Monday, October 08, 2012

Last Week in Luxembourg

In Finnair v. Lassooy and Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamor v. Iberia, the Court (per Judge Šváby) followed the opinion of AG Bot and interpreted the compensation provisions of Regulation 261/2004 widely to include cases of “denied boarding” due to a strike of airport staff. Cf. Recent Developments in European Consumer Law Blog

Austria’s reduced fares scheme for students in public transport, which is limited to students whose parents are in receipt of family allowances in Austria, violates free movement law. Commission v. Austria (per Judge Ó Caoimh)

While Bulgaria is allowed to ban tax debtors from leaving the country (cf. Aladzhov), the same does not go for strictly private debts. In this regard, the Court (per Judge Ó Caoimh) seems significantly more certain than AG Mengozzi, who left some room for exceptions. Byankov v. Glaven sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

For completeness sake, we should also mention the latest appeal of Evropaïki Dynamiki, who lost on appeal (per Judge von Danwitz) in their attempt to get an even more complete explanation as to why their tender bid was unsuccessful. Evropaïki Dynamiki ­– Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v. Commission Cf. European Law Blog

AG Bot has an opinion on the European Arrest Warrant as applied to in absentia trials. His primary answer simply tracks the 2009 amendment to the EAW Decision, which inserted a new art. 4a which deals expressly with this issue, and the doctrine of primacy. Moreover, the AG argued that this approach is consistent with the right to a fair trial of art. 47 Charter and, more interestingly, with the art. 53 Charter guarantee that the Charter does not detract from the level of protection offered by national Constitutional law and by the ECHR.

In a case that perhaps suggests some shortcomings to the prejudicial question procedure, AG Bot approves of a Spanish scheme to combat money laundering which happens to be focused on Gibraltar, as long as it is justified for overriding reasons in the public interest, is such as to ensure the attainment of its aims and not go beyond that which is necessary to attain those aims, and applies in a non-discriminatory manner, which is for the national, i.e. Spanish, court to verify. Cf. Directive 2005/60. Jyske Bank Gibraltar v. Administración del Estado

AG Mazák hands the Region of Flanders a resounding defeat in its attempts to make sure that in certain areas people can only buy real estate if they show they have a sufficient connection to the municipality in question, as well as its attempts to attach various public service obligations to construction projects of a certain size. Libert et al. v. Flanders and All Projects & Developments NV et al. v. Flanders (NL, DE, FR)

In one of the more fascinating access to documents cases imaginable, Mr. Ivan Jurašinović achieved a partial victory in his suit to obtain access to certain documents exchanged between the Council and the Yugoslavia Tribunal regarding the prosecution of Ante Gotovina and the massacre in Knin. Jurašinović v. Council (FR 1FR 2) Both judgements are by the Slovakian Judge Schwarcz. The exception of art. 4(2)(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 also applies to legal proceedings like the Yugoslavia Tribunal, but it was the application of that rule to the documents requested that was partially flawed.

No comments: