Latest news with #ECJ
Budapest Times
5 days ago
- 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.
DW
07-06-2025
- Politics
- DW
German govt to ask EU court to rule on migrant turnbacks – DW – 06/07/2025
06/07/2025 June 7, 2025 German interior to seek EU verdict on border turnbacks Germany's Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the German government would seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the legality of migrant turnbacks at the border. Dobrindt's comments to the Funke media group follow a ruling by a court in Berlin on Monday that the refusal to allow three Somali nationals to enter last month was unlawful. The court ruled that on May 9, border guards failed to initiate proper asylum procedures and returned the trio to Poland. According to the court, Germany should have applied the European Union's so-called Dublin Regulation, establishing which country is responsible for the asylum claim of the migrants, before they were sent back. The Dublin rule specifies which EU state should process an asylum application, partly to prevent arrivals from making claims in wealthier countries rather than the first EU nation that they entered. Dobrindt said the government would provide its rationale for invoking Article 72 — a special clause under EU law that permits exceptions to the Dublin rule in emergencies. "We will submit sufficient justification, but the European Court of Justice should decide on the matter," Dobrindt said, adding: "I am convinced that our actions are in line with European law." Dobrindt insisted that Germany had to crack down on illegal migration, which he said would prevent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party from pushing more radical solutions. German Chancellor Merz rejects criticism of border controls To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Germany introduced tougher border checks on May 7, including new rules allowing asylum seekers to be turned away at the border for the first time. In the first days of the new rule, 19 people who sought asylum in Germany were denied entry, along with nearly 300 other migrants, local media reported. Following this week's court ruling, the cabinet approved even stricter measures.
DW
07-06-2025
- Politics
- DW
Germany: Car drives into crowd in Passau – DW – 06/07/2025
06/07/2025 June 7, 2025 German interior to seek EU verdict on border turnbacks Germany's Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the German government would seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the legality of migrant turnbacks at the border. Dobrindt's comments to the Funke media group follow a ruling by a court in Berlin on Monday that the refusal to allow three Somali nationals to enter last month was unlawful. The court ruled that on May 9, border guards failed to initiate proper asylum procedures and returned the trio to Poland. According to the court, Germany should have applied the European Union's so-called Dublin Regulation, establishing which country is responsible for the asylum claim of the migrants, before they were sent back. The Dublin rule specifies which EU state should process an asylum application, partly to prevent arrivals from making claims in wealthier countries rather than the first EU nation that they entered. Dobrindt said the government would provide its rationale for invoking Article 72 — a special clause under EU law that permits exceptions to the Dublin rule in emergencies. "We will submit sufficient justification, but the European Court of Justice should decide on the matter," Dobrindt said, adding: "I am convinced that our actions are in line with European law." Dobrindt insisted that Germany had to crack down on illegal migration, which he said would prevent the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party from pushing more radical solutions. German Chancellor Merz rejects criticism of border controls To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Germany introduced tougher border checks on May 7, including new rules allowing asylum seekers to be turned away at the border for the first time. In the first days of the new rule, 19 people who sought asylum in Germany were denied entry, along with nearly 300 other migrants, local media reported. Following this week's court ruling, the cabinet approved even stricter measures.
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
European hotels sue Booking.com over pricing rules
Hotel associations from more than 25 European countries have initiated a large-scale legal case against online travel platform challenging its use of rate parity clauses that allegedly restricted competition and inflated commission fees. The coordinated lawsuit follows a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that deemed such clauses unlawful under EU competition law. Since the early 2000s, enforced contractual terms known as rate parity clauses. These provisions prevented hotels from offering lower prices on their own websites or other distribution channels, effectively forcing them to maintain uniform pricing on the platform. Hotels argue this practice limited their autonomy, raised operational costs through higher commissions, and suppressed price competition. The ECJ ruling on 19 September 2024 confirmed that these clauses breached European competition regulations by restricting fair competition and disadvantaging smaller independent hotels. The court found that policies hindered pricing transparency and consumer choice, setting the stage for collective legal action. The lawsuit involves national hotel associations from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland. This broad coalition reflects the extensive impact of the platform's pricing practices across the continent. A dedicated legal body has been established to coordinate the claims, with the Netherlands chosen as the jurisdiction for the centralised proceedings. Eligible hotels that paid commissions to between 2004 and 2024 can join the collective action by registering through a streamlined legal platform. The process aims to reduce litigation costs and facilitate compensation claims for overpaid commission fees plus accrued interest. This legal action highlights growing concerns over the market power of online travel agencies and digital platforms in the hospitality sector. By challenging restrictive pricing clauses, hotels seek to regain control over their pricing strategies and improve competitiveness. Industry representatives emphasise that fair competition among booking channels benefits both consumers and service providers by promoting transparency and innovation. The ECJ decision and subsequent lawsuit may influence other digital marketplaces employing similar pricing restrictions. Regulators across Europe are increasingly scrutinising platform practices to ensure compliance with competition laws and to foster a more balanced digital economy. As the European hospitality industry recovers from recent disruptions, the outcome of this case could set a significant precedent. It underscores the importance of protecting independent businesses against anti-competitive agreements and ensuring fair conditions in online hotel booking markets. "European hotels sue over pricing rules" was originally created and published by Hotel Management Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
