 1 September 2022 and to cooperate with the competent national authorities. They submit that, since those obligations are not laid down in a decision taken by the Council in the field of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), they cannot be regarded as measures necessary for the implementation of such a decision. In particular, they argue that the Council regulation amounts to a misuse of powers, since the adoption of the obligations in question should fall within the implementing powers of the Member States.

The General Court dismisses the actions in their entirety.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Fridman and Others v Council and T-644/22 | Timchenko and Timchenko v Council” →