10 Februar 2025
NEWS FROM THE COURTS
CJEU judgments
Balance between mutual recognition of judgments and freedom of expression
Real Madrid sought enforcement in France of a Spanish judgment ordering Le Monde and its journalist to pay damages for defamation. The French Court of Appeal refused, citing public policy concerns and arguing that excessive damages could chill press freedom. The case was appealed to the French Court of Cassation, which asked the CJEU to clarify the balance between enforcing foreign judgments and protecting freedom of expression under Article 11 of the Charter.
The CJEU ruled that enforcement of a judgment must be refused if it would result in a manifest breach of press freedom, constituting a violation of public policy. Courts assessing enforcement must consider whether the damages awarded are disproportionate and risk deterring journalistic activity. However, they may not reassess the merits of the original judgment. This decision reinforces the importance of protecting press freedom while ensuring mutual recognition of judgments within the EU.
Clarifications on national courts’ referral obligations
Kubera, a Slovenian company, challenged a decision by the Slovenian Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal on a point of law regarding the detention of imported goods under EU customs regulations. Kubera argued that the court failed to consider its request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the interpretation of Regulation No 608/2013 and that the decision lacked proper reasoning, violating Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The case raised questions about the obligation of national courts to refer matters to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU.
The CJEU ruled that a national supreme court, against whose decisions there is no further judicial remedy, cannot reject an application for leave to appeal without first assessing whether a preliminary ruling is necessary. If the court decides not to refer, it must provide adequate reasoning, demonstrating that the question is irrelevant, already settled, or so clear that no doubt exists. The judgment reinforces the obligation of national courts to ensure the uniform interpretation of EU law and upholds procedural fairness. Consequently, the Slovenian Supreme Court must comply with these requirements when handling similar cases.
Judicial appointments affecting the rule of law
A Polish company challenged a competition law ruling before the Supreme Court of Poland, arguing that a judge lacked independence due to flaws in the appointment process. A single judge, whose own appointment was contested, referred the case to the CJEU, asking whether EU law allows challenges based solely on appointment irregularities without proof of bias or external influence.
The CJEU ruled the request inadmissible, holding that the referring judge did not constitute a „court or tribunal“ under Article 267 TFEU due to systemic flaws in their appointment. It reaffirmed that judicial independence requires a lawful appointment process and that doubts about a judge’s legitimacy can undermine public confidence in the judiciary. This decision strengthens EU oversight of judicial appointments affecting the rule of law.
Judicial independence in Poland
A Polish company challenged a first-instance judgment, arguing that the judge who decided the case had been improperly assigned in violation of national rules on case allocation. However, Polish law prevented the appellate court from reviewing such irregularities, raising concerns about judicial independence and effective legal protection under EU law. The Polish Court of Appeal referred the matter to the CJEU, questioning whether this restriction was compatible with the EU’s fundamental principles.
The CJEU ruled that national laws preventing appellate courts from reviewing irregular case assignments violate the requirement for an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 19(1) TEU, read in light of Article 2 TEU and Article 47 of the Charter. It emphasized that courts must be able to assess whether case allocations comply with the law to ensure judicial independence and the rule of law. Consequently, Poland must allow judicial review of such procedural irregularities.
Judicial impartiality safeguards
Vivacom Bulgaria sought compensation for damages from a Supreme Administrative Court ruling that misapplied EU VAT law. As the court was both defendant and final adjudicator, concerns arose over judicial impartiality. The Bulgarian Supreme Administrative Court asked the CJEU whether this complied with EU rules on independent and impartial tribunals under Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter.
The CJEU ruled that a national court can adjudicate a case where it is a defendant, provided sufficient safeguards exist to ensure impartiality. The ruling emphasized that judges deciding the case must not have participated in the earlier proceedings, and budgetary rules must prevent financial dependence on case outcomes. The judgment affirms that judicial independence must be protected to maintain public trust in the legal system.
Advocate General Opinions
Limits on the right to information in MEP expenses cases.
The European Parliament appealed a ruling annulling its decision to recover unduly paid parliamentary assistance expenses from an MEP. The General Court found that the Parliament wrongly withheld key documents, affecting the MEP’s defense. The Parliament argued the ruling misinterpreted the burden of proof and expanded the right to be heard under Article 41(2) of the Charter.
Advocate General Medina recommended setting aside the General Court’s ruling, concluding that the Parliament was not obliged to disclose broad categories of documents without a specific justification from the MEP. The opinion emphasized that MEPs bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of expenses and that the Parliament’s refusal to disclose certain documents was justified under EU data protection rules. This reinforces the limits of procedural rights in financial recovery cases.
ECtHR judgments
Proportionality of fine for participation in ‚Yellow Vests‘ Protest“
The Court, in this case, ruled that a fine imposed on the applicant for participating in a banned demonstration during the „yellow vests“ protests did not violate Article 11 (freedom of assembly). The court found the ban was justified due to prior incidents of violence and the lack of prior notification from organizers. Additionally, the police response was measured, involving only an identity check rather than arrests. The legal framework was deemed accessible and foreseeable, with sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness. The enforcement measures against the applicant were considered proportionate, leading to a unanimous conclusion of no violation of rights.
Reopening of case and fair trial rights
The Court here found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Despite serving half of his two-year sentence and being released on parole, the applicant’s prison term was increased after a cassation appeal by the Prosecutor General. According to the ECtHR, the Polish Supreme Court failed to address significant flaws in the original proceedings and neglected the applicant’s circumstances, leading to an unfair re-examination of his case. This case highlights the conflict between individual legal certainty and state prosecutorial power, with the arbitrary reopening of proceedings undermining fairness and public trust in the judicial system.
Access to case-law inherent in the right to fair trial
The case concerns the applicant’s claim for compensation due to property deprivation and its subsequent dismissal by the Greek Supreme Administrative Court. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Right to Fair Trial) due to the excessively formalistic approach of the Greek court, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal for failing to cite relevant case-law or prove its absence. The ECtHR noted that this requirement placed an unreasonable burden on the applicant, especially given the lack of an accessible case-law database. The court emphasized that procedural rules must not be applied so rigidly that they prevent meaningful access to justice, concluding that the Greek court’s approach impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right to a fair trial.
Proportionality in procedural sanctions
In this case, the court found that the rejection of the applicant’s appeal due to the late submission of a judgment violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicant’s lawyer’s error in document transmission did not cause any delay in the appeal process, and the strict application of procedural rules was unnecessary. The ruling emphasized the need for proportionality in procedural sanctions, advocating for a balance between legal security and avoiding excessive formalism. It also highlighted the importance of access to justice, suggesting that procedural errors should not prevent the resolution of disputes on their merits, and called for more flexible interpretations of procedural requirements, especially when the errors are minimal and do not affect the proceedings.
Procedural safeguards for journalist challenging alleged secret surveillance
In this case, the ECtHR ruled in favor of journalist Klaudia Csikós, finding that Hungary violated her rights under Article 8 (Right to Private Life) and Article 10 (Freedom of Expression). Csikós alleged that her phone was tapped to identify her sources while reporting on a high-profile murder case. The Court found that Hungarian law lacked adequate safeguards against secret surveillance and failed to provide effective remedies for challenging such measures. The surveillance violated press freedom, exposed confidential sources, and had a chilling effect on journalism. The authorities did not justify the necessity or proportionality of the surveillance.
Balancing free speech and protection against defamation
In this case, the ECtHR addressed the defamation conviction of the director and journalists of “Le Point” for an article implicating Jean-François Copé in financial misconduct related to the 2012 presidential campaign. The Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations and the lack of sufficient factual basis to justify the claims made. It noted that while the article addressed a matter of public interest, the applicants failed to demonstrate good faith or prudence in their reporting. Ultimately, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention, as such upholding defamation convictions while ensuring the penalties remained proportionate and not excessively restrictive of expression rights.
Presumption of innocence and legal certainty
This case concerned the confiscation of the applicants‘ assets, deemed to be the proceeds of crime, despite the criminal proceedings being discontinued due to the statute of limitations. The European Court of Human Rights examined whether this violated legal certainty, the presumption of innocence, and property rights. The Court ruled that there was no violation of the principle of legal certainty under Article 6 § 1, as the mechanism to resolve diverging case law in Italy had ultimately been effective. However, it found a violation of the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2, as the domestic courts had explicitly stated that the first applicant was criminally liable despite the discontinuance of the proceedings.
Ineffective investigation into ill-treatment allegations
In this instance, the case concerned alleged police brutality against three Roma applicants and the authorities’ failure to investigate. The applicants also claimed racial motivation. The Court found a procedural violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) due to the ineffective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. It also found a substantive violation of Article 3 for excessive use of force against two of the applicants. However, regarding the second applicant, the Court ruled that his minor abrasions did not meet the Article 3 threshold. Additionally, while the authorities failed to investigate possible racial discrimination (Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3), the Court did not find sufficient evidence to establish that racism played a role in the applicants‘ ill-treatment.
