This Week in Luxembourg

After AG Maduro's opinion in April, the Grand Chamber has now ruled in the Austrian/Czech nuclear power plant nuisance case. The judges agree with the AG that the Austrian court has to treat "installations" authorised by the Austrian government the same as those authorised by other MS, for the purposes of this nuisance suit, something they explain with explicit reference to the Eurotom Treaty. (Cf. par. 81-86. The referring court and AG Maduro only mentioned the EC Treaty.) CEZ

AG Bot delivered his opinion in the Brita case. The question was what to do with goods that were certified by the Israeli customs authorities as being of Israeli origin, but which in fact originated in the settlements on the West Bank. The AG proposes that the German authorities are not bound by the Israeli statement, and that these goods do not count under the EC-Israeli agreement, which is part of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement. (Cf. also the EC-PLO agreement.)

AG Mengozzi delivered his opinion in the appeal against Case T-429/04, which dismissed a damages claim, based on the theory that the Community incurred non-contractual liability by enacting Regulation 2320/97, imposing certain anti-dumping duties. The CFI declined jurisdiction on some claims, and rejected others based on the absence of sufficient causation. The AG proposes that the appeal should be rejected, but he does have some critical remarks. This could be an interesting case, both regarding the relationship between EU and national courts, and regarding the principles of EU tort law.

The Fourth Chamber declared that Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/54, by failing to vertically separate its electricity market (art. 15(2)), and by failing to give the regulatory authorities the appropriate authority to regulate the market (art. 23(2)). Commission v Sweden. The Sixth Chamber ruled similarly with regards to Belgium, also regarding the electricity markt. Commission v Belgium (French).

The case of Pontin v T-Comalux concerns the concept of effective judicial protection, in this case in the area of employment law. The answer by the Third Chamber is a nice example of the ECJ having difficulty leaving enough room for the national court: "A fifteen-day limitation period (...) does not appear to meet that condition, but that is a matter for the referring court to decide." (AG Trstenjak had shown somewhat more restraint in that respect, although one could also argue that her proposed answer is simply less helpful, providing less guidance.)

Consistent with the recommendation of AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, the Third Chamber decided to reject the challenge by the Commission against a Finnish rule that levied no VAT on legal services provided by public offices. Even though there was arguably some element of consideration, this was not enough to make these legal services economic in nature, given that the fees also depended on the recipient's ability to pay. Commission v Finland.

In Gielen, AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer described the Dutch income tax rule that discriminates to some extent based on the country of residence of self-employed persons as Orwellian, and recommended that the Court declare it inconsistent with Community Law. Gielen (Dutch, French, German)

Here's a block of cases on public works contracts:

·

The Fourth Chamber chose substance over law in Commission v Germany, disentangling the legal relations concerning the Messe in Cologne to decide whether a tender procedure should have been organised. The relevant question was whether the City of Cologne or GKM was the counterparty to the contract for the purposes of Directive 93/37.

·	In a different public works case, AG Kokott proposed some guidance as to the limitation periods and the effective review standard of art. 1(1) of Directive 89/665.

·	He did the same in Commission v Ireland, a case dealing with mostly the same issues.

·	In a fourth case, AG Sharpston considered whether a law that banned individual members of a consortium from suing over the tender in all circumstances, i.e. not just over the outcome, was consistent with Community Law. (It probably isn't.) Club Hotel Loutraki and others (German, French)

·

On Tuesday, AG Bot considered a public procurement case regarding public toilets in Frankfurt, Germany. The case concerns important questions of transparency as a general duty in all areas of Community law (cf.Audiolux), and the extent to which Community Law has something to say about remedies in case of error. In a nutshell, the AG argues a "Yes" on the former and a "No" on the latter. Wall AG (Dutch, French, German)

This Week in Luxembourg

On Thursday, AG Kokott released her opinion in ERG, the first case to consider the polluter pays principle of Directive 2004/35. Starting, as one does, with Archimedes (the case concerns an area not far from Syracuse on Sicily), she discusses its temporal applicability. Otherwise, the main focus of the opinion is on what the directive allows, rather than what it requires. (Cf. its art. 16) The AG's conclusion is that the Italian legislation is in conformity with the directive. (German, French, Dutch. N.B. I read it in German, before I discovered there was also a Dutch translation...)

Also on Thursday, the Third Chamber ruled in a Spanish Schengen/immigration case. Two Bolivian citizens had been expelled and "banished" by the Spanish government on the grounds that they - put simply - had overstayed their visas. Cf. art. 11(3) of Regulation 562/2006. It appears (par. 52) that only the Spanish version of that section contains an obligation to expel. The conclusion is, as AG Kokott had proposed, that there is neither a requirement nor an obligation to expel. Zurita García.

On Tuesday, four AGs released four opinions in 3½ cases:

·

AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer wrote about the (Italian) gas market and Directive 2003/55. The result is a thoughtful analysis of what the state is allowed to do when the market is supposed to be fully competitive, but isn't. Working from art. 86(2) EC (art. 106(2) TFEU), the AG considers the proportionality of the measures adopted, and their consistency with the "interests of the Community", concluding that the Italian scheme is OK, given certain general (and obvious) condidtions. Federutility.

·

AG Mazák opined on an English case regarding the residence and social welfare rights of a third-country national married to but separated from a Dane (no longer resident in the UK), living in England with their Danish kids. (Cf. Directive 2004/38.) Citing the 2002 Baumbast precedent and art. 12 of Regulation 16912/68 (now repealed), the AG argues that the children, who are going to school in England, are entitled to continue their schooling there, and that their mother is entitled to stay in England to take care of them. Harrow LBC v Ibrahim.

·	AG Kokott considered a similar English case, only now the petitioner is an EU citizen, and formerly a worker.Teixeira v Lambeth LBC.

·	AG Mengozzi wrote about Directive 93/37 on public works contracts - since replaced by Directive 2004/18 - as applied to a Spanish motorway. Commission c. Espagne.

This Week in Luxembourg

In an important company law case, the Fourth Chamber reaches the modest conclusion. (As did AG Trstenjak.) There is no "general principle" in Community law that states that minority shareholders may not be discriminated against. (In this case, the minority shareholder wanted to be bought out at the same terms as one of the major shareholders had been.) This case was a little tricky, because it appeared as if the plaintiffs were not only arguing their case based on the relevant Directives, but also on a type of EC common law. To the extent that such a thing exists, it doesn't apply here. Audiolux.

The Third chamber signed off an the Italian approach to public-private partnerships, where - put simply - the contract is awarded semi-private company responsible for carrying it out without any kind of tender, but the company that is to be the private partner in the enterprise is selected by fully competitive tender. The longer (and better) explanation is given inthe opinion of AG Colomer. While this is clearly the common sense result, note that the Court only said that this system was OK, while the AG also gave some general rules. Acoset.

In Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, the Second Chamber gave one of the first interpretations of the third (access to justice) pillar of the Aarhus convention, ruling for the plaintiff (and potential other members of the public) on all three questions. Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening (AG Sharpston came to the same conclusion.)

In the eagerly anticipated Bavarian Lager Case, AG Sharpston proposed ruling against the Commission and rejecting the appeal. (Ruling below here.) Quoting Asimov, she explains that the case concerns a clash between the unstoppable force of the right to privacy and the immovable object of access to documents. This seems to be the right result, given that the information sought is the names (and only the names) of the participants of a meeting that resulted in Bavarian's free movement complaint being shelved. The AG gets there by distinguishing between "data" and "documents". Bavarian Lager.

On Wednesday, the CFI rejected the action for annulment by the Bank Melli Iran in another terrorism case. The interesting part is the discussion in par. 35-38 of the intensity of judicial review in these cases, depending on whether the action is aimed at the "general" part of the regulation, or at the annex that contains the list of people covered. When, like in this case, the action is against the former, the CFI adopts a large measure of restraint, focusing mostly on issues of procedure, détournement de pouvoir, and manifest error of fact. Bank Melli Iran v Council (French).

This Week in Luxembourg

On Thursday, the near-bankrupt Housing Association St. Servatius got a partial win in the ECJ. The requirement that they should ask permission of the minister before investing abroad is in violation of the Treaties, unless there are clear, objective guidelines that govern when that permission shall be given. Interestingly, the ECJ declined to answer the questions on art. 86, arguing that there was no issue of state aid and/or services of general economic interest here. The Dutch Council of State now has to decide whether the Dutch law complies with the requirements stated.Woningstichting Sint Servatius.

It should come as no surprise that a new access to documents problem hails from Sweden: To what extent should the press be able to access the pleadings in a (pending) court case? The CFI sided with the Commission, at least until the moment of the oral argument. (Case T-36/04.) AG Maduro now recommends an even higher degree of transparency. Ideally, he suggests that the Court should control access to documents in pending cases itself, in the alternative (Quoting the ECHR's Rule 33) he suggest a much narrower interpretation of the exceptions than the one used by the CFI. Sweden v API and Comm.

Among AG Maduro's final opinions, his argument that Regulation 2007/717, setting price caps for roaming, could validly be enacted under art. 95 EC seems almost insignificant. (Of course, that would not have been the case if his recommendation had been the opposite.) Subsidiarity (par. 27-36) and proportionality (par. 37-44) are discussed, but do not seem to have any serious teeth. Vodafone. (Note the short essay in par. 1 on the relationship between the courts and the political branches as gatekeepers of the system of conferred powers.)

AG Maduro also discussed a case about the wonderful world of joint and shared competences and international fora ("mixed agreements"): To what extent could Sweden act independently in the Review Committee set up by the Convention on Persisten Organic Pollutants? The AG argues that Sweden jumped the gun by not giving the Council the opportunity to act, and that Sweden violated Community Law in doing so. Commission v Sweden.

In another international relations case, the Council decided on the Community's position in an international forum without stating a legal basis. (TiL 24/4) Compared to AG Kokott, the ECJ does not devote a lot of attention to the unusual fact that the Community is not (yet) a party to the Conference in question, something that could have consequences both for admissibility and for the evaluation of the merits. Commission v Council.

Austria is allowed to discriminate against foreign disabled persons by only giving a (motorway) toll-exemption to '"disabled persons resident or ordinarily resident" in Austria, in order to "promote their mobility and social integration".Gottwald.

On Wednesday, in Rottman v Bayern (German), AG Maduro considers issues of citizenship and statelessness. The AG concludes that the prejudicial question is admissible (i.e. not strictly internal). Citing the 1997 Convention on Nationality, he argues that in this case the normal rule applies: states may give or deny their citizenship to whomever they please. Generally, though, he does not exclude the possibility of EC law affecting issues of citizenship. (par. 26-30.) Note also the short essay in par. 23 on the relationship between national and European citizenship, European legitimacy, etc.. (Cf. Adjudicating Europe)

In 2007, the CFI annulled the asset freeze imposed against Jose Maria Sison, the Filipino Communist leader. (Case T-47/03.) Despite that, the Council maintained him on the list, most recently in Decision 2009/62, under no. 26. Now the CFI annulled that decision again, based on a violation of the underlying regulation, Regulation 2580/2001. Rulings made in the Netherlands for the purposes of Sison's immigration litigation are not enough for art. 2(3) of the Regulation. Sison v Council.

Also on Wednesday, Hoechst got its competition fine reduced from € 74,03 million to € 66,627 million. The CFI rejected all of Hoechst's arguments, except the last one. The Commission failed to give it a 10% reduction under section D 2 of the old leniency notice on the grounds that it did not substantially dispute the facts. (par. 95-102 and196-198.) Hoechst v Commission.

In Blanco Pérez, AG Maduro quotes Shakespeare in analysing the Spanish pharmacy market. His conclusion is that the Spanish system violates Community Law. (Well, he leaves the minimum distance requirement for the national court.) Cf. Case C-171/07 and Case C-531/06 from last May, when the ECJ found against the Commission in a similar case against Italy. Maduro distinguishes them by arguing those cases were about making sure that pharmacists are qualified, not about regulating the number and location of pharmacies.

In Commission v Germany, AG Mazák considered the interplay between a 1990 agreement between Germany and Poland and art. 49 EC, now that both countries are Member States of the European Union. (Cf. art. 307 EC)

P.S. This analysis of the legal specifics of the Irish "guarantees" on the EJIL blog comes highly recommended. Also, the EU Law blog has an article on last week's emissions trading cases.

