In ProRail v. Xpedys et al, the Court (Judge Ilešič) considered whether the procedure created by Regulation 1206/2001 for a Court to enlist the help of the Court in another Member State for taking evidence there is mandatory. The Court found that it is not; the Belgians were entitled to simply appoint an expert to report on the situation in the Netherlands without involving the Dutch courts.
In the mutual recognition of qualifications case of Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali et al. v. Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia et al., there is something noteworthy going on in par. 35, where the Court deals with the objection that this is a purely internal matter. It argues that it may still answer the prejudicial question where the national court is required by its domestic law to treat internal cases the same as cross-border cases.
The Court (Judge Berger) discussed the application of the rule of audi et alteram partem to the situation where a court has found, of its own motion, that a contractual term is unfair under Directive 93/13. The conclusion is that parties must be invited to submit their views about which remedies the Court should impose. Banif Plus Bank Zrt v. Csipai Cf. Recent Developments in European Consumer Law Blog post 1 and post 2.
Relying on art. 24(2) Charter, AG Cruz Villalón proposed bringing the best interest of the child standard into Dublin-II asylum law. As a result he concluded that when an unaccompanied minor (cf. art. 6 of the Dublin-II Regulation) applies for asylum in more than one Member State, the best interest of the child will usually (but not always) require that the application be treated in the Member State of the most recent application. MA et al. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
AG Sharpston handled yet another case on financial aid for students, arguing that the German three-year rule should suffer the same fate as its Dutch equivalent. Joined cases Prinz v. Region Hannover and Seeberger v. Studentenwerk Heidelberg Cf. Eutopia law blog
Surprisingly, Melli Bank lost its latest asset freeze suit. Some of its heads of claim were held to be inadmissible, and the others were rejected on the merits. Melli Bank v. Council