Agrégateur de flux

109/2019 : 12 septembre 2019 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-683/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 09/12/2019 - 09:53
Cofemel
Liberté d'établissement
La protection au titre du droit d’auteur ne peut pas être accordée à des modèles au seul motif que, au-delà de leur objectif utilitaire, ceux-ci produisent un effet esthétique spécifique

Catégories: Flux européens

109/2019 : 12 septembre 2019 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-683/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 09/12/2019 - 09:53
Cofemel
Liberté d'établissement
La protection au titre du droit d’auteur ne peut pas être accordée à des modèles au seul motif que, au-delà de leur objectif utilitaire, ceux-ci produisent un effet esthétique spécifique

Catégories: Flux européens

108/2019 : 12 septembre 2019 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-299/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 09/12/2019 - 09:52
VG Media
Rapprochement des législations
La disposition allemande interdisant aux moteurs de recherche d’utiliser des « snippets » de presse sans l'autorisation de l'éditeur n’est pas applicable faute de notification préalable à la Commission

Catégories: Flux européens

108/2019 : 12 septembre 2019 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-299/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 09/12/2019 - 09:52
VG Media
Rapprochement des législations
La disposition allemande interdisant aux moteurs de recherche d’utiliser des « snippets » de presse sans l'autorisation de l'éditeur n’est pas applicable faute de notification préalable à la Commission

Catégories: Flux européens

107/2019 : 10 septembre 2019 - Arrêt du Tribunal dans l'affaire T-883/16

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - mer, 09/11/2019 - 13:51
Pologne / Commission
Énergie
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission approuvant la modification du régime dérogatoire d’exploitation du gazoduc OPAL

Catégories: Flux européens

107/2019 : 10 septembre 2019 - Arrêt du Tribunal dans l'affaire T-883/16

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - mer, 09/11/2019 - 13:51
Pologne / Commission
Énergie
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission approuvant la modification du régime dérogatoire d’exploitation du gazoduc OPAL

Catégories: Flux européens

Short-term consultancy: Report on specific aspects relating to the HCCH’s ongoing legislative project on Tourists and Visitors

Conflictoflaws - mer, 09/11/2019 - 11:27

The HCCH is seeking to retain a Consultant who will conduct a study and draft a further Report on specific aspects relating to the HCCH’s ongoing legislative project on Tourists and Visitors.

Interested? For more information, follow this link to the vacancy announcement.

Principles, principles everywhere. First test of the ‘energy solidarity’ principle in Poland v EC (Nordstream /Gazprom).

GAVC - mer, 09/11/2019 - 11:11

As I continue to dabble in research and talks about the innovation ‘principle’ (not in existence), and find myself in court (an attachment procedure following judgment in Israel) discussing the common law principle that ‘he who comes to equity must approach the court with clean hands’, the CJEU (General Court) yesterday in T-883/16 held Poland v EC a first test of the TFEU Energy title’s ‘principle of energy solidarity’. Note Poland’s litigant friends (Latvia; Lithuania), and the EC’s (Germany). This tells you something about energy security of supply on our Eastern borders.

Article 194 TFEU: ‘1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:…’

The gas pipeline Ostseepipeline-Anbindungsleitung ﴾OPAL) is the terrestrial section to the west of the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline. Its entry point is located in Germany and its exit point is in the Czech Republic. In 2009, the Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA, the German regulatory authority) notified the Commission of two decisions that exempted the capacities for cross-border transmission of the planned OPAL pipeline from the application of the rules on third party access and tariff regulation laid down in Directive 2003/55. Those decisions concerned the shares belonging to the two owners of the OPAL pipeline. The same year, the Commission adopted a decision by which it requested the BNetzA to modify its decisions by adding certain conditions. Under those conditions, in particular, a dominant undertaking, such as Gazprom, could reserve only 50% of the cross-border capacities of the OPAL pipeline, unless it released onto the market a
volume of gas of 3 billion m³/year on that pipeline (‘the gas release programme’). In accordance with those three decisions of 2009, the capacities of the OPAL pipeline were exempted from the application of the rules on regulated third-party access and tariff regulation on the basis of Directive 2003/55. This decision was later (2016) slightly amended albeit not in substance.

Poland argue that the grant of a new exemption relating to the OPAL pipeline threatens the security of gas supply in the European Union, in particular in central Europe. Poland suggests that the 2016 decision breaches the principle of energy solidarity in that it enables Gazprom and undertakings in the Gazprom group to redirect additional volumes of gas onto the EU market by fully exploiting the capacities of the North Stream 1 pipeline. Taking into account the lack of significant growth in demand for natural gas in central Europe, according to Poland, that would, as its only possible consequence, influence the conditions of supply and use of transmission services on the pipelines competing with OPAL.

The General Court yesterday (the case no doubt may be appealed) held that the application of the principle of energy solidarity does not mean that the EU energy policy must never have negative impacts on the particular interests of a Member State in the field of energy. However, the EU institutions and the Member States are required to take into account, in the context of the implementation of that policy, the interests both of the European Union and of the various Member States and to balance those interests where there is a conflict. In neither the preparation of the 2016 decision nor its actual content is there any trace of the EC having considered the principle and its impact: the Decision is therefore annulled.

The case adds to the corpus of judgments where the CJEU is called upon to apply ‘principles’ and clearly emphasises preparatory due diligence, rather than second-guessing the actual application of the principle in substance.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Environmental Law (with Leonie Reins), 2017, Part I Chapter 2.

 

Conference on Jurisdiction clauses on November 21 in Paris

Conflictoflaws - mer, 09/11/2019 - 08:35

Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2) University will host a conference on November 21 on jurisdiction clauses: “La clause attributive de juridiction : de la prévisibilité au désordre”.

The first part of the conference is dedicated to the factors of disorder, such as the application of the clauses in financial matters, the implications of personal data protection, and other limits to the clauses’ effectiveness. The second part will discuss ways to enhance the protection afforded to the parties by jurisdiction clauses.

The conference will take place in the Salle des Conseils, 12 place du Panthéon 75005, Paris.

Registration is open until November 8th.

The full programme is available here

 

 

Pages

Sites de l’Union Européenne

 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer