|
|
|
| UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST WINS 2013 RENÉ CASSIN ADVOCACY COMPETITION | Students from the University of Bucharest were declared the winners of the 2013 edition
of the René Cassin competition for law students after beating a rival team from the
University of Limoges in the final round.
| | Published in 16-04-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
| FOOD-PROCESSING SUBSIDIES: “NO PROOF OF ADDED VALUE” SAY EU AUDITORS | Under the Common Agricultural Policy, EU rural development policy grants are made available to enterprises that process and market agricultural products through a measure called ‘Adding value to agricultural and forestry products’ that aims to improve the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry. The EU budget has earmarked € 5.6 billion in aid for 2007-2013. This financing is complemented by national spending, which brings the total public funding to € 9.0 billion.
| | Published in 10-04-2013 by EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS |
| THE REVISED EU FINANCIAL REGULATION: IMPROVING THE EU BUDGET? | [The revised EU Financial Regulation: Improving the EU budget?
ERA conference examined new elements introduced by the Regulation
If and when an agreement is found on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020, it will be the new Financial Regulation (FR), which took effect on 1 January 2013, that will govern how the budget is implemented and how the EU’s finances are controlled. A conference organised by ERA on 18 February 2013 in Brussels discussed th innovations contained in the revised FR and their effect in practice | | Published in 20-02-2013 by Europäische Rechtsakademie (ERA) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| THE GENERAL COURT PARTIALLY ANNULS THE COMMISSION’S DECISION RELATING TO A CARTEL ON THE MARINE HOSES MARKET | [In the Case of T-146/09 Parker ITR Srl and Parker-Hannifin Corp. v Commission , Joined Cases T-147/09 and T-148/09 Trelleborg Industrie SAS and Trelleborg AB v Commission and and Case T-154/09 Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (MRI) v Commission the General Court of the European Union
partially annuls the Commission’s Decision relating to a cartel on the marine hoses market.
The fine imposed on Parker ITR is reduced by €2 | | Published in 17-05-2013 by curia.europa.eu |
| GERMANY MAY PROVISIONALLY CONTINUE TO APPLY ITS EXISTING LIMIT VALUES FOR CERTAIN HEAVY METALS IN TOYS | In the case of T-198/12 R Germany v Commission the President of the General Court of the European Union considers that the Germany may provisionally continue to apply its existing limit values for certain heavy metals in toys.
Until the final decision of the General Court on the action brought by Germany against the Commission’s decision of 1 March 2012 to approve the existing limit values in Germany for lead and barium in toys only until 21 July 2013 ad to no longer approve those for antimony, arsenic and mercury, Germany may continue to apply its | | Published in 16-05-2013 by curia.europa.eu |
| RESTRICTIONS ON CHANGING PATRONYMIC UNJUSTIFIED | In its Chamber judgment in the case Garnaga v. Ukraine , which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
- a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[The case concerned the Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to allow Ms Garnaga to change her
patronymic – the middle name derived from the father’s forename.
The Court held in particular that the appliable law had not been clear enough and that
the authorities had not given a justification for t | | Published in 16-05-2013 by curia.europa.eu |
| GERMANY DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM | [In its Chamber judgment in the case Radu v. Germany , which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
-a no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
| | Published in 16-05-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
| GRAND CHAMBER HEARING CONCERNING ALLOWANCES FOR RESERVISTS WHO SERVED IN THE YUGOSLAV ARMY IN 1999 | The European Court of Human Rights is hold a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Vučković and Others v. Serbia (Application nos. 17153/11, 17157/11, 17160/11, 17163/11, 17168/11,
17173/11, 17178/11, 17181/11, 17182/11, 17186/11, 17343/11, 17344/11, 17362/11,
17364/11, 17367/11, 17370/11, 17372/11, 17377/11, 17380/11, 17382/11, 17386/11,
17421/11, 17424/11, 17428/11, 17431/11, 17435/11, 17438/11, 17439/11, 17440/11
and 17443/11).
The case concerns the payment of allownces to all reservists who served in the
Yugoslav Army during the North Atlantic Treaty Organisa | | Published in 15-05-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
| SWISS LAW NOT CLEAR ENOUGH AS TO WHEN ASSISTED SUICIDE IS PERMITTED | [In its Chamber judgment in the case Gross v. Switzerland , which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
- a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the complaint of an elderly woman, who wishes to end her life but
does not suffer from a clinical illness, that she was unable to obtain the Swiss
authorities’ permission to be provded with a lethal dose of a drug in order to commit
suicide | | Published in 14-05-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
| 98 PER CENT TAX ON PART OF THE SEVERANCE PAY OF A HUNGARIAN CIVIL SERVANT VIOLATED HER RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY | [In its Chamber judgment in the case N.K.M. v. Hungary , which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
- a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a civil servant who complained in particular that the imposition of a
98 per cent tax on part of her severance pay under a legislation entered into force ten
weeks before her dismissal hadmounted to an unjustified deprivation of property | | Published in 14-05-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
| AN INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION MUST BE LODGED WITH THE TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT BEFORE THE CASE CAN BE TAKEN TO STRASBOURG | [In its decision in the case of Hasan Uzun v. Turkey the
European Court of Human Rights has, by a majority (5 votes to 2) declared the
application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The Court reiterated that the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies was an
indispensible part of the functioning of the Convention mechanism. Having examined the
main aspects of the new remedy before the Turkish Constitutional Court, the Court found
that the Turkish Parlament had entrusted that court with powers that enabled it to
provide, in principle, direct and sp | | Published in 14-05-2013 by HUDOC European Court of Human Rights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|