The General Court has annulled the Commission’s decision that it did not need to comply with a request for review made under the Aarhus Regulation insofar as the decision in question related to the safety risks, as opposed to ‘environmental risks’ posed by a genetically modified organisms (“GMO”).

Pursuant to the Aarhus Regulation, Testbiotech submitted a request for review to the Commission of the legality of a market authorisation for a genetically modified soybean. The Commission rejected the greater part of the review on the basis that it was out with the scope of the Aarhus Regulation because it examined the health threats posed by the GMO, and not the threat it posed to the environment. The General Court found that as GMOs are cultivated in the environment they are, therefore, part of the general environment (whether they are cultivated in the EU or not). The Court found, therefore, that the Aarhus Regulation applies to any provision of EU legislation concerning the regulation of GMOs that has the objective of dealing with a risk to human or animal health, that originates in those GMOs or in environmental factors that may have effects on GMOs when they are cultivated or bred in the natural environment.

This judgment has broader significance for the exercise of environmental law rights by NGOs. It demonstrates that the General Court will adopt a broad and purposive approach to the scope of the Aarhus Regulation, enabling NGOs to challenge inappropriate market authorisations or other environmental decisions.

Kassie Smith QC and Julianne Kerr Morrison, instructed by Leigh Day, acted for Testbiotech.

For further detail see the General Court’s Press Release.

The judgement may be found here.

The High Court has granted permission for a judicial review of Walsall Council’s cemeteries policy, deeming it a matter of public interest.

The Claimant’s late father is buried in the lawn area of Streetly Cemetery, which is reserved for Muslim burials. The Council’s policy prohibits edging around graves in that area. The Claimant argues that appropriate edging is a religious requirement (to prevent people from stepping on graves) and that the ban is in breach of the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 ECHR and contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

Nikolaus Grubeck is acting for the Claimant.

For the media coverage see BBC and the Guardian.

The TCC has refused an application by Lancashire County Council to lift the suspension of a procurement relating to Children’s Services in Lancashire. The procurement is challenged by two local NHS Trusts – Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust and Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – who are the incumbent providers of the services. The contract has been awarded to Virgin Care Services Limited.

The judgment is notable in a number of respects:

• The Court held that the constraint on the availability of damages to a “sufficiently serious breach” was a factor which could be taken into account in deciding whether to lift the suspension.
• The Court held that damages were not an adequate remedy for the claimants given that the loss of the contract would require them to restructure their operations and would affect the way in which they provided other public services
• The Court rejected an argument that the Court should lift the suspension because a contract extension would be illegal
• The Court made observations confirming that contracting authorities should not unreasonably resist applications for specific disclosure of core evaluation and bid material

The Court ordered an expedited trial of the claim in April 2018.

Rob Williams acted for the successful Claimants instructed by Hempsons. The judgment can be found here.

The Lawyer has published the Top 20 Cases due to be heard in 2018, which this year has “public interest cases take centre stage” and is described as “a plethora of headline-grabbers.” Four members of Monckton Chambers are highlighted in this year’s list relating to two cases:

Peugeot SA & Ors v NSK Ltd & Ors

Competition Appeal Tribunal,

16 April, six weeks

Peugeot has launched a claim for damages against automotive parts supplier NSK Ltd and others that will reach court in April, following a March 2014 European Commission decision that identified cartel behaviour. The commission found the defendants guilty of collusive behaviour relating to their supply of automotive bearings to claimant the Peugeot group between 2004 and 2011. The upcoming hearing will examine the remaining technical issue surrounding the ‘overcharge’ resulting from anti-competitive behaviour.

The defendants claim this overcharge was passed onto Peugeot’s customers and, as such, it is not their responsibility to pay further damages. There is also confusion as to the extent of Peugeot’s loss resulting from the defendants’ cartel behaviour, and whether it is possible to monetise that loss.

Monckton Chambers’ Josh Holmes QC and James Bourke, instructed by Macfarlanes partner Geoff Steward is acting for the fifth defendant, AB SKF

 

Liberty v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

High Court,

27 February, two days

Liberty is seeking a judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, otherwise known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’, which was brought into law while Theresa May was home secretary in 2015.The bill granted the security services and the police powers to hack devices such as mobile phones and computers, and to retain data that might help them combat an increased terror threat. The legislation provoked an immediate backlash from civil rights campaigners who said it compromised citizens’ right to privacy and journalists’ ability to do their job.

The powers granted by the bill, including a requirement for telecoms operators to retain data, thematic hacking, the bulk interception of communications and the bulk acquisition of data, are (according to Liberty) incompatible with EU law and in contravention of the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Monckton Chambers’ Gerry Facenna QC and Michael Armitage, alongside Blackstone Chambers’ James Eadie QC and 11 KBW’s Julian Milford, are instructed by the Government Legal Department for the defendant, the Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors.

Please click here to view the full article, if a subscriber of premium content.

On 23 January 2018, the CMA published its provisional decision that Fox taking full control of Sky is not in the public interest due to media plurality concerns, but not because of a lack of a genuine commitment to meeting broadcasting standards in the UK.  The media plurality concerns identified mean that, overall, the CMA provisionally concluded that the proposed transaction is not in the public interest.  The public interest issues had been referred to the CMA by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.  The CMA’s final view is due in summer 2018, when the matter will be referred back to the Secretary of State for a final decision on the merger.

The CMA provisionally found that if the deal went ahead, as currently proposed, it would be likely to operate against the public interest. It would lead to the Murdoch Family Trust (MFT), which controls Fox and News Corporation (News Corp), increasing its control over Sky, so that it would have too much control over news providers in the UK across all media platforms (TV, Radio, Online and Newspapers), and therefore too much influence over public opinion and the political agenda.  The MFT’s news outlets are watched, read or heard by nearly a third of the UK’s population, and have a combined share of the public’s news consumption that is significantly greater than all other news providers, except the BBC and ITN.  Due to its control of News Corp, the Murdoch family already has significant influence over public opinion and full ownership of Sky by Fox would strengthen this even further.  While there are a range of other news outlets serving UK audiences, the CMA provisionally found that they would not be sufficient to moderate or mitigate the increased influence of the MFT if the deal went ahead.

The CMA’s investigation also examined a range of evidence to understand whether Fox, Sky and the MFT have a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards in the UK. Here, it provisionally found that Fox taking full control of Sky was not likely to operate against the public interest.

Kassie Smith QC and Julian Gregory are acting for the Secretary of State in this matter.

George Peretz QC and Azeem Suterwalla are acting for Avaaz, who are objecting to the transaction.

This has been widely covered by the press: BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times.