Overview of Recent Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights (July – December 2012)
| Date | 01 March 2013 |
| Author | Anne Pieter van der Mei |
| DOI | 10.1177/138826271301500107 |
| Published date | 01 March 2013 |
| Subject Matter | Recent News and Case Law |
102 Intersentia
OVERVIEW OF RECENT CASES BEFORE THE
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS (JULY – DECEMBER 2012)
A P M*
In the period July-December 2012 both the Cou rt of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) and the European Cour t of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a number of
important rul ings that are worth report ing. e present overview discus ses four CJEU
judgments, two deali ng with the rules determi ning the applicable legislation (Parte na
ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA and Format) and t wo involving bene ts
aimed at promoting access to employment (Caves Krier and Prete).1 In addition, the
overview covers the notable ECtH R decision judgment in Ramaer and van Willigen
v. the Netherlands, which seems to ma rk the end of a long legal battle that Dutch
pensionado’s have fought against the introduction of compulsory health insurance in
2006.2
* Associate Professor in EU Law, Maastricht Centre for European Law. Address: P.O. Box 616, 6200
MD Maastric ht, e Netherland s; tel: +31 43 3884832; e-mail: ap.vande rmei@maastric htuniversity.
nl.
1 Also worth ment ioning are the Judg ment of 19 July 2012, C ase C-522/10, Reichel-Albert v
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nordbayern, not yet reported and the Judgment of 4 October 2012,
Case C-75/11, Commission v Austria, not yet reported. In the former ca se the CJEU concluded
that Artic le21 TFEU on fre e movement of persons demands f rom a Member State (in this c ase
Germany) to tak e into account periods of ch ild-rearing completed i n another Member State for the
purpose of ca lculating old-age pension . In the second ruli ng, the CJEU concluded that Au stria had
failed to fu l l its obligations under Artic les18, 20 and 21 TFEU on equal treat ment regardless of
nationalit y and freedom of movement by granting reduced f ares on public transport in pr inciple
only to students whose p arents receive Austrian f amily allowanc es.
2 Also worth ment ioning are the Judgment of 4Decembe r 2012 in Stępień v Poland (Appl ication No.
39225/05) and the judgment s in eleven comparable c ases agains t Poland. e ECtHR con rmed
its judgment of 15September 2009 in Moskal v Poland (Applicat ion No. 10373/05) in which it
had held that Poland had bre ached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR a nd the principle of
‘good governance’ by cor recting mist akes in the gr ant of early retireme nt-pensions for persons
raising chi ldren who, due to serious healt h conditions, require cons tant care with undue de lay and
insu ciently consideri ng the excessive nancial burden impose d on recipients of such pensions. In
Stępień and the ot her cases the ECtHR awarded , under Article 41 ECHR ‘ju st satisfaction’, to the
victims of Pola nd’s breach.
To continue reading
Request your trial