This Week in Luxembourg

On Thursday, the ECJ rejected the appeal against case T-259/02 c.a., a cartel case regarding the Austrian banking industry. (Commission Decision.) Altogether, the ruling is a nice summary of the law on cartels, for example on the meaning of "may affect trade between MS" and how this is to be proved, the relative severity of infractions, the attribution of infractions to subsidiaries and previously independent companies, etc.

Erste Bank der Österreichische Sparkassen. (German)

Also on Thursday, AG Mazák discussed the distinction between sale of goods and delivery of services for the purposes of Regulation 44/2001, as well as their respective locations. He argues that the distinction is not (necessarily) the same as for the purposes of Internal Market law. (par. 18) He proposes that the Court should avoid defining the distinction in general terms, and instead should tackle the problem one case at a time. (par. 20) As for place of delivery, he recommends that the Court base this on the location of the transfer of physical control, not the delivery terms of the contract. Car Trim.

Spain failed to transpose Directive 2006/70. The intriguing thing about that is the title of the Directive: "[A Directive] laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of "politically exposed person" and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis". It's about money laundering and terrorism. Commission v Spain (French).

On Wednesday, the CFI ruled in two Carbon Trading cases: Poland v Commission and Estonia v Commission. Both of these cases concern the distribution of power between the Commission and the Member States under art. 9 of Directive 2003/87, concerning the National Allocation Plan. While the Commission may review and reject this plan, what they may not do is decide at what level the allowance should be set if not that proposed by the Member State. (EUObserver.)

On Tuesday, there was the eagerly anticipated opinion of AG Maduro in the IP case against Google. He recommends that Google should be allowed to continue to offer its AdWords service even for keywords that are registered trademarks, meaning that you type "Louis Vuitton" and the ad on the side of the screen might refer you to a site that sells counterfeit LV products, because that site paid Google for that privilige. (Cf. Directive 89/104.) Google France and Google (Cf. BBC)

This one is particularly interesting from a Public Administration point of view: Apparently, in French public procurement law (Code des Marchés publics) there is such a thing as a marché de définition, where the public authority awards a contract for the design of the terms of a marché d'exécution, i.e. a normal public procurement contract. Since the former aren't mentioned in the relevant directive, the French have been running them as they saw fit, i.e. intransparently and uncompetitively. To make matters worse, the winners of such a procedure can later be grandfathered into a protected position for the normal procurement. (art. 74-IV CMP) Like the Commission, AG Mazák now thinks all of this is not OK. Commission v France.

This Week in Luxembourg

On Thursday, Sept. 17, the ECJ discussed statutory assignment of rights from the insured to the insurer ("subrogatie") in the context of Regulation 44/2001. The conclusion was that the Austrian Krankenkasse could not sue the insurer of the person who caused the accident in Austria, since that person lived in Germany. Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG.

The ECJ rejected the Commission's appeal in one state aid case, MTU Friedrichshafen, and upheld it in another. In the latter case, the CFI erred by applying the principle that legitimate expectations are to be protected to the case at bar. Intriguingly, without using the exact words, par. 94 appears to require detrimental reliance, which the applicant here did not have. Koninklijke FrieslandCampina.

The Netherlands violated the standstill clause of art. 13 of Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of the EU and Turkey by introducing a new administrative charge for Turkish citizens working in the Netherlands. Sahin.

Also on Thursday, AG Kokott wrote an opinion about an appeal in an art. 82 EC case. He proposes the ECJ should overrule the CFI and find for the Commission (!). The root of the problem is an undertaking by a dominant firm, i.c. De Beers, not to do business with the applicant, Alrosa, any longer. Under art. 9 of Reg. 1/2003, this commitment was made binding. The CFI ruled that this decision violated the principle of proportionality. The AG now argues that this was wrong for more reasons than there is space here to list. (Quick count: at least a handful of different reasons.)Commission v Alrosa.

On Wednesday, Sept. 16, the CFI ruled in a case commenced by a Greek fishing company against the Community concerning complicated matters of customs law, form T2M, etc. The interesting part is that this action was - inevitably - based on art. 288, par. 2 EC. Finding no unlawful act on the part of the Community, the CFI also quickly considered whether there was a "convergence" among the legal orders of the member states regarding state liability for lawful acts. (par. 74-77) Finding no such convergence, they ruled for the defendants. Case T-162/07, Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etaireia. (In French.)

