Tag: case law

Summaries of judgments: Real Madrid Club de Fútbol | KUBERA

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 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” →

Commentary to the Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment: a failure by the CJEU in appropriately balancing privacy, data protection and the interests of law enforcement [1]

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Tiago Sérgio Cabral [Editor of this blog and Project Expert for the Portuguese team in the "European Network on Digitalization and E-governance" (ENDE)]

1. Background

The Court of Justice’s decision in Case C- 548/21 (Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck) probably got less attention than it deserved from legal scholars due to being issued at the same time as other high profile data protection cases and connected to Directive 2016/680/EU (the “Law Enforcement Directive”) instead of the GDPR. However, there are good reasons to engage in a deeper analysis of this case. The Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment addresses access by law enforcement to mobile phones, which nowadays store large amounts of personal data that most people prefer to maintain private, but that law enforcement considers key for criminal investigation purposes. The Court of Justice’s conclusions regarding this issue are surprising as they seem out of step with previous case-law. Other less controversial but still relevant takeaways from this judgment, such as those regarding the scope of the concept of “personal data” may have relevance beyond data protection in the context of law enforcement.

    2. The Court of Justice’s Decision

    The case arises from a request for a preliminary ruling from the Regional Administrative Court of Tyrol (Austria). The factual background of the judgment is relatively straightforward: Austrian customs authorities seized a package for a data subject (CG) containing 85 grams of cannabis. Pursuant to this seizure, law enforcement conducted a search of CG’s residence, questioned him, and requested access to connection data on CG’s mobile telephone. CG refused and, as such, law enforcement seized his mobile phone, including SIM and SD cards.

    Continue reading “Commentary to the Bezirkshauptmannschaft Landeck judgment: a failure by the CJEU in appropriately balancing privacy, data protection and the interests of law enforcement [1]” →

    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)” →

    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” →

    Summaries of judgments: Medel v Council | Symphony Environmental Technologies and Symphony Environmental v Parliament and Others

    On By revistaunioIn 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)
     ▪

    Order of the General Court (Grand Chamber), 4 June 2024, Cases T-530/22 to T-533/22, Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel), International Association of Judges, Association of European Administrative Judges e Stichting Rechters voor Rechters v Council of the European Union, Actions for annulment – Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council – Council Implementing Decision of 17 June 2022 on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Poland – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility)

    Facts

    The General Court, sitting in Grand Chamber, dismissed as inadmissible the actions brought by four international judges associations[1], whose members consist, in general, of national professional associations, including those of Polish judges, seeking the annulment of the Council’ implementing decision that approved the assessment of Poland’s recovery and resilience plan.

    The Recovery and Resilience Facility, established by Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021, allows the European Union (“EU”) to grant funds to Member States, in the form of a financial contribution.

    On 17 June 2022, the Council adopted a decision, subsequently amended by a decision on 8 December 2023, (hereinafter the “contested decision”), approving the assessment of the Recovery and Resilience Plan proposed by Poland – which specifies, the milestones that Poland must achieve for the financial contribution to be granted. These milestones include, in particular, the reform of Poland’s judicial system, detailed in milestones F1G, F2G, and F3G. In accordance with milestone F1G, legislative measures must be adopted to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Furthermore, milestone F2G requires measures to ensure that the judges affected by decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Polish Supreme Court have access to proceedings allowing a review of the decisions of that Chamber. Lastly, milestone F3G enshrines that any proceedings initiated under milestone F2G must be concluded during the fourth quarter of 2023.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Medel v Council | Symphony Environmental Technologies and Symphony Environmental v Parliament and Others” →

    Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council

    On By revistaunioIn Summaries of judgments1 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 (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 10 April 2024, Case T-301/22, Petr Aven v Council of the European Union

    Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Concept of ‘support for actions or policies’ – Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP – Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 – Concepts of ‘material or financial support for Russian decision-makers’ and ‘benefit’ from those decision-makers – Article 2(1)(d) of Decision 2014/145 – Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 269/2014 – Error of assessment

    Facts

    The Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) adopted, following the military aggression carried out by the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, several measures by which it added the applicant’s name to the lists of persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (“the lists at issue”), adopted by the Council since 2014.

    On 28 February 2022, the Council imposed on the applicant, Mr. Petr Aven, an oligarch of Russian and Latvian nationality, the freezing of his banking funds and assets, in accordance with Article 2(1) and (2) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014[1].

    The Council took such actions on the ground that he is a major shareholder of the Russian conglomerate ‘Alfa Group’, one of Russia’s main banks. As such, the applicant is one of the most influential persons in Russia and has links with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, supporting the Russian regime. According to the Council, the Russian President rewarded the Alfa Group for its loyalty to the Russian authorities by promoting the group’s investment plans abroad.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council” →

    Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich 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 (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 November 2023, Case T-193/22, OT v Council of the European Union

    Facts

    Following the military aggression perpetrated by the Russian Federation (‘Russia’) against Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) adopted several acts by which it added the applicant’s name to the lists of persons, entities and bodies supporting actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, adopted by the Council since 2014.

    The Council imposed on the applicant, OT, a businessman of Russian nationality, the freezing of his banking funds and assets, in accordance with Article 2(1) (d) and (g) of Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014[1], on the ground that, he is a major shareholder of the Russian conglomerate ‘Alfa Group’, one of Russia’s largest taxpayers. As such, the applicant is considered to be one of the most influential persons in the country and has links with the Russian President. According to the Council, Vladimir Putin rewarded the Alfa Group for its loyalty to the Russian authorities.

    Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: OT v Council of the European Union | Abramovich v Council” →

    Editorial of September 2023

    On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment 
    By the Editorial Team
    ▪

    Impact of climate change on children and young adults

    At the end of November 2020, international media[1] reported that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had ordered 33 European governments to respond to a landmark climate lawsuit lodged by four children and two young adults from Portugal – Duarte Agostinho and Others, no. 39371/20. The media pointed out that this could be the most important case ever tried by the European Court; it is the first occasion the Court has had the opportunity to grapple with climate change and its impact on individuals. The case was filed in September 2020 after Portugal recorded its hottest July in 90 years. It was initiated three years ago following the devasting forest fires in Portugal that killed more than 120 people in 2017. The ECtHR will be holding a hearing for this case on 27 September 2023.

    The young applicants are being represented by British barristers, experts in environmental and climate change law, and supported by the London and Dublin based NGO “Global Legal Action Network” (GLAN).[2]  At the request of GLAN, some Editors of UNIO provided a (pro bono) legal opinion for that case concluding that the Portuguese judicial regime is not equipped with a mechanism that allows the prosecution of all the pursued/targeted countries and that any decision issued by a Portuguese court would have limited territorial scope.  

    Continue reading “Editorial of September 2023” →