Third-party ownership prohibition in football and European Union fundamental freedoms: CAS decision on RFC Seraing case

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Henrique Rebello de Mendonça
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Third Party Ownership

scholarly journals Federico Ortino

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Federico Ortino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Eu

Even when it comes to investment, despite appearances to the contrary, it does not seem to me that there is a shift to the non-discrimination principle. First, there is no doubt that absolute standards such as fair and equitable treatment or the provision on expropriation have by far overshadowed the relative standards, in particular national treatment. Second, while the MFN standard has, on the other hand, been a key provision in investment treaty arbitration, particularly as an instrument to expand the scope of the ISDS system (based on more favorable provisions found in third-party treaties), there are clear signs in recent investment treaties of the willingness to curtail the use of the MFN provision as a way to extend the procedural and substantive protections of investors. This seems to be the current position, for example, of both the United States and the European Union (EU). Third, when it comes to the apparent disappearance of the absolute standards of treatment in some of the treaties being negotiated by the European Union (such as with Japan), this is more simply due to a question of the nature of the EU external competence in commercial matters. In its recent opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA, the Court of Justice of the EU has determined that the EU does not have exclusive competence to conclude agreements covering non-FDI and ISDS. The EU has thus responded to such opinion by splitting investment protection (with ISDS) from the rest of the trade agreement, thus keeping investment liberalization (including market access and national treatment) in the latter. In this way, while the trade agreement will fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, the former will still require ratification by each member state. While it is not clear whether the backlash vis-à-vis investment protection and ISDS in some quarters within some of the member states will eventually lead to the end of EU investment treaties, a decision in this sense has not yet been taken by EU institutions.

scholarly journals The Approach to Safety of Children’s Toys in United States and European Union: A Comparative Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 126
Author(s):  
Rahmah Ismail ◽  
Wan Amir Azlan Wan Haniff ◽  
Suzanna Mohamed Isa ◽  
Rozlinda Mohamed Fadzil ◽  
Syed Sagoff AlSagoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Product Recalls ◽  
Scientific Database ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
The Us ◽  
European Standards ◽  
American Society

Following the ‘Year of Recall’ in 2007 which saw greatest number of children’s toys product recalls from United States of America (US) and European Union (EU) markets, both regions instituted new legislations governing children’s products: the US Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA 2008) and EU 2009 Toy Safety Directive. This article analyses the approaches to safety of toys adopted in US and EU in light of the potential for cross-jurisdictional use of the framework. This qualitative research utilizes secondary data gained from scientific database analysis and library research, including documents and precedents on toys safety. These data were analyzed by using legal interpretation and comparative assessment. The study finds key features of each jurisdiction as well as notable similarities and differences in terms of regulations, safety standards used such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8124); The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM F963); and European Standards (EN 71). Further, two competing systems, each with its own reigning global governor namely, Third-Party Assessor (3PA) supported by the US and Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity System (SDOC) adopted by the EU, were assessed. When both systems were put into an evaluation, the extra third-party inspection for issuing certificate on the product based on 3PA enable to provide important protection to consumers over the SDOC system.

scholarly journals PROTECTION OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LATEST LEGISLATIVE NOVELTIES

2019 ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Sergii Shkliar ◽  
Olha Bulaieva
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Competition ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Purpose. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the main changes introduced by the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition”. Methods. Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” proposes the implementation of several novelties. Among them are: the restriction for the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by certain time limits for considering cases; possibility of extension of the term for consideration of cases by decision of the Committee’s State Commissioner or head of a territorial office; renewal of deadlines for consideration of cases where the respondent is replaced or a co-respondent is involved; provision for the consequences of missing the deadlines for considering cases and also the mechanism of consultations during the consideration of a case, which may be appointed either on the initiative of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or on the motion of interested persons. Results. The abovementioned amendments will influence the existing system of economic competition protection in a serious way. Among the changes are: – the fine for delayed payment of a fine imposed by the Antimonopoly Committees of Ukraine decision on violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition is cancelled; – the member of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine who conducted or organized an investigation is deprived of the right to vote in the process of decision-making in the respective case; – the procedure for holding hearings is defined; – recusals and self-recusals are envisaged for the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine officers; – the grounds for acquiring the third-party status in a case are changed; – the rights of persons involved in the case are specified and expanded. An important remark of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” is that a person that is exempted from liability or whose fine is reduced shall still be liable for damage caused by the violation to other persons. Conclusions. As a result, Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” is expected to become an important step forward in increasing the effectiveness of investigations into violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition. It can also be regarded as the next step to harmonize Ukrainian legislation with the European Union acquis.

scholarly journals La promesa de hecho ajeno: cuestiones de competencia judicial internacional en la Unión Europea = The promise of a third party´s fact: issues of international judicial competence in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 841
Author(s):  
Gabriel Mengual Pujante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Brussels Regulation ◽  
The Eu

Resumen: La promesa de hecho ajeno es una modalidad contractual ampliamente conocida en la Unión Europa y, a su vez, paradigma de uno de los principios fundamentales del Derecho privado: la relatividad de los contratos. Desde una perspectiva axiológica y práctica, el operador jurídico debe conocer el escenario que puede devengarse en un supuesto internacional. Por ello, resulta oportuno trazar una aproximación al sector de la competencia judicial internacional en el Derecho Internacional Privado de la UE.Palabras clave: promesa de hecho ajeno, relatividad de los contratos, Reglamento Bruselas I-bis, contrato de prestación de servicios, competencia judicial internacional.Abstract: The promise of a third party´s fact is a contractual modality widely known in the European Union and, in turn, paradigm of one of the fundamental principles of private law: the relativity of contracts. From an axiological and practical perspective, the legal operator must know the landscape that may arise in an international case. For this reason, it is appropriate to draw an approximation to the sector of the international judicial competence in the EU Private International Law.Keywords: promise of a third party´s fact, relativity of contracts, Brussels Regulation I-bis, contract for the provision of services, international judicial competence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document