Latest news with #ECJ
Irish Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Court ruling would give newly arrived asylum seekers more rights than homeless people, Minister claims
Asylum seekers will soon be entitled to damages from the State for failing to provide them with accommodation, while homeless people will have no such right, Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan has said. Such a situation will be the result of an expected decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), he warned. The court appears likely to rule that asylum seekers have a right to damages if the State fails to provide accommodation on their arrival, as has happened in thousands of instances recently. Such a decision would be 'very hard to justify' to Irish citizens and other member states, the Minister said. READ MORE Mr O'Callaghan was critical of various aspects of the existing asylum system, which he said has emerged over the years in a 'haphazard' and 'organic' fashion. He was speaking at the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) on the topic of balancing human rights in the area of justice and migration . The Fianna Fáil TD was particularly critical of a case launched at the ECJ this year on behalf of two asylum seekers who had been left sleeping rough as the State was unable to provide them with beds. The State has strongly contested the case. It argued a huge surge in asylum applications in the context of an unprecedented housing and accommodation crisis constituted a force majeure where the accommodation needs of all asylum seekers could not be met. Last year, about 3,400 male asylum seekers were left without beds after arriving in Ireland, a number that now stands at about 1,400. In April, a legal adviser to the ECJ published an opinion that rejected the State's argument. The court tends to follow the opinions of its legal advisers in its judgments, meaning it is likely to find against the State and rule that asylum seekers left without accommodation are entitled to damages. Such a decision would mean 'people in Ireland who are entitled to be on social housing lists or homeless lists' would not be entitled to damages, while asylum seekers who had just arrived would be entitled to damages if they are left sleeping rough. 'That will be a very consequential decision that will be very hard to justify, not just to citizens of Ireland but of all member states.' He said the State 'should try to ensure that in trying to vindicate certain rights we do not marginalise or demote other equally legitimate rights.' The right to apply for asylum 'does not and cannot equate to a right to asylum', he said. Asylum laws are there to 'protect the persecuted'. It is legitimate for people to want to seek a better life for their families but that is not the purpose of asylum, he said. Mr O'Callaghan also revealed plans to overhaul the laws around the wiretapping and digital surveillance. The existing laws date to 1993 and do not account for advances in technology, such as encrypted communications, emails and social media channels. Garda surveillance powers are needed to prevent terrorism and large-scale loss of life, he said. The Minister said the current law does not allow for State agencies to carry out lawful interceptions of popular encrypted digital-based messaging and voice calling services. This is a matter of 'significant concern'. He also criticised the slow progress at EU level in bringing in a child sexual abuse regulation that would obligate telecommunications companies to automatically scan for the presence of abuse material on their networks. 'Many companies are simply not doing enough to address the proliferation of this material on their platforms.' Companies can scan for malware and viruses so they should also be able to scan for abusive material, he said Such regulations would no doubt impinge on the right to privacy, the Minister said. 'But those who argue this should be the primary consideration are not recognising that this material depicts the abuse and rape of children.'
Irish Times
15-07-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Apple's €14bn escrow account wound down
The Apple escrow account has been closed, resulting in the transfer of almost €14.25 billion to the exchequer, the Department of Finance has revealed. The value of the assets held in the account increased by €470 million in the 16 months in advance of its closure in May, having already grown by €400 million during the preceding year. This left the total value of the funds at €14.244 billion – slightly less than the €14.3 billion originally lodged by Apple in 2018 after the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) found that the group had received illegal state aid from Ireland. The financial assets had depreciated in value for five successive years before recording their first gain in 2023 as a result of higher interest rates and investment in assets with higher yields. READ MORE The final accounts, just published by the Department of Finance, show that the Ireland Apple Escrow Fund increased in value by €475 million in the 16 months before its closure, resulting in a €470 million profit after operating expenses. Following the closure of the fund on May 16, €1.567 billion was transferred directly to State coffers, while €12.677 billion was paid to the Revenue Commissioners for onward transfer to the Exchequer. Apple had originally transferred €14.3 billion to the escrow account in 2018 pending its appeal against a European Commission decision, which found that the tech giant owed Ireland €13.1 billion plus interest of €1.2 billion. The figure amounted to the tax the multinational previously had not paid on profits, due to a favourable tax arrangement that existed for its Irish subsidiaries over several years. Last September, the ECJ delivered its final verdict in the long-running tax case, ruling against Apple's latest bid to overturn the Commission's decision. Its ruling 'set aside' a ruling by the EU's second-highest court, the General Court, four years ago, which had quashed the commission's decision that Apple owed the Republic the back taxes. The long-running dispute was the world's largest antitrust case to date.
