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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll