header-logo header-logo

02 December 2016
Issue: 7725 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Ullens de Schooten v Etat belge C-268/15, [2016] All ER (D) 145 (Nov)

The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that EU law had to be interpreted as meaning that the system of non-contractual liability of a member state for damage caused by a breach of that law did not apply in the case of damage allegedly caused to an individual as a result of an alleged breach of a fundamental freedom laid down in Arts 49, 56 or 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by national legislation that was applicable without distinction to the state’s own nationals and those of other member states, where, in a situation which was confined in all respects within a single member state, there was no link between the subject or circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings and those articles.

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll