Newsletter 2013 5

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

1/13

EUROPEAN COURTSJUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RGHTS AND THE

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

No. 5 (May 2013)

Abduction of Europa (Rembrandt van Rijn, 1632 - detail)

European Courts is an EU and ECHR law blog forjudges, legal practitioners, legal academics and otherinterest groups.

Its general objective is a better understanding of EUand human rights law. This blog also aims at bridgingthe gap between the law in the books and the law inaction. It creates a platform of exchange ofknowledge and experiences between judges andacademics.

European Courts publishes a monthly newsmagazinethat provides an overview of recent case law from theEuropean Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg andthe Court of Justice of the European Union.

Editors: Marc de Werd, Roel Andrea, RobinCozijnsen, Menco Rasterhoff, Nienke de Visser,Mirjam Winkels.

This newsletter is still under construction.

Copyright 2013 Marc de Werd

Follow European Courts on twitter: @EuropeanCourts
http://europeancourts.blogspot.nl/http://europeancourts.blogspot.nl/

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

2/13

EUROPEAN COURTS No. 5 (May 2013)

INDEX

1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

READ THE COURTS CASE LAW INFORMATION NOTES RIGHT TO LIFE (Article 2) PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3) RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5) RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6) RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE (Article 8) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (Article 10)

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILTY RIGHT TO EDUCATION (ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1)

2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE

AGRICULTURE CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY COMPETITION CONSUMERS ENVIRONMENT

IMMIGRATION LAW INSOLVENCY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LABOUR LAW MEDICINAL PRODUCTS MONEY LAUNDRY PENSIONS SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (AIR)TRANSPORT

2

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

3/13


1. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

STRASBOURG

JUDGMENTS

READ THE COURTS CASE LAW INFORMATION NOTES

The Court publishesfact sheetson Strasbourg case law andcase law informationnotes.

RIGHT TO LIFE (Article 2)

9 April 2013 Mehmet entrk and Bekir entrk v. Turkey press release judgment

Lack of medical assistance for a pregnant woman requiring emergency treatmentbreached Article 2 of the Convention.

The case concerned the death of a pregnant woman following a series of misjudgements bymedical staff at different hospitals and the subsequent failure to provide her with emergencymedical treatment when her condition was known to be critical. The Court held that thedeceased had been the victim of blatant shortcomings on the part of the hospital authoritiesand had been denied the possibility of access to appropriate emergency treatment. Itreiterated that failure by a State to comply with its duty to protect a persons physical well-being amounted to a breach of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention. In viewof its findings concerning deficiencies in the criminal proceedings, the Court also found aviolation of the procedural aspect of Article 2.

PROHIBITION OF TORTURE (Article 3)

25 April 2013 Canali v. France press release judgment

Cramped conditions and failure to comply with hygiene regulations in a prisonamounted to degrading treatment.

The case concerned the conditions of detention in the Charles III Prison in Nancy, whichwas built in 1857 and shut down in 2009 on account of its extremely dilapidated state.

25 April 2013 Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia press release judgment

Russia responsible for secret unlawful transfer to Tajikistan of a man protected bytemporary asylum and interim measures.

The case concerned the abduction and secret transfer of a man, whose extradition had beensought by the Tajik authorities and who had been granted temporary asylum in Russia, to

his home country, Tajikistan, where he was subsequently prosecuted and sentenced toimprisonment for offences against national security.

3
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Information+sheets/Factsheets/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Information+sheets/Factsheets/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Information+sheets/Factsheets/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/Case-Law+analysis/Information+Notes/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/Case-Law+analysis/Information+Notes/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/Case-Law+analysis/Information+Notes/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321152-5174395http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118336http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4338800-5202139http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118735http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4338633-5201894http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119416http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Press/Information+sheets/Factsheets/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/Case-Law+analysis/Information+Notes/http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Case-Law/Case-Law+analysis/Information+Notes/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321152-5174395http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118336http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4338800-5202139http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118735http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4338633-5201894http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119416

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

4/13


The Court held in particular that Mr Dzhurayev faced a real risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistanand that he could not have been forcibly transferred there without the involvement ofRussian State officials, whose actions had been tainted by manifest arbitrariness and abuseof power. The Court concluded that, like the so-called extraordinary renditions, theoperation involving State agents in Mr Dzhurayevs case had been conducted outside thenormal legal system and, by its deliberate circumvention of due process, was anathema tothe rule of law and the values protected by the Convention.

18 April 2013 M0.M. v. France press release judgment

France not to deport person suspected of collaboration with Darfur rebels to Chad.

The case concerned the complaint of a Chadian national that deporting him to his country oforigin would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment by the police there to punish him forallegedly siding with the rebels in Darfur.

After noting that in spite of an improvement in relations between Chad and Sudan, threats topeoples safety persisted in Chad, the Court found that the applicant had produced sufficientevidence that in view of his personal situation he would be exposed to a real risk of inhumanand degrading treatment if sent back to Chad.

16 April 2013 Aswat v. United Kingdom press release judgment

Schizophrenic detained in the UK should not be extradited to the USA.

The case concerned the complaint by Mr Aswat, who is detained in the United Kingdom, thathis extradition to the United States of America would amount to ill-treatment, in particularbecause the detention conditions (a potentially long period of pre-trial detention and hispossible placement in a supermax prison) were likely to exacerbate his condition ofparanoid schizophrenia.

While the Court held that Mr Aswats extradition to the USA would be in violation of Article 3(prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), it was solely on account of the currentseverity of his mental illness and not as a result of the length of his possible detention there.

9 April 2013 H. and B. v. United Kingdom press release judgment

Former UN driver and US forces interpreter can be removed from the United Kingdomto Afghanistan.

The case concerned two Afghan nationals allegation that, if removed to their country oforigin, they would be at risk of ill-treatment from the Taliban in reprisal for their past work forthe United Nations as a driver and the United States forces as an interpreter, respectively.

The Court found that the two men, if removed to Afghanistan, would not be at risk as a resultof the general situation in the country. Furthermore, they had failed to provide evidence toprove that their personal circumstances would expose them to a real risk of inhuman ordegrading treatment if removed. Notably, their work for the international community had notbeen high profile and there was nothing to prove that the Taliban had the motivation orability to pursue low level collaborators in Kabul, an area outside of Taliban control.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY (Article 5)

30 April 2013 - Tymoshenko v. Ukraine press release-judgment

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine was arbitrarily detained

The case concerned complaints related to the detention of the former Ukrainian PrimeMinister Yuliya Tymoshenko. The Court held in particular: that Ms Tymoshenkos pre-trialdetention had been arbitrary; that the lawfulness of her detention had not been properlyreviewed; and, that she had no possibility to seek compensation for her unlawful deprivationof liberty.

The Court also found that, given that the judge had referred to her alleged hindering of the

proceedings and contemptuous behaviour, her right to liberty had been restricted for otherreasons than those permissible under Article 5.

4
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332426-5192599http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118603http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4329489-5187940http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118583http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321100-5174315http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118339http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4343134-5208270http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4343134-5208270http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119382http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119382http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332426-5192599http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118603http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4329489-5187940http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118583http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321100-5174315http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118339http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4343134-5208270http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119382

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

5/13


9 April 2013 Abdi v. United Kingdom press release judgment

Somali nationals detention pending deportation was not lawful under domestic law.

The case concerned a complaint by a Somali national that he was kept in detention for morethan three years, pending his proposed deportation to his country of origin.

The Court found in particular that, where lawfulness of detention is in issue, the EuropeanConvention refers essentially to national law, laying down the obligation to conform to rulesof national law. In Mr Abdis case, it held that his detention from 3 December 2004 to mid-April 2007 was not lawful under domestic law because the regular reviews required by theSecretary of States published policy on the detention of foreign national prisoners were notcarried out. Indeed, the British Government had accepted the unlawfulness of Mr Abdisdetention following the Supreme Courts judgment in another similar case.

It also struck out Mr Abdis complaint under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degradingtreatment) that his removal to Somalia would put him at risk of illtreatment and thereforedecided to lift its indication to the United Kingdom Government (made under Rule 39 of theRules of Court interim measures) that Mr Abdi should not be expelled until further notice.

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6)

23 April 2013 Szer v. Turkey press release judgment

The applicant, Mehmet Uur Szer, is a Turkish national who was born on 4 October 1987and is currently in Gaziantep Prison (Turkey). While a secondary school student and a minorhe was charged with two counts of aggravated theft committed in November 2003. Heclaimed that he had simply been caught up in a row between his friends and another youngman. Relying in particular on Article 6 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to beassisted by a lawyer), he alleged that he had been denied a fair trial and that his defencerights had been infringed, and that he had been forced against his will to sign severaldocuments without having had access to proper assistance.

