Website Blocking Injunctions under United Kingdom and European Law

2017 ◽  
pp. 275-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Law ◽  
Blocking Injunctions

4. International Sources of Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-153
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Primary Sources ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom

This chapter discusses international sources of law. Conventions and treaties are the primary sources of international law. International law also relies on custom, that is to say informal rules that have been commonly agreed over a period of time. Resolving disputes in international law is very different to resolving domestic disputes, including the fact that in some instances, there is no court that can hear a challenge. The United Nations, particularly its Security Council, has the primary role in upholding international law, meaning that it is often political rather than judicial resolution. In 1972, the United Kingdom joined the (then) European Economic Community (EEC). As part of that process, it agreed to shared sovereignty, meaning that in some areas, European law would take precedence. The United Kingdom has now left the European Union but, as will be seen, its laws will remain an important source of English law for some time.

Die Umsetzung der Aktionärsrechterichtlinie (2007/36/EG) in Deutschland und Europa

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maximilian Huprich
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The United Kingdom

The objective of the shareholder’s rights directive (2007/36/EC) is to allow shareholders to effectively safeguard their interests in the company across the borders of the entire European internal market. The directive therefore establishes minimum standards for shareholders’ meetings. The preparation, the execution as well as the follow-up process of the shareholders’ meeting are substantially affected by European law. The book outlines the specific measures and compares the implementation of the provisions in Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom. The comparison of the different jurisdictions draws conclusions for theory and practice, in particular as regards the interpretation of the specific provisions.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice: An Opencast Constitutional Lab

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Alessia Fusco
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
High Water ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Similar Remark

At the start of his paperKeeping Their Heads Above Water? European Law in the House of Lords, Anthony Arnull reports a judgment delivered by Lord Denning in 1979, in the early days of the process of the United Kingdom's European integration. It stated as follows:[The] flowing tide of the Community law is coming in fast. It has not stopped at high-water mark. It has broken the dykes and the banks. It has submerged the surrounding land. So much that we have to learn to become amphibious if we wish to keep our heads above water.Lord Denning made a similar remark in his judgment in Bulmer v. Bollinger, which was a pivotal case in the dialogue between the United Kingdom (UK) and European systems.

Website Blocking in Europe

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaani Riordan
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Online Gaming ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Blocking Orders ◽  
Blocking Injunctions

This chapter considers website blocking practices in European nations besides the United Kingdom. Most member states have enacted legislation to permit courts or administrative authorities to issue website blocking injunctions in some form. The majority of these statutory remedies are restricted to the enforcement of copyright and related rights, but some target other rights or pursue public policies such as the regulation of online gaming or the prohibition of images depicting child abuse. In some jurisdictions, blocking orders are available without any specific legislative basis, pursuant to ordinary rules governing injunctive relief.

Jurisdiction and Enforcement after Brexit under Withdrawal Agreement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Eliášová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Significant Interference ◽  
The Eu

This paper focuses on the issue of international jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgements after Brexit basically until the end of transition period (to 31 December 2020) according to the Withdrawal Agreement, with possible next legal regime. The withdrawal of United Kingdom from the European Union is undoubtedly a significant interference with existing European law. What dimension it takes depends, in particular, on the question of whether or not to complete a comprehensive agreement between the EU and the UK that would establish and direct the future partnership and cooperation in all relevant areas. With the aim of contributing to the discussion concerning EU and UK fundamental rules on jurisdiction and enforcement, this paper provides a view of possible questions and solutions immediately after Brexit until end of transition period. The legal regime of judicial proceedings with an international element initiated before Brexit or during transition period is still relevant under these pre-Brexit rules or Withdrawal Agreement rules. The same situation is with regard to judgements delivered before 31 December 2021. This contribution shall review the state of play immediately after Brexit under Withdrawal Agreement concerning “separation” of EU fundamental rules on jurisdiction and enforcement.

Rechtsvergleichende Einordnung von Preisschirmeffekten (Umbrella Pricing) in das Kartellschadensersatzrecht

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Eckel
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
European Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Detailed Classification ◽  
Leniency Programme

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über die Frage der schadensersatzrechtlichen Ersetzbarkeit von Preisschirmschäden nach der Entscheidung des EuGH in der Rs. „Kone“ und würdigt kritisch die Reaktionen in der deutsch- und englischsprachigen Literatur auf das Urteil, indem u.a. das Erfordernis eines zweigliedrigen Zurechnungstatbestandes mit einer doppelten Vermutungsregel betont und die Behandlung der Kronzeugenregelungen durch den Gerichtshof abgelehnt werden. Rechtsvergleichend wird aufgezeigt, dass einige Erfahrungswerte aus Rechtsprechung und Literatur zum US-amerikanischen Antitrust Law auch für die unionsrechtliche Beurteilung von umbrella pricing fruchtbar gemacht werden können und dass sich die Anforderungen des EuGH unter Berücksichtigung der bisherigen nationalen Praxis zu Preisschirmeffekten ohne weiteres in das nationale Kartelldeliktsrecht des Vereinigten Königreichs und Österreichs implementieren lassen. Die Abhandlung schließt mit einer ausführlichen Einordnung des EuGH-Urteils in das deutsche Schadensrecht unter Berücksichtigung der bisherigen BGH-Rechtsprechung und argumentiert für eine Berücksichtigung von Preisschirmeffekten über den identischen relevanten Markt hinaus. Umbrella Pricing after the ECJ’s decision in „Kone“: A comparative analysis and classification into the German tort law This paper provides an overview of the requirements of compensation of umbrella damages according to the ECJ’s decision in „Kone“ and comments critically on the reactions on this decision in German and Englishspeaking literature stressing the imperative of a two-part causation-requirement and criticising the ECJ’s argument about the leniency programme. A comparative analysis shows that assessment under European Law may benefit from the jurisprudence and literature in US Antitrust Law and that the requirements stated in „Kone“ can be implemented into the national tort laws of the United Kingdom and Austria without further problems. The paper ends with a detailed classification of the principles established in „Kone“ into the German tort law considering the previous national jurisprudence and argues in favour of the compensation of umbrella damages from neighbouring markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document