Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Joana Covelo de Abreu (Editor of this blog and Key-staff member of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship & Technological Sustainability” - CitDig, Erasmus+).

Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union was amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2019 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of April, 11th 2024, which entered into force on September 1st 2024. These changes were mainly focused on relieving the Court of Justice from some of its jurisdictional demands, especially by entrusting the General Court the competence on certain specific areas in which preliminary questions could be raised. Notwithstanding, the opportunity was also embraced to “modernize and simplify procedures before the two courts”, i.e., the Court of Justice and the General Court.

In fact, the Court of Justice of the European Union was already called upon to pronounce itself concerning the possibility to transfer jurisdiction on preliminary references to the General Court, under specific circumstances: under Regulation (EU, Eurotom) 2015/2422, this institution submitted a report to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 14th December 2017, where it “took the view that there was no need, at that time, to propose changes as regards the manner of dealing with requests for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.” However, in that same report, the Court also “pointed out that a subsequent transfer of jurisdiction to the General Court to give preliminary rulings in certain specific areas could not be ruled out if the number and complexity of requests for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice were to be such that the proper administration of justice required it” (Recital 1 of Regulation 2024/2019).

Continue reading “Procedural changes in the European Court of the European Union by entrusting preliminary ruling competences to the General Court: first impressions” →

Summaries of judgments: Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council | Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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) 2 October 2024, Case T-797/22 Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government and entities established in Russia – Fundamental role of lawyers in a democratic society – Right of lawyers to provide legal advisory services – Right to be advised by a lawyer – Articles 7 and 47 and Article 52(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Independence of lawyers – Rule of law – Proportionality – Legal certainty

Facts

The General Court (“GC”), dismissed an action brought by the Belgian Bar Association, as well as a certain number of individual lawyers, seeking to annul a Regulation adopted by the Council, which sought to restrict the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government, and entities, established in the Russian Federation.

In light of the military aggression carried out by the Russian Federation (“Russia”) against Ukraine, several restrictive measures have been adopted by the Council targeting persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council | Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO” →

Football and the Internal Market: Integration beyond passion? (CJEU “BZ” ruling of October 4, 2024)

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Pedro Madeira Froufe [Editor of this blog and Coordinator of the Group "Studies in European Union Law" (CEDU), of JUSGOV - Research Centre for Justice and Governance, University of Minho).
The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: pexels-photo-1171084.jpeg

1. Football currently calls for multiple angles of analysis. In recent decades, as an economic activity, it has developed universally. It is a very specific economic activity that involves notable movements of capital and human resources, sociological and cultural aspects. It increasingly involves a technological, television and audiovisual aspect. It is common to say about football, that it – as a phenomenon – “moves passions and crowds”. In parallel, there are manifestations of local, regional and national identity associated with football. This has, directly and indirectly, a very significant economic weight.

For example, according to a study/record of international transfers of football players, called “Transfer Matching System (TMS)”, between 2011 and 2020, the positive net balance of player transfers from Portugal to other countries would have been greater than 2.5 billion Euros.[1] Progressively, football developed its professional-economic aspect, inserted in its own relevant market, which was also being built, solidified and growing in recent decades. The so-called “football industry” (a relatively common expression) is overlapping, on a global scale, with the dimension of football as a mere sporting, educational and leisure activity.

Continue reading “Football and the Internal Market: Integration beyond passion? (CJEU “BZ” ruling of October 4, 2024)” →

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women: a brief analysis of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of 14 May 2024

On By officialblogunioIn ReviewsLeave a comment 
Ana Cardoso (PhD candidate at the School of Law of University of Minho)

Last Monday, 25 November, marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, stressed that MEPs “stand with those abused, traumatised, bullied and brutalised”, as Parliament buildings were illuminated as part of the “Orange the world” campaign.[1]

According to United Nations (UN) estimations, a woman dies every 10 minutes victim of gender-based violence, with almost one in three women being subjected, at least once in their life, to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both, globally. Making gender-based violence against women and girls one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations.[2]

In the EU, on May 2024, the European Parliament and of the Council approved the Directive (EU) 2024/1385 on combating violence against women and domestic violence, recognising that a specified regulation on this issue was needed. With a Directive being a legally binding instrument that requires the fulfilment of detailed objectives within a defined timeframe, the Member States are therefore obligated to alter or adapt their own legal systems, as a way to provide a better, more encompassing and overall equivalent protection to victims of gender-based violence.

Continue reading “International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women: a brief analysis of Directive (EU) 2024/1385 of 14 May 2024” →

Rethinking Public Acceptance Mechanisms and Ethical Frameworks for emerging technologies in the EU: The example of Virtual Reality

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Manuel Resende Protásio (PhD candidate at the School of Law of University of Minho | FCT research scholarship holder – Bolsa UI/BD/152801/2022)

Introduction

The European Union (EU) faces a profound challenge in the regulation and oversight of rapidly advancing technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR). As technological progress accelerates, the mechanisms that assess, accept, and regulate such innovations are being tested like never before. This article seeks to unravel the complexities of these mechanisms, exploring how the EU addresses ethical, social, and economic challenges arising from VR through public consultations, impact assessments, and legislative initiatives such as the “Better Regulation” agenda.

