On 1 March 2023, the President of the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the GeneralCourt’),issuedanordergranting,forthe rsttime,interimmeasuresinthecontextofasanctionscase(2).
e Court ordered a partial suspension of the sanctions adopted by the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) against Mr Nikita Dmitrievich Mazepin, on the basis of the alleged connections existing between him and his father (3), who is also sanctioned as a ‘leading businessperson involved in economic sectors providing a substantialsourceofrevenuetotheGovernmentoftheRussianFederation’(4)
One cannot fully predict whether the General Court will ultimately uphold the listing of Mr Mazepin (because the standard of review applied for interim measures is not equivalent to an analysis of the merits of the case). Nevertheless, in addition to con rming that family relationships alone are not (currently) sufficient to justify sanctions (as commented in another Op-Ed), the Order provides particularly interesting insights and re ects many ofthecriticismsthathavebeenlevelledagainsttheCounciloverthepastyear,inparticulartheweaknessofsome oftheinitiallistingsandalmostautomaticcharacteroftherelistingprocess,deprivingitofitseffectandpurpose.
Before delving into these issues in details, a brief overview of the context of sanctions adopted against Russia andMrMazepinisnecessary.
1. William Julié is a Franco-British lawyer specialised in international criminal defence andlitigation. He is the founding partner of a law rm based in Paris and partner of a law rm based in Brussels. He is the author of: Entreprises ançaises en Russie: une responsabilité morale ou pénale ?; A case for the creation of a harmonisedEuropeanremedyagainstabusiveSISalerts; eruleagainsttheextraditionofnationals:overviewandperspectives
Amélie Beauchemin is an a orney at the Paris and New York Bars, specialised ininternational criminal law and sanctions She is a senior associate at a law rm based in Paris and at a law rm based in Brussels She is the author of Entreprises ançaises en Russie: une responsabilité morale ou pénale?; Guideline on the Strategic Useof UNHumanRightsMechanismsforSyria, eSyrian;Initiative,AmericanUniversityWashingtonCollegeofLaw(Editor.)
CamilleGossonisajuniorassociateatalaw rmbasedinParis,specialisedininternationalcriminallaw
Although the authors have been involved in sanctions’ litigation representing sanctioned individuals before the General Court, they have not been involved in anyofthecasesdiscussedinthepresentOp-Ed.
2.Case ,NikitaDmitrievichMazepinvCouncil,Order,1March2023(herea er‘CaseT-743/22R’). T-743/22R
3.Annexto of9March2022amendingDecision2014/145/CFSPconcerningrestrictivemeasuresinrespectofactionsun-CouncilDecision(CFSP)2022/397 derminingorthreateningtheterritorialintegrity,sovereigntyandindependenceofUkraine,n°732.
4.Ibid.
e Order provides particularly interesting insights and re ects many of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Council over the past year, in particular the weakness of some of the initial listings and almost automatic character of the relisting process
Restrictive measures, or sanctions, are political tools used by the EU to ful l objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) listed in Article 21(2) of the Treaty on the European Union (‘the TEU’): supporting democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the principles of international law, or preserving international peace and security. ey consist of various limitations to natural and legal persons’ rights within the EU, such as travelbans,assetfreezesorprohibitionstoenterintoorcontinueanycontractualrelationshipwithEUcitizens
InresponsetotheannexationofCrimeain2014,theEUstartedimposingrestrictivemeasuresonRussia.On17 March 2014, the Council listed 21 individuals and legal entities, who it deemed had a role in the decision and/or the implementation of the annexation of Crimea, and imposed the freezing of their funds (5). Since 17 March2014,theCouncilhasregularlyaddednamestothesanctionslist.
When the Government of the Russian Federation invaded the territory of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the EU reacted immediately: on the same day, the High Representative issued a declaration rmly condemning the Russian Federation Government’s aggression against Ukraine and announcing new sectoral and individual restrictive measures aiming to deprive the Russian Federation’s Government of all its nancial supports (6). e next day, on 25 February 2022, new sectoral sanctions were adopted by the Council and 99 persons were added to the list of sanctioned individuals. In the following days, numerous individuals and entities were included and inlessthantwomonthsatotalof539personshadbeenadded.