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE (Article 8)

25 April 2013 M.S. v.Croatia press release judgment

Criminal proceedings against womans alleged attacker were inadequate.

The case originated in a dispute between two sisters (one of whom is the applicant, MsM.S.) and the owner and employee of the restaurant above which they live, resulting in thembringing criminal proceedings against one another and Ms M.S. being appointed a guardianin proceedings to divest her of her legal capacity.

The Court found in particular that the criminal proceedings Ms M.S. brought against therestaurant employee for attacking her were dropped without the facts ever actually havingbeen established by a competent court of law, due to the fact that her guardian had notgiven express consent to continue the proceedings. The criminal proceedings concerning

the alleged attack were therefore inadequate and their outcome did not have sufficientdeterrent effect against further violence. The Court also found shortcomings in theproceedings to divest Ms M.S. of her legal capacity, which had notably been requestedsolely on the basis of a report by a psychiatrist who had never had any contact with her.

18 April 2013 Ageyevy v. Russia press release judgment

Decision to revoke adoption based on unproven suspicion of child abuse wasunjustified.

The case concerned a married couples complaint about the removal of their two adoptedchildren and the revocation of the adoption following an incident when their son was burnt athome and had to go to hospital for treatment.

JUDGMENT 2013 Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg press release judgment

5
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321406-5174824http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118335http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4336035-5197981http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118642http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4339161-5202728http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118736http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332349-5192495http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118602http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332446-5192635http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118604http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4321406-5174824http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118335http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4336035-5197981http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118642http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4339161-5202728http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118736http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332349-5192495http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118602http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332446-5192635http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118604

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

6/13


An inadequately defined search warrant constituted a breach of freedom ofexpression and of respect for the home.

The case concerned a search and seizure warrant issued by an investigating judge againsta newspaper after the latter had published an article which was the subject of a complaint tothe judicial authorities by an individual mentioned in the article and his employer.

The Court held that the search and seizure warrant had not been reasonably proportionateto the aim pursued, namely to verify the identity of the journalist who had written the article,and that it had been insufficiently limited in scope to prevent possible abuse by theinvestigating officers, for instance in the form of attempts to identify the journalists sources.

18 April 2013 M.K. v. France press release judgment

The retention of the fingerprints of a person who had not been convicted breachedhis right to respect for his private life.

The case concerned a French national who complained of the fact that his fingerprints hadbeen retained on a database by the French authorities. He had been the subject of twoinvestigations concerning book theft, which ended in one case with his acquittal and in theother with a decision not to prosecute.

The Court considered, in view of the circumstances of the case, that the retention of the datain question amounted to disproportionate interference with the applicants right to respect forhis private life.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (Article 10)

22 April 2013 Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom Grand Chamberpress release judgment

Ban on paid political advertising in the UK is justified.

The case concerned the complaint by a non-governmental organisation that it had beendenied the possibility to advertise on TV or radio.

The Court noted that both parties maintained that they were protecting the democraticprocess. It found in particular that: the reviews of the ban by both parliamentary and judicialbodies had been exacting and pertinent, taking into account the European Courts caselaw;the ban only applied to advertising and the applicant NGO had access to alternative media,both broadcast and non-broadcast; and, the lack of European consensus on how to regulatepaid political advertising in broadcasting meant that the UK Government had more room formanoeuvre when deciding on such matters as restricting public interest debate. Overall, theCourt found that the reasons given to justify the ban were convincing and that the ban didnot therefore go too far in restricting the right to participate in public debate.

4 April 2013 Reznik v. Russia press release judgment

Defamation proceedings against lawyer for critical statement on TV show unjustified.

The case concerned defamation proceedings against the president of the Moscow City Barfor critical statements on a live TV show about the conduct of male prison warders who hadsearched the female lawyer representing the prominent businessman MikhailKhodorkovskiy.

The Court held in particular that the Russian court which had found Mr Reznik liable fordefamation had failed to perform any balancing exercise between the need to protect theplaintiffs reputation and the public interest.

6
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332390-5192548http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118597http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4334720-5196121http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119244http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4316142-5166447http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118040http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4332390-5192548http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118597http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4334720-5196121http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-119244http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4316142-5166447http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118040

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

7/13


FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND ASSEMBLY (Article 11)

11 April 2013 Vyerentsov v. Ukraine press release judgment

20-year legislative lacuna concerning freedom of peaceful assembly in Ukraine;urgent reform required.

The case concerned a human rights activist who complained in particular that he had beensentenced to three days of administrative detention for holding a demonstration withoutpermission, even though such permission was not required by domestic law.

The Court considered that the case disclosed a structural problem, namely a legislativelacuna concerning freedom of assembly which has remained in Ukraine since the end of theSoviet Union. Indeed, the only existing document currently establishing a procedure forholding demonstrations is a Decree adopted in 1988 by the USSR (the 1988 Decree), whichis not generally accepted by the Ukrainian courts as still applicable. Therefore, under Article46 (binding force and implementation), the Court invited Ukraine to urgently reform itslegislation and administrative practice to establish the requirements for the organisation andholding of peaceful demonstrations as well as the grounds for their restriction.

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILTY

26 maart Rappaz v. Switzerland press releasedecision

The continued detention of a prisoner on hunger strike and a decision to force-feedhim do not necessarily entail a violation of the Convention.

The applicant, who had been imprisoned for various offences, embarked on a hunger strikein an attempt to secure his release. In this case the Court held that the Swiss authorities hadnot failed in their obligation to protect the applicants life and to provide him with conditionsof detention compatible with his state of health.

26 maart Mdr Turgut a.o. v. Turkey press release decision

Compensation Board provides a remedy to be used for all pending applications not

yet communicated and lodged with the Court before 23 September 2012.

The Court held in this case that Law no. 6384 was a direct and practical consequence of thepilot-judgment procedure applied in mmhan Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 24240/07) of 20 March2012, designed to remedy complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings.

Although that Law was not in force when the applicants lodged their application, the Courtdeclared that it was not in a position to state at the present stage of the proceedings that theremedy currently available was not effective and accessible. It followed that the complainthad to be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

RIGHT TO EDUCATION (ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1)

2 April 2013 Tarantino a.o. v. Italy press release judgment

Italian legislation limiting access to universities to study dentistry and medicine isreasonable.

The case concerned eight students complaints about the restrictions imposed on them byItalian legislation aimed at limiting access to universities, following their unsuccessfulattempts to obtain a place in the faculties of medicine and dentistry. For the first time theCourt has had to assess the compatibility with the right to education in the tertiary sector ofthe operation of a numerus clausus (the maximum number of candidates allowed to enter auniversity) coupled with an entrance examination. The Court concluded that the State hadnot exceeded its wide discretion to decide on such a matter as regulating access toeducation. It essentially found that there existed a right to access education only in so far asa university had the capacity and resources and in so far as society had a need for aparticular profession, unemployment representing further expenditure for society at large.

7
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4324561-5180117http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118393http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4325502-5181401http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118757http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4325432-5181274http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118648http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4311865-5159562http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118477http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4324561-5180117http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118393http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4325502-5181401http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118757http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4325432-5181274http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118648http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/webservices/content/pdf/003-4311865-5159562http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118477

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

8/13


2. JUDGMENTS FROM THE EU COURT OF JUSTICE

LUXEMBURG

JUDGMENTS

AGRICULTURE

23 April 2013 Case C-500/11 Fruition Po opinion

Common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 Article 11 Producer organisations Conditions for recognition Control over contractors

CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

ARREST 18 April 2013 Case C-595/11 Steinel Vertrieb judgment

Commercial policy Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007

Common Customs Tariff Tariff classification Combined Nomenclature Definitiveanti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps Applicability of definitiveanti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation Product concerned Scope

11 April 2013 Case C-49/12 Sunico opinion

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdictionand the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters Article6 of the Agreement Capacity of Danish courts to make references to the Court Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Article 1(1) Concept of civil and commercial matters Action by an authority Damages for involvement in tax evasion by a third party which is notitself a taxable person

11 April 2013 Case C-645/11 Sapir judgment

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 Articles 1(1) and 6.1 Concept of civil and commercialmatters Undue payment made by a State entity Claim for recovery of that payment inlegal proceedings Determination of the court having jurisdiction in the case where claimsare connected Close connection between the claims Defendant domiciled in a non-member State

COMMON FOREIGN AND SOCIAL SECURITY POLICY

23 April 2013 C-478/11 P + C-479/11 P + C-480/11 P + C-481/11 P + C-482/11 P Gbagbo / Council of the European Union + Kon / Council of the European Union+Boni-Claverie / Council of the European Union + Djdj / Council of the European

Union + N'Guessan / Council of the European Union Grand Chamber judgment

8
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136662&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1826259http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136428&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1235122http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136123&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=803247http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136150&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=896388http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136661&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1825873http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136662&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1826259http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136428&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1235122http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136123&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=803247http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136150&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=896388http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136661&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1825873

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

9/13


Appeal Common foreign and security policy Restrictive measures adopted againstpersons and entities Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Period allowed forcommencing proceedings Force majeure Armed conflict

COMPETITION

12 April 2013 Case T-401/08 Sveltjin Tekijnoikeustoimisto Teosto /Commission judgment

Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Copyright relating to publicperformance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission Decisionfinding an infringement of Article 81 EC Sharing of the geographic market Bilateralagreements between national collecting societies Concerted practices precluding thepossibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences Proof Presumption ofinnocence

12 April 2013 Cases T-392/08 t/m T-451/08 AEPI / Commission t/m Stim/Commission judgment

Competition Agreements, decisions and concerted practices Copyright relating to publicperformance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission Decision

finding an infringement of Article 81 EC Sharing of the geographic market Bilateralagreements between national collecting societies Concerted practices precluding thepossibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences Proof Presumption ofinnocence

CONSUMERS

11 April 2013 Case C-636/11 Berger judgment

Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 Consumer protection Food safety Public information Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk.

ENVIRONMENT

25 April 2013 Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. / Commission judgment

Trade in seal products Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 Detailed rules for implementation Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 Prohibition on placing such products on the market Exception in favour of Inuit communities Plea of illegality Legal basis Subsidiarity Proportionality Misuse of powers

18 April 2013 Case C-463/11 L judgment

Directive 2001/42/EC Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on theenvironment Article 3(4) and (5) Determination of the type of plans likely to havesignificant environmental effects Building plan for development within an urban areaexempted from an environmental assessment under national legislation Incorrectassessment of the qualitative condition of inner city development No effect on the legal

validity of the building plan Effectiveness of the directive undermined

11 April 2013 Case C-258/11 Sweetman - judgment

Environment Directive 92/43/EEC Article 6 Conservation of natural habitats Specialareas of conservation Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan orproject Criteria to be applied when assessing the likelihood that such a plan or project willadversely affect the integrity of the site concerned Lough Corrib site N6 Galway CityOuter Bypass road scheme

11 April 2013 Case C-260/11 Edwards - judgment

Environment Aarhus Convention Directive 85/337/EEC Directive 2003/35/EC Article10a Directive 96/61/EC Article 15a Access to justice in environmental matters Meaning of not prohibitively expensive judicial proceedings

9
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136262&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=925872http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136261&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=930170http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136146&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921980http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136881&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=126120http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136433&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1233334http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136145&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=901044http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136149&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=920002http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136262&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=925872http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136261&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=930170http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136146&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921980http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136881&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=126120http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136433&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1233334http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136145&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=901044http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136149&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=920002

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

10/13


FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS

16 April 2013 Case C-202/11 Las Grand Chamber judgment comment 1 comment 2

Common European Asylum System Procedures for its judicial enforcement Council

Regulation No 343/2003 Determination of the Member State responsible for theexamination of an asylum application presented by a third country national Article 3(2) Rights of asylum seekers Exceptional situations as defined in Joined Cases C-411/10 andC-493/10 N.S. and Others Article 19(2) Suspension of transfer of asylum seekers

IMMIGRATION LAW

18 April 2013 Case C-4/11 Puid Grand Chamber opinion

Common European Asylum System Procedures for its judicial enforcement CouncilRegulation No 343/2003 Determination of the Member State responsible for theexamination of an asylum application presented by a third country national Article 3(2) Rights of asylum seekers Exceptional situations as defined in Joined Cases C-411/10 andC-493/10 N.S. and Others Article 19(2) Suspension of transfer of asylum seekers

11 April 2013 Case C-221/11 Demirkan Grand Chamber- opinion

EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol Standstillclause Freedom to provide services Passive freedom to provide services Entry forTurkish nationals without a visa Whether the passive freedom to provide services extendsto visiting relatives

INSOLVENCY

18 April 2013 Case C-247/12 Mustafa judgment

Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer Directive 80/987/EEC Directive 2002/74/EC Directive 2008/94/EC Articles 2 and 3 Obligation to provide a

guarantee for employees claims Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arisingbefore the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register ofcompanies Decision to open the insolvency proceedings Effects Continuation of theemployers activity

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

18 April 2013 Case C-12/12 Colloseum Holding judgment

Trade marks Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Article 15(1) Definition of genuine use Trade mark used only as one element of a composite mark or in conjunction with anothermark

17 April 2013 Case T-383/10 Continental Bulldog Club Deutschland / OHMI

(CONTINENTAL) judgment

Community trade mark Application for Community word mark CONTINENTAL Absoluteground for refusal Descriptive character Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

16 April 2013 C-274/11 + C-295/11 Spain / Council of the European Union + Italy /Council of the European Union Grand Chamberjudgment comment 1 comment2

Unitary patent Decision authorising enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU Actions for annulment on grounds of lack of competence, misuse of powers andinfringement of the Treaties Conditions laid down in Article 20 TEU and in Articles 326TFEU and 327 TFEU Non-exclusive competence Decision adopted as a last resort Preserving the interests of the Union

LABOUR LAW

10
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136301&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1203500http://jmieurope.typepad.com/jmi/2013/04/politique-linguistique-flamande-et-droit-europ%C3%A9en.htmlhttp://www.euractiv.com/culture/eu-high-court-condemns-flanders-news-519178http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136425&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1222124http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136126&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=886524http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136429&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1232804http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136430&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1231251http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136381&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1205262http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1204044http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/surprise-surprise-cjeu-dismisses.htmlhttp://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/surprise-surprise-cjeu-dismisses.htmlhttp://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/surprise-surprise-cjeu-dismisses.htmlhttp://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/gemeinschaftspatent-eugh-italien-spanien-sprachen/http://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/gemeinschaftspatent-eugh-italien-spanien-sprachen/http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136301&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1203500http://jmieurope.typepad.com/jmi/2013/04/politique-linguistique-flamande-et-droit-europ%C3%A9en.htmlhttp://www.euractiv.com/culture/eu-high-court-condemns-flanders-news-519178http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136425&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1222124http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136126&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=886524http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136429&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1232804http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136430&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1231251http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136381&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1205262http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1204044http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/surprise-surprise-cjeu-dismisses.htmlhttp://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/gemeinschaftspatent-eugh-italien-spanien-sprachen/http://www.verfassungsblog.de/de/gemeinschaftspatent-eugh-italien-spanien-sprachen/

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

11/13


25 April 2013 Case C-89/12 Bark judgment

Joint undertakings Contracts concluded with members of staff Applicable rules Regulation (EC) No 876/2002

25 April 2013 Case C-81/12 Asociaia ACCEPT judgment

Social policy Equal treatment in employment and occupation Directive 2000/78/EC Articles 2(2)(a), 10(1) and 17 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation Concept of facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination Modified burden of proof Effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions Personpresenting himself and being perceived by public opinion as playing a leading role in aprofessional football club Public statements ruling out the recruitment of a footballerpresented as being homosexual

16 April 2013 Case C-64/12 Schlecker opinion

Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations Contract of employment Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties Law of the country inwhich the work is habitually carried out Possibility of disregarding that law on account of

the existence of closer connections with another country Implications

11 April 2013 Case C-290/12 Della Rocca - judgment

Social policy Directive 1999/70/EC Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concludedby ETUC, UNICE and CEEP Clause 2 Scope of application of the FrameworkAgreement Temporary employment business Supply of temporary workers to a userundertaking Successive fixed-term employment contracts

11 April 2013 C-335/11 + C-337/11 Ring + Skouboe Werge judgment

Social policy United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Directive 2000/78/CE Equal treatment in employment and occupation Articles 1, 2 and 5 Difference of treatment on grounds of disability Dismissal Existence of a disability

Employee absent because of disability Obligation to provide accommodation Part-timework Length of the period of notice

MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

11 April 2013 Case C-535/11 Novartis Pharma judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 Medicinal products forhuman use Procedure for authorisation Requirement for authorisation Concept ofmedicinal products developed by means of certain biotechnological processes, as referredto in point 1 of the Annex to that regulation Repackaging process Injectable solutiondistributed in single-use vials containing a larger quantity of the therapeutic solution thanthat actually used for the purposes of medical treatment Part of the content of such vialsdrawn off, on prescription by a doctor, into syringes pre-filled with the prescribed dose,

without any modification of the medicinal product

MONEY LAUNDRY

25 April 2013 Case C-212/11 Jyske Bank Gibraltar judgment

Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering andterrorist financing Directive 2005/60/EC Article 22(2) Decision 2000/642/JHA Requirement to report suspicious financial transactions applicable to credit institutions Institution operating under the rules on the freedom to provide services Identification of thenational financial information unit responsible for the collection of information Article 56TFEU Obstacle to freedom to provide services Overriding requirements in the publicinterest Proportionality

PENSIONS

11 April 2013 Case C-401/11 Soukupov judgment

11
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136783&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=123679http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136785&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=122355http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136322&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1201810http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136147&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=892068http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136161&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921016http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136142&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921765http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136784&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=123821http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136141&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921164http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136783&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=123679http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136785&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=122355http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136322&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1201810http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136147&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=892068http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136161&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921016http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136142&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921765http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136784&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=123821http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136141&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=921164

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

12/13


Agriculture EAGGF Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 Support for rural development Early retirement support Transferor not less than 55 years old but not yet of normalretirement age at the time of transfer Concept of normal retirement age Nationallegislation determining a retirement age which varies depending on the sex of the applicantand, for women, on the number of children raised General principles of equal treatmentand non-discrimination

SOCIAL SECURITY

18 April 2013 Case C-548/11 Mulders judgment

Social security Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Article 1(r) Definition of periods ofinsurance Article 46 Calculation of retirement pension Periods of insurance to betaken into consideration Frontier workers Period of incapacity for work Aggregation ofsimilar benefits paid by two Member States No account taken of a period of incapacity forwork as a period of insurance Residence requirement Nation rules precluding thecumulation of benefits

11 April 2013 Case C-443/11 Jeltesjudgment

Social security for migrant workers Article 45 TFEU Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

Article 71 Wholly unemployed atypical frontier workers who have maintained personal andbusiness links in the Member State of last employment Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 Article 65 Right to benefit in the Member State of residence Refusal to pay by theMember State of last employment Admissibility Relevance of the judgment of the Courtof 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe Transitional provisions Article 87(8) Concept ofunchanged situation

TAXES

25 April 2013 Case C-480/10 Commission / Sweden judgment

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Taxation Directive 2006/112/EC Article11 National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which canbe regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial

and insurance sector

18 April 2013 Case C-565/11 Irimie judgment

Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law Nationalsystem limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax Interestcalculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the tax Non-compliance with European Union law Principle of effectiveness

18 April 2013 Case C-26/12 PPG Holdings opinion

VAT Pension fund set up by an employer as a separate legal entity VAT onmanagement services relating to the pension fund, invoiced to the employer Whetherdeductible Whether such services exempt from VAT as management of special

investment funds

11 April 2013 Case C-138/12 Rusedespred judgment

Taxation VAT Directive 2006/112/EC Article 203 Principle of fiscal neutrality Refund to the supplier of tax paid where the recipient under an exempt transaction isrefused a right of deduction

9 April 2013 Case C-85/11 Commission / Ireland Grand Chamberjudgment

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Taxation Directive 2006/112/EC Articles9 and 11 National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group ofpersons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes

(AIR)TRANSPORT

12
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136431&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1234281http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136143&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=892464http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136781&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=124311http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136434&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1234611http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136424&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1231616http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136148&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=885833http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136001&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=801909http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136431&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1234281http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136143&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=892464http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136781&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=124311http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136434&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1234611http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136424&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1231616http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136148&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=885833http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136001&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=801909

7/30/2019 Newsletter 2013 5

13/13


18 April 2013 Case C-625/10 Commission / France judgment

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Transport Development of theCommunitys railways Directive 91/440/EEC Article 6(3) and Annex II Directive2001/14/EC Article 14(2) Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructuremanager Article 11 Absence of a performance scheme Incomplete transposition

13
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136435&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1218912http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136435&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1218912

Documents

Newsletter 2013 5