Soudní novinky 15-29 (o prostředníčcích na policajty)

Za minulý týden přistály na stole následující zajímavosti:

• Dvě perličky od SDEU, nelze než nezačít s případem ČEZ (AG Kokott své stanovisko zjevně ustála): C-83/14 ČEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisija za zaštita ot diskriminacija: Umístění elektroměrů v nepřístupné výšce ve čtvrti, kde žijí převážně Romové, může představovat diskriminaci na základě etnického původu, jsou-li tytéž měřiče v jiných čtvrtích umístěny v normální výšce. I kdyby bylo prokázáno, že měřiče byly v této čtvrti zneužívány, taková praxe se jeví být nepřiměřenou ve vztahu k dvojímu cíli spočívajícímu v zajištění bezpečnosti elektrické sítě a řádné evidence spotřebované elektřiny.
• Rozsudek ve věci C-218/14 Kuldip Singh a další v. Minister for Justice and Equality: Státní příslušník třetí země, který je manželem či manželkou občana Unie, jenž má bydliště v jiném členském státě, než jehož je státním příslušníkem, již nemůže požívat práva pobytu v tomto státě, pokud občan Unie opustí dotčený stát před zahájením řízení o rozvodu. Analýza Steva Peerse k případu.
• Tribunál k sestřelenému letadlu nebude, Rusko ve vetovací náladě. "Malaysia has asked the United Nations Security Council to set up an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing a passenger airliner last year in eastern Ukraine, but Russia dismissed the move on Thursday."
• Španělský ústavní soud umožňuje neprodat pilulku proti otěhotnění z důvodů svědomí: "An important ruling regarding the protection of the conscience rights of pharmacists in Spain was issued July 8 by Spain’s Constitutional Court. The decision strengthens the right of pharmacists who refuse to sell the “morning after pill” on the basis of conscientious objection".
• Tričko s Rihannou u anglických soudů! "Can a fashion retailer take a photograph of a celebrity, print it on a t-shirt and sell it without the celebrity’s approval? Yes, but sometimes no – not when the retailer has previously gone out of its way to draw a connection between its products and that celebrity; in this case Robyn Fenty, aka Rihanna."
• Russian Constitutional Court Affirms Russian Constitution’s Supremacy over ECtHR Decisions.
• California Court Rules Against Campus Sex Tribunal: "A San Diego judge has has ordered UC San Diego to set aside a sexual misconduct finding against a male student in a decision that paints a picture of an adjudication process riddled with due process violations and stacked against the accused."
• Texas... Showing a middle finger while driving by a police officer isn’t a crime: "Defendant walked to Plaintiff’s car, asked why Plaintiff had given him the finger, and inquired about the absence of a front license plate on the car. Plaintiff stated that he had a constitutional right to display his middle finger, to which Defendant responded that Texas law did not see it that way. Defendant believed that giving someone the finger was a violation of Texas’s disorderly conduct statute. Defendant cited Plaintiff for not having a front license plate, disorderly conduct, and failure to obtain a Texas driver’s license within 90 days of moving to Texas…." (..) "[Here,] Plaintiff gestured through the closed window of his moving vehicle, and “was not part of a confrontational face-to-face exchange.” While offensive, Plaintiff’s gesture, directed toward an on-duty police officer while Plaintiff was driving by, was not “a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” See also Spiller, 130 F.3d at 165 (noting that a police officer “may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to fighting words” (quoting Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 135 (1974) (J. Powell, concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted))). Without any indication of “actual or threatened violence,” Plaintiff’s gesture could not reasonably be interpreted as “tend[ing] to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” Tex. Penal Code § 42.01(a)(2)…."
• Dutch Supreme Court Ruling on Israeli Criminal Jurisdiction in the West Bank: "The case concerned an extradition request by Israel for a rabbi accused of multiple sex crimes. The rather unusual case had seen the rabbi, Eliexer Berland, hop across countries and continents (Morocco, Zimbabwe, and South Africa) before landing in the Netherlands last year. Israel requested extradition - and Berland raised an interesting defense. The allegations involve conduct at his yeshiva in Jerusalem's Old City, and in the city of Beitar Illit, both across the 1949 Armistice Line with Jordan by a few hundred meters. The former has been annexed by Israel. Berland claimed the Israel does not have jurisdiction over the conduct, as it occurred in areas recognized by the international community, the UN, the EU, etc., as being not in Israel but rather in the "Occupied Palestinian Territories"."
• Selection of Ombudsperson for Children in Moldova Ruled Unconstitutional: "The Ombudsperson for Children in Moldova was elected by the Moldovan Parliament on the 3rd of July. The new elected Ombudsperson was invested with a mandate of seven years to protect the best interest of every child in the country. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the election procedure was supposed to be transparent and beyond political favoritism, several mishandlings were detected by the national child-focused coalition, APSCF. The lack of timely information about the vacancy amongst potential candidates, the insufficient consultation of the civil society representatives in the selection process, the failure to incorporate the recommendations and the inputs of civil society representatives in the selection criteria are some of the key aspects that affected the final result of the election of the Ombudsperson for Children. Consequently, the candidates to the position were lacking consistent professional expertise in the field of child welfare, as well as a strong public profile in national and international circles."
• Finally, the high court puts a brake on snooping on ordinary Britons: "A UK court has ruled today that the government’s ever-growing powers to track and monitor its population must be restrained and that the UK cannot continue to flout its international obligations to respect privacy and protect personal data. For the first time in over a decade, the British government must stem its insatiable appetite for surveillance powers. The decision came in a challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (..)."