When reviewing a job application letter, going on a first date, or considering doing business with someone, the first thing many people do is entering the person's name in a search engine. A search engine can point searchers to information that would otherwise have remained obscure. If somebody searched for the name of Spanish lawyer Mario Costeja González, Google showed search results that included a link to a 1998 newspaper announcement implying he had financial troubles at the time. González wanted Google to stop showing those links and started a procedure in Spain. After some legal wrangling, the Spanish Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for advice on the application of the Data Protection Directive, which led to the controversial judgment in Google Spain. In its judgment, the CJEU holds that people, under certain conditions, have the right to have search results for their name delisted. This right can also extend to lawfully published information.

The General Court has dismissed the actions brought Budějovický Budvar against the registration of the Community trade mark “Bud” for beer that was sought for by Anheuser-Busch. The main reason is the insignificant use in France and Austria of the appellation of origin “Bud”.

This case note relates to the recent judgement (23 October 2012) by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case No C-300/10 concerning interrelation of the European Union motor insurance law and the national civil liability regulation. As the civil liability arising from motor traffic accidents is not approximated by the European Union law, its regulation falls within the national law. Yet, application of the national civil liability law shall not undermine the obligation to provide insurance coverage for victims of road traffic accidents. The discussed case concerns a situation when a victim who was not fastened by a seat belt at the moment of a motor traffic accident was injured, and this raises a question whether such victim may be compensated due to contributory negligence. This note provides a brief summary of the previous case law, facts, review of Advocate's General Opinion and the judgment and their analysis.

In reviewing two similar cases, the CJEU clarified several essential elements of EU motor insurance law. First, the CJEU clarified the concept of “personal injury” as an insurable risk (another is damage to property) by holding that it also covers non–material damage and the concept of “injured party” by establishing that it also covers the next of kin of a person who died as a result of a road traffic accident. Second, the CJEU affirmed its previous case law that EU Member States are precluded from lowering the minimum insurance coverage as set in the amount of 350 000 euro by EU motor insurance law. In particular, the CJEU found that a Latvian national legal provision which provides fixed insurance redress in the amount of 142 (now 150) euro for non–material damage for the next of kin of a person who died in an accident is incompatible with EU motor insurance law (author's summary).

In this judgment, the General Court annulled two Commission decisions authorising the placing on the market of the GM potato Amflora. The Court did not base its decision on the arguments put forward by the applicant Hungary, which contested the underlying scientific assessment of the European Food Safety Authority, but found of its own motion a breach of an essential procedural requirement in the applicable comitology procedure.Whilst the Court’s proactive role in scrutinising the Commission's behaviour in the authorisation procedure of GMOs is to be welcomed, the Court arguably missed an opportunity to exercise its role as a deliberative forum for normative controversies underlying the scientific risk assessment.

Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, OJ 2001 L 106;Regulation 1829/2003 on geneticallymodified food and feed,OJ 2003 L 268; Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/468 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ 1999 L 184.

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court of Utah, Central Division, decided in University of Utah Research Foundation, et al., v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, holding that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction”, as they “are unable to establish that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claims” nor “that the equitable factors support issuance of the requested injunction”.

This case note gives an overview of the U.S. District Court's of Utah memorandum decision and order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and discusses its implications for the implementation of the criterion of isolation to “synthetic” DNA sequences, such as primers and probes.

On 22 January 2014, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the powers entrusted to the European Securities Markets Agency under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, upholding their compatibility with the principle of institutional balance, the Lisbon Treaty and established case law of the CJEU.

This case note gives an overview of the ruling and analyses its implications for ESMA and the broader Union institutional setting, with particular regard to the interplay between EU Institutions and agencies. It concludes by highlighting some reasons for potential constitutional concerns resulting from the combination of politically unchecked agencies and highly controlled Institutions.