Case C-194/16, Bolagsupplysningen – objecting to Swedish internet trolls

A Swedish webpage blacklisted a particular person and a company. Since that webpage had a discussion forum, its Swedish readers left negative comments on the website too. Unable to get the Swedish website either to rectify the alleged inaccuracies in its publication or remove the hurtful comments, the blacklisted person went to their local court seeking a court order. However, that court was in Estonia. At first instance, the Estonian court declined jurisdiction to hear the dispute because it thought the harm was in Sweden. Therefore, the legal question in this case is: where is the harm with Swedish internet trolls? More

Case C-267/16, Buhagiar – Gibraltar, guns and the constitutional order

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar has made its first preliminary reference to the CJEU, and the burning issue is the free movement of hunters’ firearms. More

Case C-248/16, Austria Asphalt – merger tarmacgeddon

EU merger law governs when some large companies can work together and even set up new companies. However, this case concerns two currently rival companies that now want to work together in just one Member State, Austria. The two rivals also want to do so under the auspices of an existing company which is currently owned by just one of them. Since this case plays out in the Austrian road-building market, a market currently ruled as a duopoly by these two rivals, there is a risk that this co-operation could result in a monopoly. The issue perplexing the Austrian judges is: how does EU merger law apply? More

Case C-230/16, Coty Germany – trade mark selective distributorship agreements and hardcore restrictions on competition

When a company sells expensive ‘luxury’ goods, can it contractually ban its commercial customers from reselling those goods via third party websites like Amazon? Or would such a condition constitute a hardcore restriction on competition contrary to EU cartel law? More