The Grand
Chamber (Judge Bay Larsen) clarified the meaning of art. 12(1)(a) of Directive
2004/83 in a case about three Palestinian refugees. Do they qualify as
refugees, given that they originally qualified for UN support in a refugee camp
in the region, but had to leave for reasons beyond their control? El
Kott et al. v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
The Grand
Chamber (Judge Šváby) also looked at an Italian public procurement case (cf. Directive
2004/18), where the Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Lecce asked the university
of Salento to study the earthquake-sensitivity of various hospitals without a
formal tender. While punting to the national court, the ECJ says that such
tender-less contracting between public entities is not OK:
“[1] where
the purpose of such a contract is not to ensure that a public task that those
entities all have to perform is carried out,
“[2] where
that contract is not governed solely by considerations and requirements
relating to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest or
“[3] where
it is such as to place a private provider of services in a position of
advantage vis-à-vis his competitors.”
For the
second time in as many weeks, the Court handed out a fine for non-compliance with
a judgement. Following last week’s Commission
v. Spain (€ 20 million + € 50.000 per day), now it is Commission
v. Ireland (Judge Bonichot), to the tune of € 2 million + € 12.000 per day.
The offending case is Commission
v. Ireland (2009, also by Judge Bonichot) about Directive
75/442 on waste. In a separate case, Ireland was ordered to pay a further €
1,5 million for failing to comply with a
2006 infringement case about environmental impact assessments. Commission
v. Ireland (Judge Toader)
Heineken (NL,
FR)
and Bavaria (NL,
FR)
lost their appeals in the Dutch Beer Cartel case (NL).
(Both judgements by Judge Silva de Lapuerta.) The General Court had annulled
the non-price collusion part of the decision, and had ordered a further
reduction of the fine as compensation for the extraordinary length of the
procedure. Cf. Case
T-240/07, Heineken v. Commission and case
T-235/07, Bavaria v. Commission.
In the
interesting state aid litigation of Mitteldeutsche
Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig v. Commission, the appeal was likewise
rejected (judge Jarašiūnas). As before the General Court (NL,
DE,
FR),
the appellants failed to convince anyone with their claim that airport
construction is not an economic activity. Cf. European Law Blog
The Court
(Judge Lõhmus ) affirmed that a trademark can be put to “genuine use” even if
it is used in only a single Member State. Leno
Merken v. Hagelkruis Cf. the IPKat
In the
category of “really?” we have Gbagbo
et al. v. Council, where Laurent Gbagbo and his
associates are trying to get their asset freezes annulled. The General Court
struck the cases from the docket on the grounds that they were manifestly
inadmissible because they were untimely. Gbagbo argued that he didn’t know
about the Decision in question in time, because of distance and because of the
war (!). AG Cruz Villalón now argues that the General Court should have at
least heard the parties on this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment