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.

This Week in Luxembourg

The last set of rulings and opinions before the Court's summer vacation.

- In the biggest ruling of the day, the Grand Chamber of the Court has upheld the Commission's non-contractual liability for its flawed statement of objections in the merger case against Schneider. The ECJ did find in the Commission's favour, however, on one of the aspects of causation: The fact that Schneider ended up taking a big loss on the shares it had acquired for the purposes of the merger is not "caused" by the Commission's tortious behaviour. As a result, the Commission will end up paying a sum significantly smaller than the approx. € 1 bn it was originally liable for. Schneider.

- In the ongoing litigation about Germany's Grüne Punkt, the Grand Chamber found against the Green Point. Just like the Commission and the CFI had decided before, DSD is abusing its market power as a trademark holder by essentially forcing license holders of its Grüne Punkt logo to pay for services they are not enjoying. Der Grüne Punkt/DSD v Commission.

- In the ongoing war between old media ("dead trees") and new media, the ECJ held for the old media today, ruling that an automated process which returned 11 copyrighted words in response to a search (the search word itself + the 5 words before and the 5 words that appear after the search term) required the consent of the copyright holder. Infopaq v Danske Dagblades Forening.

- AG Sharpston opined that under certain circumstances, it can be compatible with Community Law for a footballer to be required to compensate the club or clubs that trained him as a junior. However, this only works if the sum demanded corresponds roughly to the expense incurred by the club and if the sum is to be paid by the player himself. Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United. In a different opinion, she also stood up for the free movement rights of snowboard instructors. Commission v France.

This Week in Luxembourg

This week:

- On July 9, the CFI rejected an attempt by British Melli Bank to attack Regulation 423/2007, which imposes certain sanctions against Iran, and specifically Decision 2008/475 which added the bank to the list of entities whose funds were frozen under art. 7(2) of the Regulation. The decision involved no discretion, so it could not be attacked on its own. The argument that the sanctions regime was in violation of the principle of proportionality was rejected, as were arguments based on the factual underpinnings of the decision and the principle of non-discrimination. Melli Bank v Council. N.B. this case did not cite Kadi, because the sanctions regime here was more or less independent from Security Council Resolution 1803 (2008). Cf. par. 99 of the ruling.

- In a state aid case concerning a Commission's decision not to raise objections, the application by the Danish general trade union 3F is declared admissible. Contrary to what the CFI had decided, 3F is a party "concerned" within the meaning of art. 88(2) EC, because the aid allegedly affects its negotiating position, and because the aid affects the union's members who are employed in the sector. The case is remitted. 3F v Commission.

- On appeal, Archer Daniels gets its citric acid cartel fine reduced by a quarter. The statement of objections sent by the Commission did not state with sufficient detail how ADM ended up being classified as the leader of the cartel, thus violating its rights of defence. (The Commission annexed a report by the FBI, without really discussing it in the body of the statement.) Now that ADM is no longer a leader, the basic amount of the fine is lower, leading to a reduction of the total fine by a quarter. Archer Daniels Midland v Commission.

- On July 7, Greece was ordered to pay a penalty payment of € 16.000 per day and a lump sum fine of € 2 million because it failed to recover illegal state aid given to Olympic Airways. The trickiest part of the dispute was about whether or not Greece had in fact recovered the aid by the time of the Court's hearings. If so, a penalty payment would not have been possible. It turns out that recovery through offset is possible, but that there was insufficient evidence that any recovery had actually occurred here. Commission v Greece.

Last week:

- Bavaria is still allowed to call itself Bavaria, even though it is not from Bavaria. In order to decide that the ECJ first had to decide that "Bavaria did not undoubtedly have standing to bring an action for annulment" (par. 46), in which case the 234 question would have been inadmissible. Question 1 concerns a whole stack of factors that might affect the validity of the PGI regulation in question, all of which fail, but in response to the second question the Court ruled that Bavaria can be saved under art. 13 and 14 of Reg. 2081/92, because it is pre-existing, registered in good faith and there is no risk of confusion.

