Here’s a concise review of the key legal acts:
Emergency Market Procedures
Two major acts establish emergency procedures for product conformity during market crises:
– A Regulation amending 6 existing EU regulations for construction products, cableways, protective equipment, gas appliances, product safety and machinery
– A Directive modifying 10 existing directives covering outdoor equipment, machinery, pressure equipment, electromagnetic compatibility, lifts, and radio equipment
Internal Market Emergency Framework (IMERA)
Creates a comprehensive crisis response system with:
– An Emergency and Resilience Board for coordination
– Two emergency modes: vigilance and full emergency
– Rules for joint procurement and information sharing
– Restrictions on limiting free movement during crises
Merger Control Updates
Technical corrections to merger notification forms including:
– New 500-word limit for non-confidential summaries
– Modified market share calculation requirements
– Updated definitions of affected markets
– Clarified requirements for joint ventures
Reporting Requirements Simplification
Two acts reduce administrative burdens:
– A Directive modifying reporting in food safety, noise, healthcare and radio equipment
– A Regulation streamlining requirements for fishery products and vehicle approvals
Dual-Use Items Control
Updates technical specifications for dual-use items covering:
– Nuclear materials and equipment
– Special materials and electronics
– Telecommunications and sensors
– Navigation and aerospace items
– Detailed parameters for nuclear facility components
Fisheries Closures
Two regulations establishing fishing prohibitions:
– French vessels banned from fishing saithe in Norwegian waters
– French vessels banned from fishing common sole in specific maritime areas
Both closures effective July 26, 2024 due to quota exhaustion
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Regulation (EU) 2024/2748 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 amending Regulations (EU) No 305/2011, (EU) 2016/424, (EU) 2016/425, (EU) 2016/426, (EU) 2023/988 and (EU) 2023/1230 as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to an internal market emergency (Text with EEA relevance)
This Regulation amends several EU regulations to establish emergency procedures for product conformity assessment and market surveillance during internal market emergencies. The key aspects include:The Regulation introduces changes to six existing EU regulations covering construction products, cableway installations, personal protective equipment, gas appliances, general product safety, and machinery to enable faster market access for crisis-relevant goods during emergencies while maintaining safety standards.The main provisions establish:
- Priority processing of conformity assessments for crisis-relevant goods by notified bodies
- Temporary national authorizations for placing products on the market without full conformity assessment procedures
- Alternative ways to demonstrate product safety compliance through national or international standards
- Enhanced market surveillance and cooperation between national authorities
- Special labeling and traceability requirements for crisis-relevant goods
The Regulation aims to provide flexibility during crises while preserving the integrity of the CE marking system and maintaining consumer confidence in product safety. It establishes parallel emergency procedures that can be activated during internal market emergencies to ensure critical products can reach the market more quickly when needed.
Regulation (EU) 2024/2747 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 establishing a framework of measures related to an internal market emergency and to the resilience of the internal market and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 (Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act) (Text with EEA relevance)
The Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act (IMERA) establishes a comprehensive framework for anticipating, preparing for and responding to crises affecting the EU internal market. It aims to safeguard the free movement of goods, services and persons, ensure availability of critical goods and services, and prevent disruptions to the internal market during emergencies. The Act creates mechanisms for coordination between Member States and EU institutions during crises.The Act has the following main structural elements:
- Establishes an Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Board to coordinate crisis response
- Creates a contingency planning framework including stress tests, training and voluntary crisis protocols
- Introduces two emergency modes: vigilance mode for potential crises and emergency mode for actual crises
- Sets rules for public procurement during emergencies, including joint procurement
- Provides mechanisms for information sharing and coordination between Member States
Key provisions include:
- Prohibition of certain restrictions on free movement during emergencies
- Requirements for Member States to coordinate procurement of critical goods
