Case C-537/16, Garlsson Real Estate – ne bis in idem

Seemingly irrespective of whether Italy’s criminal courts convict or acquit someone of insider share dealing, Italy’s stock exchange regulator will also issue a fine using administrative law. Is this not contrary to the legal principle of ‘ne bis in idem’? More

Case C-642/16, Junek Europ-Vertrieb – can its sticky label stop the artificial partitioning of the internal market?

A German company sells a trademark medical dressing. Having exported some of its stock to Austria, it was surprised to see this subsequently turn up in a German pharmacy. Unsurprisingly, the German company wants to stop its German prices from being undercut. Consequently, it has invoked the EU’s ‘trade mark’ Regulation 207/2009. This is because Article 13(2) allows it to prohibit the further commercialisation of its goods ‘in particular’ where these have been changed or their quality impaired. In that context, the German company is objecting to the Austrian importer-exporter having applied a sticky label to the packaging. However, the legal question is: does Article 13(2) bite at all because the sticky label was only on an otherwise blank part of the outer-packaging so there has been no change to the goods or impairment of their quality. More

Case C-594/16, Buccioni – Dear Central Bank, Documents please. Regards, Mr E. Swindled

It is a mystery why banks fail: banks are regulated by a state’s central bank. In this case, a saver lost a lot of money in the 2012 Italian banking crash. Initial research suggested the central bank might indeed have done something wrong. Consequently, the saver asked it for specific documents so that he could calculate his legal position and assert his rights. His request was refused. The legal question is: was the central bank legally right to refuse his request? If so, the state could swindle the saver out of his money and his legal rights. More

Case C-631/16, Timberland Europe – puts its boot into retroactive anti-dumping Regs

Your footwear may have started out life in China or Vietnam. Consequently, companies may have paid EU anti-dumping duties on them. Unsurprisingly, international capital wants to put the boot into this EU law. Surprisingly though, there may be some legal justification for this – the EU Commission appears to ignore EU law. Early last year, the CJEU held aspects of the EU’s anti-dumping footwear Regulations to be illegal and invalid. The Commission then announced a plan for new laws. But the plan’s legality was promptly queried in a German court and a preliminary reference quickly made (C-256/16, Deichmann). Undeterred, the Commission promulgated its new Regulations. Now Dutch judges are anticipating the illegality of those very Regulations and are asking the CJEU how to calculate the compensation (C-631/16, Timberland Europe). A great deal of money is at stake because even luxury branded leather boots, shoes and trainers may either have been made in China or be the fruit of Chinese-outsourced work and parts coming from Vietnam. More

Case C-644/16, Synthon – resisting its impounded documents being inspected by a rival

How can you prove your case when the other party has in its possession the evidence you need? Perhaps you will need to instigate a search-and-seize raid on the other party? In this case, a Japanese pharmaceutical firm did just that. It organised Dutch court bailiffs to raid a Dutch firm suspected of making patent-infringing drugs. However, once the materials had been seized, the Japanese firm then asked the Dutch court for access to inspect them. This stumped the Dutch judges. What rules and standards should they apply to determine that request in light of the ‘evidence’ rule in Article 6 of the EU’s ‘enforcement’ Directive 2004/48? More