Science, precaution and innovation for sustainable fisheries: The judgement by the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the electric pulse fishing ban

Marine Policy ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 135 ◽  
pp. 104864
Author(s):  
Jerneja Penca
Keyword(s):  
Electric Pulse ◽  
Sustainable Fisheries ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Exploiting non-self-governing territory status: Western Sahara and the new EU/Morocco Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-50
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen
Keyword(s):  
Coastal Waters ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Sustainable Fisheries ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Right ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The 2018 European Union (EU)/Morocco Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA) was negotiated in the aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) 2018 Western Sahara Campaign judgment, which concerned a challenge to the 2006 EU/Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement (and its 2013 Protocol). This article first sets out the way in which the CJEU harnessed Western Sahara's status as a non-self-governing territory (NSGT) for the purpose of its finding that the EU/Morocco fisheries agreements were inapplicable to Western Sahara's coastal waters in the absence of third-party consent. However, the Court's approach left open the possibility that such agreements could be revised and extended to this marine area. Against this background, the article considers how the EU Commission and Council have responded to the CJEU's judgment in this case and, specifically, the way they have sought to justify the SFPA's de jure application to the waters off Western Sahara. In so doing, it shows the extent to which the SFPA's terms, and the circumstances surrounding its development, are deeply problematic as far as the exploitation of the territory's marine living resources is concerned. In this regard, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the renewed EU/Morocco fisheries partnership undermines the EU's proclaimed commitment to the duty of non-recognition and the operation of the right to self-determination in this fraught context.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

scholarly journals Will the imaginary active consumers please stand up? Case note to Walbusch Walter Busch: Case C-430/17 Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV, EU:C:2019:47

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-719
Author(s):  
Joasia Luzak
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Limited Space ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

The questions posed to the Court of Justice of the EU in the recent case of Walbusch Walter Busch asked what qualifies as the means of communication with a limited space or time to display the information and how detailed the disclosure on the right of withdrawal needs to be on such a medium. The judgment in this case had to strike a balance between not limiting traders’ opportunities to use technological advances to reach consumers and one of the main objectives of consumer protection: ensuring consumers have a chance to make fully informed transactional decisions.

scholarly journals Free movement of workers in the EU and occupational pensions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document