- It turns out insolvency in the common market can still be a mess, despite the existence of Regulation 1346/2000. The bankruptcy at issue in SCT Industry occurred before the entry into force of the Regulation and the problem was too closely connected to the insolvency to allow the application of the general Brussels Convention Regulation (Reg 44/2001).

- AG Trstenjak tackled a case about parallel imports of medicine and competition law. The case is a stack of appeals by pretty much all parties against a ruling by the CFI *from 2006 that gave each party, including the Commission, partly what it wanted. Originally, the case got started because the Commission refused GlaxoSmithKline's application for a negative clearance of their General Sales Conditions. While the lower court's ruling was not entirely flawless, the AG now recommends that all appeals be denied. GlaxoSmithKline et al. v Commission.

- An opinion by AG Sharpston discusses the difference between "delay" and "cancellation" in air transport. Don't ask...Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH. (Actually, she thinks the distinction is arbitrary and violates the principle of equal treatment.) On July 9, the Court decided that, under the Brussels Convention Regulation and this Montreal Convention, both the court of the Member State of departure, and the court of the Member State of arrival have jurisdiction, on the applicant's choice. Rehder v Air Baltic.

- On July 1, the CFI ruled on the bankruptcy of Kliq, the privatised Dutch "reintegration" company. Apparently, the Commission had incorrectly decided that the restructuring, which involved cash flows from the bankrupt and fully state owned KG Holding to its subsidiary Kliq Reïntegratie were "state" aid, also because the Rechter-Commissaris had signed off on it all. Only KG Holding was the recipient of aid, and only from them can recovery be ordered. Unfortunately, this implies only a partial annulment of the Commission's Decision. The Dutch still have to recover the restructuring aid. KG Holding v Commission.

- The CFI ruling in ThyssenKrupp considers the effect of the expiry of the ECSC treaty, the principle of res judicata, and a few smaller points in the context of the competition case against ThyssenKrupp. In the end, ThyssenKrupp lose on all points, and continue to be liable for € 3.168.000 in fines.

This Week in Luxembourg

This week:

-

In answer to a prejudicial question from the Dutch Raad van State about mandatory BSE testing, the ECJ ruled that the Dutch government was allowed to charge for such tests. (Interesting preliminary question, already resolved by the RvS in an earlier ruling: Is an invoice for such testing a decision over which administrative courts have jurisdiction? The lower court said no, the RvS said yes.) Exportslachterij J. Gossalk & Zoon.

-

In a Spanish 234 case, regarding judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, there is conveniently some dispute in Spanish law about whether or not the national court’s ruling can be appealed. Also, there is enough of a dispute before the national court to allow a prejudicial question. In answer to the question itself, the Court ruled that extrajudicial documents can fall within the scope of art. 16 of Regulation 1348/2000 even in the absence of an actual dispute before the court. Roda Golf & Beach Resort.

-

According to AG Mazák, the ECJ does not have jurisdiction over cases arising under the Warsaw Convention, which deals with liability for air accidents. This is a tricky question. On the one hand, the Convention predates the Community by several decades, on the other hand, the Convention is referred to on several occasions inRegulation 2027/97, the EC’s own statute on this matter. (Which the plaintiff could not use in the matter at bar.) According to the AG, this is not enough to be able to say that the Convention has become part of the Community legal order. Bogiatzi.

-

AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer discusses an Austrian environmental case. He argues that the Umweltsenat is a judicial body in the sense of art. 234, taking his time to carefully recommend a stricter application of the Court’s ruling in Vaassen-Goebbels, which governs the access to art. 234 by quasi-judicial bodies. In answer to the actual question, he proposes that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out if the total size of the project passes the threshold, even if the project extends through several MS. (The case was about a power line.) Alpe Adria.

-

Finally, AG Sharpston proposed that the Court strike down a Walloon law reserving a certain percentage of places in various medical studies for Belgians. Apparently, French students are coming there the same way the Dutch study in Flanders and the Germans study in Austria. Not even an appeal to art. 149(1) EC and art. 13(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights could help the government.Bressol and others. (Note the final remarks in par. 151-154, where the AG calls on the Community legislature to help the Belgians out.)

Last week:

-	In L'Oreal, the ECJ approved a trademark claim even in the absence of any risk of confusion. Rather than try to pass of their fakes as real, the defendants admitted they were fake, and advertised emphasising how much cheaper the fake was than the real L'Oreal products. That is not allowed.

-

The Finnish tax authorities were confused by the Luxembourg phenomenon of a SICAV, a société d'investissement à capital variable, i.e. an open-ended investment company. The Court now ruled that they may not discriminate when it comes to withholding taxes, even though the SICAV does not appear in the annex to the relevant directive. Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy.

-	There's another case in the area of regulation of medicine. Generics (UK).

-	The CFI dismissed the complaint filed by Qualcomm against the Commission's decision to allow the takeover of the German Autobahn toll people by Daimler. The case turns mostly on the (fact-intensive) question of the sufficiency of the commitments made by Daimler. Qualcomm v Commission.

This Week in Luxembourg

- In the ongoing dispute about whether Competition fines should be tax deductible under Dutch law, the ECJ ruled that the Commission has the competence to submit written observations to the national court on its own initiative, under art. 15(3)(1), third sentence of Regulation 1/2003. (" Where the coherent application of Article 81 or Article 82 of the Treaty so requires, the Commission, acting on its own initiative, may submit written observations to courts of the Member States.") Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV.

- On June 9, the Court applied some common sense to the case about the (absence of a) tender for waste collection in the area around Hamburg. Four municipalities made a contract with the Stadtreinigung Hamburg without conducting a formal tender. AG Mazak concluded that this violated the Court's case law on when tender procedures have to be conducted, since these municipalities did not grant the contract to an organisation that they themselves controlled. The Court now disagrees.

- Today, in a German case about tender procedure run by a Krankenkasse, the Court ruled that the mere fact that such bodies are included in the annex to Directive 2004/18 is not enough to prove that they are governed by public law. The Courts have an independent duty to verify this given the facts of the case. (A Krankenkasse is, indeed, governed by public law.) The rest of the case concerns the question whether a mixed contract should be treated as a contract for goods or a contract for services. Hans & Christophorus Oymanns.

- Dutch tax authorities are allowed to enact a longer recovery period for wealth hidden abroad rather than in the Netherlands. X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën. They may not, however, discriminate against Iceland and Norway in their treatment of dividends paid to foreign companies. Commission v. Netherlands.

- The CFI applied the Kadi precedent to the case of Omar Mohammed Othman, currently being detained awaiting deportation in the UK. He'll have to wait for the ECHR to rule on his deportation, but at least he can have his bank accounts back.

- The CFI also applied Plaumann and Sardegna Lines in a series of Italian sectoral state aid cases, all of which were either inadmissible or unfounded. ASM Brescia v Commission, ACEA v Commission, Italy v Commission, Acegas-APS v Commission, etc, etc, etc.

- On June 9, the CFI ruled that a competitor cannot force the Commission to investigate existing state aid. A letter from the Commission notifying the complainant that it would not investigate further is not a decision in the sense of art. 230 EC, since no Commission decision could be said to exist. The case law on significant difficulties only applies to new aid. NDSHT v Commission.

This Week in Luxembourg

- The rules protecting consumers against unfair terms (i.c. art. 6 of Directive 93/13) have to be applied by the court of its own motion when the consumer does not invoke them himself. Pannon GSM.

- Replying to a prejudicial question from the Dutch CBB in a competition case concerning the mobile telecom industry, the ECJ emphasises the "or" in "anti-competitive object or effect", without saying anything intelligible about either. What it does say, is that exchange of information is bad, that anti-competitive does not mean that an effect on prices is necessary, and that the national court is required to apply the presumption of causal connection between concerted practice and market behaviour in all circumstances. T-Mobile et al. v NMA.

- In Vatsouras, the ECJ says that not giving workers any social benefits when they first arrive, as allowed by art. 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, is compatible with the Treaty, even if this results in a situation where EU citizens are worse off than illegal immigrants.

- Directive 85/374 harmonises the law on defective products, making it easier for non-professional users to seek redress for damage caused by a defect. France extended that regime to professional users, and the defendant in a case before the Cour de Cassation tried some form of a contrario argument to argue that that was not allowed. The ECJ ruled that it was. Société Moteurs Leroy Somer.

- Greece has to pay a lump sum fine of € 1 million for not obeying a Court ruling requring it to liberalise its market for opticians, and a daily penalty payment of € 31.536 in another case concerning computer games in public places. Greece did get a partial win, though, in a case about irregularities in a tender for an electric power plant.

- On June 2, AG Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer considered a very creative approach to public-private partnerships, coming from Sicily. The idea was to use a competitive tendering procedure to select the private party who would be allowed to take a minority shareholding in a water company, as well as undertake certain responsibilities with regards to its operations. After giving a useful discussion of this area of the law, the AG argues that the system is OK, as long as certain requirements are met. Acoset.

- On May 19, Italy was allowed to keep its restrictive rules regulating who is allowed to own and operate a pharmacy ina 230 procedure brought by the Commission, while a similar scheme in Saarland was upheld in a 234 case:Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others.

- Also on May 19, AG Bot delivered his opinion on a tricky piece of international law, concerning the application of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations to a contract in the transport sector. Not only does he prefer a flexible closest connection test over "fixed and rigid connecting factors", he also spends quite a bit of time on the possibility of having different law apply to different parts of the contract, i.e. "severability" under art. 4(1)(2) of the Rome Convention. The case is a 234 case from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, ICF v Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV.

- On May 14 in Luxembourg, there was some interesting common law/civil law mess about when a fake prize scam counts as a contract in the sense of Regulation 44/2001. If it is a contract, the victim/consumer can sue in her own court to claim her prize, since that would be the forum where the contract is to be performed. Otherwise, she'd have sue in Germany. At common law, the conclusion would be that there is probably no consideration (there is some factual uncertainty about this), so no contract. Here, the court chooses the middle ground, with some carbolic smokeballthrown in. Not very helpful... Ilsinger.

This Week in Luxembourg

- In a Dutch 234 case, someone tried to get the city to tell him to whom his GBA data had been disclosed over the previous two years. (GBA = Gemeentelijke Basis Administratie = the City's record of its inhabitants with some information about each of them, which they use for example to make a voters' list.) Apparently the GBA Act only required the city to give him this information for the previous one year, hence the dispute. The Raad van State asked the ECJ, because there was an EC data retention directive in play, and the ECJ's answer is that he should be able to access this information, but that the MS are free to set a time limit. It is up to the national court to decide whether in this case "fair balance" has been struck, although the ECJ gives some indication that this is not the case. Rijkeboer.

- In a Portugese 234 case, there is a bit of a mess in the Portuguese bus market (?). Apparently, the bus companies of Lisbon and Oporto, who receive a government subsidy because they have a public service obligation, also run buses to the rest of Portugal, in direct competition with the plaintiffs and without any PSO. Since it is impossible to calculate the amount of compensation to which the defendants are entitled, the ECJ rules that it would be unlawful to give them any. This result is reached under a transport law regulation, without recourse to state aids law. Antrop and Others.

- AG Sharpston delivered an opinion in an Italian 234 case that crosses over between Fèta-type appellation of origin law and trademark law. Two producers' associations in Emilia-Romagna are trying to get "Salame Felino" (=a type of salami) protected the same way Fèta is. In the mean time, they registered it as a collective trademark. Plaintiff has been using this description for many years in good faith, but now he got in trouble. Much hilarity ensues. Severi.

- The CFI handed down four rulings in competition cases. (Three regarding a cartel in the industrial tubes sector, and a merger control case in the Dutch pig market.) In all four, the court left the Commission's decision intact. In a clear case of "everything but the kitchen sink", Wieland-Werke started by arguing that art. 15(2) of Regulation 17, which governs the fines the Commission can set, was in violation of the lex certa principle. (NB, Reg. 17 is so called because it is so old that it predates the current numbering system.) That case and the KME ruling do have an interesting discussion of the application of the leniency notice, though. Both applicants felt they deserved a higher discount than the one they got. (Not to mention higher than the one the other got.) In the Dutch pig case, some farmers' unions objected to a Commission decision allowing Hendrix Meat Group to be taken over. (NVV et al. v Commission)