Dopo la firma del Protocollo d’intesa tra la Corte di Cassazione e la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo, avvenuta a Strasburgo l’11 dicembre 2015, la Corte di cassazione ha dato attuazione al Protocollo costituendo un gruppo di lavoro permanente, composto di un componente per ciascuna Sezione, civile e penale, della Corte, nonché di due magistrati del Massimario, che cura sia l’immediata selezione delle sentenze di legittimità che applichino in maniera significativa la normativa europea, sia la segnalazione delle sentenze CEDU che più direttamente riguardino l’Italia, diffondendone la conoscenza tra i colleghi della Corte con sintetici abstracts.
Rsearchers from the US and RAND Europe explored the economic implications of eight different trade scenarios involving the UK, EU and US after Brexit:
The United Nations circulated a report concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities.
Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive. Obbligo di disapplicare una normativa nazionale contraria a una direttiva
“EU law, in particular Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds that it is unable to interpret the provisions of its national law that are contrary to a provision of a directive that satisfies all the conditions required for it to produce direct effect in a manner that is compatible with that provision, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply those provisions of national law and a clause to be found, as a consequence of those provisions of national law, in an insurance contract.
In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party could however rely on the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C?6/90 and C?9/90, EU:C:1991:428), in order to obtain from the Member State, if justified, compensation for any loss sustained.”
“Il diritto dell’Unione, in particolare l’articolo 288 TFUE, dev’essere interpretato nel senso che un giudice nazionale, investito di una controversia tra singoli, che si trovi nell’impossibilità di interpretare le disposizioni del suo diritto nazionale contrarie ad una disposizione di una direttiva che soddisfa tutte le condizioni richieste per produrre un effetto diretto in un senso conforme a quest’ultima disposizione, non è tenuto, sulla sola base del diritto dell’Unione, a disapplicare tali disposizioni nazionali nonché una clausola contenuta, conformemente a queste ultime, in un contratto di assicurazione.
In una situazione come quella di cui trattasi nel procedimento principale, la parte lesa dalla non conformità del diritto nazionale al diritto dell’Unione o la persona surrogata nei diritti di tale parte potrebbe tuttavia invocare la giurisprudenza scaturita dalla sentenza del 19 novembre 1991, Francovich e a. (C-6/90 e C-9/90, EU:C:1991:428), per ottenere eventualmente, da parte dello Stato membro, il risarcimento del danno subito”.
Frequently Asked Questions on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Domande frequenti sulla Procura europea
Ukraine: EU adds six entities involved in the construction of the Kerch Bridge connecting the illegally annexed Crimea to Russia to sanctions list
The Council added six entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures over actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. They are listed because of their involvement in the construction of the Kerch Bridge, connecting Russia to the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula. Through their actions they supported the consolidation of Russia’s control over the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, which in turn further undermines the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
A judicial authority called upon to execute a European arrest warrant must refrain from giving effect to it if it considers that there is a real risk that the individual concerned would suffer a breach of his fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of his fundamental right to a fair trial on account of deficiencies liable to affect the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State – L’autorità giudiziaria chiamata a eseguire un mandato d’arresto europeo deve astenersi dal darvi seguito se ritiene che la persona interessata rischi di subire una violazione del suo diritto fondamentale a un giudice indipendente e, quindi, del contenuto essenziale del suo diritto fondamentale a un equo processo, a causa di carenze idonee a incidere sull’indipendenza del potere giudiziario nello Stato membro emittente
Judgment in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v LM (Deficiencies in the system of justice)
It follows that, where the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued, pleads, in order to oppose his surrender to the issuing judicial authority, that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies, which, according to him, are liable to affect the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State and his fundamental right to a fair trial, the executing judicial authority must, as a first step, assess, on the basis of material that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, whether there is a real risk, connected with a lack of independence of the courts of the issuing Member State on account of deficiencies of that kind, of such a right being breached in the issuing Member State.
The Court considers that information in a reasoned proposal recently addressed by the Commission to the Council on the basis of Article 7(1) TEU is particularly relevant for the purposes of that assessment.
(Sentenza nella causa C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality / LM (Carenze del sistema giudiziario))
Ne discende che, qualora la persona oggetto di un mandato d’arresto europeo faccia valere, per opporsi alla propria consegna all’autorità giudiziaria emittente, l’esistenza di carenze sistemiche o generalizzate che, a suo avviso, sono idonee a pregiudicare l’indipendenza del potere giudiziario nello Stato membro emittente e il suo diritto fondamentale a un equo processo, l’autorità giudiziaria dell’esecuzione è tenuta, in un primo momento, a valutare, in base a elementi oggettivi, attendibili, precisi e debitamente aggiornati, l’esistenza di un rischio reale di violazione di tale diritto nello Stato membro emittente, connesso a una mancanza di indipendenza dei giudici di detto Stato membro a causa di siffatte carenze.
La Corte considera che le informazioni contenute in una proposta motivata recentemente rivolta dalla Commissione al Consiglio in base all’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, TUE costituiscono elementi di particolare rilevanza ai fini di tale valutazione.
These publications set out the government’s approach to bringing EU financial services legislation into domestic law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act.
The Government has published a White Paper on how it will legislate for the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU.
This report gives a detailed overview of the UK’s Strategic Export Controls work in 2017.
The report includes sections on:
information on export licensing processes and responsible departments
export Licensing data and performance statistics
UK and EU policy developments and a section on Brexit
export licensing and industry
UK support to allies and partners
international policy and regimes
compliance and enforcement
It also contains case studies and detailed information about the UK’s export licensing processes and procedure.
Kerch Strait bridge (“the Crimean Bridge”): individual sanctions against 6 people involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Strait bridge.
It seems that at the recent EU-Ukraine Summit the ambassadors of the EU member states approved the decision to impose individual sanctions against 6 people involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Strait bridge.
In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK as of 30 March 2019. *** In assenza di un accordo sull’uscita del Regno Unito dall’UE, non vi sarà un periodo transitorio e le regole UE termineranno di applicarsi nel Regno Unito a partire dal 30 marzo 2019.
In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK as of 30 March 2019.
Brexit: European Commission publishes Communication on preparing for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Comunicazione della Commission sulla fase preparatoria alla Brexit
Brexit: European Commission publishes Communication on preparing for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU
The European Commission has today adopted a Communication outlining the ongoing work on the preparation for all outcomes of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified before 30 March 2019, most of the legal effects of Brexit will apply as of1 January 2021, i.e. after a transition period of 21 months, the terms of which are set out in the draft WithdrawalAgreement.
In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK as of 30 March 2019.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
Protection of intra-EU investment
Migration and Asylum: Commission takes further steps in infringement procedures against Hungary. La Commissione ha deferito l’Ungheria davanti alla Corte di giustizia per violazione delle regole in materia di migrazione e asilo.
Migration and Asylum: Commission takes further steps in infringement procedures against Hungary
The European Commission has today decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for non-compliance of its asylum and return legislation with EU law.
Today the European Commission is announcing provisional safeguard measures concerning imports of a number of steel products. These measures will address the diversion of steel from other countries to the EU market as a result of the recently imposed US tariffs. The safeguard measures will come into effect on Thursday 19 July. Traditional imports of steel products will not be affected.
Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google’s search engine – Antitrust: la Commissione infligge a Google un’ammenda di 4.34 miliardi di € per pratiche illegali riguardanti i dispositivi mobili Android volte a rafforzare la posizione dominante del motore di ricerca di Google
The European Commission has fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.
Iran institutes proceedings against the United States with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States, and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Iran claims that, through the “8 May sanctions” and further sanctions that have been announced, the United States “has violated and continues to violate multiple provisions” ofthe 1955 Treaty.
Tokyo, 17 July 2018
The EU and Japan successfully concluded today their talks on reciprocal adequacy. They agreed to recognise each other’s data protection systems as ‘equivalent’, which will allow data to flow safely between the EU and Japan.
Tokyo, 17 July 2018: At the EU-Japan summit in Tokyo, Presidents Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, signed today the EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).
State aid: Commission adopts Best Practices Code to streamline and speed up State aid control – Aiuti di Stato, la Commissione adotta un codice di Best Practices per semplificare e velocizzare il controllo degli aiuti di Stato
The European Commission has adopted a new Best Practices Code for State aid control. The Code provides guidance to the Commission, Member States, businesses and other stakeholders on the day-to-day conduct of State aid procedures, to improve their effectiveness, transparency and predictability.
Beijing, 16 July 2018_ The 20th Summit between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China held today in Beijing has underlined that this partnership has reached a new level of importance for our own citizens, for our respective neighbouring regions and for the international community more broadly.
