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.
Continue readingTag Archives: validity
Case C-169/15, Montis Design – EU copyright and Benelux design formalities, a game of musical chairs?
When a company owns the Benelux rights in the design of a chair but then it fails to maintain the registration of its Benelux rights under Benelux law, can a rival company still be stopped from making similar chairs because of the links between the old Benelux law and current EU law? More specifically, what is the relationship between Benelux rights and the EU’s ‘term of protection’ Directive 93/98/EEC?
Continue readingCase C-698/15, Davis – did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down mandatory requirements of EU law?
In 2006, the EU’s ‘data retention’ Directive 2006/24/EC required telecoms companies to store data traffic. In its Digital Rights Ireland judgment of 2014, the CJEU annulled the Directive because the Directive was incompatible with the EU Charter. Six national courts have subsequently declared their national data retention laws to be invalid. However, in other Member States legal uncertainty surrounds what the CJEU actually decided and the legal effects that flow from it. In that context, a Swedish court has already made a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Now, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has decided to make its own preliminary reference.
Continue readingCase C-530/15, Melitta France – card core, hardcore packaging law
Inside a roll of toilet paper is a cardboard core. Does this internal element form part of the toilet paper’s packaging? It is a question which has stymied the French courts. The answer depends on the word ‘packaging’ which is found in the EU’s ‘packaging and packaging waste’ Directive 94/62/EC. If the answer is that the cardboard core does constitute packaging, then potential casualties of the CJEU’s ruling will not just be France’s toilet-paper makers but also France’s manufacturers of absorbent kitchen paper, aluminium foil, and even cling film. However, if the answer is no, then the Conseil d’État would like to know whether the EU Commission has acted ultra vires when enacting an ancilliary packaging Directive that has expanded the definition of ‘packaging’ still further. Many millions of euro are at stake.
Continue readingCase C-148/15, Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung – bonuses for buying Dutch mail order medicines
In Germany, prices for medicines are not subject to competition for they are set nationally. Consequently, is it contrary to EU law for members of a German patients’ association to buy their prescription medicines from a Dutch mail order company and qualify for bonuses on their purchases?
Continue readingCase C-203/15, Tele2 Sverige – Swedish data retention despite Digital Rights Ireland
Telecoms companies were legally required to store data traffic until the CJEU’s judgment in Digital Rights Ireland. The CJEU annulled the EU’s Data Retention Directive for being incompatible with the EU Charter. Nevertheless, Swedish telecoms companies are still being required to store data. The legal basis for this is an earlier EU Directive, which had been amended by the Data Retention Directive. Is this regulatory approach compatible with the EU Charter?
Continue readingCase C-72/15, Rosneft – challenging the EU’s sectoral sanctions against Russia
Russian activities in Ukraine have prompted the EU to adopt a package of sanctions aimed at various Russians and Russian companies. These sanctions have been enshrined in various pieces of EU legislation and implemented by the EU Member States in their national laws. These sanctions are affecting an oil company which is part-owned by a British oil company ‘BP’, and part-owned by a Russian oil company that belongs to the State of Russia. To begin with, the company is challenging the legality of the UK’s implementing legislation. However, the validity of the EU’s legislation is also at stake. Does the CJEU have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a Decision adopted pursuant to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy? And if so, then does the drafting of the EU’s legislation satisfy the requirements of legal certainty and foreseeability in circumstances where that legislation forms the basis of criminal penalties?
Continue readingCase C-547/14, Philip Morris Brands – the Second Tobacco Products Directive is invalid
Is the EU’s Second Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU invalid?
Continue readingCase C-362/14, Schrems – does a ‘safe harbour’ shelter states that deprive EU citizens of their EU Charter rights?
If the EU Commission deems a non-EU state to be a ‘safe harbour’ for the purposes of data processing, then personal data about EU citizens can be sent to companies in that non-EU state. This is not new. For example, in 2000 the EU Commission had decided that the USA was a ‘safe harbour’. However, in 2013 Edward Snowden made a series of revelations concerning the USA’s blanket interception of Internet and telecoms systems. These revelations have generated a question of EU law. Namely, can an EU Member State’s national data protection regulator now disregard the EU Commission’s finding that the USA is a ‘safe harbour’, and do so on the basis that the USA’s laws and practices do not adequately protect and respect an EU citizen’s EU Charter rights to privacy and data protection?
Continue readingCase C-362/14, Schrems – does a ‘safe harbour’ shelter states that deprive EU citizens of their EU Charter rights?
If the EU Commission deems a non-EU state to be a ‘safe harbour’ for the purposes of data processing, then personal data about EU citizens can be sent to companies in that non-EU state. This is not new. For example, in 2000 the EU Commission had decided that the USA was a ‘safe harbour’. However, in 2013 Edward Snowden made a series of revelations concerning the USA’s blanket interception of Internet and telecoms systems. These revelations have generated a question of EU law. Namely, can an EU Member State’s national data protection regulator now disregard the EU Commission’s finding that the USA is a ‘safe harbour’, and do so on the basis that the USA’s laws and practices do not adequately protect and respect an EU citizen’s EU Charter rights to privacy and data protection?
Continue reading