Abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU in the context of a digital market. The refusal by an undertaking holding a dominant position, which has developed a digital platform, to grant access to that platform to a third-party undertaking that has developed an application—thereby preventing interoperability between the platform and the application—may constitute an abusive exploitation of that dominant position.
The Council of State ruled that these provisions, in themselves, do not degrade the environment, as they are accompanied by counterbalances, such as the reduction of building coverage and the increase of public spaces. However, it deemed unconstitutional the ability of building authorities to issue permits deviating from the local urban planning framework. Furthermore, the exclusion of certain spaces, such as mezzanines and small structures on the rooftop, from the building coefficient was ruled unconstitutional, while other exceptions, such as bay windows and stairwells, were found to be in accordance with the Constitution. The decision takes into account the principle of legal certainty, stipulating that building permits implemented by 11.12.2024 will not be affected by the unconstitutionality ruling.
ECtHR Tsiolis v Greece (19.11.2024): the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece on the admissibility conditions for appeals violates the right of access to court.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Greece rejected his appeal for non-compliance with the admissibility requirements, considering that the issue of the compatibility of the contested provisions with the Constitution had already been confirmed by a robust case law. With regard to the argument concerning the lack of case-law, the Council of State set out its reasons and pointed out in particular in its judgment that that argument had been formulated in an affirmative and concise manner and that it had not clarified the legal issue in respect of which there was a lack of case-law. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the ECHR and awarded a sum of EUR 6,000 for non-material damage.
Τhe list of categories of gross income subject to taxation stipulated by the Greek Income Taxation Code is exhaustive and not indicative, and it is not possible to apply them in a proportional or broad interpretation manner to categories of income other than those expressly mentioned.
In 2020 Booking.com brought an action before the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdam District Court, the Netherlands), which is the referring court in the present case, seeking a judgment that the best price clauses which it uses do not infringe Article 101 TFEU and that the defendants in the main proceedings have not suffered damage as a result of those clauses. The latter sought, by way of counterclaim, a judgment that Booking.com had infringed Article 101 TFEU and an order that it pay damages for infringement of Article 101 TFEU.The CJEU held that Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that both broad and narrow best price clauses contained in agreements concluded between online hotel booking platforms and accommodation service providers do not fall outside the scope of that provision on the ground that they are allegedly ancillary to those agreements.
Balancing the public interest in informing the public with the public interest in preserving the secrecy of the criminal proceedings; in the present case, it was not necessary in order to inform the public to reproduce and present extensively extracts from documents and reports of the criminal proceedings (forensic and toxicological reports), accompanied by relevant assessments, since the objective of informing the public could be served by a general reference to the facts of the case and the general information gathered in the course of the criminal proceedings;
Following a petition by the Visoki trgovački sud, Croatian Court of Appeal for Commercial Disputes, in Financijska agencija v HANN-INVEST d.o.o. (C 554/21), MINERAL-SEKULINE d.o.o. (C 622/21) and UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB (C 727/21), concerning the interpretation of Article 19(1)(b) TEU and Article 47 TFEU, the CJEU has held that Article 19(b) TEU must be interpreted as precluding national law from providing for an internal mechanism of a national court under which a judgment delivered by the court formation to which a case has been assigned may be sent to the parties in order to bring the case to a conclusion only if the content of the judgment has been approved by a judge responsible for its registration who is not a member of that court formation.
