Case C-274/05 Commission v Greece

Presudom od 23. listopada 2008. Europski sud utvrdio je da je Helenska republika povrijedila pravo Zajednice, preciznije, Direktivu 89/48, iz slijedećih razloga:

- by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by
the competent authorities of another Member State following education
and training provided within the framework of a homologation agreement;

– by providing for the application of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by Directive 89/48;

– by entrusting to the Saeitte the power
to assess whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant
completed his education and training belongs to the higher education
sector’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional
experience, in a case where the duration of the education and education
falls short by at least one year of that required in Greece in order to
pursue that profession’, and

– by not allowing, in the public sector,
the reclassification in a higher grade of persons recruited at a level
lower than that to which they would have been entitled if their
diplomas had been recognised in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
89/48

Link na presudu

Europski sud prijetnja državama članicama?

EU Observer donosi članak o Europskom sudu i stavu njemačkog Saveznog ustavnog suda prema njegovoj novijoj praksi.

Je li moguće da će Savezni ustavni sud ponovno pokušati ograničiti moć Europskog suda?

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - Judicial decision-making in Europe is in deep trouble. The reason is to be found in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), whose justifications for depriving member states of their very own fundamental competences and interfering heavily in their legal systems are becoming increasingly astonishing. In so doing, it has squandered a great deal of the trust it used to enjoy.

Hence, it is only logical that the German Federal Constitutional Court recently decided to intervene.

Link na članak

Predmet C-402/5 Kadi

Europski sud pravde donio je jučer dugo očekivanu odluku u predmetu Kadi. U Kadiju se je Sud bio suočen s pitanjem valjanosti Uredbe 881/2002 kojom je, između ostaloga, Europska Unija na svom području omogučila zamrzavanje imovine onih osoba i organizacija koje su prema Vijeću Sigurnosti UN-a bile u vezi s terorističkom mrežom Al-Qaeda. Uredba u tom smislu provodi u prevnom poretku EU Rezoluciju 1267 Vijeća Sigurnosti UN koja je usmjerenu k suzbijanju terorističkih djelatnosti Al-Qaedae.

Postupak je pokrenuo gosp. Kadi kojem je temeljem Uredbe zamrznuta sva imovina na području EU te su mu onemogućene financijskih transakcije bilo kakavog oblika. Kadi je u tužbi tvrdio da je Uredba nevaljana iz nekoliko razloga od kojih vrijedi izdvojiti krivu pravnu osnovu i kršenje temeljnih (ljudskih) prava.

Sud je u svojoj odluci našao da je Uredbom uistinu prekršno temeljno pravo gosp. Kadija na pravično suđenje jer mu Vijeće nikad nije objasnilo razloge (podastrijelo dokaze) zbog kojih je stavljen na listu osoba za koje se sumnja da surađuju s Al-Qaedaom te mu je onemogućilo korištenje prava na žalbu u odnosu na takvu odluku kojem se ograničava njegovo drugo temeljno pravo - pravo vlasništva. Stoga je Sud Uredbu proglasio nevaljanom.

Vrlo je vjerojatno da će odluka u predmetu Kadi podići znatnu prašinu ne samo među vladama država članica već i među EU pravnim stručnjacima. Poslije dva brza čitanja čini mi se da u odluci vrijedi obratiti posebnu pozornost na dva pitanja. Prvo pitanje tiče se argumenata vezanih uz pravnu osnovu na temelju kojih je donesena Uredba. Drugo pitanje odnosi se na ono što se vrlo široko naziva uvjetom razmjernosti tj. testom proporcionalnosti. Naime, Kadi postavlja pitanje koji oblik (test) odnosno nivo zaštite temeljnih prava je Sud primjenio u ovom predmetu i da li je time odstupio odnosno dalje razvio svoju praksu glede uloge uvjeta razmjernosti pri zaštiti temeljnih prava u pravnom poretku EU.

Kako bi potaknuo daljnu raspravu izlažem dvije observacije/tvrdnje do kojih sam došao nakon dva čitanja "na brzaka":

1) U odnosu na pitanje valjanosti pravnog temelja sporne Uredbe Zajednice kojom se u biti išlo za postizanjem cilja (zaštita međunarodnog poretka i sigurnosti od terorizma) koji spada u Unijino područje (stup) zajedničke vanjske politike i politike sigurnosti Sud je zauzeo prilično nekoherentno i (namjerno?) neodređeno stajalište (posebno vidi para. 226-230) Ukratko, čini mi se da je Kadijem širom otvorena mogućnost da se države članice prilično lagano koristite sekundarnim propisima koji pripadaju instrumentariju Zajednice kako bi postigle ciljeve koji pripadaju u druga dva stupa Unije. Drugim riječima, stupovi su se ozbiljno nakrivili i samo što nisu pali.

2) Što se tiče uloge uvjeta/testa razmjernosti (proporcionalnosti) pri zaštiti temeljnih prava čini mi se da je Sud zauzeo stajalište da sam test proporcionalnosti u biti u neku ruku podlježe "testu proporcionalnosti". Ukratko, ovisno o vrijednosti cilja koji se želi postići spornom mjerom koja ograničava neko temeljno pravo Sud će primjeniti određeni (stroži ili opušteniji) obilik kontrole dopuštenosti takve mjere. To znači da ne postoji jedan već nekoliko oblika tzv. testa razmjernost, iako je vjerojatno korisnije govoriti o oblicima kontrole dopuštenosti nego o testu razmjernosti U tom smislu, što je vrijednost cilja kojeg Unija/država želi postići nekom mjerom veća Sud će biti skloniji primjeniti opušteniji oblik kontrole njene dopuštenosti i obrnuto. Tako mi se čini da u Kadiju možemo prije pričati o testu razumnost nego o testu najmanje ograničavajućeg sredstva (tj. testu nužnosti) koji do sada bio vrlo bitan element uvjeta (testa) razmejrnosti u praksi Suda (vidi para. 359 - 369.). Ovakva vrsta sudskog balansiranja nije nešto neobično jer npr. slično (iako nikako ne isto) balansiranje možemo naći i u praksi Vrhovnog suda SAD-a pri ocjenjivanju ustavnosti vladinih mjera i odluka kojima se dira u interese pojedinaca koji uživaju ustavnopravnu zaštitu.

Case C-308/06, Intertanko

Kada se pred nacionalnim sudom poziva na nevaljanost (invalidity) sekundarnog izvora prava Zajednice, te kada o tome odlučuje Europski sud (čl. 234), valjanost prava Zajednice ocjenjuje se u svjetlu svih pravnih pravila međunarodnog prava, uz dva uvjeta:

1. Zajednica mora biti obvezana tim pravilima;
2. Europski sud može ispitivati valjanost sekundarnog prava zajednice u svjetlu međunarodnog ugovora samo onda kada narav i široka logika takvog ugovora to ne isključuju, te kada su odredbe međunarodnog ugovora po svom sadržaju bezuvjetne i dovoljno precizne (tj. kada mogu imati izravni učinak).

Link na presudu

Link na ECJ blog

C‑127/08 Metock and Others

Državljani država članica i njihovi bračni drugovi koji su državljani trećih država, uspješno su se pozvali na Direktivu 2004/38/EC kako bi osporili deportaciju iz Irske, a da prethodno nisu imali zakonito boravište u EU.

Do sada su se državljani država članica koji su u braku s državljanima trećih država mogli pozivati na slobodu kretanja samo ukoliko bi njihovi partneri imali prethodno zakonito boravište (prior legal residence) na području neke od država članica.

Riječima Europskog suda:

"[N]ational of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State."

Link na presudu ECJ-a

Presuda već ima političke reperkusije u Danskoj!

Case C‑94/07 Raccanelli

Doktorski studenti mogu se smatrati radnicima u smislu Čl.39 ako primaju naknadu za svoj rad. Čl. 39 je horizontalno izravno primjenjiv. Evo što kaže ECJ:

1. A researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration. It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it.

2. A private-law association, such as the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must observe the principle of non-discrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC. It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.

3. In the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.

Puni tekst presude

Direktiva 2000/78/EC odnosi se i na zabranu izravne diskriminacije roditelja čije je dijete hendikepirano

U predmetu C-303/06 S. Coleman v Attridge Law and Steve Law Europski sud odlučio je da navedenu direktivu valja interpretirati na način da se zabrana izravne diskriminacije koju propisuje ne ograničava samo na osobe koje su same hendikepirane.

Kada poslodavac prema zaposleniku koji nije sam hendikepiran postupa lošije nego što postupa, ili je postupao, ili bi postupao prema nekom drugom zaposleniku u usporedivoj situaciji, te kada se utvrdi da je manje povoljno postupanje prema tom zaposleniku zasnovano na činjenici da ima hendikepirano dijete, za kojega se brine prvenstveno taj zaposlenik, takvo je postupanje suprotno zabrani izravne diskriminacije propisanoj tom Direktivom.

Case C 268/06, Impact

Case C 268/06, Impact

Ukoliko nacionalno pravo sadrži pravno pravilo koje zabranjuje retroaktivnu primjenu propisa, nacionalni sud koji odlučuje o odluci o povredi nacionalnog prava koje provodi direktivu ima obavezu dati odredbama takvog provedbenog propisa retroaktivni učinak do dana kada je direktiva morala biti prenesena u nacionalno pravo, ali samo ukoliko nacionalno pravo sadrži naznaku da bi takvi provedbeni propisi mogli imati retroaktivni učinak.

Više na ECJ Blogu

Izvansudska nagodba FSU-Viking Line

Finnish Seamen's Union and Viking Line bury hatchet -YLE

9.4.2008 at 20:17

The Finnish Seamen's Union and Viking Line have settled a drawnout dispute outside the European Court of Justice, the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) reported Wednesday.

YLE's A-studio programme, to be aired later Wednesday evening, will report that the parties have signed a secret agreement in March halting legal action over the registering of a Viking Line ferry in Estonia.

Both sides had incurred sizeable legal bills and there was no firm date for the resumption of the legal process.

In 2003, Viking Line said it would reflag MS Rosella in Estonia. The Finnish union responded by issuing a strike notice and was backed by the International Transport Workers' Federation.

Viking Line found the industrial action illegal and took the matter to a UK court, which subsequently produced a ruling widely thought to support the employer side. The union says an EU court ruling last year contradicts the British court's.

The row between Viking Line and the Finnish Seamen's Union had repercussions for the entire EU as a firm court ruling on the matter would have set the boundaries of industrial action aiming to prevent a company from relocating to another EU member state.

One of the key principles of the EU is the freedom of establishment.

/STT/

© Copyright STT 2008

C-346/06 Rüffert

EU trade unions condemn court for minimum wage ruling

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - European trade unions have strongly criticised the latest EU court judgement on the right of member states to set minimum wages for foreign workers saying it is an "invitation to social dumping."

The judgement, delivered on Thursday (3 April) by the bloc's highest court, concerned a Polish subcontractor of German company Objekt und Bauregie which paid employees only 46.5% of the minimum wage prescribed by Lower Saxony for work on a public site. The court found in favour of the company on grounds of the freedom to provide services, one of the core principles of the EU's internal market.

Read more: EUobserver

C-267/06 Maruko

Same-sex couples score victory on pension rights

(EUObserver)

The EU's top court has boosted the rights of same-sex couples, after ruling that a person is entitled to their dead partner's pension in all EU states that treat homosexual partnerships similarly to marriages.

The ruling by the European Court of Justice, announced on Tuesday (1 April), comes in response to a case triggered by a German citizen, Tadao Maruko, in 2005. After Mr Maruko's partner died, a German pension fund refused to pay him any survivor's benefits, claiming that only married couples have a right to a widower's pension. But the Luxembourg-based court found that this violated EU law, outlining a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

Read more: EUobserver

T-229/02 PKK v. Council

Court annuls decision to put PKK on EU terror list

03.04.2008 - 17:30 CET | By Honor Mahony

An EU court has annulled a decision by EU member states to put the Kurdish rebel group PKK on the bloc's terror list.

The court of first instance, the EU's second highest court, said putting the group on the list and freezing its assets was illegal because the decision had not been properly justified.

The PKK started an armed struggle to set up a Kurdish state in south-eastern Turkey in 1984. Turkey says it is responsible for around 40,000 deaths since this date. The US also considers the PKK to be a terrorist group.

The court has struck similar blows to the standing of the EU terror list in the past. In July last year it overturned a decision by member states to freeze the assets of Philippine rebel leader Jose Maria Sison and the Al-Aqsa foundation, based in the Netherlands.

It found that the EU had breached the rights of both parties by not telling them why their assets had been frozen.

In December 2006, the court found that member states had failed to give sufficient reasons for including exiled Iranian opposition group, the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) on the list.

The EU's terror list has also come up for criticism from other quarters. The Council of Europe, the continent's human rights watchdog, recently said that the procedures used by both the European Union and the United Nations to include individuals or organisations on the list was "completely arbitrary."

According to a report made by the organisation, once on the list "it is almost impossible" to get off - the PMOI group remains on the list.

The EU has blacklisted around 50 people or groups including the radical Palestinian group Hamas and the Basque separatists, ETA.

The list was established in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.