Case C-683/16, Deutscher Naturschutzring – stop German fishing boats scraping the bottom

Even if Article 3(1)(d) TFEU gives the EU an exclusive competence over the common fisheries policy, then can a Member State still enact laws to stop boats from bottom-trawling by virtue of EU environmental law? More

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-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-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

Case C-567/16, Merck Sharp – SPC Lazarus law

Drug companies can increase their profits by extending the life of their patents. In the EU, extensions can be granted with an ‘SPC’. However, these need to be applied for and their award is governed by the rules laid down in the EU’s ‘SPC’ Regulation 469/2009. In this case, a drug company applied for an SPC but it failed to provide a required document, and instead enclosed a different piece of paper. Does the omission kill the application? And if so, then is the application really dead? Can it be reanimated by dint of the fact that when the company had made its application the document did not exist but the company had offered to supply it at some point in the future? More