header-logo header-logo

27 September 2013
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Council of the European Union v European Parliament C-77/11, [2013] All ER (D) 160 (Sep)

In November 2010, the President of the Council of the EU wrote to the President of the defendant European Parliament stating that both presidents were required to sign the act establishing the EU's annual budget. In December, the Council adopted its position on the draft budget for the financial year 2011. Subsequently, the President of the Parliament indicated that he was unable to share the council's view that the act establishing the budget had to be signed by both presidents. The following day, the President of the Parliament announced that the budget for 2011 had been approved and signed an article providing that the procedure initiated under Art 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) had been completed and the budget for 2011 had been definitively adopted (the contested measure). The Council commenced proceedings seeking the annulment of the contested measure. It submitted, inter alia, that the Treaty of Lisbon had altered the budgetary procedure significantly, making the Parliament

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll