Feed aggregator

Pourvoi c/ juridiction de proximité de Bourges, 7 novembre 2016

I reported at the time on the General Court‘s decision in Dyson. The CJEU yesterday in Case -44/16P agreed, albeit in less prosaic terms than my earlier post, that the Court’s reasoning was wanting. The case now goes back to the General Court to reconsider those pleas made by Dyson which the Court considers to have been insufficiently answered.

Of most interest to readers of this blog is the argument re proof, science and procedure (at 72 ff): According to the Commission, Dyson does not explain in what way the development of a test with a loaded receptacle would have been more proportionate. The Commission submits that it was not obliged to show that no better test method could be developed, and that it was on the contrary for Dyson to prove that a more appropriate test method existed, which in the view of the General Court it failed to do.

The Court of Justice agrees that the General Court’s entertainment of this question is wanting – the particular parameter was required under the delegating Directive, alleged absence of a reliable test is not enough to ignore it. That is not to say, that upon reconsideration the eventual General Court’s answer may not be the same.

Geert.

Concurrence - Déséquilibre significatif - Modalités de retrait
d'un membre d'un GIE

Un rapport de Jean-Jacques Urvoas faisant le bilan de la politique pénale du gouvernement depuis son arrivée place Vendôme vient d’être rendu public. Il s’agit du premier rapport de politique pénale déposé par un garde des Sceaux, indique le ministre de la Justice.

en lire plus

Appel civil

Krijgsman
Transport
Un transporteur aérien qui n’est pas en mesure de prouver qu’un passager a été informé de l’annulation de son vol plus de deux semaines avant l’heure de départ prévue est tenu de l’indemniser