Judicial activity

The Court of Justice held that the disciplinary regime applicable to judges of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) and judges of the ordinary courts is not compatible with EU law. The European Commission brought an action before the Court of Justice seeking a declaration that, by that new disciplinary regime and, in particular, by establishing a new disciplinary chamber within the Supreme Court, Poland had infringed EU law. The Court of Justice upheld all of the Commission’s complaints: in the light of the wider context of major reforms which had recently affected the Polish judiciary and the combination of factors that framed the process whereby that new chamber was established, it held inter alia that that chamber does not offer all the guarantees of impartiality and independence and is not protected from the direct or indirect influence of the Polish legislature and executive.
Judgment of 15 July 2021, Commission v Poland, C‑791/19

The Court of Justice held that transfers without consent of a judge from one court to another or between two divisions of the same court are liable to undermine the principles of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence. Moreover, the order by which a court, ruling at last instance and sitting as a single judge, dismissed the action of a judge transferred against his or her will, must be declared null and void if the appointment of that single judge took place in clear breach of fundamental rules concerning the establishment and functioning of the judicial system concerned.
Judgment of 6 October 2021, W.Ż. (Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment), C‑487/19

The Court of Justice considered that the independence and impartiality of judges and the presumption of innocence may be jeopardised by the regime currently in force in Poland, which permits, inter alia, the Minister for Justice to second judges to higher criminal courts and to terminate that secondment at any time without stating reasons. The lack of criteria for those secondments creates a risk of political control being exerted over the content of judicial decisions, especially since the Minister also assumes the role of Public Prosecutor General.
Judgment of 16 November 2021, Prokuratura Rejonowa w Mińsku Mazowieckim and Others, C‑748/19 and Others

The Court of Justice dealt with a number of cases following on from the reform of the judicial system with regard to combating corruption in Romania. The question arose as to whether the application of the case-law arising from a number of decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) on the rules of criminal procedure applicable to fraud and corruption proceedings was liable to infringe EU law. The Court of Justice reaffirmed that the primacy of EU law requires that national courts are to be empowered to disapply a decision of a constitutional court that is contrary to EU law, without national judges incurring disciplinary liability. EU law precludes the application of the case-law of a constitutional court leading to the setting aside of judgments delivered by panels of judges which are deemed to be improperly constituted, in so far as the setting aside of those judgments, in conjunction with the national provisions on limitation periods, creates a systemic risk of impunity in respect of acts constituting serious offences of fraud.
Judgment of 21 December 2021, Euro Box Promotion and Others, C‑357/19 and Others

In a reference for a preliminary ruling from a Hungarian court, the Court of Justice ruled on the compatibility of Hungarian law with the EU directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. As the Alkotmánybíróság (Supreme Court, Hungary) had ruled that referring the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling was unlawful, the Court of Justice, in addition, reaffirmed that the system of cooperation between the national courts and the Court of Justice precludes a national supreme court from declaring that a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by a lower court is unlawful. Moreover, EU law precludes disciplinary proceedings from being brought against a national judge on the ground that he or she has made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice: such proceedings are liable to deter all national courts from making references for a preliminary ruling, which could jeopardise the uniform application of EU law.
Judgment of 23 November 2021, IS (Illegality of the order for reference), C‑564/19

The General Court dismissed the action brought by the multinational cable and telecommunications company Altice Europe against the Commission decision imposing on it fines totalling EUR 124.5 million in connection with the acquisition of PT Portugal. The Commission accused Altice Europe, first, of having infringed the obligation to notify the concentration and, secondly, of not complying with the prohibition on implementing the concentration before its notification to the Commission and before its authorisation by the Commission. However, the General Court ordered that the amount of the fine relating to the breach of the obligation to notify the concentration be reduced by EUR 6.22 million.
Judgment of 22 September 2021, Altice Europe v Commission, T‑425/18

The General Court confirmed the Commission’s decisions authorising the mergers concerning the acquisition, by easyJet and Lufthansa, of certain assets of the Air Berlin group. It dismissed the action brought by the airline Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’, a competitor of the two companies involved in the mergers, by pointing out, in particular, that the Commission can identify the relevant markets by city pairs from or to the airports with which Air Berlin’s slots were associated, instead of examining individually each of the markets in which Air Berlin, on the one hand, and Lufthansa and easyJet, on the other, were present.
Judgments of 20 October 2021, Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission, T‑240/18 and T‑296/18

The General Court confirmed the Commission’s decision which found that Google abused its dominant position by favouring its own comparison shopping service on its general results pages through more favourable display and positioning over the results of competing comparison shopping services. The General Court also upheld the amount of the fine, set by the Commission at EUR 2.42 billion, of which EUR 523.5 million was imposed on Google jointly and severally with its parent company Alphabet.
Judgment of 10 November 2021, Google and Alphabet v Commission, T‑612/17

Between 1997 and 1999, the company Sumal acquired two trucks from Mercedes Benz Trucks España (‘MBTE’), a subsidiary of the Daimler group, whose parent company is Daimler AG. By a 2016 decision, the European Commission found an infringement, by Daimler AG, of EU law rules prohibiting cartels as a result of the conclusion, between January 1997 and January 2011, of arrangements with 14 other European truck producers on pricing and gross price increases for trucks in the European Economic Area (EEA). Following that decision, Sumal brought an action for damages against MBTE for loss resulting from that cartel. The Court of Justice held that the victim of an infringement of EU competition law committed by a parent company may seek compensation from that company’s subsidiary for the resulting loss but that it must prove that the two companies constituted an economic unit at the time of the infringement and that the subsidiary is active on the market affected by the infringement.
Judgment of 6 October 2021, Sumal, C‑882/19

Fishing using electric current was prohibited by new rules adopted in 2019 by the European Parliament and the Council. The Netherlands asked the Court of Justice to annul those provisions, submitting inter alia that the EU legislature had not relied on the best scientific opinions available concerning the environmental impacts with regard to the exploitation of North Sea sole. The Court of Justice dismissed that action and confirmed the validity of those rules: the EU legislature has a wide discretion in this field and is not obliged to base its legislative choice on scientific and technical opinions only.
Judgment of 15 April 2021, Netherlands v Council and Parliament, C‑733/19

With regard to the authorisation of hunting using limes, the Court of Justice held that a Member State (in this case France) may not authorise a method of capture of birds leading to by-catch which is likely to cause harm other than negligible harm to the species concerned. The fact that such a method is traditional is not, in itself, sufficient to rule out any other satisfactory alternative solution. The Court of Justice clarified the conditions which would allow derogation from the prohibition, laid down in the Birds Directive, on using certain methods of capture of protected birds.
Judgment of 17 March 2021, One Voice and Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, C‑900/19

In an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against Hungary concerning the systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for particulate matter PM10, the Court of Justice held that that Member State had infringed the rules of EU law on ambient air quality and that it had failed to fulfil its obligations to ensure throughout its territory, first, that the daily limit value for particulate matter PM10 was complied with and, secondly, that the period of exceedance of that value was kept as short as possible.
Judgment of 3 February 2021, Commission v Hungary (Limit values – PM10), C‑637/18

The Court of Justice held that, between 2010 and 2016, Germany had infringed the Air Quality Directive by systematically and persistently exceeding the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). Germany also infringed its obligation to adopt appropriate measures in good time to ensure that the exceedance period was kept as short as possible in the zones concerned.
Judgment of 3 June 2021, Commission v Germany (Limit values – NO₂), C‑635/18

The Court of Justice annulled the decisions of the Council on the application of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement signed with Armenia on 24 November 2017. It held that, although the Partnership Agreement has some links with the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), the components or declarations of intention that it includes which may be linked to the CFSP are insufficient to constitute an autonomous component of that agreement capable of justifying the splitting of the Council measure into two separate decisions. That split had led notably to recourse to the rule requiring a unanimous vote for one of the acts concerned and to that requiring a qualified majority for the other.
Judgment of 2 September 2021, Commission v Council (Agreement with Armenia), C‑180/20

The General Court dismissed the action brought by Romania against the Commission’s decision registering the proposed European citizens’ initiative (ECI) entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’. It ruled, for the first time, on whether a Commission decision to register such a proposed citizens’ initiative may be challenged. That proposed ECI had been submitted in 2013 to the Commission which, initially, refused to register it on the ground that it fell manifestly outside the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for an EU legal act for the purposes of implementing the Treaties. The Court of Justice had annulled the decision by the Commission which, by decision of 30 April 2019, then registered the proposed ECI at issue.
Judgment of 10 November 2021, Romania v Commission, T‑495/19

The General Court ruled on the starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings against a decision concerning a person subject to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in the event of an unsuccessful notification of a registered letter. In the absence of provisions governing the determination of the point from which time starts to run for the calculation of the time limit for bringing proceedings in the event of failure to take delivery of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt in disputes under the Staff Regulations, the General Court, moreover, recalled that legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the interest of the proper administration of justice preclude the presumption of notification on expiry of the retention period for the registered letter sent to the applicant’s home address. Finally, the General Court ruled that, since that decision was notified by email (the receipt of which was immediately acknowledged by the recipient), the period for bringing an action began to run from the date of notification.
Judgment of 3 March 2021, Barata v Parliament, T‑723/18

In a case between the Republic of Moldova and a Ukrainian company, the Court of Justice was asked about the classification as an ‘investment’ within the meaning of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), of a claim which arose from a contract for the sale of electricity. It held that the acquisition, by an undertaking of a Contracting Party to the ECT, of a claim arising from a contract for the supply of electricity, which is not connected with an investment, held by an undertaking of a third State against a public undertaking of another Contracting Party to that treaty, does not constitute an ‘investment’ within the meaning of the ECT. A claim arising from a mere contract for the sale of electricity cannot be regarded as having been granted in order to undertake an economic activity in the energy sector. It follows that a mere contract for the supply of electricity, generated by other operators, is a commercial transaction which cannot, in itself, constitute an investment.
Judgment of 2 September 2021, Republic of Moldova, C‑741/19

In its Opinion delivered at the request of the European Parliament, the Court of Justice stated that the Treaties do not prohibit the Council from waiting, before adopting the decision concluding the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (known as the Istanbul Convention) on behalf of the European Union, for the ‘common accord’ of the Member States, but the Council cannot alter the procedure for concluding that convention by making that conclusion contingent on the prior establishment of such a ‘common accord’. The Court of Justice specified the appropriate substantive legal basis for the adoption of the Council act concluding the part of the Istanbul Convention covered by the envisaged agreement. It also held that the act concluding that convention may be divided into two separate decisions where an objective need to do so is established.
Opinion of 6 October 2021, Istanbul Convention, 1/19

In actions brought by Luxembourg and Amazon, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision according to which, between 2006 and 2014, Luxembourg had granted Amazon EU, at that time Amazon’s sales hub for the whole of Europe, based in Luxembourg, State aid that was contrary to EU law, by allowing it, by means of tax rulings, to pay significantly less tax than other undertakings. According to the Commission, Luxembourg ought to recover from Amazon the undue tax advantages amounting to approximately EUR 250 million, together with interest. In its judgment, the General Court found that the Commission had not demonstrated sufficiently that Amazon EU’s taxable income had been artificially reduced as a result of an overpricing of the royalty it paid to another company in the Amazon group for the use of certain intellectual property rights.
Judgment of 12 May 2021, Luxembourg and Amazon v Commission, T‑816/17 and Others

The General Court dismissed the actions brought by Luxembourg and the energy supplier Engie against the decision by which the Commission had found that Luxembourg had granted Engie State aid that was contrary to EU law by allowing, by means of tax rulings, two companies in that group resident in Luxembourg to evade tax on almost all of their profits. According to the Commission, Luxembourg must recover some EUR 120 million of unpaid tax, together with interest. In its judgment upholding that decision, the General Court pointed out that Luxembourg had failed to find an abuse of rights by Engie even though all of the criteria were met.
Judgment of 12 May 2021, Luxembourg and Others v Commission, T‑516/18 and Others

The General Court recognised the validity of a three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a lipstick. In so doing, it annulled the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) which had dismissed the initial application for registration of that sign as an EU trade mark to designate lipsticks. According to the General Court, the mark applied for has distinctive character because it departs significantly from the norm and customs of the lipstick sector in that the lipstick has a rounded shape, rather than being vertical and cylindrical.
Judgment of 14 July 2021, Guerlain v EUIPO (Shape of an oblong, tapered and cylindrical lipstick), T‑488/20

The General Court held that an audio file reproducing the sound made by the opening of a drinks can, followed by silence and a fizzing sound, cannot be registered as an EU trade mark to designate drinks, inter alia, in so far as it is not distinctive. The General Court thus shares EUIPO’s view and recalls that a sound mark must have distinctive character in order for the consumer to be able to perceive it as a trade mark and not as a functional element without any inherent characteristics.
Judgment of 7 July 2021, Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (Combination of sounds on opening a can of soft drink), T‑668/19

The General Court dismissed the action brought by Chanel against Huawei’s application for registration of a mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) on the ground that the figurative signs at issue are not similar and held that the marks must be compared as applied for and registered, without altering their orientation. The General Court stated that the mere presence, in each of the marks at issue, of two elements that are connected to each other does not render the marks similar even though they share the basic geometric shape of a circle surrounding those elements.
Judgment of 21 April 2021, Chanel v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves), T‑44/20

The General Court ruled on the possibility for a UK lawyer to represent a party in proceedings before it in an action against a decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The General Court recalled the two cumulative conditions for a person to be validly permitted to represent parties (other than the Member States and the EU institutions) before the Courts of the European Union: first, that person must be a lawyer and, secondly, he or she must be authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement. The action had been brought after 31 December 2020, the end of the transition period before the United Kingdom’s permanent withdrawal from the European Union and is not covered by any of the situations provided for in the withdrawal agreement in which a lawyer authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of the United Kingdom, with regard to whom it has not been established that he or she is authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement, may represent a party before the Courts of the European Union. The action was therefore found to be inadmissible.
Order of 7 December 2021, Daimler v EUIPO – Volkswagen (IQ), T‑422/21

The Court of Justice held that, where the copyright holder has adopted or imposed measures to restrict framing, the embedding of a work in a website page of a third party, by means of that technique, constitutes making available that work to a new public. That communication to the public must be authorised by the copyright holder.
Judgment of 9 March 2021, VG Bild-Kunst, C‑392/19

The Court of Justice clarified, in connection with the set of rules prior to those introduced by the new 2019 Copyright Directive, the circumstances in which online platforms (in this case YouTube and Cyando) could incur liability. It held that the operators of such platforms do not, in principle, themselves make a communication to the public of copyright-protected content illegally posted online by users of those platforms. They may, however, incur liability for a communication in breach of copyright where they contribute, beyond merely making those platforms available, to giving access to such content to the public.
Judgment of 22 June 2021, YouTube, C‑682/18

In this case, the internet connections of Telenet customers had been used to share films in the Mircom catalogue on a peer-to-peer network. The Court of Justice held that the protection of the rights of the holder of intellectual property may justify the systematic registration of IP addresses of users and the communication of their names and postal addresses to the rightsholder or to a third party in order to enable an action for damages to be brought. However, the request for information from a holder of intellectual property rights is not to be abusive and must be justified and proportionate.
Judgment of 17 June 2021, M.I.C.M., C‑597/19

An owner of tapas bars in Spain used the sign CHAMPANILLO to designate and promote his establishments. His advertising depicted two champagne coupes containing a sparkling beverage. The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), an organisation which safeguards the interests of champagne producers, sought to prohibit the use of the term champanillo (which in Spanish means ‘little champagne’) on the ground that the use of that sign infringed the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Champagne’. The Court of Justice clarified that products covered by a PDO are protected vis-à-vis prohibited conduct in respect of both products and services.
Judgment of 9 September 2021, Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, C‑783/19

The Court of Justice held that access, for purposes in the criminal field, to a set of traffic or location data in respect of electronic communications, allowing precise conclusions to be drawn concerning a user’s private life, is permitted only in order to combat serious crime or prevent serious threats to public security. In addition, EU law precludes national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office the power to authorise access of a public authority to such data for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation.
Judgment of 2 March 2021, Prokuratuur (Conditions of access to data relating to electronic communications), C‑746/18

In a judgment delivered in a case concerning the protection of personal data involving Facebook Ireland, the Court of Justice specified the conditions for the exercise of the national supervisory authorities’ powers with respect to the cross-border processing of data, stating that, under certain conditions, such an authority may bring any alleged infringement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) before a court of a Member State, even though that authority is not the lead supervisory authority with regard to that processing. The Court of Justice also took the view that, since Facebook Ireland had not adequately informed internet users of the collection and use of the information concerning them, their consent to the processing of those data was not valid.
Judgment of 15 June 2021, Facebook Ireland and Others, C‑645/19

In the processing of organic foodstuffs such as rice- and soya-based organic drinks for the purpose of their enrichment with calcium, the addition of the alga Lithothamnium calcareum (lithothamnium) was prohibited by the Court of Justice, which observed that EU law lays down strict rules on the addition of minerals, such as calcium, in the production of organic food. Authorising the use of the powder of that alga as a non-organic ingredient of agricultural origin would amount to permitting producers of those foodstuffs to circumvent those rules.
Judgment of 29 April 2021, Natumi, C‑815/19

The Court of Justice held that the mere diversion of a flight to an airport close to the original destination airport does not grant a right to flat-rate compensation. However, it stated that the air carrier must, on its own initiative, offer the passenger to bear the cost of transfer either to the destination airport for which the booking was made or, where appropriate, to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger. In order to be released from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of a long delay in the arrival of a flight, the air carrier may rely on an extraordinary circumstance which affects not the delayed flight but an earlier flight operated by that air carrier using the same aircraft.
Judgment of 22 April 2021, Austrian Airlines, C‑826/19

The Court of Justice found that a strike organised by a trade union of the staff of an air carrier, that is intended in particular to secure pay increases, does not constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which releases the airline from its obligation to pay compensation in cases of cancellation or long delay. The air carrier’s freedom to conduct a business, its property rights and its right of negotiation are not impaired by not using that categorisation for such a strike, which is organised in compliance with the conditions laid down by national legislation.
Judgment of 23 March 2021, Airhelp, C‑28/20

The Court of Justice held that a euro area Member State can oblige its administration to accept payments in cash. It did, however, state that the Member State can also restrict that payment option on public interest grounds, in particular where payment in cash is likely to involve the administration an unreasonable expense because of the very high number of persons liable to pay. It also specified that the obligation to accept banknotes may be restricted for reasons of public interest, provided that those restrictions are proportionate to the public interest objective pursued, which means, in particular, that other lawful means must be available to the persons liable to pay for the settlement of monetary debts.
Judgment of 26 January 2021, Hessischer Rundfunk, C‑422/19 and C‑423/19

The Court of Justice held that Hungarian legislation which prohibits the annulment of a loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency on the ground that it contains an unfair term relating to the exchange difference appears to be compatible with EU law if that legislation makes it possible to re-establish the legal and factual situation which would have existed for the consumer in the absence of the unfair term, even if the annulment of the agreement would have been more advantageous for the consumer. In addition, the wishes expressed by the consumer concerned cannot prevail over the assessment, which is for the national court to make, of the question whether the Hungarian national legislation does actually make it possible to re-establish the legal and factual situation of the consumer.
Judgment of 2 September 2021, OTP Jelzálogbank and Others, C‑932/19

In a case in which the Irish shipping company Irish Ferries had to cancel the entire 2018 season of sailings because, as a result of delays in the delivery of a new vessel, it had been unable to commission a replacement vessel, the Court of Justice clarified several provisions on passengers’ rights when travelling by sea or inland waterway (cancellation, compensation, ticket price etc.). It found in particular that the re-routing and compensation obligations in the event of cancellation of a transport service are proportionate to the objective pursued by the relevant applicable legislation.
Judgment of 2 September 2021, Irish Ferries, C‑570/19

The Court of Justice ruled on a ‘zero tariff’ internet option, a commercial practice whereby an access provider applies a ‘zero tariff’, or a more advantageous tariff, to all or part of the data traffic associated with an application or category of specific applications, offered by partners of that access provider. The Court of Justice held that such tariff options are contrary to the regulation on open internet access, as are limitations on bandwidth, tethering or on use when roaming, on account of the activation of such an option.
Judgments of 2 September 2021, Vodafone, C‑854/19 and Others

The case of a child, being a minor and a Union citizen, whose birth certificate was drawn up by the host Member State and designates as the child’s parents two persons of the same sex, was brought before the Court of Justice. It found that the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged to issue an identity card or a passport to that child without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities. That Member State is also obliged to recognise the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union.
Judgment of 14 December 2021, Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, C‑490/20

In the context of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, UK legislation established a new scheme for EU citizens under which the grant of a right of residence is not subject to any condition as to resources. By contrast, it deprives EU citizens of social assistance benefits known as Universal Credit. The Court of Justice took the view that that legislation is compatible with the principle of equal treatment guaranteed by EU law. However, the competent national authorities must check that a refusal to grant such social assistance benefits does not expose the Union citizen and his or her children to a risk of infringement of their fundamental rights, in particular the right to respect for human dignity.
Judgment of 15 July 2021, The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, C‑709/20

The Court of Justice clarified the criteria to be taken into account in order to assess whether a temporary-work agency ordinarily performs ‘substantial activities other than purely internal managerial activities’ in the Member State in which it is established. According to the Court of Justice, in order for it to be considered that it ‘normally carries out its activities’ in a Member State, a temporary-work agency must carry out a significant part of its activities of assigning temporary agency workers for the benefit of user undertakings established and carrying out their activities in the territory of that same Member State. The performance of the activities of selecting and recruiting such workers in the Member State in which the temporary-work agency is established is insufficient for it to be considered that that undertaking carries out ‘substantial activities’ there.
Judgment of 3 June 2021, TEAM POWER EUROPE, C‑784/19

Two cases concerned Muslim employees who had decided to wear a religious veil in the workplace. According to the Court of Justice, a prohibition, laid down by the employer, on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by a genuine need on the part of the employer to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes. However, in reconciling the rights at issue, the national courts may take into account the specific context of their Member State and more favourable national provisions on the protection of freedom of religion.
Judgment of 15 July 2021, WABE and MH Müller Handel, C‑804/18 and C‑341/19

In April 2020, Germany notified the Commission of individual aid in favour of the airline Condor Flugdienst GmbH in the form of two loans in the amount of EUR 550 million, guaranteed by the State with subsidised interest. The General Court annulled the Commission’s decision approving the aid on the ground of an inadequate statement of reasons. However, because of the economic and social context marked by the Covid-19 pandemic, it suspended the effects of the annulment pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission.
Judgment of 9 June 2021, Ryanair v Commission (Condor; Covid-19), T‑665/20

The General Court found that the State aid scheme put in place by Sweden, in the form of loan guarantees for airlines holding a Swedish operating licence, in order to remedy the serious disturbance to the economy of that Member State amid the Covid-19 pandemic, is compatible with EU law. More specifically, the scheme is aimed at airlines which, on 1 January 2020, held a licence to conduct commercial activities in the field of aviation, with the exception of airlines operating unscheduled flights.
Judgment of 17 February 2021, Ryanair v Commission, T‑238/20

The General Court approved the State aid scheme introduced by France in the form of the deferral of the payment of taxes to support airlines holding a French licence. That aid scheme, which concerns civil aviation tax and solidarity tax on airline tickets due on a monthly basis during the period from March to December 2020, was deemed by the General Court to be appropriate for making good the economic damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and does not therefore constitute discrimination inconsistent with EU law.
Judgment of 17 February 2021, Ryanair v Commission, T‑259/20

The General Court approved the aid, in the form of two revolving credit facilities, each of up to 1.5 billion Swedish kronor (SEK), introduced by Sweden and Denmark for the company SAS for damage resulting from the cancellation or rescheduling of flights in the wake of travel restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It considered that, given that SAS’s market share is much higher than that of its closest competitor in those two Member States, the aid at issue does not amount to unlawful discrimination.
Judgments of 14 April 2021, Ryanair v Commission (SAS, Denmark; Covid-19), T‑378/20 and T‑379/20

The General Court held that Finland’s guarantee in favour of the airline Finnair to help it obtain a loan of EUR 600 million from a pension fund to cover its working capital requirements following the Covid-19 pandemic is compatible with EU law. The guarantee was necessary because Finnair was at risk of going into liquidation due to the sudden erosion of its business and the fact that it could not cover its liquidity needs through the credit markets.
Judgment of 14 April 2021, Ryanair v Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19), T‑388/20

The General Court approved the Commission’s decision authorising the support fund introduced by Spain to ensure the solvency of non-financial undertakings that have their principal places of business in Spain, which are considered systemic or strategic for the national economy and have experienced temporary difficulties due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It stated that the measure at issue, intended for the adoption of recapitalisation measures with a budget of EUR 10 billion, does constitute a State aid scheme but is proportionate and non-discriminatory.
Judgment of 19 May 2021, Ryanair v Commission (Spain; Covid-19), T‑628/20

The Commission had found, by various decisions, that an arbitration award setting for the Greek aluminium producer Mytilinaios an allegedly preferential electricity tariff to be paid to DEI (a Greek electricity producer and supplier), did not in fact involve the granting of an advantage. The General Court annulled those decisions, taking the view that the Commission should have diligently, sufficiently and comprehensively examined whether there had been State aid.
Judgment of 22 September 2021, DEI v Commission, T‑639/14 and Others

Actions were brought by a cooperative and a number of skippers of fishing vessels against the Commission’s decision not to raise objections in relation to aid linked to the construction of the first offshore wind farms in France. The General Court found that those persons were not entitled to bring such actions because, first, they were not in competition with the operators of those wind farms and, secondly, they had failed to demonstrate the likelihood of the aid in question having a specific effect on their situation.
Judgment of 15 September 2021, CAPA and Others v Commission, T‑777/19

In a dispute between a former non-commissioned officer in the Slovenian army and the Ministry of Defence concerning the remuneration for that officer’s guard duty, the Court of Justice clarified the situations in which the Working Time Directive does not apply to activities carried out by military personnel. Furthermore, that directive does not preclude a stand-by period during which a member of military personnel is required to remain at the barracks to which he or she is posted, but does not perform actual work there, from being remunerated differently from a stand-by period during which he or she performs actual work.
Judgment of 15 July 2021, Ministrstvo za obrambo, C‑742/19

In a case referred for a preliminary ruling by a Luxembourg court, the Court of Justice interpreted the directive implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave. It stated that a Member State cannot make entitlement to parental leave subject to the requirement that the parent was employed at the time of birth or adoption of the child. The Member State can, however, require that the parent was employed without interruption for a period of at least twelve months before the start of that parental leave.
Judgment of 25 February 2021 XI v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Employment at the time of birth), C‑129/20

In Italy, the grant of childbirth and maternity allowances was refused to a number of third-country nationals holding a single work permit obtained pursuant to the national legislation transposing an EU directive because those persons did not have long-term resident status. Following a reference made to it by the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy), the Court of Justice held that those third-country nationals were entitled to those allowances as provided for by the Italian legislation.
Judgment of 2 September 2021, INPS (Childbirth and maternity allowances for holders of single permits), C‑350/20

In 2016, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued guidelines on product oversight and governance arrangements for retail banking products. In a notice published on its website, the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (Authority for prudential supervision and resolution, France) announced that it complied with those guidelines, thus making them applicable to all financial institutions under its supervision. The Fédération bancaire française (French banking federation; ‘the FBF’) subsequently asked the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) to annul the notice because, in the FBF’s view, the EBA did not have the competence to issue such guidelines. The Council of State made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the remedies available to review the legality of the contested guidelines and their validity. The Court of Justice stated that the preliminary ruling procedure may be used to review such validity and that, in the present case, the guidelines are valid.
Judgment of 15 July 2021, FBF, C‑911/19

In view of the deterioration of the human rights situation, the rule of law and democracy, the Council of the European Union adopted, in 2017, a regulation introducing restrictive measures against Venezuela. Venezuela subsequently applied to the General Court seeking the annulment of those measures, but the General Court found that Venezuela did not have standing to bring proceedings against such a regulation. However, on appeal, the Court of Justice held that that State did indeed have standing to bring proceedings against a regulation which introduces restrictive measures against it and therefore referred the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits of the action for annulment.
Judgment of 22 June 2021, Venezuela v Council (Whether a third State is affected), C‑872/19