Tag: primacy

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” →

Some additional thoughts on metadata retention – points to consider when adopting new legislation [on joined cases C‑793/19 and C‑794/19 (SpaceNet) and the German legislation on this matter]

On By officialblogunioIn Essays1 Comment 
By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)
▪

As we have highlighted in this blog, in the recent judgment 268/2022 of 19 April, the Portuguese Constitutional Court finally declared the unconstitutionality of some provisions of Law 32/2008.  Law 32/2008 transposed the rules of Directive 2006/24, which were declared invalid eight years ago by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Digital Rights Ireland judgment, for introducing a system of generalised and indiscriminate retention of personal data. This case-law of the CJEU has recently (again) been confirmed in the G. D. judgment, according to which: Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58 (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“CFREU”), must be interpreted as precluding legislative measures which, as a preventive measure for the purposes of combating serious crime and preventing serious threats to public security, provide for the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data (recital 129).

Fortunately, the idea of amending the Portuguese Constitution to overcome the problem of the generalised and indiscriminate retention of metadata – which is, first and foremost, a matter of EU law – is losing steam. But there have been some voices that, surprisingly, suggest a change of course in the case-law of the CJEU and the Portuguese Constitutional Court. It is worth remembering that, in a State governed by the rule of law and a Union based on the rule of law, judicial decisions against which there is no appeal must be respected – whether one agrees with them or not. This is our most precious constitutional heritage. In fact, one could argue that if we had carefully considered the implications and respected the decision of the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland when it was originally ruled, we could have avoided this entire issue.

Continue reading “Some additional thoughts on metadata retention – points to consider when adopting new legislation [on joined cases C‑793/19 and C‑794/19 (SpaceNet) and the German legislation on this matter]” →

Editorial of May 2022

On By officialblogunioIn Editorials2 Comments 
By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)
▪

Metadata retention is first and foremost a matter of EU law: a revision of the Portuguese Constitution will not solve the issue

In the recent judgment 268/2022 of 19 April, the Portuguese Constitutional Court finally declared the unconstitutionality of some provisions of Law 32/2008.[1] Law 32/2008 transposed Directive 2006/24, which was declared invalid eight years ago by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Digital Rights Ireland judgment, for introducing a system of generalised and indiscriminate retention of personal data. Given the resistance of the Portuguese judicial authorities to abide by CJEU case law in this area – or even refer back to the CJEU in order to clarify any remaining interpretative doubt – the result achieved by the Portuguese Constitutional Court was not only necessary but also desirable.

What is the solution when addressing a situation of judicial deadlock such as the one Portugal was experiencing with regard to the generalised and indiscriminate retention of personal data incompatible with EU law? It would be for the Constitutional Court to declare the invalidity of the internal rules incompatible with EU law, due to the violation of the obligations to which Portugal was bound when it joined the EU – in particular, the European loyalty provided for in Article 4(3) TEU, which is reflected in Article 8(4) of the Portuguese Constitution. In this context, it should be noted that the problem was not originally solved by the ordinary courts, but by the independent public administration. Here it is worth highlighting the Deliberation 1008/2017, of the Portuguese Data Protection Supervisory Authority (“CNPD”), which still in 2017 decided to disapply Law 32/2008 in the situations submitted to it for appreciation.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2022” →

E pur si muove! After all, we do have a highest level of protection of fundamental rights… (about the Taricco saga)

On By officialblogunioIn Case notes, CommentsLeave a comment

5153207505_66475bf237_o

 by Alessandra Silveira, Editor 
 and Sophie Perez Fernandes, Junior Editor

▪

On 5 December 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled again on the Taricco saga. The interpretation set out in the judgment in Taricco I gave rise to heated debate, particularly within the Italian legal community, since the compatibility of the interpretative solution set out therein was called into question in the light of supreme principles of the Italian constitutional order, particularly the principle of legality in criminal matters [Article 25(2) of the Italian Constitution], the disregard of which would allegedly violate the constitutional identity of the Italian Republic.

At the origin of the judgment in M.A.S. and M.B. (or Taricco II) is thus the interpretation laid down in Taricco I regarding Article 325 TFEU, the provision concerning the obligations on Member States to combat fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union. In Taricco I, the ECJ held it to be incompatible with EU law, in particular with Article 325 TFEU, a national regime on limitation periods for criminal offenses which has the effect that facts constituting serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union would escape criminal punishment, in the framework of a de facto impunity.

The contentious point was that, within the Italian legal system, and with support of constitutional case-law, the legislation governing limitation periods of criminal offences is characterised as being substantive (rather than procedural) in character and is, therefore, subject to the principle of legality in criminal matters laid down by Article 25(2) of the Italian Constitution. Since the Italian constitutional order would ensure (according to the Italian Constitutional Court) a higher level of protection of fundamental rights than the one guaranteed under EU law, the Italian Constitutional Court held that both Article 4(3) TEU (respect for national constitutional identities) and Article 53 CFREU (principle of the highest level of protection of fundamental rights) would allow national courts not to comply with the obligation laid down by the ECJ in Taricco I (see commentary here).

Continue reading “E pur si muove! After all, we do have a highest level of protection of fundamental rights… (about the Taricco saga)” →

Lost in the Nacional Parliament’s Hallways: The Directive 2005/36/EC and the difficult path until its proper application in Portugal

On By officialblogunioIn CommentsLeave a comment

aaaaaaaaa

by Rita de Sousa Costa, law student at UMinho
and Tiago Sérgio Cabral, law student at UMinho
▪

The precedence of EU law over the law of the Member States is one of the fundamental principles of the Union. The Member States must comply with the European dispositions and shall not issue legislation contradicting EU law. To do so would be a breach of the principle of loyalty (art. 4(3) TEU). However, the states do not always legislate with the proper rigour and responsibility and when this occurs the principle of direct effect is key to assure a uniform application of the European Law and the protection of the European citizens.  In this short essay we shall study how the Portuguese legislator after correctly implementing the Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (through the Law n. 9/2009, of 4th March) proceeded to change the Portuguese legal framework (through the Law n. 31/2009, of 3rd July[i]) putting our law in direct contradiction with the Directive and how the solution, still in force, came in the form of the direct application of the Directive’s provisions.

Introduction – The Legal Framework

The Directive establishes the rules  “according to which a Member State which makes access to or pursuit of a regulated profession in its territory contingent upon possession of specific professional qualifications (…) shall recognise professional qualifications obtained in one or more other Member States (referred to hereinafter as the home Member State) and which allow the holder of the said qualifications to pursue the same profession there, for access to and pursuit of that profession”.

Continue reading “Lost in the Nacional Parliament’s Hallways: The Directive 2005/36/EC and the difficult path until its proper application in Portugal” →

Summary of Costa/ENEL – 6/64

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
by José Ricardo Sousa, student of the Master's degree in EU Law of UMinho
▪

Keywords: primacy; competition rules; non-discrimination; nationalisation; state aid.

Court: CJEU | Date: July 15th 1964 | Case: 6/64 | Applicants: Faminio Costa vs Ente Nazionale Energica Elettrica

Summary: The Italian Republic nationalized the production and distribution of electric energy. In the middle of the proceedings, Mr Costa, shareholder of an energy company affected by the sector nationalization requested the application of article 177 of EEC Treaty to obtain the interpretation of articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the same treaty. To Mr Costa, this nationalization infringed the articles mentioned above. The Giudice Consiliatore decided to send a question to CJEU:

“Having regard to Article 177 of the Treaty of25 March 1957 establishing the EEC, incorporated into Italian law by Law No 1203 of 14 October 1957, and having regard to the allegation that Law No 1643 of6 December 1962 and the presidential decrees issued in execution of that Law (No 1670 of 15 December 1962, No 36 of 4 February 1963, No 138 of25 February 1963 and No 219 of 14 March 1963) infringe Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the aforementioned Treaty, the Court hereby stays the proceedings and orders that a certified copy of the file be transmitted to the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community in Luxembourg.’”

Continue reading “Summary of Costa/ENEL – 6/64” →