Tag: CJEU

Editorial of May 2024

On By revistaunioIn Editorials1 Comment 
By the Alessandra Silveira (Editor)
▪

“Europe is mortal”: recovering the original impetus for loyal co-operation of Article 4(3) TEU

Last April 25, while the Portuguese were celebrating the 50th anniversary of their democracy, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech at the Sorbonne University urging the European Union (EU) to urgently rethink its economic and defence models, otherwise it will become irrelevant on the world stage value-wise – that is the meaning of the metaphor according to which the Europe we have come to know could die.[1] The rules of the game have changed on several fronts – including geopolitics, economy, trade and culture – and in this context, the “European way of life” is under threat and could fall into decay. Moreover, fighting Western values is the more or less declared plan of those who want a new illiberal international order.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the beginning of a new phase for European integration, the shape of which is not yet fully understood. But one thing is certain: in this new phase, loyal co-operation between European institutions and Member States – as well as their loyalty to each other – is particularly important. This is not a time for friction or dispute between Europeans and their representatives, because in the face of the barbarity of war, what is at stake is always of an existential nature. In other words, it is always a matter of life and death, also for European values and their relevance in the world. Against this backdrop, it is important to identify the new winds that are blowing across the relations of articulation and interdependence between the legal-constitutional order of the EU and the legal-constitutional order of the Member States.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2024” →

Beyond the Digital Markets Act: much more than a piece of legislation

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Inês Neves (Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Porto | Researcher at CIJ - Centre for Legal Research | Member of the Jean Monnet Module team DigEUCit - A Digital Europe for Citizens. Constitutional and policymaking challenges) and Luísa Amaro de Matos (LL.M. in European Legal Studies – College of Europe, Bruges)
▪           

On 6 September 2023, the European Commission (‘EC’) designated a first set of six gatekeepers in relation to 22 core platform services(‘CPS’)[1]. These undertakings must ensure compliance with the positive and negative obligations set out in the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’)[2] by March 2024.[3]

Meanwhile, the DMA is already having an impact, with Facebook and Instagram, for instance, offering European users ‘the choice’ to pay a monthly subscription to use their social networks without any advertising (ads).[4]

On 17 November 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) confirmed that Apple, Bytedance and Meta had brought actions challenging the designation of (some of) their core platform services,[5] namely Titktok as regards Bytedance (T-1077/23); Facebook Marketplace and Messenger concerning Meta (T-1078/23), and App Store and iMessage for Apple (Cases T-1079/23 & T-1080/23).

Continue reading “Beyond the Digital Markets Act: much more than a piece of legislation” →

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” →

Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)

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 18 April 2023 , E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness), Case C‑699/21, EU:C:2023:295

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Article 23(4) – Surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for non-execution – Article 4(3) TEU – Duty of sincere cooperation – Postponement of the execution of the European arrest warrant – Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Serious, chronic and potentially irreversible illness – Risk of serious harm to health affecting the person concerned by the European arrest warrant

Facts

On 9 September 2019, the Općinski sud u Zadru (Municipal Court, Zadar, Croatia) issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) against E.D.L., who resides in Italy, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in Croatia.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: E.D.L. (Ground for refusal based on illness) | TAP Portugal (Death of the co-pilot)” →

Summaries of judgments: HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping) | Colt Technology Services 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 (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023, HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping), Case C-349/21, EU:C:2023:102.

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Telecommunications sector – Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy – Directive 2002/58/EC – Article 15(1) – Restriction of the confidentiality of electronic communications – Judicial decision authorising the interception, recording and storage of telephone conversations of persons suspected of having committed a serious intentional offence – Practice whereby the decision is drawn up in accordance with a pre-drafted template text that does not contain individualised reasons – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligation to state reasons

Facts

In 2017, the President of the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Specialised Criminal Court, Bulgaria), based on reasoned, detailed and substantiated applications from the Spetsializirana prokuratura (Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria), authorised the telephone tapping of four individuals suspected of committing serious intentional crimes. In giving reasons for his decisions, the President followed the existing national judicial practice of using a pre-drafted template designed to cover all possible cases of authorisation, that did not contain individualised reasons and which, in essence, merely stated that the requirements of the national legislation on telephone tapping, referred to in the template, had been met, as well as the length of time during which the use of special investigative methods was authorised.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: HYA and Others (Grounds for authorising telephone tapping) | Colt Technology Services and Others” →

Once again on the rule of law in Romania. The risk that thousands of defendants would not face criminal liability: a new wave of requests preliminary rulings at the CJEU