On Tuesday, Sept. 15, there were three AG opinions: AG Mazák wrote about the rights of three Iraqi refugees underDirective 2004/83. Abdulla et al. v Germany. He also wrote an opinion on a case where legal certainty and other High Principles were confronted with the failure to translate a tax assessment notice. Unfortunately, the AG found that the question was hypothetical and therefore manifestly inadmissible, making further analysis unnecessary. Kyrian. (Cf.Adjudicating Europe.)

AG Mengozzi, finally, wrote about a case where the Commission and an NGO argued about the appropriate level of access to documents the latter should enjoy, in the course of another (legal) disagreement between them.Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV.

This Week in Luxembourg

Thursday, September 10^th:

- In Competition Law, Akzo Nobel had its appeal denied in its entirety, just like the CFI’s judgement dismissed Akzo’s action in its entirety. Akzo is still liable for the actions of its subsidiaries, and it still has to pay a fine of € 20,99 million. (See Commission decision here.) Akzo v Commission.

- The ECJ overturned the CFI’s decision to declare admissible the action by an Italian regional body asking for the annulment of a Commission Decision ending some financial assistance. (The CFI ruled for the Commission on the merits.) According to the ECJ, plaintiffs are not directly concerned, since the decision was addressed to the Italian Republic, and its effect on plaintiffs was not “purely automatic”. Ente per le Ville Vesuviane.

- Under the directive on legal expenses insurance, Directive 87/344, the insurer cannot tell you who your lawyer should be, not even in a “class action”-type situation. Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung.

- Tricky bit of insolvency law: German company sells and delivers a good to a Dutch company, reserving title. The Dutch company goes bankrupt. The German company petitions a German court for protective measures, which are granted. Can that decision be recognised in the Netherlands under the Insolvency Regulation (Regulation 1346/2000) or the general Mutual Recognition of Civil Judgements Regulation (Regulation 44/2001)? Given art. 7(1) of the insolvency Regulation, it wins. German Graphics Maschinen GmbH

- The Plantanol case isn’t very interesting, except for the fact that it involves the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation. A tax advantage designed to promote biofuel was abolished/replaced sooner than originally announced. The Court ruled that exceptional circumstances are not required in a situation like this one. I’m not sure how much it mattered that this was about a legislative enactment, not administrative law.

- The City of Gotha in Germany cheated a bit in awarding the contract for water supply and sewage contracts. They arranged for an informal tender, looking to keep the existing arrangement in place. (They had an independent company in place that was a joint venture between a number of local authorities.) Unfortunately, the fact that consideration consisted solely in the right to collect payment from citizens meant that this was a “service concession”, not a “service contract”, meaning that a formal tender should have been used. WAZV Gotha v Eurawasser.

- In another public procurement case, the ECJ clarified the meaning of “control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments”, i.e. the situation when no tender is necessary. Sea Srl v Comune di Ponte Nossa.

- AG Kokott delivered an opinion in a Belgian insider trading case: Spector Photo Group. (In Dutch) She proposes that someone does not automatically “use” inside knowledge when they possess it and trade anyway. To be continued...

Tuesday, September 8^th:

- The Grand Chamber upheld the Portugese state monopoly in gambling - including online gambling and - against a challenge under art. 49 EC. Fairly straightforward Internal Market case, although it might have been different under Bolkestein's original directive... Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa. Cf. EU Law Blog.

- The Grand Chamber (Timmermans, rapporteur) handed down another ruling in the ongoing saga about Bud/Budweiser beer. This line of litigation is separate from the one that resulted in a ruling for the Czechs earlier this year. Instead, the Austrian court asked for a clarification of the ECJ's ruling in 2003. (Case C-216/01.) This case includes not only the usual problems of trademark and protection of geographical indications (PGI), but also problems with pre-existing treaties among Member States. Budejovicky Budvar.

- The Grand Chamber (Timmermans, rapporteur) ruled on the legality of Regulation 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, which I actually remember from my time in Brussels. (It took our friend Johannes Blokland, MEP three years to negotiate, until it was finally resolved as a second reading agreement in June 2006.) Fortunately for everyone, the Court agrees that this was an environment measure, even though it also covers the trading of waste into and out of the Common Market. The Rotterdam Convention cases (C-94/03 and C-178/03) are distinguished. Commission v. Parliament and Council.