5. of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial inte- Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 grity,sovereigntyandindependenceofUkraine,Article 2andAnnexI.
6.Seethe .Pressreleaseof24February2022
e European Union restrictive measures against Russia: unprecedented in scale, scopeandseverity
Since sanctions are, by their very nature, temporary measures, they are always adopted for a limited period – in the context of the Russiansanctions’regime,6months–andmustberegularlyrenewed. To this day, the listing decisions have been extended twice, in September 2022 and March 2023, and out of the 1082 persons listed, 6 names have been taken out: four were deceased individualsandtwotheformerwivesoflistedindividuals
For individuals who wish to challenge their sanctions and hope for their names to be removed from the lists, two paths are available,whichcanruntheircourseinparallel–aquiteuncommonfeature of the delisting process (when an administrative procedure is available, it must usually run its course before a judicial recourse becomesavailable).
First, they have the possibility to send a delisting request directly to the Council. ere are no formal wri en rules regarding this procedure (other than some limits set by the jurisprudence of the CJEU), but an approximate two-month time-limit is usually set bytheCouncilfromthedateofthelisting.
Since sanctions are, by their very nature, temporary measures, they are always adopted for a limited period and must be regularly renewed
e Council currently has no formal obligation to respond in a reasoned manner to these requests and usually merely sends a proforma le er indicating it considers the listing justi ed and its intention to maintain the person on the sanctions list when the renewing 6-months period approaches, offering again the possibility to presentobservations.Newobservationsarethensent,towhichashortle erinresponseisreceived.Onsomeoccasions, additional communications with the Council have also occurred outside of this 6-months relisting cycle, whenitintendedtomodifythestatementofreasonsjustifyingthelisting.
In parallel to this somewhat ‘administrative’ phase, it is also possible to le an application for annulment before the General Court is procedure follows the principles established in the Treaty on the Functioning of EuropeanUnion(‘theTFEU’)andthestrictrulesofProcedureoftheCourt.Itwillusuallytakeatleast18monthsbeforeadecisionisissued.
11. Kari Karppinen,‘ ’ , FordhamUniversity Press,2017; EldaBrogi, ‘ Rethinking media pluralism e media pluralismmonitor: Conceptualizing media pluralism for the online environment’, Profesional de la información 29, 2020;Elda Brogi, Roberta Carlini, Iva Nevadić, Pier Luigi Parcu, and Mario Viola de Azevedo Cunha, ‘ ’ , in Pier Luigi Parcu EU and media policy: conceptualising media pluralism in the era of online platforms: e experience of the Media Pluralism Monitor and Elda Brogi (eds.), ‘Research handbook on EU media law and policy’, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021, p 17;European Commission, ‘Media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union’ SEC(2007) 32, 16.01.2007, p. 18; Andrea Czepek and Melanie Hellwig,‘Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: ConceptsandConditions’,IntellectBooksLtd, 2009,p 47.
It is in this context that Mr Mazepin initiated an action for the annulment of the restrictive measures adopted againsthimand ledarequestforinterimmeasures.
He had been added to the list of sanctioned persons on 9 March 2022 (7), because his father was the Director of Uralchem(aRussianmajorfertilizergroup)andthesponsorofhisF1team,Haas
eCouncilthereforejusti edthelistingonthefollowingstatementofreasons(8):
‘Nikita Mazepin is the son of Dmitry Arkadievich Mazepin, General Director of JSC UCC Uralchem. As Uralchem sponsorsHaasF1Team,DmitryMazepinisthemajorsponsorofhisson ’ sactivitiesatHaasF1Team
He is a natural person associated with a leading businessperson (his father) involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of CrimeaandthedestabilisationofUkraine.’
On 14 September 2022 (9), his name was maintained on the list of sanctioned individuals, with an amended statementofreasonsthatincludedareferencetotheexactsamefactsbutformulatedinthepasttense,sinceMrMazepin was no longer part of the Haas F1 Team (at the beginning of March 2022, because of the con ict in Ukraine, Haas had made the decision to terminate both the sponsorship agreement with Uralchem and Mazepin’s contract):
DirectorofJSCUCCUralchem HewasadriveratHaasF1TeamuntilMarch2022,sponsoredbyUralchem
He is a natural person associated with a leading businessperson (his father) involved in economic sectors providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of CrimeaandthedestabilisationofUkraine.
e action for annulment initiated by the former F1 driver was therefore aimed at both these listing decisions. It is important to keep in mind that, as explained above, Russian listing decisions have to be renewed every 6 months. As such, every time a new decision extending the listing is adopted, the previous one ceases to have any effect. Sanctioned individuals must therefore be careful to challenge each of these decisions individually. Otherwise, obtaining the annulment of the initial sanctions would have no effect: the person would remain listedonthebasisoftheulteriordecisions.
7. of 9 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; of 9 March Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/397 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/396 2022implementingRegulation (EU)No269/2014.
8. e statement of reasons is the usually brief explanation the Council has the duty to include in the listing decision, to (i) provide the person concerned with sufficientinformation tomakeitpossibletochallengetheactand(ii)allowtheCourttoreviewthelawfulnessoftheact.
9. of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP; of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 14September2022implementingRegulation (EU)No269/2014.
Although the full text of the application for annulment and interim measures led by Mr. Mazepin is not publicly available, the main arguments he relies upon are apparent from the text of the Order In sum, on the merits of the case, he argues that the Council commi ed multiple errors and in particular that, regarding the September 2022 listing, apart from being the son of Dimitry Mazepin, all the reasons for the listing relate to past circumstances thathavesincechangedandarethereforenotsufficienttojustifysanctionsagainsthim.
In addition to these arguments on the merits, Mr Mazepin also led an application for interim measures: he did not however request a general suspension of the restrictive measures against him, but asked for very narrow and targetedmeasures,onlytotheextentthattheywouldallowhimtopursueacareerasaF1driver.
e standard of review applied by the President of the General Court when ruling on a request for interim measure is not equivalent to an analysis of the merits of the case, since three cumulative conditions must be met (10). First, a prima facie case must be established, meaning that at least one of the pleas in law advanced by the Applicantappearsnottobeunfounded. en,themeasuressoughtmustbeurgent:thelistedpersonmustdemonstrate that they cannot wait the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering serious and irreparable damages Finally, the judge weighs whether the interest of the listed person outweighs the interest of the immediate applicationofthemeasure
e standard of review applied by the President of the General Court when ruling on a request for interim measure is not equivalent to an analysis of the merits of the case, since three cumulative conditions must be met
ese conditions are cumulative, i.e , if one is not characterised by the Court, it will refuse to grant the requested measures,withoutexaminingthetwoothers.
eOrderofthePresidentoftheGeneralCourtgrantingthemeasuresrequestedbyMrMazepinprovidesaperfect example of the critics that have been levelled against the Council over the past year, in particular regarding theweaknessofsomeoftheinitiallistingsandtheillusorynatureofthe6-monthsreviewprocess.
A orneys representing listed individuals, the authors of this article included, have expressed serious concerns over the lack of quality of the initial listing decisions of the Council, which considering the number of individualslistedoversuchashortperiodoftime,werenecessarilydoneinarush.
In light of the Council’s obligation to substantiate the listing by speci c concrete evidence, the short paragraphs of the statement of reasons are not the only basis of the listing: the decision to adopt sanctions against an individualorentitymustrelyondocumentaryevidence–whattheCouncilreferstoas‘WorkingPapers’.
e documents are however not readily available to the public: sanctioned individuals must speci cally request their disclosure tobegrantedaccessandprovidedwithacopy.
For many individuals listed, the documents included in the Working Papers include nothing but open-source information such a ‘ press articles, websites and screenshots’ as is pointed out by the CourtforMrMazepin(11).
Other than this mention in passing, the Order does not delve into the speci c evidence that the Council has included in the WorkingPapers,butthiswillundoubtfullybeacentralissueonceadecision on the merits of the case is issued – as in many of the other ongoingcasesbeforetheCourt.
e lack of appropriate preparatory work and due care in adopting listings seems to be a common feature of many of the recent listing decisions of the Council – maybe in part because there are no rules per se to limit the Council’s power (other than the jurisprudenceoftheEUCourts)
e lack of appropriate preparatory work and due care in adopting listings seems to be a common feature of many of the recent listing decisions of the Council
Guidelines (12) and Best Practices (13) do exist, but they are non-binding instruments (as recognised by the Courts (14) and the Council itself) and in any case do not actually lay down speci c rules and standard of proof requiredfortheadoptionofsanctions
As a result, based on what we have witnessed in other cases of sanctioned individuals, most of the Working Papers include only around 10 documents all seemingly gathered on the basis of a quick Google search and containingonlypubliclyavailablesources,includingscreenshotsofWikipedia,questionableonline-tabloidarticles andanonymousblogs.
In addition, the haste in which the listings were adopted seems to have led to statements of reasons that included basic factual mistakes By way of example, when the sanctions against Mr Mazepin were adopted, the press releasefromHaasexplainingthathiscontracthadbeenterminatedwasalreadypublic–yetthestatementofreasonsreferredtohimasamemberoftheF1Haasteam
In another case, the statements of reasons indicated the sanctioned person was the CEO of a company for whichhehadneverworked,norevenbeenaninvestororshareholderin.
is rushed and insufficient preparatory work leads the Council to rely on inferences and hypotheses rather thansolidandconcretefacts,asagainrightlypointedoutbytheOrder(15).
e statement of reasons and Working Papers are relied upon as the basis for measures that have a drastic impactonthefundamentalrightsofindividualsthatcannotbeoverlooked: sanctionedindividualsdonotonlylose access to their funds and goods, which in itself is a breach of their right to property, but also lose any freedom of movement within the European Union, which can have a serious impact on their professional and family lives.
It is therefore worrying to witness listing of such poor quality, especially considering that there is no prior oversight and that the delisting procedures both before the Court and the Council (although each for different reasons)seemstohavebecomeillusory.
As explained above, sanctions must be renewed every 6 months and in the course of that delisting process, persons listed are invited to present their observations. e Council’s own Best Practices state that ‘a transparent
12. on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EUCommon Foreign and Security Policy, 4 May Guidelines
2018.
13. fortheeffectiveimplementation ofrestrictivemeasures,27June2022(herea er‘EUBestPractices’). EUBestPractices
14.E.g. ,PrigozhinvCouncil,1June2022,para78. T-723/20
15.CaseT-743/22R,para61:‘
eCouncilmerelyhypothesizes,withoutsubstantiatingitsclaiminanyway’.
and effective de-listing procedure is essential to the credibility and legitimacy of restrictive measures. ’ (16) Yet far from being transparent and effective, the review process seems to have turned into an automatic renewal of the listing, withtheunintendedeffectofshort-circuitingthejudicialprocessandmaintainingindividualslistedinde nitely.
e purpose of the 6-months review process is to ensure that the measures are still appropriate, in light of the objectives stated (17). is should mean that when the factual circumstances justifying the listing of an individual or an entity have changed, the Council should remove them from the sanctions list. Hence, once the statement of reasonsgivenbytheCounciltolistapersonis notaccurateanymorebecauseforinstance,thepersonhaschanged his or her behaviour, the Council should delist the entity. is is also the case when the initial listing was based on inaccurate or false facts, especially when this has been brought to the a ention of the Council by the Applicant himself.
is doesnotseemtobehowtheCouncilhasusedtherelistingprocedurelately:asitdidwithMrMazepin,when observations were sent indicating that the facts referred to in the statements of reasons were not accurate anymore, the Council has simply changed the tense, now using the past rather than the present tense. While the Council tookintoconsiderationchangesinfactualcircumstances,notingthatMrMazepinwasnolongeraF1driversponsored by the company, it failed to draw the appropriate consequences from that change, as pointed out by the Order.
is was clearly pointed by the Order, holding that the Applicant had a strong prima facie case, in particular because ‘the factual basis for the restrictive measure at issue refers exclusively to events in the past’ . (18) is recalls, without a doubt, a recent decision on the merits of the General Court, where it was held that the Council should not have maintained Mr Ovsyannikov under sanctions, because he was no longer the governor of Sebastopol (a positionthathadjusti edhisinitiallisting)(19).
In refusing to acknowledge these changes of circumstances and seemingly renewing all of the listings every 6 months, without a proper review of the individual situations, the Council has turned the periodic review process into nothing but an automatic extension, depriving it of its meaning e President of the General Court himself seems to have hinted to that automatic character, in stating that ‘it is highly likely that, on 15 March 2023, the Councilwilldecidetoextendthemaintainedlistingoftheapplicant’snameforafurtherperiodofsixmonths’(20)
ispracticegoesagainsttherolegiventotheCouncil:thepowertomodifythelistingsisconferredontheCouncil to ensure that the reasoning is up-to-date, and, in consequence, to adjust theory to facts – not try to adjust facts totheory.
16.EUBestPractices,para18.
17.Id.
18.CaseT-743/22R,para56.
19. ,DmitryVladimirovichOvsyannikovvCouncil,judgement,26October2022. CaseT-714/20
20.CaseT-743/22R,para77.
It is all the more problematic that with a listing decision extended every 6 months and a judicial procedure that lasts for months on end, it is possible to maintain an individual listed inde nitely: by the time a decision is issued bytheCourt, theCouncilhashadtheopportunitytoadoptseveralnewdecisions,whichallhavetobechallenged again,andthewheelkeepsonturning…
e situation of Mr Mazepin is a perfect example of this vicious circle: on 1 March 2023, he was granted interim measuresbytheCourtandthesanctionsagainsthimwerepartiallysuspended.
Yet on 14 March 2023, ignoring all that was said by the Court, the Council adopted a new decision, renewing the listing of Mr Mazepin and depriving, legally at least, the Order of any effect: the Order granted the partial suspension of the September relisting decision, which has been replaced by a new one that had not been the object of the procedureatthetime(sinceithadnotyetbeenadopted).
AllthatMrMazepincandonowis le,onceagain,anewapplication,butnothingpreventstheCouncilfromrelistinghim,onceagain,nextSeptember.
AsablyphrasedinanotherOp-EdthisOrderofthePresidentoftheGeneralCourt,justlikethejudgementissued in Prigozhina v Council (21) a few days later, clearly indicates that “ some serious sanctions homework is needed om theCouncil”.
As the rst hearings of individuals sanctioned in the a ermath of the invasion of Ukraine are starting, the decisions of the General Courts are eagerly awaited, and with them the expectations of the legal community, calling for a strict application the rule of law and high standards of professionalism to prevail, in particular because these arechallengingtimes.
In refusing to acknowledge these changes of circumstances, the Council has turned the periodic review process into nothing but an automatic extension
LEIGH HANCHER
LUCA RUBINI
Monday 22 May
Official publication was made of Directive 2023/977 on the exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of Member States and repealing Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA, which seeks to enhance information exchange, harmonize rules, and strengthen cooperation among law enforcement authorities to combat transnational crimeeffectively.
Monday 22 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Official publication was made of three actions seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/111,whichimposesanti-dumpingdutiesonimportsof fa yacidfromIndonesia:ArkemaFrancevCommission(Case T-165/23); PT Musim Mas v Commission (Case T-176/23) and PT Permata Hijau Palm Oleo and PT Nubika JayavCommission(CaseT-187/23).
