LegalPost.eu

The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to the pr

The European Court of Human Rights has refused the request for an advisory opinion (no. P16-2024-001) received from the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania (“the High Court”) on 27 February 2024.  The request was submitted in the context of an appeal pending before the High Court, concerning the confiscation of a sum of money from a civil servant following an audit of her assets by the National Integrity Agency (Agenția Națională de Integritate – “the ANI”).  The Romanian authorities had considered that the civil servant – who belonged to one of the 39 categories of individuals working in the public sector who were required to declare their assets and interests – had been unable to prove the source of the money, which had been confiscated following an audit of her income.  The High Court requested the European Court to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1

As ruled by the Judgment of the Court of EU in Case C-774/22 (29.7.2024) (FTI Touristik), a consumer having booked a trip abroad may sue the organiser before the court of the place of his or her domicile. This is also true where the consumer and the organiser are domiciled in the same Member State. A consumer residing in Nuremberg (Germany) concluded a contract for a trip abroad with the tour operator FTI Touristik, which has its registered seat in Munich (Germany). Considering himself to have been inadequately informed of the entry conditions and necessary visas, the consumer brought an action for damages against FTI Touristik before the Local Court, Nuremberg. FTI Touristik contends that that court does not have territorial jurisdiction.  In particular, the ‘Brussels Ia’ Regulation on jurisdiction [1] [2], does not apply where the two parties are domiciled in the same Member State. The Local Court, Nuremberg submitted a question to the Court of Justice on that point.  The Court repli