Opinion of Advocate General Kokott Delivered on 26 March 2009

2010 ◽  
pp. 483-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Kokott
Keyword(s):  
Advocate General

The Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Israel Defense Forces

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amichai Cohen ◽  
Eyal Ben-Ari
Keyword(s):  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
The Past ◽  
Junior Officers ◽  
Military Commanders ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
Israel Defense Forces ◽  
The Military

This chapter describes how increased juridification and demands to apply international humanitarian law (IHL) have influenced the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The authors analyze the IDF’s compliance with IHL and other legal frameworks through a multilevel and multidimensional model of military compliance describing the law and external institutions involved in applying it. The past decades have seen the relatively autonomous sphere of the military increasingly come under judicial overview. Judicial and international pressures have also increased the role of the operational legal advisors. The chapter ends by discussing the ceremonies intended to promote compliance with IHL involving soldiers and junior officers. It is based on interviews (with Israeli academic experts, members of nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], and military commanders), off-the-record conversations with members of the IDF’s Military Advocate General, and newspaper articles, reports of NGOs, and secondary material.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

After Kalanke and Marschall: Affirming Affirmative Action

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Fredman
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Affirmative Action Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Action Case

Is it legitimate to use discriminatory policies to achieve equality? As official support for reverse discrimination or affirmative action policies becomes more common among member states of the European Union, so does the potential for legal challenge. Yet no clear answer has yet been given by the European Court of Justice. The controversial European Court of Justice decision in Kalanke, striking down an affirmative action policy, was followed only two years later by that in Marschall, which signalled a significant change in approach to affirmative action policies. This change of attitude is likely to be tested in a variety of different ways in the near future. The next affirmative action case, Badeck, is now awaiting the opinion of the Advocate General, and a Swedish case is waiting in the wings. Both these cases are likely to take the Court into far stormier waters than those already traversed in Kalanke and Marschall.

scholarly journals Grading AG Szpunar's Opinion in Case C-18/18 – A Caution against Worldwide Content Blocking as Default

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Geographical Scope ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 4th of June 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-18/18 between Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (an Austrian politician) and Facebook Ireland Limited. The politician had sought to have certain current and future content – argued to be defamatory – blocked by Facebook with worldwide effect. This is arguably the most important Internet speech-related case currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and will doubtlessly influence court reasoning far beyond Europe.This Comment analyses AG Szpunar’s interesting, but problematic, Opinion with particular emphasis on his reasoning in relation to the question of scope of jurisdiction; that is, what is the appropriate geographical scope of orders in these circumstances, rendered by a court that has personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Pre-accession State Aid in the Energy Sector. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015 Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. v European Commission (Case C-357/14 P)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 299-315
Author(s):  
Tihamér Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Eu Accession ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
One Year

The European Commission decided in 2008 that Hungary provided State aid through a set of Power Purchase Agreements1. Electrabel SA (hereinafter, Electrabel) and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. (hereinafter, Dunamenti Erőmű) brought an action for annulment against this decision that was dismissed by the General Court in 2014. One year later, the Court of Justice confirmed the first instance ruling, even though Advocate General Wathelet was of the opinion that the contested judgment should be set aside. According to the Advocate General (hereinafter, AG), the case raised three difficult issues: (i) is the relevant date for the assessment of the existence of the aid the date on which the measure was implemented (well before Hungary’s EU accession) or the date of the accession; (ii) should the date of accession be the relevant date, do facts prior to that date have to be included in the assessment of the existence of State aid, and (iii) which company should repay the aid granted.

scholarly journals Competencia internacional en materia de expedición de certificados sucesorios: a propósito de la Sentencia del TJUE 21 junio 2018, Vincent Pierre Oberle, C-20/17 = Jurisdiction in the issuance of succession certificates: purpose to the CJEU Judgement of 21st June 2018 Vincent Pierre Oberle, C-20/17

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
María José Castellanos Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
Sobre Todo

Resumen: En el Reglamento (UE) 650/2012 no existe una norma específica que regule la competencia en materia de expedición de certificados sucesorios nacionales, incluso no se utiliza nunca la expresión “certificado sucesorio nacional” como tal, sino que los denomina “documentos internos empleados en los Estados miembros para fines similares” a los de los certificados sucesorios europeos. Sin embargo, dicho instrumento internacional sí que contempla una regulación específica relativa a la competencia en materia de expedición de certificados sucesorios europeos (art. 64 Reglamento (UE) 650/2012). Pues bien, ante la “aparente laguna legal” en relación con los certificados sucesorios nacionales, se debe determinar, si dentro del concepto de “totalidad de la sucesión” -que indica el ámbito de aplicación del Reglamento-, se encuentran dichos certificados. En cuyo caso, las normas de competencia del capítulo II del Reglamento sucesorio serían de aplicación a la expedición de los certificados sucesorios nacionales y a los procedimientos relativos a ellos. En este sentido, la Sentencia del TJUE 21 junio 2018, Vincent Pierre Oberle, C-20/17 y, sobre todo, las Conclusiones del Abogado General Sr. M. Szpunar, han venido a solucionar esta “laguna legal”, así como otras cuestiones planteadas de gran importancia, en relación con el asunto concreto que se estaba dirimiendo. Se debe destacar que, con el fallo de la sentencia, se resuelve una cuestión que puede ser relevante para todos los Estados miembros en los que se contempla la posibilidad de que los órganos judiciales expidan certificados sucesorios nacionales.Palabras clave: Reglamento (UE) 650/2012, certificado sucesorio nacional, certificado sucesorio europeo, competencia internacional, tribunal, notario, resolución, totalidad de la sucesión.Abstract: In Regulation (EU) 650/2012 there is no specific provision that regulates the competence in the issue of national certificates of succession, even the term “national succession of certificate” is never used as such, but rather calls them “internal documents used for similar purposes in the Member States” to those of European Certificates of Succession. However, this international instrument contemplates a specific regulation governing the competence in the issue of European Certificate of Succession (art. 64 Regulation (EU) 650/2012). Well, given the “apparent legal loophole” in relation to national certificates of succession, it must be determined, if within the concept “succession as a whole” -which indicates the scope of the Regulation-, such certificates are found. In which case, the jurisdiction rules of Chapter II of this Regulation would apply to the issuance of national certificates of succession and the procedures related to them. In this regard, the CJEU Judgement of 21st June 2018, Vincent Pierre Oberle, C-20/17, and, above all, the Conclusions of the Advocate General Mr. M. Szpunar, have come to solve this “legal loophole”, as well as others issues raised of great importance, in relation to the specific issue that was being settled. This case, on the other hand, involves the resolution of an issue which could be relevant to all Member States where provision is made for judicial authorities to issue national certificates of succession. Keywords: Regulation (EU) 650/2012, national certificate of succession, European Certificate of Succession, international jurisdiction, court, notary, resolution, succession as a whole.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document