Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Tag
49 case reports
A Ukrainian company is suing the Russian Federation in Latvia and wants a foreign judgment enforced against funds frozen under the EU's Russia sanctions. The Riga Regional Court asks whether a court may authorise their release, whether the public-interest exception covers compensation for war crimes or aggression, and how State immunity and public policy fit in.
An Albanian company holding a large Albanian judgment against Enel has spent years trying to enforce it in courts outside Albania. The Rome Court of Appeal asks whether a Member State court's decision declaring a third-State judgment enforceable is itself a 'judgment' that the Brussels I Regulation lets circulate across the Union.
Brussels I bis gives employees their own jurisdiction rules, which cannot be contracted out of. The Bundesarbeitsgericht asks whether a claim pleaded purely in tort escapes them when the wrong was done inside an employment relationship — or whether the relationship, not the label, decides where the case is heard.
By judgment of 14 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:181) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 25 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:37) the Court held that Mr Schrems had not lost his consumer status for his own Facebook account through his books, lectures and campaigning, so he could sue Facebook in Vienna.
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:992) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:994) the Court held that a candidate's written answers in a professional examination — and the examiner's comments on them — are the candidate's personal data, opening access and rectification rights adapted…
By judgment of 5 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:738) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 17 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) the Court held that a legal person claiming injury from online publications may sue for its entire damage where it has its centre of interests, and that claims for rectification and removal…
By judgment of 23 January 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:25) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 5 June 2018 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:388) that the administrator of a Facebook fan page is a joint controller, together with Facebook, of the processing of visitors' data through the Insights statistics — and that the German supervisory…
By judgment of 9 June 2016 in the joined Pesce cases (ECLI:EU:C:2016:428) the Court upheld the Commission's Xylella fastidiosa decision: the obligation to remove host plants, including asymptomatic ones, within 100 metres of infected plants is a…
On 12 June 2018 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:423) that a mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is not a sign consisting "exclusively of the shape" within Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Directive — the red sole is principally…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 16 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:373) the Court held that a company fined for refusing to answer a cross-border tax-information order may invoke Article 47 of the Charter: the national court must be able to review whether the…
By judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:976) the Court held that in an action for breach of an online-resale prohibition in a selective distribution network, the "place where the damage occurred" under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is the Member State…
By judgment of 26 July 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:593) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 18 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:390) the Court held that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary with a seat in a Member State is an "establishment" of its non-EU parent for Article 97(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation where it is a…
By judgment of 22 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:468) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 15 March 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:214) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By order of 8 September 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:672) the Court declared the reference from the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio manifestly inadmissible for failure to set out the factual and legal context with the precision Article 94 of the Rules of…
On 20 December 2017 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:981) that UberPop is not an information-society service but a "service in the field of transport": Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which non-professional drivers supply…
On 1 March 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:144) that Article 9 of the InfoSoc Directive — provisions concerning "access to cable of broadcasting services" — does not cover national legislation permitting the immediate retransmission by cable,…
On 28 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:612) that in a collective injunction action the law applicable to assessing contract terms is determined by the Rome I Regulation even though the action itself falls under Rome II.
Can the Dutch Data Protection Agency exert any control over companies based in the UK and the USA which conduct covert surveillance on Dutch territory? And in the event of an individual’s data processing law rights under Dutch law being … Continue reading → Continue reading →
Canada and the EU have negotiated a new Passenger Name Record Agreement. A plank of the Agreement involves the transfer and processing of data. The European Parliament is asking the CJEU for a legal opinion on the compatibility of that … Continue reading → Continue reading →
On 28 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:611) that Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive precludes flat-rate schemes which cap recoverable lawyers' fees so low that the winning party is not assured recovery of at least a significant and…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 28 March 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:236) the Court confirmed its jurisdiction to review the validity of CFSP restrictive measures by preliminary ruling — a constitutional first — and found nothing affecting the validity of the…
On 16 June 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:449) that purely financial damage which materialises directly in the claimant's bank account cannot, by itself, anchor jurisdiction as the "place where the harmful event occurred" under Article 5(3) of…
On 4 May 2016 the Court upheld the Second Tobacco Products Directive in full (ECLI:EU:C:2016:325): the menthol ban, the labelling and standardisation rules, the leeway for further national packaging measures and the specific e-cigarette regime of Article…
On 15 September 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:689) that a shopkeeper offering free open Wi-Fi provides a "mere conduit" service and cannot be held liable in damages for users' infringements.
By judgment of 21 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:709) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
Is the Council of Europe’s Draft Convention against the Manipulation of Sports Competitions compatible with EU law? Facts On 11 July 2014, the Maltese Government issued a press release announcing that it was asking the CJEU for an Advisory Opinion on the Council of Europe’s Draft Convention against…
On 23 December 2015 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2015:845) that Scottish minimum unit pricing for alcohol restricts the free movement of goods and may be justified on health grounds only if less trade-restrictive means — notably taxation — cannot achieve the…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:497) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 5 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be…
By judgment of 1 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:639) the Court gave "establishment" a broad, flexible reading: even minimal real and effective activity through stable arrangements — a Hungarian-language property site, a local representative, a Hungarian bank…
On 6 October 2015 the Grand Chamber declared the Safe Harbour adequacy decision invalid (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650): a regime permitting generalised access by US authorities to transferred data compromised the essence of Article 7 of the Charter, and the absence…
On 6 October 2015 the Grand Chamber declared the Safe Harbour adequacy decision invalid (ECLI:EU:C:2015:650): a regime permitting generalised access by US authorities to transferred data compromised the essence of Article 7 of the Charter, and the absence…
By judgment of 15 January 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:10) the Court held that the Database Directive does not apply to a database protected neither by copyright nor by the sui generis right, so its user-freedom guarantees (Articles 6, 8 and 15) do not override…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:471) the Court held that an alleged misapplication of EU trade-mark law by a court of the Member State of origin does not engage the public-policy refusal ground of Article 34(1) of Brussels I: recognition may be…
When the EU Commission imposes a fine on a cartel but does not apportion how much each company should pay, then is it a matter for national law whether and how that fine is paid between the individual members of the cartel? Or if it is a matter of EU law, then does EU law contain provisions as to…
By judgment of 12 February 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:86) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 16 January 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:7) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and…
By judgment of 30 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:285) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 9 April 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:244) that Regulation 1383/2003 does not preclude customs authorities themselves, absent any initiative by the rightholder, from initiating and conducting the proceedings to determine whether detained goods…
On 16 May 2013 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2013:305) that Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation does not allow jurisdiction over one presumed participant in a tort to be established at the place where another participant, not sued in that court, acted.
By judgment of 3 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:215) the Court held that where several supposed perpetrators of copyright damage acted in different Member States, Article 5(3) of Brussels I does not give jurisdiction at the causal-event place over a defendant…
On 5 June 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:1318) that jurisdiction under Article 93(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation lies only in the Member State where the defendant itself committed the alleged infringement, and cannot be founded on another…
On 13 May 2014 the Grand Chamber delivered one of the most consequential judgments in EU law (ECLI:EU:C:2014:317): a search engine is a controller processing personal data when it indexes the web, the Directive reached Google through its Spanish…
By judgment of 3 October 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:635) the Court held that in online copyright cases Article 5(3) of Brussels I gives jurisdiction to the courts of a Member State which protects the copyright relied on and where the website is accessible — no…