The Irish Society for European Law recently re-launched the Irish Journal of European Law as an e-journal. The Journal, which has been published since 1992, is a leading international journal on European law edited by Irish scholars and practitioners. The 2014 volume is now available on the Society’s website at https://www.isel.ie/journal.

The Journal – which is blind peer-reviewed – is now issuing a call for original papers for its 2015 volume. Long articles (indicative length 8,000 – 12,000 words) and shorter articles (3,000-4,000 words), and analyses of any length of recent developments are invited.

While submissions on Irish-European legal issues are of special interest, the Journal welcomes submissions on all areas of European law. In addition to the more traditional form of academic article, comment and opinion pieces on European-Irish affairs with a legal dimension, are also welcomed.

Submissions are to be sent to ijel.submissions@gmail.com by Friday 15 May 2015 in WORD format, size 12 font, single spaced. The referencing style guide is OSCOLA Ireland, which is available online at:
http://www.legalcitation.ie/page5/files/OSCOLA%20Ireland%202011.pdf

Irish Journal of European Law
https://www.isel.ie/journal

Co-Editors: Anna-Louise Hinds & Diarmuid Rossa Phelan;

Members of the Editorial Board: Una Butler, Karole Cuddihy, Catherine Donnelly, David Fennelly, Anna Hickey.

During September and October there have been some interesting decisions made by both the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. On October 15th, the Commission announced its decision that Ryanair has received unlawful state aid granted through Leipzig-Altenburg airport in Germany because the agreement between the parties is not capable of being profitable for the airport “even in the long run”. Ryanair has announced its intention to appeal the decisions, which require it to repay more than €1 million to the relevant EU member states. Ryanair did receive better news on September 18th, when the Court of Justice ruled that national laws preventing airlines from charging a price supplement for checked-in baggage are in breach of EU law. However, the Court noted that hand baggage cannot be subject to a price supplement if it meets reasonable requirements.

Bus services

Arrangements to compensate State-owned Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus for the operation of bus services across Ireland and the transport of schoolchildren have also come under review. On October 15th, the Commission concluded the current arrangements were implemented before EU state aid rules were applicable to this sector (ie the arrangements constitute “existing aid”). When existing aid is illegal, the Commission does not ask the member state to recover the aid granted but rather asks it to bring the measure to an end. Whilst the compensation arrangements for the bus services ceased in December 2009, the arrangements for the transportation of schoolchildren are still in place and must be brought into line with EU state aid rules.

On September 3rd, the European Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling that provides guidance on the interpretation of “parody” as an exception to copyright law. Deckmyn v Vandersteen was a Belgian case in which the copyright in a comic book drawing was allegedly infringed by a calendar produced by the Flemish nationalist party. In answering a number of questions posed by the Belgian Court of Appeal, the Court of Justice held that “parody” is an EU law concept that must be interpreted uniformly and in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language in all member states. The Court also noted that the two essential characteristics of parody are to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it and to constitute an expression of humour or mockery.

On October 9th, Minister for Children James Reilly told the Dáil that the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, Tonio Borg, had informed him that “the Commission has made no negative comment” on Ireland’s proposal to be the first EU country to introduce plain cigarette packaging. Notification of the proposal (as a “technical standard”) to the European Commission was made last June. Ireland has received widespread support for the proposal from politicians, anti-smoking lobby groups and cancer charities, and there are signs that other EU member states (such as France) will soon follow suit. However, objections to the notification were submitted to the European Commission by the US Chamber of Commerce and nine European countries: Italy, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Despite the objections, it appears that the commission itself is favourable to the proposal.

This article by Kate Leahy and Victoria Balageur, committee members of the Irish Society for European Law, was published in the Irish Times on Monday, 27 October 2014.

© 2014 irishtimes.com  – Click here to view this article on the Irish Times website

French philosopher Paul Ricoeur wrote “To be forgotten is to die twice”. However, in recent days the Court of Justice of the EU has taken steps towards recognising a “right to be forgotten”, for EU citizens.

The case in question is Google Spain and Google v AEPD and Gonzalez.

It resulted from a complaint by a Spanish citizen, Mario Costeja González, in relation to the appearance, in Google search results for his name, of newspaper reports regarding his old unpaid debts. The Spanish data protection authority upheld his complaint against Google – although not his separate complaint against the newspaper.

Google appealed this decision, with the matter coming before the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice, the highest and most authoritative interpreter of EU law.

The court ruled that Google must provide users, in certain instances, with a right to delete links about themselves including, in some cases, public records. The court stated that even where personal information about individuals was accurate and had been lawfully published initially, the continued publication of that information may breach EU data protection law in circumstances where, with the elapse of time, the initial publication was no longer relevant.

The court said that the right of a person to insist that information no longer be linked to searches of his name was not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of internet users.

However, the court indicated the privacy rights of the person whose details were published would “as a general rule” take priority over the rights of other internet users, unless the person played a particular role in public life.

The decision has been criticised by some on the basis that it curtails freedom of expression and internet freedom, as well as raising censorship concerns. This is because it will enable people to prevent truthful facts about them from appearing on the internet. The decision will put search engines in the extremely onerous position of having to take a view on how to comply with potentially millions of individual requests.

It will also place national data protection authorities, such as Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner, in a similarly difficult position.

This is because individuals will be able to complain to a national data protection authority if they are unhappy with a search engine’s response to a “right to be forgotten” request. The authority, in turn, will need to consider, on a case by case basis, whether the public’s interest in access to information exceeds the individual’s privacy rights. Clearly, this is not a straightforward decision.

The EU has spent the last two years debating whether and on what terms a right to be forgotten should be included in a new general data protection regulation (which continues to be debated). Ironically, it seems that such a right already exists under the current regime.

This article by Robert McDonagh and Francis Kieran BL, committee members of the Irish Society for European Law, was published in the Irish Times on 26 May 2014.

© 2014 irishtimes.com  – Click here to view this article on the Irish Times website

The ISEL is delighted to announce that the winner of the Competition Law Essay Prize 2013, an annual competition run by the ISEL’s Competition Law Forum:-

Mr. Nicholas Liddane

The winning work is entitled:-

“Addressing the Absence of a Provision in the Competition 2002 Act Analogous to Article 106(2) TFEU”

The winning work will be published on the Society’s website and in a future issue of the Irish Journal of European Law.

The Prize will be awarded to Mr. Liddane at the forthcoming Competition Law Forum event, Annual Review of Important Competition Law Cases and Developments in the EU and Ireland, at which Professor Richard Whish and Mr Declan Walsh will speak.

On behalf of the Society, we would like to thank Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Court of Justice of the European Union), Mr. Noel Travers B.L. and Dr. Stanley Wong (Stanley Wong Global) for acting as the Jury for the 2013 Competition and for kindly devoting their time to this initiative.

Dated 15th March 2013

Professor Joseph Weiler will be visiting the Law School, Trinity College, Dublin on Tuesday 18 February 2014.  He will be delivering a public lecture at 5pm in the Examination Hall at Trinity College.  The topic is Van Gend en Loos – 50 Years On, a critical retrospective.  Members of the ISEL are welcome to attend.