- Powers for the Commission to request information from companies and prioritize production
- Creation of single points of contact in each Member State
- Rules on data protection and confidentiality
- Requirements for digital tools to support implementation
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2776 of 31 October 2024 correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/914 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004
This Regulation corrects several inaccuracies found in the notification forms contained in the Annexes to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/914, which deals with the control of concentrations between undertakings. The corrections aim to ensure precise and accurate information requirements for merger notifications in the EU.The act makes technical amendments to three annexes of Regulation 2023/914:
- Annex I – corrections to definitions, introduction of new requirements for non-confidential summaries, and updates to tables regarding market shares and horizontal overlaps
- Annex II – modifications to notification tables, turnover information requirements, and clarifications regarding joint ventures
- Annex III – amendments to definitions and submission requirements
Key provisions include:
- Updated definition of ‘affected markets’ in relation to parties’ activities overlap
- New requirements for non-confidential summaries limited to 500 words for publication
- Modified thresholds and conditions for market share calculations in horizontal and vertical relationships
- Clarified requirements for information about marketed products and pipeline products
- Updated forms and tables for merger notifications with specific focus on joint ventures and market share information
Directive (EU) 2024/2749 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2006/42/EC, 2010/35/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU and 2014/68/EU as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, presumption of conformity, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to an internal market emergency (Text with EEA relevance)
This Directive amends ten existing EU Directives related to product safety and conformity assessment to establish emergency procedures during internal market crises. The key aspects include:The Directive introduces new provisions for crisis situations when certain goods are designated as ‘crisis-relevant’. It establishes procedures for expedited conformity assessment and market access for such goods during an internal market emergency mode.The main changes include:
- Prioritization requirements for conformity assessment bodies to fast-track applications for crisis-relevant goods
- Temporary derogations allowing national authorities to authorize market access without full conformity assessment procedures in emergency situations
- New mechanisms for establishing presumption of conformity based on alternative standards or common specifications during crises
- Enhanced market surveillance and cooperation requirements between national authorities
The Directive amends the following existing Directives:
- Outdoor Equipment Noise Directive (2000/14/EC)
- Machinery Directive (2006/42/EC)
- Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (2010/35/EU)
- Simple Pressure Vessels Directive (2014/29/EU)
- Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive (2014/30/EU)
- Lifts Directive (2014/33/EU)
- ATEX Directive (2014/34/EU)
- Low Voltage Directive (2014/35/EU)
- Radio Equipment Directive (2014/53/EU)
- Pressure Equipment Directive (2014/68/EU)
The emergency procedures will only apply when specifically activated by the Commission during an internal market emergency and only for products designated as crisis-relevant goods. Member States must transpose these changes by May 29, 2026.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2844 of 31 October 2024 establishing a fisheries closure for saithe in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 for vessels flying the flag of France
This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for saithe in Norwegian waters for French vessels due to quota exhaustion. The regulation prohibits French vessels from fishing saithe in specific Norwegian waters (areas 1 and 2) from July 26, 2024, as France has exhausted its allocated fishing quota for 2024.The regulation consists of three main articles: Article 1 declares the exhaustion of the French fishing quota for saithe, Article 2 establishes specific prohibitions and requirements, and Article 3 deals with the entry into force of the regulation. The Annex provides specific details about the closure, including the affected species, zones, and closing date.Key provisions include:
– Complete prohibition of searching for fish, shooting, setting, or hauling fishing gear for saithe by French vessels
– Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
– Requirement to record and count unintended catches against quotas
– Obligation to bring and retain unintended catches on board and land them in accordance with EU regulations
Directive (EU) 2024/2839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Directives 1999/2/EC, 2000/14/EC, 2011/24/EU and 2014/53/EU as regards certain reporting requirements in the fields of food and food ingredients, outdoor noise, patients’ rights, and radio equipment (Text with EEA relevance)
This Directive aims to streamline and simplify reporting requirements across several EU directives related to food safety, outdoor noise, healthcare, and radio equipment. It modifies four existing directives to reduce administrative burdens while maintaining policy objectives, targeting a 25% reduction in reporting requirements.The Directive’s structure includes amendments to four key EU directives:
- Directive 1999/2/EC on food and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation – removes annual reporting requirements as they are covered by Regulation 2017/625
- Directive 2000/14/EC on outdoor noise equipment – eliminates redundant documentation and data collection requirements
- Directive 2011/24/EU on cross-border healthcare – changes reporting frequency from three to five years
- Directive 2014/53/EU on radio equipment – reduces reporting frequency from two to five years
Key provisions include:
- Member States must only report facility details for ionising radiation treatment of food, not annual check results
- Removal of requirements for manufacturers to send conformity declarations for outdoor equipment to authorities
- Next report on cross-border healthcare implementation due in 2027
- Member States must submit radio equipment compliance reports by December 2027 and every 5 years thereafter
- Implementation deadline for Member States is set for November 28, 2025
Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2845 of 31 October 2024 establishing a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7h, 7j and 7k for vessels flying the flag of France
This Commission Regulation establishes a fisheries closure for common sole in specific maritime areas (7h, 7j and 7k) for French vessels due to the exhaustion of France’s fishing quota for 2024. The regulation implements specific prohibitions on fishing activities for this species in these areas.The regulation consists of three main articles that outline quota exhaustion, specific prohibitions, and entry into force provisions. It includes an annex specifying the details of the closure, including the affected Member State, stock, species, zone, and closing date (26 July 2024).Key provisions include:
– A complete prohibition on searching for, shooting, setting, or hauling fishing gear for common sole by French vessels in the specified areas
– Permission to process and land catches taken prior to the closure date
– Requirements for handling unintended catches, which must be recorded, landed, and counted against quotas
– The regulation applies to all French vessels and is binding in its entirety across all EU Member States
Regulation (EU) 2024/2838 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 amending Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013, (EU) No 167/2013 and (EU) No 168/2013 as regards certain reporting requirements (Text with EEA relevance)
This Regulation aims to streamline and simplify reporting requirements in three specific EU regulations related to fishery products, agricultural vehicles, and two/three-wheel vehicles. It removes unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining essential monitoring mechanisms.The Regulation makes amendments to three existing EU regulations:
- Regulation 1379/2013 on fishery and aquaculture products – removes the requirement for Member States to provide lists of experts and trade organizations for grading fishery products
- Regulation 167/2013 on agricultural and forestry vehicles – eliminates reporting obligations regarding type-approval procedures and individual vehicle approvals
- Regulation 168/2013 on two/three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles – removes similar reporting requirements about type-approval procedures and individual approvals
Key provisions include:
- Removal of outdated reporting requirements in the fisheries sector while maintaining other common marketing standards
- Elimination of redundant information obligations for vehicle approvals following a 2022 Commission study that confirmed satisfactory procedures
- Maintenance of all other substantive requirements while only removing administrative reporting burdens
- The changes apply to all EU Member States and take effect 20 days after publication
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2547 of 5 September 2024 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items
Essence of the Act
This is a comprehensive technical regulation updating the EU’s control list of dual-use items (items that can be used for both civilian and military purposes). The regulation specifically modifies Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2021/821, providing detailed technical specifications and control parameters for various sensitive materials, equipment, and technologies. It represents a crucial update to ensure alignment with international non-proliferation commitments and security obligations.
Structure and Main Provisions
The regulation is structured with two operational articles and an extensive Annex I, which is divided into 11 distinct parts. The first part establishes general notes, acronyms, and definitions, while the subsequent parts (II-XI) detail specific technical categories including nuclear materials, special materials, electronics, computers, telecommunications, sensors/lasers, navigation, and aerospace items.The regulation provides extensive technical specifications for nuclear-related equipment and materials, including:
- Equipment for isotope separation plants and gas centrifuges
- Production equipment for heavy water and deuterium compounds
- Nuclear reactor fuel element fabrication equipment
- Plant equipment for reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel
- Conversion facilities for plutonium and uranium
Key Technical Provisions
The most significant technical provisions include:
- Detailed specifications for materials resistant to UF6 corrosion
- Technical parameters for controlled equipment and components
- Requirements for measurement and control systems in nuclear facilities
- Specifications for containment and handling systems of nuclear materials
- Control parameters for specially designed components and auxiliary systems
The regulation maintains strict technical controls while ensuring legitimate peaceful nuclear activities can proceed under appropriate safeguards. Each category includes precise technical specifications and thresholds that determine whether items fall under control requirements.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Centro di Assistenza Doganale (Cad) Mellano Srl v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli – Agenzia delle Dogane – Direzione Interregionale per la Liguria and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 18 – Customs representative – Freedom to provide services – Directive 2006/123/EC – Articles 10 and 15 – Customs assistance centres – Territorial limitation of the activity – Restriction – Justification.Case C-503/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU customs and services legislation regarding territorial restrictions on customs representatives in Italy. The key aspects are:1. The case examines whether Italian legislation restricting customs assistance centers (CADs) to operate only within their registered customs district complies with EU law.2. The Court analyzed three main legal frameworks:
- The EU Customs Code – which allows Member States to set conditions for customs representatives operating in their territory
- The EU Services Directive – which generally prohibits territorial restrictions unless justified
- EU Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services
3. The key findings were:
- The territorial restriction in Italian law falls within scope of the EU Services Directive
- While protecting against customs fraud could justify restrictions, Italy’s rules appear disproportionate because:
- They are not applied consistently (individual customs agents face no such restrictions)
- Less restrictive measures could achieve the same control objectives
- The Court concluded the Italian territorial restrictions likely violate EU law unless justified by specific circumstances to be verified by national courts
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.UD and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Ministero dell’Interno.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive 2004/80/EC – Article 12(2) – National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime – Homicide – Compensation for close family members of the deceased – Concept of ‘victim’ – ‘Tiered’ compensation scheme according to the order of succession – National legislation excluding the payment of compensation to other family members of the deceased when there are children or a surviving spouse – Parents and siblings of the deceased – ‘Fair and appropriate’ compensation.Case C-126/23.
The judgment concerns the interpretation of EU legislation regarding compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes, specifically in cases of homicide. Here are the key points:Essence of the act:
The Court ruled on whether EU law allows Member States to establish a tiered compensation scheme that excludes certain family members from receiving compensation based solely on the presence of other family members higher in the succession order. The case specifically dealt with Italian legislation that prevented parents from receiving compensation if there was a surviving spouse or children, and prevented siblings from receiving compensation if there were surviving parents.Structure and main provisions:
The Court analyzed Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC which requires Member States to ensure ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ to victims of violent intentional crimes. The Court determined that:- The concept of ‘victims’ includes both direct victims and their close family members who suffer consequences from the crime- Member States have discretion in establishing compensation schemes but cannot provide compensation that is purely symbolic or manifestly insufficient- Compensation must represent an appropriate contribution to repairing both material and non-material harm sufferedKey provisions for use:
The Court ruled that Member States cannot automatically exclude certain family members from all compensation solely because of the presence of other family members higher in the succession order. The compensation scheme must consider:- The material consequences for family members- Whether family members were dependents of the deceased- Whether family members lived with the deceased- The actual suffering and seriousness of consequences for each family memberThe judgment establishes that compensation schemes must look beyond mere family ties to assess the actual harm suffered by each potential beneficiary.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.C.W. S.A. and Others v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ – Judge of the Civil Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland) – Judge appointed by the President of the Republic of Poland on the basis of a resolution of the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council of the Judiciary, Poland) in its new composition – Reference for a preliminary ruling from a panel of judges without the status of an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Inadmissibility.Case C-326/23.
This judgment concerns the admissibility of a preliminary ruling request from a Polish Supreme Court judge regarding judicial independence requirements. The key aspects are:The case originated from competition law fines imposed on several companies in Poland. During the proceedings, one company challenged the independence of a judge appointed based on a resolution of the new National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).The Court of Justice examined whether the referring judge, who was appointed to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in 2018, constitutes a legitimate ‘court or tribunal’ under EU law. The key findings were:
- The judge was appointed based on a KRS resolution that was later annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court
- The appointment process had serious flaws identified by the European Court of Human Rights
- These circumstances created legitimate doubts about the judge’s independence and impartiality
The Court concluded that the referring judge did not qualify as a proper ‘court or tribunal’ under EU law due to irregularities in the appointment process. Therefore, the preliminary ruling request was declared inadmissible.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2024.XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 63(1) TFEU – Free movement of capital – Restrictions – Tax legislation – Corporation tax – Taxation of dividends – Equal treatment of resident and non-resident companies – National legislation reserving to resident companies the possibility of deducting from their taxable profits relating to dividends the expenses corresponding to their commitments to their customers under ‘unit-linked’ insurance contracts and of offsetting in full taxation of the dividends against corporation tax.Case C-782/22.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 63(1) TFEU regarding free movement of capital and tax treatment of dividends paid to resident vs non-resident companies.The case involves a dispute between XX (a UK insurance company) and Dutch tax authorities regarding refund of dividend tax levied in the Netherlands on dividends received between 2003-2010. The key aspects are:The Court analyzed whether Dutch legislation discriminates against non-resident companies by:
- Applying 15% dividend tax on gross dividends paid to non-resident companies
- While resident companies can offset dividend tax against corporation tax and deduct expenses from commitments to customers, resulting in nil effective taxation
The main provisions state that:
- The different tax treatment constitutes a restriction on free movement of capital prohibited by Article 63(1) TFEU
- Non-resident companies are in a comparable situation to resident companies regarding dividends if there is a direct link between dividends and customer commitments
- The restriction cannot be justified by need to preserve allocation of taxing powers or tax system coherence
The Court ruled that Article 63(1) TFEU precludes such discriminatory national legislation that results in higher effective taxation of dividends paid to non-resident companies compared to resident companies.
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.ERB New Europe Funding II v YI.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consumer protection – Directive 93/13/EEC – Article 7(1) – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Powers and obligations of the national court – First legal remedy pursued by the consumer before the court of the place where the seller or supplier has its registered office, without the assistance of a lawyer and without that consumer attending the hearing – Second legal remedy pursued by the consumer before the court of his or her place of domicile, with the assistance of a lawyer – Res judicata – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection of the consumer.Case C-178/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU consumer protection law, specifically regarding unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of res judicata (finality of court decisions). The case arose from a dispute between a debt collection company and a consumer in Romania regarding unfair terms in a credit agreement.The judgment’s structure consists of three main parts: examination of admissibility of the preliminary ruling request, analysis of the substance of the case, and the final ruling. The Court first confirms the admissibility of the case despite objections, then analyzes the balance between consumer protection and the principle of res judicata.The key provisions established by the Court are:
- A national court is not required to re-examine contract terms that were already examined by another court with final decision
- This applies even if the consumer was not represented by a lawyer or didn’t attend the hearing in the first proceedings
- However, this is conditional on:
- The decision being properly notified to the consumer
- Information about available remedies being provided
- No procedural irregularities that could have prevented the consumer from exercising their rights
The judgment significantly clarifies the relationship between consumer protection under EU law and the principle of res judicata, establishing clear conditions under which final court decisions on unfair contract terms must be respected.
Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Skatteministeriet v Lomoco Development ApS and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Supply of land that has only the foundations of residential housing structures in place – Classification – Article 12 – Concepts of ‘building land’ and ‘building or parts of a building’ – Criterion of the ‘first occupation’ of a building.Case C-594/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of EU VAT legislation regarding the classification of land with only building foundations in place for VAT purposes. The key points are:The case arose from a dispute in Denmark about whether land with only residential building foundations should be classified as ‘building land’ (subject to VAT) or as a ‘building/parts of building’ (potentially exempt from VAT).The Court analyzed the structure and provisions of the VAT Directive, particularly Article 12 which defines buildings and building land. The key considerations were:
- The broad definition of ‘building’ as ‘any structure fixed to or in the ground’
- The concept of ‘first occupation’ as a key criterion for classifying buildings
