Case C-612/15, W and heirs – seeking to prove a defective vaccine

Behind this case is a human tragedy. Soon after a person was vaccinated against Hepatitis B, he began to show the initial symptoms of MS. Prior to the vaccination he had shown no signs of MS nor was there any trace of the disease in his family. Unfortunately for the victim, and now his heirs, there is no consensus of opinion in the scientific community about the link between the vaccine and MS. Consequently, can the victim’s heirs rely on the law to make that link? In some circumstances, French law will allow a judge to make the link, even without a consensus of opinion in the scientific community. However, the issue is now whether the French law on this point is compatible with the EU’s ‘defective products’ Directive 85/374 because the Directive actually requires a claimant to prove that there is a causal link between a defect in a product and the harm suffered. More

Case C-618/15, Concurrence – a French court’s jurisdiction to hear a dispute involving Luxembourg’s Amazon

Where a French shop is authorised to sell Samsung’s products in its store but not via its own website, can it ask the French courts to order Amazon to remove the sale of Samsung’s goods from Amazon’s websites in Denmark, the UK, Spain and Italy because consumers in France are able to buy Samsung’s goods via those websites? More

Case C-31/16, Visser Vastgoed – planning on EU services law and not a purely internal situation

Can a policy maker ever resist the application of EU law? Yes, perhaps, if there is a ‘purely internal situation’. It is EU law that in such a situation, EU law will not apply. Dutch authorities are adept at exploiting this ‘loophole’. A couple of years ago, Amsterdam’s council invoked it when partly re-regulating Amsterdam’s red light district. Now, a Dutch authority has invoked it in a dispute about a planning decision. The decision relates to an industrial estate. The authority’s plan reserves the land for shops selling really bulky goods, like building materials or kitchens. Consequently, there will be no shoe shops. A real estate investment company thinks the plan contravenes EU services law. The authority points out that this is a ‘purely internal situation’ to which EU law does not apply. The trouble is: what does the CJEU’s case law on a ‘purely internal situation’ mean? More

Case C-24/16, Nintendo – jurisdiction by design

Nintendo is suing companies in the German courts for the alleged infringement of its design rights. However, the German courts wonder if they have jurisdiction to decide the case and the scope of any measures they might impose. The first problem is that the German defendant is only a subsidiary and its parent company is domiciled in France. The second problem is that although the defendant’s website has images on it that correspond to Nintendo’s design rights, these have been put there so that consumers know immediately that the defendant’s goods can be used in Nintendo’s games consoles. More