Friday, September 23, 2011

Yesterday in Luxembourg

In the category “fun with international relations and television”, there is a Kurdish TV station operating out of Denmark that upsets Turkey enough to upset Germany as well. What can Germany do? Does Directive 97/36 prevent Germany from going after this TV station the way it would if it were an entirely German matter? The ECJ decides to stick propaganda for the PKK under “incitement to hatred” (cf. art 22a of the Directive), but makes the proviso that Germany can’t prevent the TV station from broadcasting in Germany altogether. Mesopotamia Broadcast and Roj TV v. Germany

Personally, I think the Commission’s entire approach in the Belgian La Poste state aid case is a bit odd, given how they combine different wrongs to make a right (cf. par. 12-20). General Court, however, simply annulled the decision because of flaws in some of the individual steps (case T-388/03), and Belgium’s appeal is now rejected by the ECJ. Belgium v. Deutsche Post

AG Trstenjak has the case that we all knew was coming ever since the ECtHR ruled in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (cf. StrasbourgObservers). The AG proposes that the Court should essentially follow Strasbourg, meaning that the UK can’t just ship all asylum seekers back to Greece like they would to any other EU Member State. Note also the analysis of Protocol No. 30, the one that exempts the UK and Poland from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. N.S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

In Interflora, the 1st Chamber goes over the Google Adwords case law again. I’m not sure if that part about dilution was always there, though.

Another Bud ruling! This week, we turn to issues of acquiescence and similar “they did nothing for decades” arguments. Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.,

P.S. the archive of these emails is here.

No comments: