The Queen (on the application of Western Sahara Campaign UK) v. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Another 181 ILR 288 - Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)

2019 ◽  
pp. 288-403
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Grand Chamber

scholarly journals Council of the European Union v. Front Populaire pour la Libération de la Saguia-El-Hamra et Du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario)

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 731-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed Odermatt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Agricultural Products ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

On December 21, 2016, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dismissed an action brought by the Front Polisario challenging a decision of the Council of the European Union (EU) approving the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom Morocco on the reciprocal liberalization of certain agricultural products. The CJEU held, based on the relevant rules of international law applicable between the EU and Morocco, that the agreement did not apply to the territory of Western Sahara. Apart from its obvious political overtones, the judgment is significant in further developing the CJEU's approach to the law of treaties and the principle of self-determination in international law.

scholarly journals Self-Determination, Occupation and the Authority to Exploit Natural Resources: Trajectories from Four European Judgments on Western Sahara

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pål Wrange
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
General View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Grand Chamber

In two recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the General Court (at first instance), the High Court of Justice of England and Wales and the Grand Chamber of the CJEU found that a trade agreement and a fisheries agreement between Morocco and the European Union cannot be applied to occupied Western Sahara without the consent of its people. In spite of the fact that it is the general view that Western Sahara is under belligerent occupation, none of the three courts invoked the law of occupation but based themselves instead on the principle of self-determination and the law governing the administration of non-self-governing territories, including the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. A possible implication of these judgments is that that law and the law of occupation are converging in certain respects, in particular as regards long-term occupation. This pertains not only to the substantive rules on the exercise of authority, which seem to require that the people are heard, but also to the basis for the establishment of that authority, namely bare control.

The case of Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG. Comment to Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), judgment of 18 July 2017, Case C-566/15

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Seifert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.

scholarly journals The Effects of the Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19, C- 397/19.The Obligation of the Decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court and the Supremacy of EU

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-61
Author(s):  
Razvan Viorescu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Institution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Application Systems ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Grand Chamber

The supremacy of the Constitution is therefore compatible with the application systems that give application preference to regulations from legislation other than national law, as long as the Constitution itself established this provision, which happens exactly with the provision provided in art. 93, which allows the transfer of powers resulting from the Constitution in favor of an international institution thus constitutionally empowered to regulate matters previously reserved for domestic powers and their application.

scholarly journals Commissaire Général Aux Réfugiés et Aux Apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani (C.J.E.U.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1080-1096
Author(s):  
Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

On January 31, 2017, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union rendered its judgment in the case Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani. In the judgment, the Court had to interpret the exclusion grounds of the EU Qualification Directive of 2004 that in its Article 12(2) has literally duplicated Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It had to answer the question of whether an applicant for international protection can be excluded from being a refugee even though it is not established that he himself committed, attempted to commit, or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, but has “just” been convicted of participation in the activities of a terrorist group.

Union Citizenship and the Redefinition of the “Internal Situations” Rule: The Implications of Zambrano

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 2077-2094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Wiesbrock
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Work Permit ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
A Minor

On 8 March 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice issued a significant ruling regarding the interpretation and scope of the concept of European Union citizenship. In an eagerly anticipated judgment, the Court held that Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) confers a right of residence and a right to obtain a work permit upon the parents of a minor dependent European Union citizen who has never left the Member State of his or her nationality. The ruling is notable for having redefined the “internal situation” rule and extended the reach of the primary law provisions on Union citizenship beyond Directive 2004/38/EC. Yet, some of the potential implications of Zambrano have been qualified by the Court's subsequent rulings in McCarthy and Dereci. In those cases, the Court restricted the scope for EU citizens who have never exercised their free movement rights to rely on EU law in order to derive rights of residence for their third-country-national family members in their country of nationality. Moreover, the brevity of the Zambrano judgment indicates substantial disagreement amongst the judges and has the effect of leaving a number of issues unclear. What are the precise limitations to relying on Article 20 TFEU in a situation that falls outside the scope of Article 2004/38/EC? How does the ruling impact the ongoing discussions on reverse discrimination and the protection of fundamental rights in the E.U.? After briefly describing the factual and legal background of the case, the opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, and the Court's judgment, we will discuss the questions raised above before considering the potential implications of the ruling for Member States' migration and nationality laws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document