“Today, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, of Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Corporation”) and ZTE Kangxun Telecommunications Ltd. of Hi-New Shenzhen, China (“ZTE Kangxun”) (collectively, “ZTE”) has placed $400 million in escrow at a U.S. bank. Shortly after the deposit, the Department lifted the denial order on ZTE pursuant to a June settlement agreement that included the harshest penalties and strictest compliance measures ever imposed in such a case. The escrow funds are in addition to the $1 billion penalty imposed by Commerce that ZTE paid to the U.S. Treasury last month.
“While we lifted the ban on ZTE, the Department will remain vigilant as we closely monitor ZTE’s actions to ensure compliance with all U.S. laws and regulations,” said Secretary Ross. “Three interlocking elements – a suspended denial order, the $400 million in escrow, and a compliance team selected by and answerable to the Department – will allow the Department to protect U.S. national security.”
The $1.4 billion paid under the new settlement agreement are in addition to the $892 million in penalties ZTE has already paid to the U.S government under a March 2017 settlement agreement.
ZTE will also be required by the new agreement to retain a team of special compliance coordinators selected by and answerable to the Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for a period of 10 years. Their function will be to monitor on a real-time basis ZTE’s compliance with U.S. export control laws. This is the first time BIS has achieved such stringent compliance measures in any case. The new agreement once again imposes a denial order that is suspended, this time for 10 years, which BIS can activate in the event of additional violations during the ten-year probationary period. Finally, ZTE also has replaced the entire board of directors and senior leadership for both entities.
The purpose of this settlement is to modify ZTE’s behavior while setting a new precedent for monitoring to assure compliance with U.S. law. The unprecedented access afforded the compliance team by this agreement vastly improves the speed with which the Department of Commerce can detect and deal with any violations.”
The seventh review of the trade policies and practices of China takes place on 11 and 13 July 2018. The basis for the review is a report by the WTO Secretariat and a report by the Government of China.
Trade Policy Reviews are an exercise, mandated in the WTO agreements, in which member countries’ trade and related policies are examined and evaluated at regular intervals. Significant developments that may have an impact on the global trading system are also monitored. All WTO members are subject to review, with the frequency of review depending on the country’s size.
Every year, the European Commission draws up an annual report on its monitoring of the application of EU law in response to requests from the European Parliament and the EU countries. These EU country factsheets provide a national breakdown on the application of EU law for 2017.
U.S. Department of Commerce to Host Public Hearing on the Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Automobiles and Automotive Parts
The U.S. Department of Commerce will host a public hearing on its Section 232 investigation of imports of automobiles and automotive parts on Thursday, July 19 in the U.S. Department of Commerce Auditorium. The hearing, which begins at 8:30 a.m., will feature testimony from approximately 45 individuals, representing domestic and international companies, industry groups, labor, and foreign countries. Officials from the Department of Defense will also be participating.
This hearing provides an opportunity for stakeholders to present information and advice relevant to the investigation on the effects of imports of automobiles and automotive parts on national security.
The investigation will consider all relevant facts and input from stakeholders compiled during the notice and comment process before reaching a final determination, which will be based on facts and the statutory requirements. Information from Thursday’s hearing and the more than 2,300 public comments submitted on this issue, in addition to rebuttal comments, will be considered in the Department of Commerce’s investigation and analysis.
Switzerland has requested WTO dispute consultations with the United States regarding US duties on certain imported steel and aluminium products. The request was circulated to WTO members on 12 July.
Switzerland claims the US duties of 25% and 10% on imports of steel and aluminium products respectively are inconsistent with provisions of the WTO’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.
UK white paper on
THE FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station: the rules of the European Union on State aid are applicable to measures relating to the area of nuclear energy
the rules of the European Union on State aid are applicable to measures relating to the area of nuclear energy
the Commission did not err in taking the view that the UK was entitled to define the development of nuclear energy as being a public-interest objective, even though that objective is not shared by all of the Member States
The General Court notes in this regard that the objective of promoting nuclear power, and, more specifically, of promoting the creation of new nuclear energy production capacities, is related to theEuratom Community’s goal of facilitating investment in the nuclear field. Furthermore, it followsfrom the FEU Treaty that each Member State has the right to choose between the different energy sources those which it prefers.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
12 July 2018 (*)
(State aid — Aid planned by the United Kingdom in favour of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Contract for Difference, Secretary of State Agreement and Credit Guarantee — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Public interest objective — Promotion of nuclear energy — Need for State intervention — Guarantee Notice — Determination of the aid element — Proportionality — Investment aid — Operating aid — Right to submit observations — Public procurement procedure — Obligation to state reasons)
In Case T?356/15,
Republic of Austria, represented initially by C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, and subsequently by G. Hesse and M. Fruhmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Kristoferitsch, lawyer,
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by D. Holderer, acting as Agent, and by P. Kinsch, lawyer,
European Commission, represented by É. Gippini Fournier, R. Sauer, T. Maxian Rusche and P. N?me?ková, acting as Agents,
Czech Republic, represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Vlá?il, acting as Agents,
French Republic, represented initially by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, and subsequently by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents,
Hungary, represented initially by M. Fehér and M. Bóra, subsequently by B. Sonkodi, then by A. Steiner, acting as Agents, and by P. Nagy, lawyer, and finally by A. Steiner,
Republic of Poland, represented by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,
Romania, represented initially by R. Radu and M. Bejenar, and subsequently by M. Bejenar and C.?R. Can??r, acting as Agents,
Slovak Republic, represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by C. Brodie and S. Brandon, subsequently by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and M. Holt, then by C. Brodie, S. Simmons and D. Robertson, then by C. Brodie, and finally by C. Brodie and Z. Lavery, acting as Agents, and by T. Johnston, Barrister, and A. Robertson QC,
Terrorism, the UK Supreme Court on the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. What is “knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect” ?
The appellants relied on the well-established principle that whenever a statutory section creates a criminal offence but does not refer to the offender’s state of mind (“mens rea”), there is a presumption that to give effect to the will of Parliament, the court must read in words requiring mens rea .
While it is an important principle, it is a principle of statutory construction. It does not empower the court to substitute the plain words used by Parliament for a different provision on the grounds that the court would have done so differently by providing for an element, or a greater element, of mens rea.
The presumption must give way to either the plain meaning of the words of the statute, or to other relevant pointers to meaning which clearly demonstrate what was intended. The first port of call for any issue of construction is the words of the Act .
The words of section 17(b) of the Act suggest an objective test for mens rea at first sight. Thus, it is very difficult to see this statutory provision as one which is silent as to the intent required for the commission of the offence .
An offence of providing funding towards terrorism first appeared on the statute books in 1976 and was re-enacted in identical form in 1984. Those sections required proof either of knowledge or of actual suspicion. However, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 made a change and introduced thewords “knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect” in place of “knowing or suspecting”. Thesechanges were deliberate. They are inexplicable unless it was the Parliamentary intention to widen the scope of the offences to include those who had, objectively assessed, reasonable cause to suspect that the money might be put to terrorist use. The change can only have been intended to remove the requirement for proof of actual suspicion. The court cannot ignore this clear Parliamentary decision[18-19].
It would be an error to suppose that the form of offence-creating words in section 17(b) create an offence of strict liability. Unlike an offence of strict liability, the accused’s state of mind is relevant for section 17(b). The requirement of an objectively assessed cause for suspicion focuses attention on what information the accused had. The requirement is satisfied when, on the information available to the accused, a reasonable person would suspect that the money might be used for terrorism .
Prime Minister Theresa May said:
Today in detailed discussions the Cabinet has agreed our collective position for the future of our negotiations with the EU.
Our proposal will create a UK – EU free trade area which establishes a common rule book for industrial goods and agricultural products. This maintains high standards in these areas, but we will also ensure that no new changes in the future take place without the approval of our Parliament.
As a result, we avoid friction in terms of trade, which protects jobs and livelihoods, as well as meeting our commitments in Northern Ireland.
We have also agreed a new business-friendly customs model with freedom to strike new trade deals around the world.
Next week we will be publishing a white paper which will set out more details of how we will be taking back control of our money, laws and borders.
Now we must all move at pace to negotiate our proposal with the EU to deliver the prosperous and secure future all our people deserve.
Boris Johnson resigns as foreign secretary
Brexit Secretary David Davis, who has been leading UK negotiations to leave the EU, has resigned from government.
Brexit Secretary David Davis has resigned
Upon the request of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was held on 6 July in Vienna at ministerial level.
The Joint Commission met to discuss the way forward to ensure the continued implementation of the nuclear deal in all its aspects and review unresolved issues arising from the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement and the announced re-imposition of sanctions lifted under the JCPOA and its Annex II.