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 

Dragoș Călin (Judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal and Co-President of the Romanian Judges' Forum Association)
▪           

The decisions of the Constitutional Court of Romania once again created a wave of requests for preliminary rulings at the CJEU. Currently there are ten such new referrals that the ordinary courts in Romania (Brașov Court of Appeal, Bucharest Court of Appeal, Bistrița First Instance Court) have submitted or are going to submit after drafting the decisions,[1] under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In fact, one of the requests (case C-107/23 PPU, Lin) will be heard in an urgent preliminary ruling procedure, therefore, in a very short time, a solution is expected from the CJEU, as the pleadings are scheduled for 10 May 2023. Another reference for a preliminary ruling was dismissed in a peculiar manner, as a result of the admission by the High Court of Cassation and Justice – Criminal Division of the request to transfer the hearing of the case, the High Court noting the fear of a defendant, judged in several cases in which he has such a capacity, regarding the referral to the CJEU.

In the domestic cases in which these requests were submitted, the accused requested the application of the principle of the most favorable criminal law (lex mitior) in the situation where a decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania declared unconstitutional a legal provision (Article 155 par. (1) of the Romanian Criminal Code) regarding the interruption of the limitation period of criminal liability (Decision no. 358/2022). To do so, the Constitutional Court argued the passivity of the legislator, which did not intervene to bring the legal text into agreement with another decision of the Constitutional Court, issued four years earlier (Decision no. 297/2018). During that time the case law of the common courts formed and attempted to interpret the existing in law in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision, the practical consequence of reducing to half the limitation period for all criminal acts for which a final judgment of conviction was not issued prior to the first decision of the Constitutional Court and of terminating the criminal proceedings against the accused in question.

Continue reading “Once again on the rule of law in Romania. The risk that thousands of defendants would not face criminal liability: a new wave of requests preliminary rulings at the CJEU” →

Finally, the ECJ is interpreting Article 22 GDPR (on individual decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling)

On By officialblogunioIn Essays3 Comments 

Alessandra Silveira (Editor)
▪           

1) What is new about this process? Article 22 GDPR is finally being considered for before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – and on 16 March 2023, the Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-634/21 [SCHUFA Holding and Others (Scoring)][1] was published. Article 22 GDPR (apparently) provides a general prohibition of individual decisions based “solely” on automated processing – including profiling – but its provisions raise many doubts to the legal doctrine.[2] Furthermore, Article 22 GDPR is limited to automated decisions that i) produce effects in the legal sphere of the data subject or that ii) significantly affect him/her in a similar manner. The content of the latter provision is not quite clear, but as was suggested by the Data Protection Working Party (WP29), “similar effect” can be interpreted as significantly affecting the circumstances, behaviour or choices of data subjects – for example, decisions affecting a person’s financial situation, including their eligibility for credit.[3] To this extent, the effectiveness of Article 22 GDPR may be very limited until EU case law clarifies i) what a decision taken solely on the basis of automated processing would be, and ii) to what extent this decision produces legal effects or significantly affects the data subject in a similar manner.

2) Why is this case law so relevant? Profiling is an automated processing often used to make predictions about individuals – and may, or may not, lead to automated decisions within the meaning of the Article 22(1) GDPR. It involves collecting information about a person and assessing their characteristics or patterns of behaviour to place them in a particular category or group and to draw on that inference or prediction – whether of their ability to perform a task, their interest or presumed behaviour, etc. To this extent, such automated inferences demand protection as inferred personal data, since they also make it possible to identify someone by association of concepts, characteristics, or contents. The crux of the matter is that people are increasingly losing control over such automated inferences and how they are perceived and evaluated by others. The ECJ has the opportunity to assess the existence of legal remedies to challenge operations which result in automated inferences that are not reasonably justified. As set out below, the approach adopted by the Advocate General has weaknesses – and if the ECJ adopts the conditions suggested by the Advocate General, many reasonable interpretative doubts about Article 22 GDPR will persist.

3) What questions does Article 22 GDPR raise?  Does this Article provide for a right or, rather, a general prohibition whose application does not require the party concerned to actively invoke a right?  What is a decision based “solely” on automated processing? (which apparently excludes “largely” or “partially” but not “exclusively” automated decisions). Will the provisions of Article 22 GRPD only apply where there is no relevant human intervention in the decision-making process? If a human being examines and weighs other factors when making the final decision, will it not be made “solely” based on the automated processing? [and, in this situation, will the prohibition in Article 22(1) GDPR not apply]?