- AG Trstenjak delivered an opinion about the defective products directive. He concludes that a British rule allowing for the substitution of the supplier of the good for the producer in certain circumstances is compatible with the directive.Aventis Pasteur. In addition, there is an opion by AG Mazák on food safety and art. 28. Commission v France. (in French), and an opinion by AG Trstenjak about consumer protection and contracts negotiated away from business premises, in this case participation (and its cancellation) in a real estate fund. Friz. (In German.).

- This is fun: to what extent does a third party complainant in a state aid case have the right to have access to the documents prepared and gathered by the Commission in its original investigation? Originally, the answer would be: very limited. Only parties to the original case would have access. But what if they make a request under the general access to documents Regulation? The Commission refused (“undermine (...) the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits”), the CFI overruled, and AG Kokott now agrees with the CFI. Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau. (In German.)

- Last Friday (Sept. 4) in Luxembourg: The CFI confirmed that an Italian scheme giving income tax relief to companies seeking a listing on a stock exchange was unlawful state aid. (Commission Decision 2006/261.) I'm not sure that I agree. If anything, it's probably the relatively short period (15 months) in which the scheme was available that damns it. I don't see why a permanent tax incentive encouraging companies to seek a listing, even if the incentive is unrelated to the costs involved in seeking a listing, should qualify as state aid. Italy v. Commission.

P.S. Here is EU Law Blog about last week's International Fund for Ireland case. Incidentally, it appears I made a mistake writing about that case. The Court's analysis of art. 308 was not dicta. Rather, it was a necessary step towards the court's conclusion that the appropriate legal basis was the combination of art. 159, third paragraph, and art. 308 EC. Art. 159 alone is not enough, because that only covers "independent action by the Community" (par. 64).

This Week in Luxembourg

The court is back from vacation...

- In the case about the International Fund for Ireland, the Court followed AG Bot an annulled for incorrect legal basis. They used 308 EC, when they should have used 159 EC, par. 3 (structural funds). According to the ECJ, the reintegration of Northern Ireland fits within the goal of "cohesion" of art. 158-162 EC. The ECJ also has some dicta about whether art. 308 EC would have been a possible legal basis anyway, given that the IFI has very little to do with "the operation of the common market", citing its precedent in Kadi. (par. 66-69). Parliament v Council.

- In consumer protection law (Directive 97/7/EC), a prejudicial question about revocation of a distance contract: Can the consumer be made to pay for the use value of the product during the period between its arrival and revocation? (In this case: 8 months use of a second-hand laptop, in the period until it broke down.) The answer is: generally no, unless [good faith], [unjust enrichment], etc. etc. Messner v Krüger.

- "The res judicata show goes on", meaning that there is another case where (the Italian approach to) res judicataclashes with Community law in the context of VAT law. Olimpiclub.

- In two cases, an appeal against a CFI ruling is dismissed: A competition case regarding the haberdashery (!) market,Prym & Prym v Commission, and an anti-dumping case about Indian CD-Rs (Moser Baer v Council). In both cases, the Community institution/defendant wins. In the former case, both CFI and Commission were not at there best (cf. par. 59-61 and par. 72-84, respectively), but the ruling below does stand. In a third appeal, Papierfabrik August Koehler, also a competition case, the CFI ruling is partially set aside. (A mistake with the Statement of Objections, meaning one of the plaintiffs gets off free.)

- AG Mazák tackles an Italian public works case, arguing unsurprisingly that non-profits (in this case: university affiliated research groups) are entitled to participate in a tender process, as long as their bylaws and the other law that governs such organisations do not say otherwise. CoNISMa.

- Finally, there is another CFI ruling on terrorism sanctions, in the joined case T-37/07 and T-323/07, El Morabit. (My apologies for the link. For some reason, it's not on Eur-Lex.) When the Court of Appeals in The Hague acquitted the plaintiff, he was removed from the list, but now he argues that he should not have been on it in the first place, given that there was no "final judgement" against him. The CFI rules that no final judgement is necessary.

P.S. Here is Barosso's long awaited vision for Europe.