Drawing attention to key institutions such as the European Commission and advisory bodies like the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), we examine their roles in shaping the regulatory landscape. At the heart of this inquiry is the question: how can the EU balance the often competing demands of innovation, public safety, data protection, and ethical standards?

By delving into real-world applications and regulatory obstacles—such as the effects of VR on mental health, consumer protection, and data concerns—this article presents an in-depth analysis of the current regulatory framework. Ultimately, the aim is to advocate for more transparent, inclusive, and adaptive approaches to governance, which are vital for fostering innovation while safeguarding societal interests.

Continue reading “Rethinking Public Acceptance Mechanisms and Ethical Frameworks for emerging technologies in the EU: The example of Virtual Reality” →

A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Rubén Díez García (Professor in the Department of Applied Sociology at the Complutense University of Madrid)

The Berlin Wall, built in 1961, was more than just a physical barrier: it was a symbol that separated two worlds and competing political ideologies. This ideological division also fuelled conflict within liberal democracies themselves. On the eastern side, the communist bloc, under the tutelage of the Soviet Union, controlled the political, economic, and social life of its societies. On the western side, liberal democracies defended their ideal of individual freedom and human rights. And I emphasise “ideal,” because it is no secret that democratic liberalism in practice is not exempt from risks, threats, and tensions.

Beyond separating two blocs during the Cold War, the wall also divided two different ways of legitimising power. Without delving into the limitations and the shadows and monsters of reason illuminated by modernity and capitalist development, the Berlin Wall encapsulated an oppressive reality for millions in the communist bloc. Its very existence reflected authoritarian control that restricted access to information, freedom of speech, and even collective expression, a key element in our democracies. The wall symbolised the state’s force to suppress the desire for personal autonomy beyond the collective, as well as the right to free movement. Over time, its meaning expanded: it ceased to be just a tangible border and became a symbol of the authoritarian system governing the Eastern bloc.

Continue reading “A wall that fell, a world that collapsed: the transition to the unexpected (on the 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)” →

Summaries of judgments: Bytedance v Commission

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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: Fridman and Others v Council and T-644/22 | Timchenko and Timchenko v Council

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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” →

On rebalancing powers in the digital ecosystem in recent CJEU case law (or on the battle between David and Goliath)

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Alessandra Silveira  (Editor of this official blog, Academic Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship & Technological Sustainability” - CitDig, Erasmus+)
▪           

There is no doubt that European Union (EU) law is committed to a certain rebalancing of powers in the digital ecosystem. And why is that? Because today there is a clear imbalance of power in favour of digital service providers, which requires a strengthening of the position of users in their relationship with providers. The Internet has become a space made up of platforms, where unilaterally established and non-transparent business models are developed. This attempt to rebalance power in the digital ecosystem is an exercise in social justice that only the EU can foster. And this trend is particularly noticeable in the field of personal data protection.

The emergence of a business model based on data – and profiling based on inferred data – reveals the imbalance of power between users and platforms. This has led some authors to recognise the quasi-public powers exercised by technology companies on the Internet: they regulate, enforce and resolve conflicts of interest, acting in an uncontrolled way that we would not even allow public authorities to do in the context of the rule of law. But the problem must be contextualised: what is personal data?

Continue reading “On rebalancing powers in the digital ecosystem in recent CJEU case law (or on the battle between David and Goliath)” →

Summaries of judgments: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Women identifying with the value of gender equality) | Ilva and Others

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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 11 June 2024, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Women identifying with the value of gender equality), Case C-646/21, EU:C:2024:487

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Common asylum policy – Directive 2011/95/EU – Qualification for refugee status – Article 2(d) and (e) – Reasons for persecution – Article 10(1)(d) and (2) – ‘Membership of a particular social group’ – Article 4 – Individual assessment of the facts and circumstances – Directive 2013/32/EU – Article 10(3) – Requirements for the examination of applications for international protection – Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Best interests of the child – Determination – Third-country nationals who are minors and who identify with the fundamental value of equality between women and men by reason of their stay in a Member State

Facts

Two sisters of Iraqi nationality, born in 2003 and 2005, respectively, have stayed continuously in the Netherlands since 2015. After their initial applications for international protection were rejected, by decisions that became final in 2018, they submitted subsequent applications in 2019. In support of those applications, they stated that, due to their long stay in the Netherlands, they have adopted the norms, values and conduct of young people of their age in that society. They claim that, if they return to Iraq, they would be unable to conform to the norms of a society which does not afford women and girls the same rights as men and fear being exposed to a risk of persecution due to the identity which they have formed in the Netherlands. They submit that they are therefore members of a ‘particular social group’, within the meaning of Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Women identifying with the value of gender equality) | Ilva and Others” →