Adjudicating Europe

It is AG Maduro’s last week at the Court, and he is certainly leaving Luxembourg with a big bang.

On Wednesday he will deliver the Opinion in Rottmann (C-135/08), an essential citizenship case concerning state-less Europeans. How far can a Member State go in depriving its own nationals of their nationality? Can articles 17 and 18 TEC do something about it?

That same day Maduro will render his Opinion in Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez (C-570, 571/08), another central case on pharmacies and national provisions on distances among pharmacies. This is a follow-up to the previous Commission/Italy (C-531/06), where pharmacy regulation came under fire (with little success for the Commission, it must be said).

On Thursday, Maduro will issue three other important Opinions.

Vodafone (C-58/08) raises once again the never-ending debate about the scope of article 95 TEC harmonization measures. Is Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No. 717/2007 invalid on the grounds that the imposition of a price ceiling in respect of retail roaming charges infringes the principle of proportionality and/or subsidiarity? Good question indeed.

Another important Opinion on that same day is Commission/Sweden (C-246/07), concerning Sweden’s unilateral action regarding the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, whilst being aware that the Community was engaged in drafting legislation which included that substance. As a result of Sweden’s action, the Community and Member States could not jointly present proposals for additions to the Stockholm Convention, raising thus doubts about Sweden’s compliance with articles 10 EC and 300(1) EC.

Is the Commission obliged to disclose documents lodged in pending procedures before European courts until the oral procedure has taken place in the case? That is the question raised in Sweden/Commission and API, a complex case on access to documentation, confidentiality of documents submitted in the course of judicial proceedings and Commission discretion. The Opinion will also be made public on Thursday (C-514/07).

A heavy week indeed for the Opinion market. The week after will be even more important for the Court’s electoral market: presidential election of both Court and Chambers. But that’s a matter for another post.