Monday 22 May
In accordance with Article 49 of Regulation 2303/2021 establishing the European Union Agency for Asylum, the Management Board of the European Union Agency for Asylum appointedits rstFundamentalRightsofficer.
Biogen Netherlands challenges Commission’s decision to grant marketing authorization for the medicinal product “Dimethyl Fumarate Teva – dimethylfumarate” READ
Monday 22 May
Official publication was made of an action brought by Biogen Netherlands BV seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision granting marketing authorization for the medicinal product “Dimethyl Fumarate Teva – dimethyl fumarate” under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004: Biogen Netherlands v Commission(CaseT-137/23).
Monday 22 May
READ
A case concerning a preliminary ruling request from the Court of Appeal of Alba Lulia, Romania, seeking clari cation onanundertakingwhoseeconomicactivityconsistsoftheindoor cultivation of hemp (Cannabis Sativa) through hydroponic systems, a technique for growing plants using waterbased nutrients rather than soil, was officially published in the OJ:caseBiohempConcept(C-793/22).
Council agrees on its position regarding instant payments proposal to enhance euro availability and affordability
Monday 22 May
e Council agreed on its position regarding the instant payments proposal, aimed at enhancing the availability of instant payment options in euro for individuals holding bank accountsintheEUandEEAcountries
Monday 22 May
READ MORE ON EU
e Council adopted its position on the proposed regulation for ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, aiming to replace the existing 2009 directive, aiming to expand the scope to include environmental sustainability requirements fornearlyallgoodssoldontheEUmarket.
Monday 22 May
Official publication was made of a case concerning an action for annulment, seeking the annulment in its entirety of Commission Decision on State Aid implemented by the United Kingdom as regards the Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime: case Mead Johnson Nutrition (Asia Paci c) and Others (T-37/23).
Monday 22 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Following the inquiry of the Irish Data Protection Authority and the binding decision of the European Data Protection Board, Meta Platforms Ireland was ned 1.2 billion euros for non-compliancewiththeGDPR.
Tuesday 23 May
Official publication was made of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 which addresses general product safety in the EU by seeking to enhance consumer safety, adapt to technological advancements, harmonize product safety requirements, and provide a clear legal framework for market surveillance and recalls acrosstheEU.
Tuesday 23 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Official publication was made of a Council’s recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area, which provides guidelines for addressing the current economic challenges faced by the euro area and emphasizes the importance of coordinated policies, investment, and structural reforms to ensure sustainableandinclusivegrowth.
Tuesday 23 May
Following Decision 3/2020 of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), as amended by Decisions 85/2021 and 26/2022 of that College, the la er adopted the Internal Rules of Procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’sOffice,whichwerepublishedintheOJ.
Tuesday 23 May
e EU and the Republic of Korea issued a joint statement following the 10th Summit between the EU and the Republic of Korea, highlighting several key areas of cooperation and mutualcommitmentbetweenthetwoparties.
Tuesday 23 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e Commission decided to close its investigation on Alcogroup, one of the biggest producers and distributors of ethanol for fuel in Europe, for their possible participation in a cartelconcerningthewholesalepriceformationofethanol.
Tuesday 23 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e hearing of the Court of Justice’s Grand Chamber in case CommissionvIrelandandOthers (C-465/20 P) concerning an appeal against the General Court’s decision in Ireland and Others v European Commission (Joined cases T-778/16 and T-892/16),isavailableontheCourt’swebsite.
Tuesday 23 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW
Negotiators from the Council and the European Parliament reached a provisional agreement on the creation of the European Single Access Point (ESAP), a platform that will provide easy access to public nancial and sustainability-related informationaboutEUcompaniesandinvestmentproducts
Wednesday 24 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
eCounciladoptedconclusionsonthe‘Fairandsustainable use of space ’ , emphasizing the need for a European approach to space traffic management due to increasing congestion in orbitscausedbyspaceobjects
Wednesday 24 May
Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1015, amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 establishing permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and determining the list of participating Member States regarding the Union’s security and defense policy,con rmedtheparticipationofDenmarkinthePESCO.
Wednesday 24 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e European Central Bank (ECB) released its nal Guide on qualifying holding procedures, which clari es the assessment process for acquisitions and increases of qualifying holdings, focusing on factors such as the reputation of the acquirer, the nancial soundness of the proposed holder, and compliance withprudentialrequirements
Wednesday 24 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e General Court delivered its judgments in cases Lyubetskaya v Council (T-556/21), Omeliyanyuk v Council (T-557/21), Gusachenka v Council (T-579/21), and Haidukevich v Council (T-580/21), concerning restrictive measures imposed by the EU on Belarus due to concerns regarding democracy,theruleoflaw,andhumanrights.
Wednesday 24 May
Legal Conference: Re ecting on Pringle, a decade of ESM Court Decisions,30June2023 READ
e European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is organizing a legal conference to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Pringle judgment, a signi cant litigation involving the ESM. e conference will be held on June 30, 2023, at the ESM’s headquarters in Luxembourg and will also be streamed online.
General Court dismisses Meta Platforms’ action for annulment regarding CommissionDecisiontodisclosedocumentscontainingsensitivepersonaldata
Wednesday 24 May
e General Court, si ing in its Extended Composition formation, delivered its judgment in case Meta Platforms Ireland (Facebook Group) (T-451/20) concerning an action against a Commission Decision requesting the disclosure of documentstobeidenti edbysearchterms.
Wednesday 24 May
e General Court rendered its judgment in case Ryanair v Commission (Italie; régime d’aide; COVID-19) (T-268/21) concerning an action for annulment of a Commission Decision on the approval of an aid measure consisting of subsidies paid by Italy to Italian airlines in the context of the COVID19pandemic.
ursday 25 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e Court of Justice concluded that in cross-border satellite retransmissionofprogrammes,thebroadcastingMemberState principle also applies to the satellite package provider.: case Staatlich genehmigte Gesellscha der Autoren, Komponisten und MusikverlegerReg.Gen.mbH(AKM)(C-290/21).
ursday 25 May
AG Koko delivered her Opinion in Pilatus Bank v ECB (cases C-750/21 P and C-256/22 P) concerning the appeals brought by Pilatus Bank plc against the judgment of the General Court in case Pilatus Bank and Pilatus Holding v ECB (T-27/19) and against the order of the General Court in case Pilatus Bank v ECB (T-139/19), involving the ECB’s withdrawal from the appellant the authorisation to act as a credit institution.
ursday 25 May
Official publication was made of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/996, which brings amendments to Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and the Councilconcerningthelistofdual-useitems
ursday 25 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e Court of Justice delivered its judgment in WertInvest Hotelebetrieb (Case C-575/21), a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court in Vienna, concerning the interpretation of Directive 2011/92 (as amended by Directive 2014/52) on the assessment of the effects of certain public andprivateprojectsontheenvironment
ursday 25 May
Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona handed down his Opinion in Papier Me ler Italia (Case C-86/22), a preliminary ruling requested by the Regional Administrative Court in Lazio (Italy), concerning the compatibility with EU law of Italian legislation which prohibited the use on Italian territory of plastic carrier bags with certain characteristics, despite the fact that Directive 94/62/EC [on packaging and packaging waste] permi edthemarketingofsuchbagsinalltheMemberStates.
Environmental impact assessment for urban development project cannot take account solely of size of the project, rulesCourtofJustice
ursday 25 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in case Krankenversicherung Nordrhein (C-667/21), a preliminary reference from the German Federal Labor Court seeking, among others, clari cation on whether Article 82 of the GDPR confers on data subjects a right to compensation,theamountofwhichistobedeterminedbythedegreeoffaultofthedatacontroller.
ursday 25 May
Advocate General Szpunar rendered his Opinion in case LEA (C-10/22) concerning a preliminary ruling requested seeking clari cation on the compatibility of Italian law with EU law rules concerning collective management of copyright and related rights in musical works for online use in the internal market.
Friday 26 May
ursday 25 May
AdvocateGeneralPikamäehandeddown hisOpinioninFachverband Spielhallen and LM v. Commission (Case C-831/21 P), a case concerning Article 107(1) TFEU, where he recommended that the Court of Justice should set aside the General Court’sjudgmentinCaseT-510/20andreferitbacktotheGeneralCourt
Friday 26 May
eCouncilapproved,onbehalfoftheEU,theconclusionofa World Trade Organization (WTO) protocol that establishes anagreementon sheriessubsidies.
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
In accordance with the EU Merger Regulation, and following the conclusion that such a merger would not result in a breach of competition rules within the European Economic Area (EEA), the European Commission approved the acquisition ofCreditSuissebyUBS.
Friday 26 May
e Council adopted a regulation extending the suspension of customs duties, quotas, and trade defense measures on Ukrainian exports to the EU for another year, until June 2024, aiming at showing continued political and economic support for Ukraine, which is still facing Russia’s unwarranted military aggression.
Friday 26 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e unconditional approval by the Commission, under the EU Merger Regulation, of the acquisition of Inmarsat by Viasat was concluded, involving two providers of ‘two-way’ satellite-based communication services, owning geostationary earthorbitsatellites
Friday 26 May
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
e EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) initiated antitrust proceedings against Elkjøp, a retailer of electronic products, to assess that group ’ s compliance with EEA competition provisions.
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Insight on the hearing held by the Commi ee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament concerning the request of the CJEU to modify Protocol nº 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice in order to transfer preliminary rulings on speci c areastotheGeneralCourt
VAT exemptions in non-exempt ancillaryservices:C-516/21–FinanzamtX
by Darya BudovaREAD MORE ON EU
Analysis of the Court of Justice's judgment in case Finanzamt X (C-516/21) dealing with the interplay between the VAT exemptionandtheso-calledsinglesupplyrule
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Op-Ed on the theories of harm on the repercussions of clearingMicroso ’sproposedacquisitionofActivisionBlizzard.
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Op-Ed, part of the EU Law Live Symposium on the 5th Anniversary of the GDPR, on the collective rights of employees, concerning data protection, within the context of diverging national rules as a result of relative harmonization established bycertainprovisionsoftheGDPR.
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Op-Ed, part of the EU Law Live Symposium in the European Political Community, on the establishment of the European Political Community constituting an example of constitutional experimentation, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine
by Małgorzata CyndeckaREAD MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Op-EdontheGeneralCourt’srecenttendencytoannulCommission Decisions approving State aid measures adopted within the framework of supporting the air transport sector duringtheCovid-19Pandemic.
It’s all about (the Romanian) context.
e Judgement in Case-817/21 InspecțiaJudiciară
READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE by Raluca
Op-Ed, part of the EU Law Live Symposium on the 5th Anniversary of the GDPR, on addressing the interplay, within the context of the GDPR, between the ‘journalistic exemption’, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy and data protection
BerceaREAD MORE ON EU LAW LIVE
Op-Ed on the relevance of the legal and factual context in the Court of Justice’s interpretation, when deciding cases concerningjudicialindependenceandimpartiality.
e intensity and efficiency of judicial review of the Commission’s application of its Temporary Framework for State aid granted in the context of the COVID-19outbreak:Ryanair and Condor ( Joined cases T-34/21 and T-87/21)
Permission to use this content must be obtained from the copyright owner
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers.
Editor-in-Chief: Daniel Sarmiento
In-Depth and Weekend Edition Editor
Sara Iglesias Sánchez
Editorial Board:
Maja Brkan, Marco Lamandini, Adolfo Martín, Jorge Piernas, Ana Ramalho, René Repasi, Anne-Lise Sibony, Araceli Turmo, Isabelle Van Damme, Maria Dolores Utrilla and Maria Weimer
Subscription prices are available upon request. Please contact our sales department for further information at
www.eulawlive.com