Thursday, May 09, 2013

This Week and Last Week in Luxembourg

The biggest case this week is probably Joined Cases Libert et al. v. Flemish Government and All Projects & Developments NV et al. v. Flemish Government, where the Court (Judge Tizzano) answered a number of questions coming from the Belgian Constitutional Court. (There's 12 of them, and I honestly don't know what the common thread is supposed to be.) Most notably, it declared the Flemish system for controlling who gets to buy immovable property incompatible with the Common Market.

A Nigerian student studying for his doctorate in Edinburgh may still have the right to have his Nigerian mother in the country with him – his own right of residence rests on art. 12 of Regulation 1612/68, given that his father is an EU citizen – but only if he can convince the national court that he “remains in need of the presence and care of [his mother] in order to be able to continue and to complete his (…) education”. Alarape and Tijani v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a related case, the Court (also by Judge Silva de Lapuerta) paid lip service to the genuine enjoyment doctrine while reiterating the holding of Dereci and McCarthy that Member States can all but do as they like to their own citizens who have never exercised their right to free movement. Ymeraga et al. v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de l’Immigration

On the day that the Netherlands traded in its formidable Queen for a lightweight King, AG Cruz-Villalón opined that the City of Hilversum was not allowed to include a price regulation term in the contract of sale it concluded with UPC for the city’s cable television network. He argued that the 2002 telecoms package applies to this kind of regulation, and that the contract term in question is contrary to art. 13 of the Access Directive. Only art. 106(2) TFEU might save the city’s regulations. UPC v. Municipality of Hilversum (NL, DE, FR) Cf. e-comm blog

On the same day, AG Bot concluded that International Jet Management, which carries out flights from Russia and Turkey to, amongst others, Germany, can do so using its Austrian license without needing a German license as well. The German rule to the contrary is contrary to art. 18 TFEU. International Jet Management (NL, DE, FR)

A week later that same AG proposed slapping down a plainly discriminatory rule regarding which kinds of certificates of origin (cf. art. 5 of Directive 2001/77) are accepted for the purposes of a renewables quota in Flanders. More through inaction than anything else, the Flemish wound up accepting only Flemish certificates, which is obviously not OK. Essent Belgium v. Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de Elektriciteits en Gasmarkt (NL, DE, FR) Cf. GAVC Law Blog and European Law Blog

AG Bot was more supportive, however, of the Walloon system for promoting biomass energy, even though it might be considered as discriminating between generation from wood and generation from other biomass. Industrie du bois de Vielsalm & Cie (IBV) SA v. Walloon Region (DE, FR)

AG Kokott did a bit of insolvency law, arguing that honouring an obligation “for the benefit of a debtor” in art. 24 of Regulation 1346/2000 includes a case where a bank pays a debt on behalf of a bankrupt account holder. Christian van Buggenhout en Ilse van de Mierop (liquidators of Grontimmo SA) v. Banque Internationale à Luxembourg (NL, DE, FR) Cf. GAVC Law Blog

No comments: