All EU languages available

Link

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/es/document/en/126423

Following a mugging, the injured party named one of the perpetrators. She then went through the named person’s Facebook friends on her own accord and found a person she claimed she recognised. When the police then showed the person’s passport picture, the injured party identified the person as the second perpetrator. Following an oral presentation from the police, a prosecutor used that as grounds for a decision to arrest the person in question. It later turned out that the injured party had pointed out the wrong person.

In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that this kind of identification may be difficult to assess from an evidential perspective. A decision-maker considering using a person being identified in this manner as grounds for a decision regarding, for example, coercive measures, must pay attention to any potential efficiencies in the reliability of the identification of the person and ensure that he or she understands how the person was identified. The decision-maker needs to have good understanding of what the person identifying another individual has stated as part of the identification and if there are any other circumstances significant to the assessment of the credibility of the identification, among other factors. There must also be clarification as to how the identification relates to other pieces of information in the investigation.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation has not provided clarity regarding which pieces of information the police presented to the prosecutor or any other revelations made during the presentation. Therefore, the Parliamentary Ombudsman lacks the sufficient documentation to make any statements regarding whether the police omitted any important circumstances during their presentation. Similarly, criticism cannot be levelled at the prosecutor for her decision to make the arrest. The prosecutor is however criticised for not documenting the circumstances that formed the basis for her decision. The Police Authority is criticised for its deficiencies in documenting the identification.

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200049en.pdf

Available languages: de en fr it

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 49/20

Luxembourg, 23 April 2020
Judgment in Case C-28/19 

Ryanair Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – Antitrust and Others
 
Air carriers must indicate, from the first time their price offers are published on the internet, the VAT on domestic flights and the fees charged for paying by credit card
They must also indicate the check-in fees payable where no method of checking-in free of charge is offered as an alternative
In 2011, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – Antitrust (Competition and Market Authority, Italy)(‘the AGCM’) criticised Ryanair for having published on the internet prices for air services that did not indicate, from the first time that they were shown, the following elements: (1) the amount of VAT on domestic flights, (2) the online check-in fees, and (3) the fees charged when paying by a credit card other than that approved by Ryanair. The AGCM considered that those price elements were unavoidable and foreseeable and that the consumer therefore had to be informed of them from the first time the price was indicated, that is to say before a booking process was commenced. The AGCM therefore imposed fines on Ryanair for an unfair commercial practice. 

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200049it.pdf

Lingue: de en fr it

Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea

COMUNICATO STAMPA n. 49/20

Lussemburgo, 23 aprile 2020
Sentenza nella causa C-28/19 Ryanair Ltd e a./Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – Antitrust e a. 
 
I vettori aerei devono indicare, sin dalla pubblicazione delle loro offerte di prezzo su Internet, l’IVA applicata ai voli nazionali nonché le tariffe per il pagamento con carta di credito
Essi devono anche indicare gli oneri di web check-in qualora non sia proposta alcuna modalità alternativa di check-in gratuito
 

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7052/it/

Lingue: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea

COMUNICATO STAMPA n. 48/20

Lussemburgo, 23 aprile 2020
Sentenza nella causa C-507/18

NH / Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI – Rete Lenford
 
Le dichiarazioni omofobe costituiscono una discriminazione in materia di occupazione e di lavoro se pronunciate da chi esercita, o può essere percepito come capace di esercitare, un’influenza determinante sulla politica di assunzioni di un datore di lavoro
In un simile caso, il diritto nazionale può prevedere che un’associazione sia legittimata ad agire in giudizio per chiedere il risarcimento dei danni, anche se un individuo leso non è identificabile 
Nella sentenza Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI (C-507/18), pronunciata il 23 aprile 2020, la Corte ha giudicato che dichiarazioni rese da una persona nel corso di una trasmissione audiovisiva, secondo le quali tale persona mai assumerebbe o si avvarrebbe, nella propria impresa, della collaborazione di persone di un determinato orientamento sessuale rientrano nell’ambito di applicazione materiale della direttiva 2000/78 1 (in prosieguo: la «direttiva “antidiscriminazioni”»), e più precisamente della nozione di «condizioni di accesso all’occupazione e al lavoro» contenuta all’articolo 3, paragrafo 1, lettera a), di tale direttiva, e ciò anche se, al momento del rilascio di tali dichiarazioni, non fosse in corso o programmata alcuna procedura di selezione di personale, purché, tuttavia, il collegamento tra dette dichiarazioni e le condizioni di accesso all’occupazione e al lavoro in seno a tale impresa non sia ipotetico.