What We Talk About When We Talk About Harmonisation

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 360-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus KLAMERT
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Origin Principle ◽  
The One ◽  
Regulatory Models

AbstractWhen we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years after Tobbaco Advertising I and II it remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

The evolving notion of mutual recognition in the CJEU’s case law on detention

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Caeiro ◽  
Sónia Fidalgo ◽  
João Prata Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Case Basis

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on detention and the possible evolution of the understanding of mutual recognition stemming therefrom. In the Lanigan, JZ, and Ognyanov decisions, the CJEU assimilated mutual recognition with the effectiveness of cooperation, which should be understood as maximum compliance with the issuing state’s interests. Arguably, this approach is detrimental to other important values, such as, for example, the rights arising from excessively long detention and a rational and meaningful approach to the enforcement of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment has detached mutual recognition from the exclusive protection of the issuing state and has turned it into a neutral governance principle. If mutual trust is not a given and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis through common objective parameters, the decisions deserving recognition may be uttered either by the issuing or the executing authority.

The Cases of Edam Holland and Gouda Holland

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 444-450
Author(s):  
Vadim Mantrov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Geographical Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

Cases C-517/14 P and C-519/P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie, unreported 24 October 2014 (Seventh Chamber).In the two related cases commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealt with assessment of locus standi in the case of an applicant who disputed the validity of registration of two indications of geographical origin (IGOs), namely Edam Holland and Gouda Holland, being compound designations and containing a famous generic word designation (name), i.e. Edam and Gouda respectively. The importance of both cases relates, on the one hand, to the fact that registration of these IGOs was challenged on the basis of the generic names Edam and Gouda which are extensively used in practice, occupying a considerable market share. On the other, both cases could be a signal whether the CJEU re–affirms its restrictive approach to assessment of locus standi under Article 263 (4) TFEU. Although the CJEU re–affirmed its longstanding case law on restrictive assessment of locus standi also concerning registration of a compound geographical designation on the basis of a generic name, yet, as is argued in this case note, this approach did not take into account the specifics of registering IGOs (author's summary).

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Tunisian Judges: Quo Vadis?

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-346
Author(s):  
Béligh Elbalti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the question whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has exercised an influence on Tunisian judges and the extent of that influence. After explaining the general legal background of Tunisia as a legal system and the attitude of Tunisian judges towards foreign legal sources in general, the chapter explores the available case law of Tunisian courts in order to identify the areas of law where such an influence manifests itself. It shows that, generally speaking, Tunisian judges are quite open to foreign legal sources and frequently cite those sources in their judgments. However, when it comes to the case law of the CJEU, two opposite trends could be identified. On the one hand, the case law of Tunisian ordinary courts shows that the CJEU exercises little influence on Tunisian judges, despite extensive and diversified cooperation between the EU and Tunisia. On the other hand, the case law of the Competition Council shows that the Council is more willing to refer to CJEU decisions in deciding the cases pending before them. The chapter considers several reasons that are likely to explain this double aspect of the influence of the CJEU on Tunisian judges. It argues that the weakness of comparative research, legal education in general, as well as the role played by legal actors in Tunisia are among the main reasons behind the current situation.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

scholarly journals The European arrest warrant in the case law of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Helena Patricio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Impact

A key factor in the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice is the principle of mutual recognition, which the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002, for the first time, comprehensively implemented in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union has greatly contributed to the understanding of the Framework Decision, accentuating its goals and enhancing its guiding principles, which are the mutual recognition of judgments in the different Member States of the European Union and mutual trust that should settle among them, for the creation of the said area. The West judgment of 28 June 2012, C-192/12 PPU, on urgent preliminary ruling procedure, aptly illustrates the impact of this case law, highlighting the role of this procedure, implemented on 1 March 2008.

Towards Less Flexibility

2019 ◽  
pp. 73-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Eu Copyright Law ◽  
The One ◽  
National Legislatures

This chapter maps a trend that, with increasing clarity, has been emerging at the level of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: on the one hand, the harmonizing force of EU copyright law—especially as interpreted by the Court—is greater than what individual EU Member States’ practices have suggested; on the other hand, and as a result of this, the freedom left to the various national legislatures (and courts) in areas harmonized by EU legislation is more limited than what has been believed to be the case in the past. A discussion and application of the emerging doctrine of EU preemption is provided in relation to selected areas (economic rights and exceptions and limitations).

Labour Rights and the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzehainesh Teklè
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
Labour Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
International Labour Standards ◽  
The One

This article examines the role of International Labour Standards (ILS) adopted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) within a global context characterised, on the one hand, by a multiplicity of domestic, supranational and international legal sources and adjudicator and supervisory bodies operating in the labour law field; and, on the other, by an increasing use of ILS by domestic and regional courts. These are, thus, building bridges between the plurality of legal systems and fostering coherence in the interpretation of labour rights. Based on a thorough examination of the case law of the CJEU and against the broader background of the EU legal and policy approach to labour rights and ILS, this article shows that despite the above-mentioned general trend the CJEU has been making a limited use of ILS and these have been having a limited bearing on its judgments. The article highlights why this is problematic and identifies the underlying causes. Finally, it presents arguments in favour of, and legal and methodological avenues to achieve, a greater reliance by the CJEU on ILS and the work of the ILO bodies supervising their application.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document