Euronews
02-07-2025
- Automotive
- Euronews
Ferrari wins EU Court battle to retain iconic Testarossa trademark
Ferrari still has held on to its rights to the legendary Testarossa trademark, after the EU's Court of Justice (ECJ) on Wednesday overturned earlier decisions by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The ruling sets an important precedent for legacy brands, showing that trademarks can remain valid even when tied to vintage or collectable products, so long as the brand stays actively involved in the market. The ruling delivered today by the ECJ's General Court reinstates Ferrari's trademark protection for Testarossa across cars, parts and accessories, and scale model vehicles. The EUIPO had previously attempted to revoke those rights in 2023, arguing the trademark hadn't been actively used in the EU for at least five consecutive years. The General Court disagreed, stating that Ferrari had continued to make 'genuine use' of the name, even if the original Testarossa hadn't been in production for decades. First introduced in 1984, the Testarossa remains one of Ferrari's most iconic 12-cylinder models. With over 7,000 units built before production ended in 1996, it was one of the more accessible Ferraris of its time. Its design with wide rear haunches and signature side strakes (affectionately dubbed 'cheese graters') made it a poster car of the 1980s. The Testarossa became a cultural icon thanks in part to the TV show Miami Vice, where a white model became the ride of choice for detective Sonny Crockett. While new Testarossas haven't rolled off the production line in decades, Ferrari has continued to support the model, especially through the resale and authentication of second-hand vehicles via its authorised dealer network. According to the Court, this activity was enough to qualify as genuine trademark use, even if Ferrari wasn't manufacturing new cars under the name. The Court also ruled that the use of the trademark by Ferrari-approved dealers and distributors, even without explicit written consent, counted as authorised use. This applied not only to the cars themselves but also to associated parts and accessories. As for the scale model versions, the Court sided with Ferrari once again. Many miniature Testarossas were sold as Ferrari official licensed products, a label the Court said reflected Ferrari's implied approval. That kind of branding reinforced the trademark's essential role, according to the ECJ, by signalling the commercial origin of the product.
Budapest Times
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Budapest Times
Bakondi: Hungary to file a lawsuit against ECJ over fines
György Bakondi, the prime minister's domestic security advisor, said the Hungarian state will file a lawsuit against the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the court's ruling to impose a daily 1 million euros fine on Hungary. Bakondi told commercial channel TV2 that the European Union had launched several procedures against Hungary over migrants, including one that resulted in a daily 1 million euros fine. He added that the EU wanted to enable migrants to submit asylum requests in Hungary as against another country, such as Serbia. 'It was a clear call that illegal migrants must be allowed to enter,' he said, adding that the government had no other option but to launch a lawsuit against the court with the help of an international legal firm. He also said that several European countries were currently introducing national solutions to the migrant crisis, citing Italy, Bulgaria, Austria and Spain as examples.
The Hindu
12-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Why was Malta's ‘golden passports' scheme scrapped?
The story so far: In late April, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck down Malta's 'golden passports' scheme — a 2020 scheme which authorises the naturalisation of foreigners in the country, and consequently the European Union, in return for hefty financial investments in the country. Brussels had launched infringement proceedings against Malta, as it persisted with its own scheme, blocking access only to Russians and Belarusians consequent to Russia's war against Ukraine. What are CBIs and RBIs? Citizenship by investment (CBI), known as golden passports, and residency by investment (RBI), or golden visas, enable third country nationals to live and work in host countries in exchange for financial investments. The European Parliament and the Commission have called for both forms of mobility to be abolished in view of the inherent risks to security, such as money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and corruption. Between 2013 and 2019, about 1,32,000 persons had obtained entry into the EU through CBI and RBI schemes, generating financial inflows of over €20 billion, as per a 2022 European Parliament Research Service report. The risks from CBI and RBI have been highlighted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Financial Action Task Force. Principal among the beneficiaries of such migration are nationals from China, Russia and West Asia. Why is the EU against the scheme? Within the 27-member bloc, the acquisition or loss of nationality falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of each country. That said, the historic 1992 Maastricht Treaty inaugurated common EU citizenship. That is to say, nationals of an EU state are simultaneously common EU citizens. Therefore, the matter of the grant or rejection of nationality must accord with EU law. The European Commission contended that the attractiveness of Malta's CBI scheme did not lie in the acquisition of Maltese nationality per se, but instead in the rights that accrue from the complementary EU citizenship. The implicit assumption here being the unique appeal of the absence of internal frontiers, the right to free movement and work across the bloc, the right to vote and to be elected in local as well as European parliament elections. The Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made a pointed reference to golden passports in the 2020 State of the Union address, declaring that 'European values are not for sale.' Brussels further argued that the grant of nationality in return for investments — a commodification of citizenship — was incompatible with the principles of membership of the bloc. These are sincere cooperation, fairness and non-discrimination — codified in Article 4(3) of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and under Article 20 of the 2009 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. What did the ECJ verdict state? Upholding the Commission's claims, the court reasoned that the pillars of European citizenship are dependent on mutual trust among member states and mutual respect for national decisions. The bond of nationality of a given state is underpinned by a 'relationship of solidarity, good faith and the reciprocity of rights and duties between the state and citizens,' the court added. These principles are infringed upon once citizenship is sought to be granted as a commercial transaction in exchange for an investment. The 2020 Maltese scheme is tantamount to the commercialisation of the grant of nationality of a particular state, and by extension, of the entire bloc. This is incompatible with EU treaties. What next? In theory, Malta could exercise its authority to confer nationality to those who availed the CBI scheme, minus union citizenship. This would risk diminishing its appeal as a destination state. The writer is Director, Strategic Initiatives, AgnoShin Technologies.
