Abstract: The reference of the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling under Art. 267 TFEU in the follow-up of the Taricco case (Court of Justice, judgment of 8 September 2015, case C-105/14, Taricco et al. [GS]) should not be read as a bold challenge to the Court of Justice’s ruling, but as an opportunity for a real dialogue...
Abstract: In Front Polisario (judgment of 21 December 2016, case C-104/16 P, Council of the European Union v. Front Polisario [GC]), the Court of Justice was called to assess the validity of a decision that had concluded an agreement providing for reciprocal liberalisation measures on agriculture and fishery products between the EU...
Abstract: Efler (General Court, judgment of 10 May 2017, case T-754/14, Efler et al. v. Commission) is the last in a stream of cases dealing with the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). This Insight seeks to position Efler in the current narrative of ECIs taking into account the Commission’s powers – as well as...
Abstract: The European Court of Justice ruled in November 2016 on a case where shareholders of a private bank were opposing the Republic of Ireland over recapitalisation measures taken by this Member State against the bank in order to obtain financial assistance from the institutions of the European Union (judgment of 8 November 2016, case C-41/15...
Keywords: Tele2 – CJEU – CFREU – directive 2002/58 – serious crime – geographical criterion.
The present Highlight focusses on an aspect of the judgment of the Court of Justice, of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige.[1] The Court decided that Art. 15...
Abstract: This Insight deals with the decision of the Court of Justice, X and X v. État belge (judgment of 7 March 2017, case C-638/16 PPU [GC]), concerning the interpretation of Art. 25 of Regulation (EC) 810/2009 (the Visa Code). The Court found that the facts of the case fall outside the scope of the Visa Code and of the EU law...
Abstract: In A and B v. Norway (judgment of 15 November 2016, nos 24130/11 and 29758/11) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights restricted the scope of the ne bis in idem principle. Partly relaying on its previous case law, the Court upheld that Art. 4 of the Protocol no. 7 of the European Convention of...
Abstract: Extradition agreements between Member States and third States fall within the competence of Member States, but the ruling in Aleksei Petruhhin (Court of Justice, judgment of 6 September 2016, case C-182/15 [GC]) shows that Member States must exercise this competence in light of EU law if extradition may affect an EU citizen’s...
