LegalPost.eu

In tis Judgment in Case C-109/23 (Jemerak) [1] the Court of Justice ruled that a notary does not breach the sanctions against Russia when he or she authenticates the sale of a property owned by an unlisted Russian company.  By authentication, a notary does not provide legal advisory services, but acts independently and impartially in the context of a function entrusted to him or her by the State.  A notary in Berlin (Germany) refused to authenticate a contract for the sale of an apartment situated in Berlin and owned by a Russian company. According to that notary, it cannot be ruled out that that authentication infringes the prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to legal persons established in Russia. The European Union introduced that general prohibition [2] in 2022 with a view to increase pressure on Russia to end its war of aggression against Ukraine [3] . The Berlin Regional Court referred questions to the Court of Justice on this matter. The Court replie...

In Chamber's judgment dated 15.10.2024 in the case of Nsingi v. Greece (application no. 27985/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation for having been imprisoned pursuant to a sentence that had been handed down in respect of a different person, for whom he had been mistaken at the time of his arrest.  On 6 June 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police and, after verification of his identity, was registered under the name of an individual who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for drug possession. The prosecutor ordered that he be sent to prison.  On 20 June 2018 the applicant demanded that he be released, objecting that he was not the person who had been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Court dismissed the appl...

In its Judgment in Case C-768/21 (Land Hessen/ 26.9.2024) the Court of Justice ruled that, the data protection supervisory authority is not obliged to exercise a corrective power in all cases of breach and, in particular, to impose a fine. It may refrain from doing so where the controller has already taken the necessary measures on its own initiative.  In Germany, a savings bank found that one of its employees had consulted a customer's personal data on several occasions without being authorised to do so. The savings bank did not inform the customer of this, as its data protection officer had taken the view that there was no high risk for him. The employee had confirmed in writing that she had neither copied nor retained the data, that she had not transferred them to third parties and that she would not do so in the future.  In addition, the savings bank had taken disciplinary measures against her. The savings bank nevertheless notified the Land Hessen’s Commissioner for Data ...

In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...