Tue. Sep 24th, 2024

Events

Events Search and Views Navigation

Event Views Navigation

Today

EU Courts of Justice: Judicial calendar 8 November 2023

EU General Court Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Wednesday 08/11/2023 09:30 Hearing C-727/22 Friends of the Irish Environment (Projet Ireland 2040) Court of...

Sanctions against Russia: EU General Court Judgment in Case T-282/22 Mazepin v EU Council

EU General Court Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Mr Mazepin is a Russian businessman. He is the owner and CEO of Uralchem, a Russian manufacturer of a wide range of chemical products. The company claims to be the largest producer of ammonium nitrate and the second largest producer of ammonia and nitrogen fertilisers in Russia.

Conference on #ReskillEU – new jobs for energy and transport in Europe

EESC Rue Belliard, 99, Brussels, Belgium

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and DG Research & Innovation (DG RTD, European Commission) organise a one-day conference, in Brussels on 8 November 2023, to discuss the need for new skills in the areas of clean energy and transport focusing on skills development through R&I activities.

Citizens’ Energy Forum

Dublin , Ireland

The 15th Citizens Energy Forum will focus on middle and low income consumers and on...

EU Courts of Justice: Judicial calendar 9 November 2023

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Thursday 09/11/2023 09:30 Opinion C-465/20 P State aid Commission v Ireland and Others Court of Justice...

Information Society Services: EU Court Judgment in Case C-376/22 Google Ireland and others

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

In 2021, Austria introduced a law requiring domestic and foreign providers of communications platforms to set up mechanisms for reporting and verifying potentially illegal content. Google Ireland, Meta Platforms Ireland, and Tiktok, three platforms established in Ireland, argue that the Austrian law is contrary to EU law, namely the Directive on Information Society Services. An Austrian Court has referred the question to the EU Court.

Scania’s access policy for vehicle data: EU Court Judgment in Case C-319/22 Gesamtverband Autoteile-Handel

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

EU law obliges car manufacturers to make available to independent operators, including repairers, parts distributors and publishers of technical information, the information necessary for the repair and maintenance of the vehicles they manufacture. A German trade association for the independent parts trade considers that neither the form nor the content of the information provided by the HGV manufacturer Scania to its members meet this obligation.

Consumer protection: EU Court judgment in Case C-598/21 Všeobecná úverová banka

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

In Slovakia, Všeobecná úverová banka granted two customers consumer credit repayable over 20 years. The customers pledged their family home as collateral. Due to a three-month delay in payment of approximately €1,000, which occurred during the first year of the contract, the bank invoked an acceleration clause. This clause enables the bank to demand early repayment of the entire outstanding balance and to initiate an out-of-court auction of the family home. The customers have asked a Slovakian court to suspend the auction, which they claim violates their rights as consumers.

Control of acquisition and possession of civil weapons: EU Court judgment in Case C-353/22 Commission v Sweden

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

On 26 July 2019, the EU Commission called on Sweden to comply with the amended Arms Directive by 26 September 2019. The deadline for transposing these amendments into Swedish law expired on 14 September 2018. In May 2022, the Commission asked the Court of Justice to declare that Sweden had failed to transpose these amendments into national law. It also asked the Court to order Sweden to pay financial penalties.

Asylum for Afghan Women: EU Advovate General Opinion in Joined Cases C-608/22 and Case C-609/22 Austrian Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl and others

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Two Afghan women applied for asylum in Austria, but the Austrian authorities rejected their applications. The authorities considered that the first woman's reason for fleeing was not credible and that the second woman did not face a real risk of persecution in Afghanistan.

Brexit: EU Advocate General Opinion in Case C-516/22 Commission v UK – Supreme Court Judgment

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

The EU Commission alleges that a UK Supreme Court judgment, delivered during the transition period, violated EU law. The Commission argues that the question of enforcement of the arbitral award, decided by the Supreme Court was covered by Commission decisions. It also argues the UK Supreme Court had breached the UK’s EU Treaty obligations.

Steuervergünstigungen Irlands für Apple: Schlussanträge des Generalanwalts am EU-Gerichtshof in der Rechtsmittelsache C-465/20 P Kommission / Irland u.a.

EU Court of Justice Palais de la Cour de Justice, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Mit Beschluss vom 30. August 2016 stellte die Kommission fest, dass Irland dem Unternehmen Apple unrechtmäßige Steuervergünstigungen von bis zu 13 Mrd. Euro gewährt habe, da Apple wesentlich weniger Steuern habe zahlen müssen als andere Unternehmen. Irland müsse die rechtswidrige Beihilfe zurückfordern. Gegen diesen Beschluss haben Irland und Apple Nichtigkeitsklagen beim Gericht der EU erhoben, das den Beschluss der Kommission für nichtig erklärte. Die EU-Kommission hat dieses Urteil angefochten und dessen Aufhebung beantragt.