Continue reading “Finally, the ECJ is interpreting Article 22 GDPR (on individual decisions based solely on automated processing, including profiling)” →

Union in a time of war: On the Judgment “Violetta Prigozhina”, Case T-212/22

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
Pedro Madeira Froufe (Editor)
▪           

I

On 8 March 2023, the General Court delivered a judgment in the case of Violetta Prigozhina (Case T-212/22),[1] whose applicant is an octogenarian lady and mother of the well-known Russian “war entrepreneur” who leads the pro-Kremlin mercenary group called the “Wagner Group”.

The European Union (EU) has always had a sufficiently clear and assertive position towards the invasion of Ukraine by the military forces of the Russian Federation, which began on 24 February 2022. Support for Ukraine stems from many factors, not least the Ukrainian people’s desire to move closer to the European way of life. The so-called “Euromaidan revolution” that began in Kiev in 2014 reacted against the former President Víktor Yanukóvytch for having refused to sign the agreements on trade cooperation and, in general, greater openness to the EU, apparently under pressure from Moscow.[2] On the other hand, the military action (aggression) unleashed in 2022 by Russia against Ukraine calls into question the international order and the assumptions of peace built up after the Second World War. From the perspective of the EU (and the political and civilisational bloc currently referred to as the “West”, associated with the framework of the democratic rule of law), this is a serious violation of international law.

Continue reading “Union in a time of war: On the Judgment “Violetta Prigozhina”, Case T-212/22″ →

Summaries of judgments: Minister for Ecological Transition and Prime Minister | Puig Gordi e o

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 22 December 2022, Ministre de la Transition écologique and Premier ministre (Liability of the State for air pollution), Case C‑61/21, EU:C:2022:1015

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directives 80/779/EEC, 85/203/EEC, 96/62/EC, 1999/30/EC and 2008/50/EC – Air quality – Limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – Exceeded – Air quality plans – Damage caused to an individual on account of deterioration of the air resulting from the exceedance of those limit values – Liability of the Member State concerned – Conditions for establishing that liability – Requirement that the rule of EU law infringed be intended to confer rights on the individuals who have been harmed – No such intention

Facts

JP argues that the deterioration of the ambient air quality in the Paris agglomeration, where he lives, was the result of a breach by the French authorities of their obligations under Directive 2008/50, in so far as the limit values for microparticles (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)  laid down in Annex XI of that directive had been exceeded. JP applied to the tribunal administratif de Cergy-Pontoise (Administrative Court, Cergy-Pontoise, France) seeking, inter alia, annulment of the implied decision of the Prefect of Val-d’Oise (France), which is part of the agglomeration of Paris, refusing to take the necessary measures to address his health problems linked to air pollution in that agglomeration, problems which began in 2003; and compensation from the French Republic for the various heads of damage which he claims to have suffered on account of that pollution.

Continue reading “Summaries of judgments: Minister for Ecological Transition and Prime Minister | Puig Gordi e o” →

The system of investigation of offences committed by judges and prosecutors in Romania, once again under the attention of the CJEU

On By revistaunioIn Essays1 Comment 
Dragoș Călin (Judge at the Bucharest Court of Appeal and Co-President of the Romanian Judges' Forum Association)
▪

By the decision issued on 24 November 2022, the Pitești Court of Appeal referred two preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the second of which concerns the compatibility of the new system of investigation of offences committed by judges and prosecutors, as a result of the dismantling of the famous Special Section (SIOJ), criticized by all relevant international bodies and regarding which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) itself expressed serious doubts related to the compatibility with the European Union law.

Thus, by the judgment issued in the joined cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, Asociația Forumul Judecătorilor din România and Others, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union established that Article 2 and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU, as well as the Commission Decision 2006/928 of 13 December 2006 establishing a Mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (CVM) must be interpreted as precluding national regulation that provides for the establishment in the Public Ministry of a specialized section that has exclusive competence to investigate the offences committed by judges and prosecutors without the establishment of such section being justified by objective and verifiable requirements related to the sound administration of justice and without being accompanied by specific guarantees that allow, on the one hand, to remove any risk that this section may be used as an instrument of political control over the activity of those judges and prosecutors likely to affect their independence and, on the other hand, to ensure that such competence can be used in relation to the latter in full compliance with the requirements resulting from Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Continue reading “The system of investigation of offences committed by judges and prosecutors in Romania, once again under the attention of the CJEU” →