Increased Competences through Development of the Law: The European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court

2009 ◽  
pp. 195-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter H. Roth ◽  
Simone Wasserer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The U.S

Stand und Entwicklung des Fachplanungsrechts im Spiegel der jüngeren höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-574
Author(s):  
Boas Kümper
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Power Lines ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Environmental Relevance

The report surveys in two parts the development of the law on project-related planning and thus relates in particular to the planning and approval of space-consuming infrastructure projects such as traffic routes and power lines. For this purpose, German administrative law has long provided for the specific instrument of plan approval (Planfeststellung). In this context, the Federal Administrative Court has extensive first-instance jurisdiction and uses this to shape large parts of German approval law, including beyond the actual area of plan approval law, be it in terms of legal protection and procedure, be it with regard to the requirements of substantive environmental law. On the other hand, the revision of the law on environmental protection induced by the decisions of the Aarhus Compliance Committee and the European Court of Justice has been used by the German legislator to extend procedural specifics of the plan approval to other approval decisions of environmental relevance. This firstly indicates the contours of a general law on project approval and, secondly, the nature of the plan approval as an instrument for the implementation of projects in the public interest is more strongly emphasized.

Judges and Policy Making Authority in the United States and the European Union

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Kouroutakis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reason­ing.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activ­ism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it ex­presses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would even­tually react and would limit such activism.

Statut ochrony dóbr osobistych w ustawie – Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe – wybrane zagadnienia

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 386-401
Author(s):  
Nikodem Rycko
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Personality Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Law

Law applicable to the protection of the rights of personality rights is regulated by a method of alternative indication with two equivalent connecting factors. The interpretation of these criteria – the place of the infringement of personal rights and the place where the damage occurred – may cause difficulties. The interpretation given by the European Court of Justice in the cases of Shevill and eDate Martinez seems to be the first to be taken into account, although exceptions should be admitted in justified cases. If the effects of infringement of the rights of personality occur in the territory of many states, it is to be assumed that the damage existing in each of them is governed by its legal system. However, this mosaic principle should only be applied where the person requesting the protection indicates the applicable law of the place of effect. If the law of the place of the infringement of personal rights is indicated, the norms of one legal system should be applied.

The European Community, the European Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fishery Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe European Community has gradually increased its focus on marine and maritime affairs, starting with the Community's Fishery Policy in the 1970s and culminating recently in the 2007 Blue Book on an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. The Community's increased clout over marine and maritime matters has been reflected also in the case law of the European Court of Justice. From the outset the Court has given great impetus to the Community's efforts to assert its external competence in matters related to fisheries and conservation of biological resources of the sea. Even so, the Court has thus far only occasionally been confronted with public international law questions pertaining to the law of the sea. However, the few cases in which the Court has addressed such issues are worthy of note. For example, the Court has ruled on whether Member States should be allowed to rely on the international law of the sea in order to derogate from obligations under Community law; whether Member States should be allowed to prefer the dispute settlement provisions set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the Community's own dispute settlement system; and on whether private parties may invoke arguments derived from the customary or conventional international law of the sea to challenge the validity of Community legislation pertaining to marine and maritime matters. The resulting judgments of the European Court of Justice have often turned out to be landmark cases, although some of them have tended to divide academic opinion.

scholarly journals European Union citizenship: The acquisition of nationality and the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document