AG Bot also recommended that the Court should hold against the Netherlands in another immigration case. In his view, the Dutch were a little too enthusiastic in trying to avoid giving a man who was already a lawful resident for 5 years and 8 moths a long-term resident’s residence permit. (They claimed that the applicant, whose residence permit was based on his job as a spiritual advisor, was “formally limited” in the sense of art. 3(2)(e) of Directive 2003/109, which doesn’t strike me as the most realistic argument ever made in Luxembourg.) Staatssecretaris van Justitie v. Singh
AG Mazák has an opinion on IMS Health (=patents vs. competition law) to the nth degree: Abuse of dominance combined with marketing authorisations for medicinal products. He recommends that the GC judgement should be upheld, meaning that the bulk of the Commission’s decision will probably survive review. AstraZeneca v. Commission
AG Mengozzi also has a fun one: Does a device need a CE Mark of conformity under Directive 93/42 if it is capable of being used for medical purposes but not intended by its manufacturer for such purposes? The AG proposes that the Court should rely on the manufacturer’s intentions. Like AG Jääskinen in Folien Fischer last month, the AG summons a whole list of different methods of interpretation in support of his position. Brain Products GmbH v. BioSemi VOF
AG Sharpston suggests that Italy is not allowed to exempt legal persons from the rules on the entitlement of victims of crime to compensation under art. 9(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220. Procura della Repubblica v. Giovanardi et al. (NB. The underlying case concerns a railway accident in Florence in 2008.)
Just when I was starting to wonder what was going to happen to the Ruiz Zambrano case law (cf. my recent post here), AG Trstenjak has another go. Fortunately for her, the case is an easy one: the father is Japanese, the mother and the daughter are German. The mother and daughter moved to Austria, and the father wants to stay in Germany. I think the AG is correct in concluding that that one won’t work. Iida v. Stadt Ulm
Last week, the Dutch won and lost an interesting public procurement case on sustainability. Requiring a specific label (EKO or “Max Havelaar”) was – understandably – too narrow to avoid being discriminatory, but sustainability as such does have a place in public procurement under Directive 2004/18. Commission v. Netherlands Cf. Laurens Ankersmit on Europeanlawblog, who also has a point about the difference between technical specifications and performance conditions that I don’t think I agree with.