Weekend Edition Nº85 by eulawlive

Nº85

JANUARY 13

2022

Weekend

Edition

stay alert keep smart

DANIEL SARMIENTO

2021 IN THE UNION'S COURTS TEN LEADING JUDGEMENTS OF THE YEAR www.eulawlive.com

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

2021 in the Union’s Courts Ten Leading Judgments of the Year Daniel Sarmiento

2021 was a big year for EU Law. Unfortunately, it was still the year of Covid-19. e virus has carried on conditioning the lives of many, with turmoil at many levels, from the economy to politics, including the law and the activity of courts. Although Covid-19 has been the subject of many discussions within the Court of Justice of the EU throughout 2021, not even one of its most important judgments rendered in the year has tackled the legal implications of the pandemic. No ma er how relevant Covid-19 is still in the lives of those who plead and make decisions in the EU’s most relevant dispute se lement body, the main developments coming from Luxembourg are fully Covid-free. Instead, 2021 has provided some landmark rulings in the elds of competition, citizenship, fundamental rights, the rule of law or litigation, to name a few. In terms of the overall trends, major asylum and data protection cases appear to have diminished in intensity in comparison to previous years, but other areas continue to demand the Court’s a ention. Other domains are reappearing under new lights, as is the case of competition policy, now appearing in court in the shape and domain of digital markets or damages actions. ere is no scarcity of judgments covering classic elds of EU law or interpreting (or reinterpreting) basic doctrines, like the CILFIT case-law or the status of EU so law. Seven decades have gone by since the enactment of the ECSC Treaty, but some of its rules are still the subject of intense discussions. Of course, the Court of Justice of the EU has undergone some major internal changes, including the reelection of its President, the election of a new Vice-President and the departure and arrival of a large number of judges and Advocates General. While the reform of the General Court could be considered to be now substantially implemented, with y-four judges in full motion, the Court of Justice is now en route to undergo some important developments which might change the way in which its tasks are perceived: 2021 was the year in which remote pleadings became a standard practice in the course of hearings, and probably the last in which oral argument will be available only for an in-person audience. As in previous years, this list is the product of a very personal view of the case-law. e selection includes ten judgments which have caught my a ention, but every reader will have other preferences of his or her own. e selection is arbitrary, it’s not subject to preordained criteria, and it responds to this author’s personal instincts only. Some readers will agree and others will disagree with some of the choices, but that’s the whole point of this retrospective exercise.

i. Professor of EU Law, Universidad Complutense of Madrid and Editor-in-Chief of EU Law Live.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Department for Communities (C-709/20) e tide of Dano (1) started to turn in this judgment, in which the Court admi ed that situations of higher protection in national law can still trigger the enforcement of EU law rules, including Charter rules. is was in doubt a er Dano (2), whereby the Court reversed its previous ruling in Trojani (2) and stated that only legal residence under EU law could trigger free movement protection in the case of access to social contributions. In TSN (3) the Court went further and stated that in the eld of social policy, when Member States provided a higher protection than the one granted by EU law, that action was not bound by the Charter. In Department for Communities (4) this approach is put in reverse, in the context of free movement of persons, relying strongly on the dignity clause in Art. 1 of the Charter. e Court thus introduces a link between dignity, free movement and fundamental rights that pushes the case-law into the opposite direction to which the recent and more restrictive precedents were pointing at. e language is very bold and the tune is very diﬀerent to the one in Dano: ‘it is for the host Member State, in accordance with Article 1 of the Charter, to ensure that a Union citizen who has made use of his or her freedom to move and to reside within the territory of the Member States, who has a right of residence on the basis of national law, and who is in a vulnerable situation, may nevertheless live in digni ed conditions.’Member States may still be unaware of the implications of this important ruling, but the sooner they wake up to it, the be er.

Republic of Moldavia (C-741/19) & PL Holdings (C-109/20) e eagerly awaited post-Achmea (5) rulings nally arrived, and the Court of Justice carried on weaponizing EU law by insisting on its confrontational approach towards the bilateral investment arbitration system, particularly intra-EU bilateral agreements. A er the ruling in Republic of Moldavia (6), it becomes clear that the autonomy of EU Law shields Member States from claims also brought in the context of multilateral agreements, a decision that affects the European Energy Charter directly. At the same time, in PL Holdings (7), the Court re-con rmed its position as the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation and application of EU law and closed the door shut on ‘ad hoc’ arbitration agreements, whose fundamental purpose was to allow the continuation of international arbitration proceedings between EU Member States and investors under bilateral investment treaties outside the EU’s constitutional structure. e result is another nail in the coffin of investment arbitration in the EU, or in proceedings in which the applicant and the defendant show relevant ties with the EU and its legal order. Whether the arbitration community is willing to accept this turn of events is quite a different ma er, and PL Holdings and Republic of Moldavia will not be the last time that the Court of Justice has to rule on it. 1. Judgment of the Court of Justice 11 November 2014, Dano (C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358). 2. Judgement of the Court of Justice of 7 September 2004, Trojani (C-456/02, EU:C:2004:488). 3. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2019, TSN and AKT (C-609/17 and C-610/17, EU:C:2019:981). 4. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021, Department for Communities in Northern Ireland (C-709/20, EU:C:2021:602). 5. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 March 2018, Achmea (C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158). 6. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 September 2021, Republic of Moldova (C-741/19, EU:C:2021:655). 7. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 October 2021, PL Holdings (C-109/20, EU:C:2021:875).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

In the case of IS the Court of Justice clari ed an important aspect of the Cartesio doctrine, con rming that the instance court can rely o the primacy of EU law to set aside a Supreme Court’s ruling quashing an order for reference

IS (C-564/19) Member State interferences with the power of a national court to make a reference are absolute red-lines, a taboo that only a few courts or national authorities dare to play with. e last time that the Court of Justice dealt with this openly, in the case of Cartesio (8), national supreme courts were given good reasons not to mess with Art. 267 TFEU. In the case of IS (9) the Court of Justice faced this ma er again, but in the daunting environment of growing a acks to the rule of law and judicial independence in Hungary. It was thus a perfect opportunity to reinforce the national court’s sacred realm created by art. 267 TFUE, stating that even if the Hungarian Supreme Court did not order the instance court to withdraw the request for a preliminary reference, the fact that the grounds of the reference were declared illegal was enough to breach the Treaties. Also, the Court of Justice clari ed an important aspect of the Cartesio doctrine, con rming that the instance court can rely on the primacy of EU law to set aside a Supreme Court’s ruling quashing an order for reference. In Cartesio there was a very bizarre reference to the national court’s power to ‘draw the necessary inferences’ from a superior court’s decision to quash an order for reference. In IS this ambiguity is gone, turning into full-blown primacy. Be er late than never. 8. Judgment of the Court of Justice 16 December 2008, Cartesio (C-210/06, EU:C:2008:723). 9. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 November 2021, IS (C-564/19, EU:C:2021:949).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Consorzio Italian Management (C-561/19) It took thirty years, but the CILFIT (10) doctrine got a faceli at last. It also took a very blunt preliminary reference from the Italian State Council, pointing out at all the weaknesses of the CILFIT doctrine, which made it nightmarish for a national court of last instance to determine if a rule of EU law was acte clair or not. It also required a powerful Opinion of Advocate General Bobek (11) pushing the Court of Justice to the very limits and exhibiting all the many problems that the subjective approach towards CILFIT had created thus far. In Consorzio Italian Management (12), the Court of Justice nally made the move, but it was not quite the blunt and overriding review that many expected. e faceli came down to two very speci c features: rst, national courts of last instance that decide not to make a reference have a duty to state reasons derived directly from art. 47 of the Charter; and second, the comparative analysis of case-law of other Member States (a sort of exercise in ‘judicial empathy’) is the key criterion of the revamped acte clair doctrine, leaving the reference to the analysis of all the linguistic versions of the interpreted rule as a relegated remnant of the past. It might not seem much, but the fact that the Court of Justice was nudged into adjusting CILFIT is a huge recognition of the role of national courts and, in particular, supreme courts in the enforcement of EU law. eir concerns and frustration with the traditional CILFIT has paved the way to a change of what seemed unchangeable.

It took thirty years, but the CILFIT doctrine got a faceli at last

e fact that the Court of Justice was nudged into adjusting CILFIT is a huge recognition of the role of national courts and, in particular, supreme courts

Consob (C-481/19)

in the enforcement e Corte Costituzionale did it again. In its subtle trademark, elegant and smart way, the highest Italian court forced the Court of Justice yet another time to backtrack and adjust its case-law. is time there was no overruling, as in the previous Taricco I & II saga (13), but a more subtle amendment of a line of EU case-law that was destined to create far too many problems with national constitutional courts.

of EU law

10. Judgments of the Court of Justice of 6 October 1982, Cil t and Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335). 11. Opinion of Advocate General Bobek of 15 April 2021 in Consorzio Italian Management (C-561/19, EU:C:2021:291). 12. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management (C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799) 13. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2015, Taricco and Others (C-105/14, EU:C:2015:555) and judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 December 2017, M.A.S. (C-42/17, EU:C:2017:936).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

anks to the wise concerns raised by the Corte Costituzionale, in Consob (14) the Luxembourg court departed from its traditional stance on the right to remain silent in competition procedures. e Italian court pointed out convincingly that in harmonized contexts (the case concerned the Market Abuse Directive), such an approach, if applied by national authorities and courts, would eventually collide with fundamental rights standards. e Court found a middle way forward, arguing that its case-law in the eld of competition applied to legal persons, not natural persons. It also added that the standards it applied to natural persons, interpreted in light of the Charter, were also relevant in procedures which are not criminal in nature, thus extending the protection of the right to a wide range of administrative procedures in which EU law is implemented with restrictive consequences for the individual. e far-ranging consequences of this judgment are self-explanatory, and the fact that it results from a constructive compromise with the maestro of Constitutional Courts in Europe, makes the judgment even more relevant.

e far-ranging consequences of this judgment are self-explanatory, and the fact that it results from a constructive compromise with the maestro of Constitutional Courts in Europe, makes the judgment even more relevant.

14. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 February 2021, Consob, (C-481/19, EU:C:2021:84).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

FBF (C-911/19) and Balgarska Narodna Banka (C-501/18)

2021 was a seminal year for EU so law. A er 2021, the normative toolbox and its user nally have more solid guidance as to how to use the growing species of EU so law rules

2021 was a seminal year for EU so law. In two Grand Chamber judgments, but both of them concerning so law acts (Recommendations) of the European Banking Authority (EBA), the Court of Justice recon gured the current status of so law acts, their nature, justiciability and the scope of judicial review when challenged in courts of law. Quite an achievement and one with huge practical consequences, considering how frequent such so law acts are becoming, including in speci c areas of law in which the legislature has created ad hoc so law tools for agencies and EU institutions to handle their policies. In FBF (15) the Court con rmed that EBA Recommendations, although not binding, may be challenged indirectly by way of a preliminary reference of validity. It also stretched the Meroni (16) doctrine and gave further leeway to EU agencies in entering so law acts in areas in which they enjoy discretional power.

In Balgarska (17) the Court proved that its approach towards so law has teeth and, for the very rst time, it quashed a Recommendation (albeit a very speci c one, as enshrined in Art. 17 of Regulation 1093/2010). A er 2021, the normative toolbox and its user nally have more solid guidance as to how to use the growing species of EU so law rules.

Repubblika (C-896/19) e rule of law and judicial independence saga took a speci c turn when the case of Malta’s judicial appointments system came under review in Luxembourg in the Repubblika case (18). e rules under review were not perfect, but they were certainly be er than those in force when Malta became a Member State. is circumstance gave the Court of Justice an opportunity to re ne its case law on Art. 2 TEU values and the review of Member State action, by introducing a novel and hugely relevant non-regression principle. According to this ruling, Member States can go forward in developing their rule of law standards, but they cannot go backwards. is ruling provides further ammunition for any potential future regressions taking place in other Member States, which may not be as bold as the ones taking place in Poland or Hungary, thus paving the way for a broader role of an EU rule of law review mechanism. 15. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2021, Fédération bancaire ançaise (FBF) (C-911/19, EU:C:2021:599). 16. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 1958, Meroni v High Authority (9/56, EU:C:1958:7). 17. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 March 2021, Balgarska Narodna Banka (C-501/18, EU:C:2021:249). 18. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 April 2021, Repubblika (C-896/19, EU:C:2021:311).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Sumal (C-882/19) e leading decision in the eld of competition and national litigation is, by far, Sumal (19). Considering the breadth of practical implications that anti-trust damages actions have at this time, it is not a surprise that the Court of Justice decided to rule this case in its Grand Chamber. e judgment clari es some fundamental issues. For instance, it con rms that the determination of who is liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU ‘is directly governed by EU Law’, and not by national law. e judgment also clari es that the concept of ‘undertaking’ is the same for public and private enforcement. But above all, it sets the criteria under which a subsidiary can be held (jointly and severally) liable in private enforcement actions, for the behavior of another legal entity within the same economic unit. e conditions for these kinds of actions are de ned and they are not exactly as the ones to be found in standard competition law. e ruling thus con rms the importance of anti-trust damages claims as sources of new developments in EU competition law, but also in the broader case-law of the Court of Justice.

Venezuela/Council (C-872/19 P) Surprising as it may seem, EU law had never clari ed whether a third State is a ‘legal person’ or not, pursuant to art. 263 TFEU in an action of annulment. e opportunity nally came in the case of Venezuela/Council (20), in which the Court of Justice con rmed that States are ‘legal persons’ indeed, and they have standing to bring an action if they have a direct and individual concern in the case. Furthermore, the judgment clari es the scope of ‘direct concern’ when a restrictive measure is targeting a third State through the mediation of other aﬀected parties. In the case at hand, the direct addressees of the restrictive measures were legal and natural persons who engaged into speci c activities with the government of Venezuela. e Court followed the Opinion of AG Hogan (21) and considered that these situations deserve a broad interpretation of art. 263 TFEU, in which the main criterion is the ‘eﬀect or impact’ of the restrictive measures rather than the form in which such measures are presented. In sum, a landmark ruling for the EU’s external relations law, in particular its procedural dimension, but also for the growingly wide interpretation of access rules in the eld of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, following the wake of other previous rulings like Rosne (22) and Bank Refah (23).

Google and Alphabet/Commission (T-612/17) e rst case of judicial review by EU Courts vis-à-vis the Commission’s antitrust enforcement in digital markets was, unsurprisingly, eagerly awaited. When such a case arrived, the General Court did not disappoint. e Google Shopping (24) judgment is not only the rst of its kind, but also a key development at a time in which the le19. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2021, Sumal (C-882/19, EU:C:2021:800 ). 20. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2021, Venezuela v Council (C-872/19 P, EU:C:2021:507). 21. Opinion of Advocate General Hogan of 20 January 2021 in Venezuela v Council (C-872/19 P, EU:C:2021:37). 22. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 March 2017, Rosne (C-72/15, EU:C:2017:236). 23. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2020, Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (C-134/19 P, EU:C:2020:793). 24. Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021, Google and Alphabet (T-612/17: EU:T:2021:763).

