From the Brussels office

Another CJEU setback for in-house lawyers

On 6 September the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down its ruling in Case C-422/11 P Prezes UKE. This case was an appeal from a 2011 General Court ruling on the right of in-house lawyers to represent their employers before the European Courts.

The court held that its statute should be interpreted so as to preclude in-house lawyers from bringing actions on behalf of their employer before it and before the General Court. It based this decision on the ruling in Akzo Nobel, and held that a lawyer must be independent of his or her client in order to be granted standing. The court further ruled that a contract of employment precluded such independence, notwithstanding the regulation to which in-house members of the legal profession are subject (and the rights which such professionals may enjoy) at a national level.

While the decision is confined to the relatively narrow sphere of the court’s procedural rules, the UK law societies will be monitoring future developments closely to protect the interests of in-house solicitors.

Eurozone banking reform

In May, the Commission announced its support for enhanced banking unity at the European level, and in June the European Council decided that a single supervisory mechanism would be set up for all banks in the Eurozone, as a step to achieving this union. More recently, on 12 September, the Commission published legislative proposals for the establishment of this mechanism.

The first proposed piece of legislation would confer specific tasks on the European Central Bank relating to banking supervision, and the second would amend the powers of the EBA (European Banking Authority) as a result of this change. These were accompanied by a Commission communication setting out its vision for banking union.

The proposals would enable the ECB to carry out certain supervisory tasks in credit institutions in Eurozone countries which are currently carried out by national supervisory authorities. The proposals do not envisage that the ECB will directly supervise each bank, but instead set out a number of procedures which would allow it to monitor the supervisory activities of some banks. National supervisory authorities would still have a role in the exercise of these ECB functions. The EBA’s powers would be amended, in order to enable it to exercise its powers as a supervisory authority over the ECB in the same way as it would supervise a national authority.

The Commission has expressed its desire for the single supervisory mechanism to be in place by 1 January 2013, and its hope is that ECB supervision of all Eurozone banks will be phased in by 1 January 2014.

Energy Efficiency Directive

On 11 September the European Parliament approved the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). The Parliament and Council had negotiated a provisional agreement on the EED in June and at its plenary session the Parliament formally adopted the compromise amendment to the Council’s proposal.

The EED repeals the 2004 Cogeneration Directive and the 2006 Energy Services Directive and is part of the Energy Efficiency Plan adopted in 2006. It sets out energy reductions in a number of specific areas which must be achieved by member states in order to achieve the overall energy reduction target of 20% by 2020, as agreed at the March 2007 EU summit. Energy consumption in buildings is specifically targeted by a number of measures. Among these is a requirement for the renovation of 3% of floorspace owned or occupied by central governments by 2020.

Energy companies covered by the EED will have to achieve total energy savings by 2020 and must achieve a minimum reduction of 1.5% energy sales annually from 2014 until 2020. The EED also requires all large enterprises to undergo an energy audit every four years.

Member states will have 18 months to write the directive into national law, and are expected to present their national efficiency programmes for the implementation of the EED in April 2013, for evaluation by the Commission.

Rome II: Limitation periods under the spotlight

On 19 July 2012 the European Commission opened a consultation to consider the disparity in limitation and prescription periods among member states for road traffic accident compensation claims. This follows a previous consultation in 2009 and is part of the Commission’s programme on strengthening victims’ rights.

The consultation concerns problems which may arise for a citizen who is the victim of a road traffic accident in a member state other than that of his or her habitual residence. The Commission has taken the initial view that differences in limitation and prescription periods across different jurisdictions may cause difficulties for victims claiming compensation, and the consultation seeks to clarify the extent of the problem. The consultation paper also asks for comments on four possible approaches to address such difficulties. The approaches proposed range from increasing the provision of information concerning the current limitation and prescription periods in each member state, to the harmonisation of such periods in these types of traffic accident.

The deadline for responses is 19 November 2012.