- The distinction between new buildings (subject to VAT) and old buildings (exempt)
The Court concluded that land with only foundations in place constitutes ‘building land’ rather than a ‘building’ or ‘parts of building’ because:
- Foundations alone cannot be ‘occupied’ in the sense intended by the VAT Directive
- Foundations represent only an initial construction stage, not a completed building
- The mere presence of foundations does not mark the end of the production process or entry into the consumption sector
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria and S.E.I v A and Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Directive (EU) 2019/1023 – Procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt – Article 1(4) – Subject matter and scope – Extension of procedures to insolvent natural persons who are not entrepreneurs – Article 20 – Access to discharge of debt – Article 23(1), (2) and (4) – Derogations – Exclusion of specific categories of debt from discharge of debt – Natural person who has become insolvent – Good faith of the debtor – Conditions for access to discharge of debt – Exclusion of claims governed by public law.Joined Cases C-289/23 and C-305/23.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency, particularly regarding discharge of debt provisions. The essence of the judgment is that it clarifies how Member States can implement derogations from debt discharge rules. The Court ruled that while Member States have discretion to restrict access to debt discharge beyond what’s explicitly listed in the Directive, such restrictions must be well-defined and duly justified under national law. The main provisions interpreted include:
- Member States can exclude certain categories of debt (like public law claims) from discharge, but must justify such exclusions
- When extending debt discharge procedures to non-entrepreneurs, Member States must apply all relevant provisions of the Directive
- States can set quantitative limits on debt discharge without basing them on actual debt amounts
- Restrictions can apply to negligent/imprudent behavior even without bad faith
The judgment is significant as it balances Member State discretion in implementing insolvency rules with the need to ensure effective debt discharge mechanisms. It particularly impacts how public claims (tax, social security) can be treated differently from private debts in insolvency proceedings.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.Adusbef – Associazione difesa utenti servizi bancari e finanziari v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2014/23/EU – Procedure for awarding concession contracts – Article 43 – Modification made to a concession during its term without opening up to competition – Concession of motorways – Collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa (Italy) – National proceedings for serious failure to fulfil motorway network maintenance and preservation obligations – New obligations imposed on the concessionaire – Obligation of the contracting authority to make a prior decision on whether it is necessary to organise a new award procedure – Obligation of the contracting authority to carry out a prior examination of the reliability of the concessionaire.Case C-683/22.
This judgment concerns the interpretation of Directive 2014/23/EU regarding modifications to concession contracts during their term, specifically in the context of a motorway concession in Italy following the collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa.The Court analyzed whether and when modifications to an existing concession require a new award procedure, and what obligations the contracting authority has when making such modifications. The key findings were:The main provisions of the judgment include:
- Article 43 of Directive 2014/23 provides exhaustive rules on when concessions can be modified without requiring a new award procedure
- The contracting authority must provide clear reasoning for why it considers a new award procedure is not required when modifying a concession
- Changes in the concessionaire’s shareholders alone do not constitute a modification requiring a new award procedure
- For modifications not requiring a new procedure, Member States determine rules for addressing serious breaches by the concessionaire
- The contracting authority must examine candidate suitability under Article 38 only when a new award procedure is required
The judgment clarifies the balance between allowing necessary modifications to long-term concessions while ensuring transparency and proper justification of changes made without new competitive procedures.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2024.LS v PL.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 – Article 10(1) – Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession – Deceased person habitually resident in a third State at the time of death – Criterion of the location of the assets of the estate in a Member State – Decisive point in time – Assessment at the time of death.Case C-291/23.
This judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the interpretation of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 regarding jurisdiction in cross-border succession cases. The Court specifically addresses the timing for determining the location of estate assets when establishing subsidiary jurisdiction of Member State courts.The judgment consists of three main parts: legal context (including relevant recitals of Regulation 650/2012), description of the main proceedings (concerning succession of a deceased person with assets in Germany who died in Egypt), and the Court’s legal analysis of the question referred.The key provisions analyzed by the Court include:
- Article 10(1) of Regulation 650/2012 establishing subsidiary jurisdiction rules for succession cases where the deceased was not habitually resident in an EU Member State
- The relationship between different timing elements in determining jurisdiction (time of death vs. time when court is seized)
- The connecting factors between the deceased and the Member State exercising jurisdiction
The Court’s main conclusions are:
- The presence of assets must be assessed at the time of death, not at the time when the court is seized
- This interpretation is based on the wording of Article 10(1), the context of the Regulation, and its objectives of legal certainty and predictability
- The location of assets after death (such as their liquidation or transfer) should not affect jurisdiction
