“Please, Handle with Care!”—Some Considerations on the Approach of the European Court of Justice to the Direct Effect of General Principles of European Union Law

2015 ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Lazzerini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

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>

scholarly journals Orhuso konvencijos įgyvendinimas: Europos Sąjungos teisė ir Lietuvos administracinė justicija

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 160-175
Author(s):  
D Eimilė Prapiestytė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
European Union Legislation ◽  
Administrative Justice

Straipsnyje nagrinėjami klausimai, susiję su Orhuso konvencijos įgyvendinimu Europos Sąjungoje. Ap­žvelgiami Europos Sąjungos teisės aktų projektai ir naujausi teisės aktai, skirti Orhuso konvencijai įgy­vendinti. Analizuojama Europos Bendrijų Teisingumo Teismo praktika taikant ir aiškinant Europos Są­jungos teisės aktus, skirtus minėtai konvencijai įgyvendinti. Siekiama nustatyti, kokios minėtų teisės aktų įgyvendinimo perspektyvos Lietuvos administracinėje justicijoje. The article analyzes issues concerning the implementation of the Århus Convention in the European Un­ion. Legislative proposals of European Union law and the most recent legislation designed to implement the Århus Convention are reviewed. The article also examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice concerning the application and interpretation of European Union legislation prescribed in order to implement the aforementioned Convention. The article seeks to establish what the perspectives on implementation of the aforementioned legal acts in the administrative justice of Lithuania are.

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>

scholarly journals Notion of good faith in European Court of Justice practice as a regulatory instrument for civil matters in the European UnionGeorgiy D. Travin

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-256
Author(s):  
Georgiy D. Travin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Substantive Law

This article analyses construction and application of the “good faith” concept by the European Court of Justice. Historically having played an important role in the national law of the EU member states the term functions with a similar but not identical purpose on the supranational level within the European Union law. Topicality of the referenced practices is based on the EU’s leading role in the general globalisation and unification of substantive law. After an analysis of the European Court of Justice judgements constructing EU Secondary law provisions which refer to “good faith” the role said construction plays in regulation of civil matters in the European Union as a supranational authority is outlined. Case law on matters concerning consumer protection and intellectual property are analysed and a conclusion on probability of applying foreign practices to Russian law is made.

Punitive Administrative Sanctions After the Treaty of Lisbon: Does Administrative Really Mean Administrative?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-176
Author(s):  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

This article analyses the dichotomy between administrative and criminal sanctions in European Union law and aims to establish which limits do the policy goals of the European Union set for the national transposition of administrative sanctions as opposed to criminal sanctions. The article discusses the difficulties in differentiating between administrative and criminal sanctions and gives an overview of the evolution of the European Union sanctioning system from the early competence disputes to the rationale behind the post-Lisbon parallel harmonisation of criminal and administrative sanctions. The final part of the article uses these findings along with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice to ascertain the key requirements for transposing European Union administrative sanctions into national law, namely whether the policy goals of the European Union require the formal non-criminal classification of the sanction as a way of negative harmonisation of criminal law.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document