Member State Economic Patriotism and EU Law: Legitimate Regulatory Control Through Proportionality?

Author(s):  
Márton Varju ◽  
Mónika Papp
Author(s):  
Vincent Power

More than 1000 passengers on a Panamanian-registered ferry drowned in the Red Sea. Some survivors and relatives of some of the victims sued the classification and certification ship society which had surveyed the ferry. Relying on the Brussels I Regulation, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in the latter’s seat (in Italy). The defendants claimed sovereign immunity as they were acting on behalf of Panama (that is, the flag state). The CJEU ruled that, generally, Article 1(1) of the Regulation means that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of, and upon delegation from, a non-EU Member State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in the Regulation. The defendants were therefore not immune. The CJEU qualified its ruling by saying that this is conditional on the activity being not exercised under ‘public powers’ (within the meaning of EU law) because then it would then be a sovereign and not a commercial activity. The CJEU thereby ruled that the customary public international law principle that foreign states have immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude an EU Member State court seised of a dispute from exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation in these circumstances.


Author(s):  
Georgios I. Zekos

The Commission is of the belief that the efficacy of arbitration agreements should be enhanced in order to give full effect to the will of the parties. According to the ECJ in the West Tankers decision, anti-suit injunctions for arbitration agreements are incompatible with the Brussels I Regulation so that they are no longer available so as to counter-attack a torpedo action brought before the courts of a Member State. Does the perplexing interference of courts in the whole arbitration process advance justice and effectiveness?


Author(s):  
Caroline Heber

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-153
Author(s):  
Tatjana Josipović

The paper considers and comments on the instruments of protection of the fundamental rights of the Union in private law relationships that are in the scope of applicable EU law. Special attention is paid to the influence of fundamental rights of the Union on private autonomy and the freedom of contract in private law relationships depending on whether fundamental rights are protected by national law harmonized with EU law, or by horizontal effects of the Charter of general principles. The goal of the paper is to determine the method in private law relationships that can attain the optimal balance between the protection of fundamental rights of the Union and the principle of private autonomy and the freedom of contract regulated by national law of a member state. The author favors the protection of fundamental rights in private law relationships by applying adequate measures that create indirect horizontal effects of the provisions of EU law on fundamental rights. These concern national measures that can also secure adequate protection of fundamental rights via interpretation and application of national law in line with EU law in private law relationships.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel

Abstract The European Union and its member-states’ involvement in the economic sphere, manifesting itself in establishing the rules of entrepreneurs’ functioning – their responsibilities and entitlements – requires a precise determination of the addressees of these standards. Proper identification of an entrepreneur is a condition of proper legislation, interpretation, application, control and execution of the law. In this context it is surprising that understanding the term entrepreneur in Polish law and in EU law is not the same, and divergences and differences in identification are fundamental. This fact formed the objective of this article. It is aimed at pointing at key differences in the identification of an entrepreneur between Polish and EU law, explaining the reasons for different concepts, and also the answer to the question: May Poland, as an EU member-state, identify the entrepreneur in a different way than the EU?


2021 ◽  
pp. 21-47
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan

This chapter sets out the basic constitutional framework, under EU law, governing the withdrawal of a Member State. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union recognizes the sovereign right of any State to leave the EU and sets out a process for agreeing the terms of an orderly departure. But Brexit also required the EU and the UK to undertake extensive internal preparations, to ensure their own legal systems were ready for the UK’s departure. Moreover, Article 50 itself is drafted in only brief and sketchy terms, leaving many important decisions about Brexit to be worked out in practice. And EU law allows for other final outcomes to the withdrawal process—including a ‘no deal Brexit’; or the UK’s right to ‘revoke and remain’ under the Wightman ruling.


2020 ◽  
pp. 294-322
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter explores the free movement of goods, which lies at the very heart of the internal market. The idea of the free movement of goods was the starting point that the EEC Treaty aimed for, and remains one of the greatest achievements of the EU to date. However, as with everything in EU law, there are a lot of legal rules underpinning a fairly straightforward concept. The Treaty contains two separate sets of provisions that address matters of taxation when it comes to trade in products. The first relates to border taxation, while the second relates to internal taxation. With regard to non-taxation issues, the primary issue is quantitative restrictions: situations where a Member State either blocks a specific volume of products from entering its market, or outlaws/bans a product altogether. The chapter then considers the exceptions to free movement of goods, and assesses how Brexit may impact on the free movement of goods between the UK and the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document