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.
The central axis of the new regulations remains the basic principle of arbitration upholding the autonomy of the parties, which is already excluded from article 1 of the Act where its purpose is defined and pervades all the provisions.The most important of the new provisions are those concerning the expansion of the arbitrability of disputes, the validity of the arbitration agreement, the proceedings of multilateral arbitrations, as well as the upgrading of the framework of the interim measures issued by the arbitration court and the annulment action against arbitral decisions.
Protection of intellectual property regarding computer programs; the fee paid for the granting of a license to use a computer program, distributed to general or specialized professionals, is the consideration, which the beneficiary claims from the end users; The copyright holder of the intellectual property right on a PC program cannot oppose to the resale of a licensed copy for unlimited use, whether material or immaterial. Evidence protection measures.
Citizens of third countries may complete their investment in one or more pieces of property in the areas of paragraph a, subpar. 2 of paragraph B of article 20 of Act 4251/2014, until December 31, 2023, with a minimum investment value of two hundred and fifty thousand (250,000) euros, subject to an advance payment of ten percent (10%) on the purchase or rental price of hotel accommodation or tourist accommodation until April 30, 2023. If the transaction of the property for which an advance of ten percent (10%) of the purchase price was given is not completed before April 30, 2023, the third country citizen may complete his investment in another or other pieces of property, with a minimum investment value of two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) euros and in any case no later than December 31, 2023.
The appeal concerned a request to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) submitted by the applicant in criminal proceedings against him and the alleged absence of any reasoning by the Supreme Court which implicitly rejected this request.
The applicant argued that, despite the relevant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court, the Court of Cassation did not even respond to his request, regarding reasonable doubts as to the correct interpretation of the applicable law, for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. Not only had the Supreme Court not considered the relevant criteria or provided reasons for its refusal to request a preliminary ruling, but it did not even mention the applicant’s request in its decision. The Court based its judgment on its established jurisprudence, according to which Article 6§1 imposes on national courts the obligation to give reasons, in the light of the applicable law, for decisions refusing to refer a preliminary question.
