Flux européens

W. Ż. (Chambre de contrôle extraordinaire et des affaires publiques de la Cour suprême - nomination)
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Tanchev : deux chambres nouvellement créées de la Cour suprême polonaise pourraient ne pas satisfaire aux exigences du droit de l’Union, les juges en cause ayant été nommés à ces postes en violation flagrante des lois nationales applicables aux nominations de juges à cette juridiction

Administration de l'Enregistrement, des Domaines et de la TVA
Fiscalité TVA
L’activité de protection des personnes majeures légalement incapables effectuée par un avocat constitue, en principe, une activité économique

Eutelsat
Rapprochement des législations
Service de connexion Internet à bord des avions : un système mobile par satellite qui repose principalement, en termes de capacité des données transmises, sur des éléments terrestres complémentaires installés de façon à couvrir l’ensemble du territoire de l’Union n’est pas nécessairement incompatible avec le cadre réglementaire européen

Aldricus – Kehamilan sehat diikuti karena ada sepakan bayi yang makin kerap dan kuat. Supaya ibu hamil sehat, Anda dianjurkan untuk konsumsi vitamin prenatal sampai jauhi depresi.

Kehamilan sehat pasti harus dijaga untuk keselamatan ibu dan buah kesayangan. Jika ibu hamil alami keluh kesah kesehatan atau menderita penyakit tertentu, ini akan memberikan ancaman jiwa untuk ke-2 nya. Buah kesayangan bahkan juga dapat terjangkit penyakit dari ibunya. Untuk jaga ibu hamil sehat dan bayi yang dikandungnya, lakukan gaya hidup sehat sebagai jawaban yang akurat. Dengan mengaplikasikan gaya hidup sehat dalam beragam faktor kehidupan, ibu hamil bisa melahirkan bayi yang sehat.

Tidak menstruasi adalah pertanda kehamilan. Tetapi, untuk memperoleh jawaban yang lebih tepat, Anda dapat memakai testpack. Umur kehamilan sebetulnya dihitung dari hari awal haid paling akhir (HPHT).Untuk ketahui kehamilan sehat, ada pertanda yang seharusnya Anda perhatikan, yakni:

1. Mual dan muntah

Kehamilan sehat biasanya diikuti dengan rasa muntah dan mual atau morning sickness pada awal kehamilan. Menurut penelitian terbitan BMJ Clinical Evidence, pertanda ibu hamil sehat ini karena ada kenaikan hormon kehamilan, yakni human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).

2. Bau dan aroma terasa lebih menyengat

Walau kedengar lucu, ini sebagai pertanda kehamilan sehat. Ini ternyata banyak dirasakan ibu hamil. Bisa dibuktikan, indra penciuman juga jadi lebih peka pada trimester pertama kehamilan. Ciri-ciri ibu hamil sehat ini sanggup memacu morning sickness.

3. Sering terasa ingin buang air kecil

Ibu hamil sehat diikuti dengan rasa ingin buang air kecil terus-terusan. Ini karena ada kenaikan volume darah saat hamil. Oleh karenanya, darah ginjal juga harus hasilkan urine dengan volume yang semakin banyak.Disamping itu, hormon kehamilan dan bertambahnya ukuran kandungan sebagai factor pemicunya pertanda ibu hamil sehat ini.

4.Mudah lelah

Kelelahan menjadi satu diantara pertanda kehamilan sehat. Di trimester pertama kehamilan, hormon progesteron juga alami kenaikan. Ini mengakibatkan badan santai. Tetapi, karena santai, ibu juga condong berasa gampang capek dan mengantuk.Jika gampang capek dituruti dengan pertanda, seperti pucat, napas sesak, sakit di kepala, jantung berdebar-debar, sampai telapak kaki dan tangan berasa dingin, cermati tanda-tanda anemia saat hamil.

5. Nyeri payudara

Semenjak masuk awalnya kehamilan, payudara yang dirasa ngilu dan jadi membesar sebagai ciri-ciri kehamilan sehat.Karena, pada ibu hamil sehat, hormon estrogen dan progesteron juga bertambah. Ini mempengaruhi payudara.Disamping itu, saat hamil, badan juga menyiapkan menyusui. Oleh karenanya, kelenjar susu juga badan.Saluran darah juga bertambah. Peralihan juga kelihatan pada puting dan areola yang lebih menghitam.

6. Mood swing

Emosi yang tidak konstan ini dikuasai beragam jenis factor. Biasanya, terjadi karena peralihan hormon, depresi, sampai kecapekan. Ini berpengaruh pada neurotransmiter atau zat kimia dalam otak.Jika suasana hati swing terjadi lebih dari dua minggu, ini tak lagi memberikan indikasi kehamilan sehat. Karena itu, selekasnya jumpai psikiater dan psikolog. Emosi yang tidak teratasi beresiko kelahiran prematur sampai stres pascamelahirkan.

7. Gerakan janin terasa

Bila Anda dapat rasakan janin menyepak perut Anda, ini memiliki arti ibu hamil sehat. Karena, kehamilan sehat diikuti karena ada perubahan janin, seperti sepakan yang semakin kuat dan kerap.

The post Kehamilan Sehat: Ketahui 7 Ciri dan Cara Menjaganya appeared first on Aldri Blog.

Ryanair / Commission (Finnair I; Covid-19)
Aide d'État
La garantie de la Finlande en faveur de la compagnie aérienne Finnair visant à aider à obtenir, auprès d’un fonds de pension, un prêt de 600 millions d’euros destiné à couvrir ses besoins en fond de roulement à la suite de la pandémie de Covid-19 est conforme au droit de l’Union

Ryanair / Commission (SAS, Danemark; Covid-19)
Aide d'État
Les mesures d’aide mises en place par la Suède et le Danemark en faveur de SAS pour les dommages résultant de l’annulation ou de la reprogrammation des vols à la suite des restrictions de déplacement causées par la pandémie de Covid-19 sont conformes au droit de l’Union

The Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies’ (COM(2020) 642 final) (EESC 2020/04962) has been published last Friday at the OJEU (C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 66).

Extracts:

“Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC welcomes the Commission’s proposal (1) to strengthen the internal review mechanism contained in the Aarhus Regulation (2) and appreciates its potential.

1.2 The EESC supports the four priority actions identified in the Commission’s Communication, namely the Member States’ obligation to fully and correctly transpose access to justice requirements stemming from EU secondary law, the need for co-legislators to include provisions on access to justice in new and revised EU legislation concerning environmental matters, the review by Member States of their own national legislative and regulatory provisions that prevent or undermine access to justice, and the obligation of national courts to guarantee the right of individuals and NGOs to an effective remedy under EU law.

1.3 Nevertheless, the EESC points out to the Commission that its proposal contains loopholes which may be used by institutions to avoid being held accountable.

1.4 Thus for example the EESC does not endorse the Commission’s proposal to exclude EU acts entailing ‘national implementing measures’, because there is a real possibility that this exclusion could nullify or devalue the Commission proposal.

1.5 The EESC is also concerned that allowing civil society organisations (CSOs) to conduct a review only when the implementing measures have been adopted would insulate many, if not most, EU acts and omissions from internal review.

1.6 Despite the arguments set out by the Commission, the EESC notes that non-legally binding EU acts can have significant effects both on the implementation of EU legislation and on its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

1.7 The social partners are key players in environmental issues, and the EESC therefore urges that they be explicitly recognised as regards access to justice.

1.8 The EESC stresses that the new Regulation should permit internal review of Commission state aid decisions.

1.9 The EESC considers that protection of CSOs from extra burdens (like additional costs and bureaucratic measures) at both national and EU levels must be properly ensured in order to make judicial review accessible in practice”.

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2021.123.01.0066.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AC%3A2021%3A123%3ATOC

I was unaware of a fashion blogosphere war of words and more between Dolce & Gabbana and the founders of Diet Prada until I was asked to comment (in Dutch) on the pending lawsuit in Italy. The suit has an echo of SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Among others this post on The Fashion Law gives readers the necessary background and also links to the defendants’ lawyers reply at the jurisdictional level. It is this element of course that triggered the interview request, rather than my admittedly admirable sense of style (with sentences like these, I think I may be in need of a break).

