scholarly journals Accountability Through Transparency and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Author(s):  
Marios Costa
2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 529-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek

AbstractWhy are there Advocates General in the Court of Justice of the European Union? A standard answer to this question is likely to be either a simple textual reference (because the Treaty provides for them); or an appeal to authority (because the original framers of the Treaties put them there, inspired by the French legal system); or a rather pragmatic appeal to their on-going utility (because they assist the Court and they do a great job); or any combination of these three. All of these explanations are valid. This contribution, however, attempts to go a little deeper in discerning what may be the ideological justification for Advocates General in the Court of Justice. It does so by carrying out a historical and comparative study concerning their origins and systemic justification from the vantage point of a national lawyer coming from a Member State that does not know any type of a ‘fourth in the court’.The first part of the contribution explains which factors have considerably eroded the position of Advocates General in the course of the last decade and why questions concerning their role and its justification became topical. Second, the commonly invoked reference to the French inspiration for introducing Advocates General is critically examined. It is suggested that justifications once provided with respect to the office of commissaire du gouvernement in the Conseil d’État can hardly be used on the European level with respect to Advocates General. Third, possibilities of internal justification of the role of Advocates General are examined: are Advocates General providing any unique assistance to the Court of Justice, which could not be provided for in different ways? With a negative answer to the latter question, the last part of the argument offers a simple yet solid overreaching justification as to why there should be Advocates General in the Court of Justice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-89
Author(s):  
Anna Kęskiewicz

The use of dogmatic-legal, empirical and linguistic semantics methodology is focused on sharing for better understanding of the law. Therefore, views on European jurisprudence have been presented in the paper. Without a doubt, the law-making nature of European Union law takes into account the field of environmental protection. Articles in law define the tasks that are important from the point of view of European legislation. The written nature of these determinants of the reasoning of the possibilities of environmental protection plays an important role in the interpretation of environmental law.


2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 570-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Herrmann

The transfer of an exclusive competence for “foreign direct investment” to the European Union (eu) in the Lisbon Treaty (2009) has raised numerous legal questions and has tasked the eu institutions with developing a policy field almost entirely new to them. One of the matters that requires thorough consideration is the role the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) will enjoy with regard to this new policy, which role it may be given in investment agreements of the eu or to what extent its role may legally be excluded or diminished by iias. The policy documents published so far as well as leaked text of envisaged investment chapters of future eu trade and investment agreements disregard this matter entirely. Nevertheless, the cjeu will play a role on the basis of the provisions of the eu Treaties and it is largely for the Court itself to determine that role.


2019 ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Roberto Reyes Izquierdo

The aim of this paper is to analyse how the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been a fundamental factor in the integration process of the European Union, in spite of the obstacles posed by the intergovernmental dynamics that have traditionally hindered the construction of a stronger, cohesive and more integrated Europe. Important principles such as direct effect or supremacy of EU law have been developed through ECJ rulings and case law, even when such principles were not literally foreseen in the foundational Treaties. Therefore, this paper argues that the role and power of the Court as an “indirect law-maker” have been essential for the construction of the European Union, and this has been possible due to the complexities and weaknesses of the legislative process involving the three main decision-makers: the Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Anna Kosińska

The present study seeks to answer the question whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases concerning the exercise of broadly understood cultural policies may in reality affect the extent of implementation of cultural rights—that is, access to products of culture, participation in cultural life and freedom of artistic creativity—at the level of Member States. Cultural rights are traditionally regulated by the constitutions of EU Member States and are classified by legal scholars and commentators as second generation rights. Culture, in turn, according to primary legislation of the European Union, is only a supporting competence (Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). However, a review of the Court’s case law demonstrates that CJEU’s judgments form standards that contribute to a more effective implementation of cultural rights guaranteed in the national law of the Member States and international agreements to which they are parties. This results from the nature of the Union’s law, which penetrates a national system and thanks to the principle of direct effect and supremacy truly affects the situation of EU citizens.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.


Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans

This chapter discusses the role of the EU in the IP field before and since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. To that end it introduces the EU legal order itself, including its founding Treaties, institutions, and authority to act (competence), with a focus on IP. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 traces the establishment of the European Economic Community and its development to the European Union. Section 2.3 describes the seven EU institutions: the European Council, European Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice of the EU, European Central Bank, and Court of Auditors. Section 2.4 explains the legal authority of the EU, in relation particularly to IP. Section 2.5 covers EU measures and their legal effects. And Section 2.6 discusses the actions of the Court of Justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document