EU Decision meaning

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and is no longer maintained. On 31 March 2011, the European Commission (Commission) put forward, via the co-decision process, a proposal to adopt a directive on credit agreements for consumers connected to residential immovable property. Subsequently, on 4 February 2014, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU formally adopted the Mortgage Credit Directive (Directive 2014/17/EU) (MCD). Its publication in the Official Journal of the EU followed on 28 February 2014. The MCD covers first- and second-charge mortgages as well as consumer buy-to-let activity on the same basis. It sets out assumptions used to calculate the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC). A tool built on these assumptions is available to assist users (including regulators, consumers, and creditors) in working out the APRC for a particular credit. Per the Commission, the MCD seeks to establish an EU-wide mortgage credit market delivering strong consumer protection. It also aims to support a more effective internal market for mortgage lending throughout Europe across the...

In brief In summary, EU data protection rules are designed to ensure information about living people, within the meaning of ‘personal data’, is used fairly and responsibly. To help ensure that aim, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR), sets numerous obligations on those ‘processing’ personal data, and on the controllers overseeing such processing, whenever they fall within the scope of the regime. The rules also grant rights to individuals whose personal data is processed (the ‘data subjects’). ‘Processing’ covers doing almost anything with personal data, including storing, sharing, deleting or using it in practice. Operating a business or any other organisation without handling personal data is virtually impossible. Among other requirements, the controllers of personal data processing must provide certain information to data subjects, so they know why their personal data is being collected, how it is being used, who it is being shared with, and their own key rights; this is referred to as the ‘right to be informed’)...

The flowchart below sets out how to spot State aid issues:...

ARCHIVED: This flowchart is archived and is no longer maintained...

This Flowchart helps you decide whether the Business & Property Courts (B&PCs) Disclosure Scheme (CPR PD 57AD) applies to your claim, or if disclosure is governed by CPR 31, CPR PD 31A and CPR PD 31B. It does not address the position on: transfer of proceedings from a non‑Disclosure Scheme scenario to a Disclosure Scheme one; and disclosure in appeals Relevant content referred to in this Flowchart: Disclosure Scheme—when and where it applies Disclosure—overview Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure Disclosure Scheme—Extended Disclosure and Less Complex Claims See also: Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview...

This Flowchart This Flowchart supports your decision on whether a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) is necessary when initiating a new project that involves personal data from the outset, helping you decide effectively. It sets out: three scenarios in which a DPIA is mandatory under Article 35(3) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR); and ten further processing activities for which the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) requires a DPIA to be carried out Where a DPIA is not needed, you should think about using a simpler form of review, which we call a privacy impact assessment (PIA) instead. The Flowchart enables you to determine which assessment—DPIA or PIA—best fits your project in practice. For additional guidance on DPIAs and PIAs, see Practice Note: How to complete a data protection impact assessment—DPIA...

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Mergers The Commission approved: the securing of joint control over Kee Safety Group by Inflexion Private Equity Partners LLP and 65 Equity Partners Pte. Ltd (M.11983) following a phase I investigation—for further details, see Midday Express the attainment of joint control of Grand Bahamas Shipyard Ltd...

Mergers The Commission approved the establishment of a joint venture between DP World Logistics Europe B.V. and Arcese Transporti S.p.A...

This tracker monitors current Court of Justice appeals concerning State aid (Articles 107–109 TFEU) and other aid recovery actions. For concluded matters, consult Court of Justice State aid appeals—closed cases tracker. Note—closed appeals are transferred from this page to the closed trackers within seven days of the final ruling. For the Commission’s recent State aid decisions, see EU State aid decisions—ongoing cases tracker; for appeals pending before the General Court, see General Court State aid appeals—ongoing cases tracker; and for national references before the Court of Justice touching on State aid, see Court of Justice State aid national references—ongoing cases tracker. Appeals from the General Court Case C-306/26 P, LM v Commission — Appeal against the General Court’s order in Case T-261/25 declaring inadmissible an annulment action concerning parts of Commission decision SA.44944—Tax treatment of public casinos in Germany and SA.53552—Alleged guarantee for public casinos in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie). Latest development: Lodged—07/04/2026. Case C-505/24 P, Condor Flugdienst v Ryanair —...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

Governing legislation The process of transferring undertakings is regulated by SI No 131/2003 European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (Ireland) (SI No 131/2003 (IRL)), commonly known as the TUPE Regulations 2003 (IRL). These 2003 Regulations superseded SI No 306/1980 European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 1980 (Ireland), as later amended by SI No 487/2000 European Communities (Safeguarding of Employees’ Rights on Transfer of Undertakings) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (Ireland). The earlier regime gave effect to the EU Acquired Rights Directive 77/187/EEC in Ireland. Relevant transfers Numerous European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings have clarified what amounts to a transfer for the purposes of Directive 77/187/EEC and, in turn, the TUPE Regulations 2003 (IRL). A detailed review of that body of caselaw lies outside this Practice Note and is not attempted here. In essence, a transfer arises where the undertaking keeps its identity after the handover; in other words, where the undertaking is passed on as a going concern,...

1 In this [ clause ], 2021 EU SCCs refers to module two (controller to processor) of the standard contractual clauses specified in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914. The [ Importer Party ] must fulfil the data importer’s duties, and the [ Exporter Party ] must fulfil the data exporter’s duties, as further detailed in the 2021 EU SCCs, which are hereby incorporated by reference and form part of this Agreement...

This Precedent sets out a broad template for a website privacy policy, informing data subjects about how a site operator gathers personal data, the lawful grounds for processing, subsequent uses and potential recipients. It has been prepared to meet the EU GDPR’s information and transparency obligations, taking account of guidance from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). The website privacy policy sits within a wider collection covering website terms of use, e‑commerce, privacy and cookies. Where cookies or similar tools are deployed, a distinct cookie policy is required. See Precedent: Ireland—Cookie policy. EU GDPR and UK GDPR Designed for commercial organisations established in Ireland, this Precedent reflects EU GDPR requirements. It also offers optional clauses for Irish organisations that maintain a UK establishment and/or provide goods or services to, or monitor the behaviour of, people in the UK, bringing them within the scope of equivalent UK data protection laws. The UK GDPR and EU GDPR regimes are largely consistent...

1 In this [ clause ], 2021 EU SCCs refers to module four (processor to controller) of the standard contractual clauses set out in Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914. The [ Importer Party ] shall adhere to the data importer’s obligations, and the [ Exporter Party ] shall adhere to the data exporter’s obligations, set out in the 2021 EU SCCs, which are hereby integrated into and constitute part of this Agreement...