Readers might be surprised to find the legal team discussing A7(2) Brussels Ia’s forum delicti, and CJEU authority such as Bolagsupplysningen seeing as per A6 BIa the Regulation does not apply, rather the Italian residual rules. However as Andrea Bonomi and Tito Ballarino review in the Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Italy has extended the scope of application of BIa to its internal sphere. Hence an interesting discussion of the CJEU case-law on locus damni, centre of interests etc. As well as a probably ill-fated attempt to encourage the Italian courts, in subsidiary fashion, to exercise forum non should the A7(2) arguments fall on deaf ears. Probably futile seeing as the Italian regime does not know a foum non rule, however if BIa is extended, would that not also extend to forum non-light in A33-34? As far as I could tell from the submission, however, no reference was made  to an 33-34 challenge.

Enfin, lots of interesting things to ponder at a different occasion. Happy Easter all.

Geert.

EU Private International Law 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.437 ff.

There is much to be said about the refusal of the courts at Zurich at the end of February, to recognise a September 2020 High Court judgment under the 2007 Lugano Convention. Rodrigo Rodriguez says it all here and I am happy to refer. The guillotine fashion in which the courts rejected application of Lugano 2007 even for a procedure that was initiated before Brexit date 1 January 2021 leaves much to be discussed. As does the question whether the demise of Lugano 2007 might not resurrect Lugano 1988 (Rodrigo points ia to the dualist nature of the UK in his discussion of same).

Whether correct or not in the specific case at issue, the judgment does show the clear bumpy ride ahead for UK judgments across the continent, following the Hard Brexit in judicial co-operation.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed., 2021, Chapter 1, Heading 1.7.

This ruling might, as Rodrigo Rodriguez argues, wrongly apply Lugano A63 'legal proceedings instituted'. Even then it is a clear sign of the bumpy ride ahead for UK courts to maintain their position in international litigation. https://t.co/99xLg0jDTH

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 10, 2021

 

A quick note on the suit in The Netherlands against “Norsk Hydro” of Norway, for alleged pollution caused by aluminium production in Brasil. No court decisions or orders are available as yet hence I write simply to log the case. I have put Norsk Hydro in inverted commas for the suit really is against Norsk Hydro subsidiaries incorporated in The Netherlands, who are said to control the Brazilian entities. The jurisdictional basis therefore is A4 BIa. As far as the reporting on the case  indicates, there seems little likelihood of A33-34 BIa’s forum non conveniens light making an appearance seeing as no Brazilian proceedings are reported to be underway which could sink the Dutch proceedings like the High Court did in Municipio de Mariana. That is not to say of course that the defendants might not discover some.

Geert.

EU Private International Law., 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 7.3.1.

1/2 Jurisdictional basis for #NorskHydro suit is A4 BIa: Netherlands is where subsidiaries controlling the local (BRA) entities at issue are headquartered. (Pulling the mother into the bath would require A6 Lugano) https://t.co/JdBWdGWOXM @financialtimes #CSR #bizhumanrights

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) March 1, 2021

Judgment in C-307/19 Obala starts in earnest at 59 for the CJEU like the AG (see my review of his Opinion here) holds many of the questions to be inadmissible. The Court focuses its references to selected case-law, and its concluding assessment (72), on the review of the legal relationship between the parties at issue (this was the preferred route of Bobek AG) and on the foundation and modalities of the action in brought before the courts. Both have the hallmark of relationships which might as well have occurred in purely private transactions without any public law indications at all. Hence a conclusion of a ‘civil and commercial’ matter.

The Court’s selective reference to the legal relationship side of the authorities should not however in my view mean that the AG’s ‘subject-matter’ alternative should now be considered as having been rejected for all cases on the scope of Brussels Ia (and many other related PIL instruments).

Geert.

European Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, paras 2.28 ff concluding at 2.65.

 

 

 

 

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑307/19 (Obala i lučice d.o.o. v NLB Leasing d.o.o.), which is about Brussels I bis, notaries and recovery of unpaid parking ticket on public roads. It applies Articles 1 and 7.1 whilst rejecting the application of Article 24.1. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

“1) L’article 1er, paragraphe 1, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que relève de la notion de « matière civile et commerciale », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance portant sur un ticket journalier de stationnement sur une place de parking,  qui est délimitée et située sur la voie publique, diligentée par une société qui a été mandatée par une collectivité territoriale pour la gestion de telles places de parking.

2) L’article 24, point 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens que ne relève pas de la notion de « baux d’immeubles », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance portant sur un ticket journalier de stationnement sur une place de parking délimitée, située sur la voie publique.

3) L’article 7, point 1, du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens, d’une part, que relève de la « matière contractuelle », au sens de cette disposition, une action en recouvrement d’une redevance qui est née d’un contrat ayant pour objet le stationnement sur l’une des places de parking délimitées, situées sur la voie publique, organisées et gérées par une société mandatée à cette fin et, d’autre part, que ce contrat constitue un contrat de fourniture de services, au sens de l’article 7, point 1, sous b), second tiret, de ce règlement ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239289&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=587569

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries et Ranbaxy (UK) / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour de justice rejette les pourvois de plusieurs fabricants de médicaments impliqués dans l’entente visant à retarder la commercialisation du générique de l’antidépresseur citalopram

Carvalho e.a. / Parlement et Conseil
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour de justice confirme l’irrecevabilité du recours introduit par des familles originaires de l’Union européenne, du Kenya et des îles Fidji contre le « paquet climat » de l’Union de 2018

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries et Ranbaxy (UK) / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour de justice rejette les pourvois de plusieurs fabricants de médicaments impliqués dans l’entente visant à retarder la commercialisation du générique de l’antidépresseur citalopram

Deutsche Telekom / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour rejette les pourvois introduits par Slovak Telekom et Deutsche Telekom contre les arrêts du Tribunal relatifs aux pratiques anticoncurrentielles sur le marché slovaque des télécommunications

The Court of Justice delivered today its very interesting judgment in case C‑603/20 PPU (SS v MCP) on Article 10 Brussels II bis.

The question: “By its question, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in essence, whether Article 10 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, if the finding is made that a child has acquired, at the time when the application relating to parental responsibility is brought, his or her habitual residence in a third State following abduction to that State, the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before his or her abduction, retain their jurisdiction indefinitely”.

The response: “Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a situation where a finding is made that a child has, at the time when an application relating to parental responsibility is brought, acquired his or her habitual residence in a third State following abduction to that State. In that situation, the jurisdiction of the court seised will have to be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions, or, in the absence of any such international convention, in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation”.

Source:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=239243&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=353488

The JURI Committee released today an Opinion on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (Rapporteur: Jiří Pospíšil, PE661.912v02-00, 23 March 2021)

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-661912_EN.pdf

On Access to Justice, the EU and the Aarhus Convention, see, for example, E. Guinchard and M.-P. Granger, Sisyphus in Luxembourg, in E. Guinchard and M-P Granger, “The New EU Judiciary”, Kluwer, December 2017. 375, spec. p. 377 in fine ff. (available at https://europeanciviljustice.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/sisyphus-in-luxembourg.pdf).

On 22 March 2021, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament (Adrián Vázquez Lázara, on behalf of) asked a question to the European Commission (Question for oral answer O-000022/2021) on the Accession of the UK to the Lugano II Convention:

“Cooperation between the EU and the UK on civil and commercial justice is fundamental for citizens, businesses and public administrations alike. The lack of provisions in this regard in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement has given rise to legal uncertainty for all Member States.

The UK applied to accede to the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters on 8 April 2020. According to Article 72(3) of the Convention, the European Union must endeavour to give its consent at the latest within one year after the transmission by the Depositary to the Contracting Parties of the application made by the United Kingdom. This deadline will expire on 14 April 2021.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the possible accession of the United Kingdom to the Convention?

2. What requirements does the Commission consider that the UK should meet for its application to be accepted?

3. According to the Commission, to what extent would the Hague Conference allow for the same level of cooperation on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters?”

One eagerly waits for the response!

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/O-9-2021-000022_EN.html

Earlier this month, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the HCCH met, from 1 to 5 March 2021. Work continues on several legislative projects whilst others seem only now legislative in name as no binding instrument properly speaking is foreseen anymore. Signature of the 2019 Judgments Convention is growing.

conclusions-decisions-cgap-hcch-march-2021Download

The conclusions and decisions are attached.

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=794