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

gislative negotiations of the Digital Markets Act are under way, thus conditioning a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will govern digital market-players, big and small. In a detailed and long ruling, the General Court set the basic standards of market conduct of digital gatekeepers, introducing some novel notions that could revolutionize the way in which big digital titans behave. e introduction of self-preferencing as a new type of abuse dominance is still to be con rmed by the Court of Justice, but the General Court has already laid the foundations of what seems to be the future of digital anti-trust law.

e Google Shopping judgment is not only the rst of its kind, but also a key development at a time in which the legislative negotiations of the Digital Markets Act are under way

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

News Highlights 10 to 14 January 2022

ECDC publishes updated guidance on Covid measures amid rapid spread of Omnicron variant in recent weeks Monday 10 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Regulation se ing out cooperation framework between Member States in safety assessment of clinical trials published

e European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control issued new guidance in order to tackle the fast spread of the Omnicron variant in the EU, including options on quarantine and isolation, as well as recommendations for Member States.

Monday 10 January

Public.Resource.Org appeals General Court’s decision rejecting its request to access certain technical standards

Request for a preliminary ruling on lawfulness of Germany’s Oﬃce for Migration electronic le management

Monday 10 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Oﬃcial publication was made of Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/20 se ing out the division of workload between the Member States for the safety assessment and a methodology for screening the safety information.

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Oﬃcial publication was made of an appeal brought by Public.Resource.Org, Inc. and Right to Know CLG (C-588/21 P) against the General Court’s judgment, which con rmed the Commission’s refusal to give access to a set of documents containing descriptions of four technical standards prepared by the European Commi ee for Standardisation.

A request for a preliminary ruling, concerning the lawfulness of the current electronic le management and distribution practice of the Federal Oﬃce for Migration in Germany, lodged by the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) was published (C-564/21).

Commission launches public consultation on European Media Freedom Act

European Data Protection Supervisor instructs Europol to erase data of persons not linked to criminal activity

Monday 10 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Commission launched a public consultation on the upcoming European Media Freedom Act that will seek to safeguard media pluralism and independence in the EU internal market.

Monday 10 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski ordered Europol to delete data concerning individuals with no established link to criminal activity and limit the retention period to extract critical data to six months.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Parliament’s action against Commission for failure to use rule of law conditionality mechanism published Monday 10 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Oﬃcial publication was made of the European Parliament’s action (C-657/21) against the European Commission for failure to ful l its obligations in relation to the implementation of the so-called rule of law conditionality mechanism (Regulation 2020/2092).

Position for Seconded National Expert available at Eurojust Tuesday 11 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation is seeking to recruit a Seconded National Expert in the Operations Department at its headquarters in e Hague for the term of three years, with the possibility of renewal.

Statement of the Chair on SRB’s priorities for 2022 Tuesday 11 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Chair at the Single Resolution Board (SRB) Elke König issued a statement on the SRB’s priorities for 2022, noting that the SRB will remain focused on building resolvability in all banks.

ECtHR: Bulgarian legislation on secret surveillance and on retention and access to communication data breaches privacy rights Wednesday 12 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Court of Human Rights ruled in Ekimdzhiev and Others v. Bulgaria that Bulgarian legislation on secret surveillance and on retention of communication data is contrary to the right to respect for private life and correspondence.

Commission invites parties to submit comments on proposed revised State aid rules for the agricultural, forestry and shery sectors

Position for Research Assistant for Jean Monnet ‘EU Integration and Citizens’ Rights’ project at University College Cork

Wednesday 12 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Commission invited all interested parties to comment on proposed revised State aid rules for the agricultural, forestry and shery sectors until 13 March 2022.

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Centre for European Integration of the University College Cork (Ireland) is seeking to employ for 32 months a research assistant for the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence ‘EU Integration and Citizens’ Rights’ project.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Ombudsman nds no maladministration in handling of a public access request concerning EU-funded projects in Morocco Wednesday 12 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Commission presented a proposal for a new trade instrument that seeks to strengthen the EU’s protection against economic coercion by third countries.

European Data Protection Board December Plenary documents ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

At the Plenary session held in December 2021, the European Data Protection Board adopted the contribution to evaluation of Law Enforcement Directive, response to MEP Ujhelyi on Pegasus spyware, Guidelines on data breach noti cations, and Opinion on ex oﬃcio erasure of personal data.

Journalist Freitas Rangel’s conviction for statements about associations of judges and prosecutors breached the freedom of expression, ECtHR rules ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Court of Human Rights ruled in Freitas Rangel v. Portugal that the conviction in Portugal of a famous journalist for statements made about associations of judges and prosecutors was in breach of the freedom of expression.

Commission proposes to strengthen EU Drugs Agency’s mandate in view of advancing illicit drug market Wednesday 12 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Commission proposed to transform the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction into the European Union Drugs Agency, thereby strengthening its mandate and ensuring that it can play a stronger role in addressing challenges related to illicit drugs in the EU.

OLAF’s refusal to grant access to documents is subject to judicial review, says Court of Justice ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

In Dragnea v Commission (C-351/20 P), the Court of Justice annulled a General Court order (T-738/18) which dismissed an action for annulment against the refusal of the European Anti-Fraud Oﬃce to grant access to certain documents to the leader of the Romanian Social Democrat Party, who was accused of fraud but not listed as a ‘person concerned’ by OLAF.

Member States cannot subject exemption from excise duty to paying for goods through non-cash means, Court of Justice rules ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Court of Justice held in MONO (C-326/20) that Member States cannot subject the exemption from excise duty to payments made through non-cash means, namely by bank payment.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Court of Justice: requirement to hold suitability certi cate cannot justify adoption of successive xed-term contracts for teachers of religious education in Italy ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Court of Justice ruled in MIUR and Uﬃcio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania (C-282/19) that the requirement to hold a suitability certi cate issued by a Church authority does not justify the renewal of xed-term contracts for teachers of religious education.

Member States not required to limit the areas for operators to carry out E&P activities subject to conditions: Court of Justice judgment ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Court of Justice: Services Directive and EU primary law not applicable to disciplinary proceedings in case involving Warsaw Bar Association ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Court of Justice found in Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości (C-55/20) that the Services Directive and Article 47 of the Charter do not apply to disciplinary proceedings against lawyers by Polish disciplinary bodies.

Court of Justice quashes General Court judgment nding that cities were directly concerned by regulation on nitrogen emissions limits ursday 13 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

In Regione Puglia (C-110/20), the Court of Justice ruled that Member States may grant several licenses to the same operator for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons activities, provided that they ensure nondiscriminatory access for all operators and assesses the eﬀect on environment.

e Court of Justice quashed a judgment by the General Court that annulled a Commission Amending Regulation to the extent that it set excessively high limits on oxides of nitrogen emissions for real driving tests (tests that are a response to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal).

Court of Justice: food marketers must list all food compound ingredients unless that compound ingredient is labelled in the oﬃcial language version

AG Szpunar Opinion on rights of proprietors of a trademark in the context of parallel trade in medicinal products

Friday 14 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Court of Justice held in Tesco Stores ČR (C-881/19) that under the Chocolate Directive a non-inclusion of ingredients that are part of a compound ingredient exception is permissible only if that compound ingredient is labeled in the precise language version of the Member State concerned.

Friday 14 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Advocate General Szpunar issued two Opinions concerning the right of the proprietor of a trademark to oppose its use by a third party and requirements as regards the packaging of medicinal products for parallel traders.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Commission blocks proposed acquisition between two South Korean shipbuilders Friday 14 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e European Commission prohibited the acquisition of Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering CO., Ltd by Hyundai Heavy Industries Holdings over concerns that the merged entity would have reduced competition in the worldwide market for the construction of large lique ed gas carriers.

EU citizenship precludes refusal of right of residence of a dependent third country national, but marriage obligations does not create such dependence: AG Pikamäe Friday 14 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Advocate General Pikamäe delivered his Opinion in Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo (joined cases C-451/19 & C532/19), concerning the recognition of the right of residence of third-country nationals who are family members of an EU citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement.

Single Resolution Board launches tender for provision of legal advice Friday 14 January

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

e Single Resolution Board launched an open call for tenders for the provision of legal advice (SRB/OP/1/2021), planning to award a Multiple Framework Service Contract with reopening of competition with a maximum budget of EUR 14 000 000 for up to four years.

Insights, Analyses & Op-Eds Elections at the ECtHR in Times of Democratic Backsliding: Who are the ree New Judges from the East? by Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen

e Protection of EU Financial Interests within Next Generation EU by Aldo Sandulli

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Op-Ed analysing the importance of EU’s nancial interests that extend beyond the European budget and their protection, which in the view of the author, plays an important role in the process of European integration.

Op-Ed on the national selection processes for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, which, according to the author, still suﬀer from far too much opacity and even bias, rooted in the sociology of national institutions.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

EU Family Law and How it Aﬀects Rainbow Families – Taking Stock a er V.M.A. (C-490/20)

Goods Platforms: Another Extension of the Scope of the Minimum Access Package?

by David Krappitz

by Patricia Perennes

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Op-Ed assessing the existing EU law on family ma ers and analysing the challenges faced by rainbow families in crossborder situations and the approach taken by the Court of Justice with regard to free movement and national identity, as well as looking into the future developments.

Analysis of the Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona in CityRail (C-453/20) in which the AG found that the goods platforms are part of the railway infrastructure within the meaning of Directive 2012/34/EU.

e Future of the Rule of Law in Euro-

Spetsializirana Prokuratura: Principle of Equivalence and Allocation of Competence to Issue a European Investigation Order

pe by Jakub Jaraczewski

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Op-Ed addressing the ongoing rule of law crisis in the EU. e author gives a critical view of the current situation in the Member States and assesses solutions and recommendations for the protection of the rule of law in Europe.

by Anna Mosna

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Analysis of the Court of Justice’s judgment in Spetsializirana prokuratura (C-724/19) concerning the competence to issue European Investigation Orders and the recognition of such orders by the executing States.

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: AG Rantos Upholds the Application of the Two-step Test to EAWs Issued by Polish Authorities

e Arm’s Length Principle, the Principle of Non-Discrimination and the De nition of the Reference Framework Constituting ‘Normal’ Taxation

by Leandro Mancano

by Juan Jorge Piernas López

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Op-Ed on the two Opinions of Advocate General Pikamäe, which raise questions related to the application of the arm’s length principle for the examination of the economic advantage criterion under Article 107(1) TFEU in cases of alleged aid granted through tax rulings (C-885/19 P and C-898/19 P).

Op-Ed addressing the shortcomings of the AG Opinion in Openbaar Ministerie (C-562/21 PPU and C-563/21 PPU) concerning the test that an executing judicial authority of the European Arrest Warrant should apply when deciding whether the trial resulting in the conviction was conducted in breach of the right to a tribunal previously established by law.

Nº85 · JANUARY 15, 2022

Weekend

Edition stay alert keep smart

Judgment in Bank Melli Iran: Hard Place

e Court of Justice, Too, is Between a Rock and a

by Celia Challet

READ MORE ON EU LAW LIVE

Op-Ed on the Court of Justice’s judgment in Bank Melli Iran (C-124/20) ruling for the rst time on the interpretation of the EU Blocking Regulation. e author argues that while the judgment provided some clari cations as to the scope of Article 5(1) of the Regulation, it has not solved the dilemma that EU operators face when confronted with sanctions.

Library - Book Review

By André Nunes Chaib READ ON EU LAW LIVE

Aravind Ganesh Rightful Relations with Distant Strangers. Kant, the EU, and the Wider World Review of a book that offers a new form to reassess the conditions under which the EU, through its legislative apparatus, effectively affects the lives of those outside its official scope - ‘distant strangers’. By pu ing EU legal questions under the philosophical lenses of Kant, Dr Ganesh challenges basic assumptions about how EU values are operationalized through its institutions and shows how such operationalization o en explicitly goes against the same values it purports to be based on.