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.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT OF “THIRD SAFE COUNTRY” IN THE EUROPEAN UNION LAW

2018 ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
N. Mushak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Refugee Status ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Group ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

The article investigates the concept of "safe third country" in the law of the European Union. The article analyzes a number of international legal instruments that define the content of the concept of "safe third country". The research provides the definition of "safe third country". In particular, the safe third country should be determined as the country whose territory a person is crossing through the territory of the state where such person is seeking for the asylum, with the ability of that person to apply for asylum and use proper and relevant procedures. In fact, the concept of "safe third country" is applied by the EU Member States only when it is safe to guarantee that foreigners will be able to use the fair asylum procedures on the territory through they passed, and such persons shall be provided the effective protection of their rights. The article also determines the cases of the concept application by the EU Member States. In particular, the competent authorities of the EU Member States are confident that the third country the following aspects should be guaranted: the life and liberty of the applicant are not at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social or political group; the principle of prohibition of expulsion under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 shall be observed; the principle of prohibition of expulsion in case of violation of the right to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by international law is been respected; there is the possibility to apply for a refugee status and to receive protection under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951.

4 Legal Acts, 4.5 Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, 21 September 2005, [2005] ECR II-3649 (Kadi I CFI); Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission , Court of Justice of the EC [2008] ECR I-6351 (Kadi I ECJ); Case T-85/09, Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-5177 (Kadi II GCEU); Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Commission and United Kingdom v Kadi , Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (Kadi II CJEU)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzanakopoulos Antonios
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This casenote reviews and discusses the series of decisions regarding sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, as implemented in the EU legal order. In this series of cases, the EU Courts at different times take different positions regarding the relationship of the UN and the EU legal order, as well as their power to review EU acts implementing Security Council sanctions and (indirectly) the sanctions themselves. The series of cases marks a watershed moment in UN Security Council targeted sanctions, forcing EU member states to disobey them and eventually leading to the creation and strengthening of an internal UN review mechanism, the Office of the Ombudsperson.

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.

Case C-650/18 Hungary v. European Parliament (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Tamás Molnár
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Majority Vote ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

On June 3, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), closely following the Advocate General's Opinion, delivered its Grand Chamber judgment in case C-650/18 Hungary v. European Parliament by dismissing Hungary's action. The ruling confirms that the European Parliament (EP) acted within the procedural boundaries of its powers when initiating, by a two-thirds majority vote of its members, proceedings against Hungary for the situation in the country regarding the rule of law, democracy, and other values on which the European Union (EU) is founded. The ruling comes after the Hungarian government decided to challenge the validity of the resolution of the European Parliament of September 12, 2018, which triggered the proceedings foreseen in the event of a clear risk of serious breaches of the foundational values of the EU, including the rule of law, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

scholarly journals Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre los sacrificios religiosos de animales

2019 ◽  
pp. 273-298
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ritual Sacrifice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Iruzkin honek Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren (Sala Nagusia) bi epai aztertzen ditu, gaiari buruzko europar araudiaren arabera, animalien erritu sakrifizioei jarritako murrizketa, hiltegiek bete behar dituzten betekizun eta sakrifizio horietatik lortutako produktu ekologikoen etiketeei buruzkoak. Auzitegiak dioenez, erritu sakrifizioak baztertzeagatik, europar araudiak ez du erlijio askatasuna murrizten. Ezta Europar Batasuneko Oinarrizko Eskubideen 10. Artikuluaren harira, erritu sakrifizioak galarazten duten hiltegiei jarritako betekizun teknikoek ere. Bestetik, aldiz, erritu sakrifizioen ondorioz lortutako produktuek ezin dezakete etiketa ekologikoa izan. Edonola ere, Auzitegiak azpimarratzen du erritu sakrifizioa zilegi dela Europar Batasunean salbuespen gisa soilik eta erlijio askatasunaren begirunea bermatzea duenean helburu. ABSTRACT: This comment examines two judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber) regarding the restrictions for the ritual slaughter of animals, in the light of the EU regulations on this matter, the requirements to meet by slaughterhouses and the application of EU rules on organic production and labelling of organic products. According to the Court, EU legislation on the killing of animals does not represent a restriction on religious freedom in so far as it contemplates it. The technical requirements applicable to slaughterhouses do not necessarily impede the ritual slaughter in the light of Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, products obtained after the ritual sacrifice of animals could not benefit from the rules on organic production and labelling. The Court has reaffirmed that the ritual slaughter is authorised only by way of derogation in the EU and solely in order to ensure observance of the freedom of religion. RESUMEN: El presente comentario examina dos sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) (Gran Sala) respecto de las restricciones para el sacrificio ritual de animales a la luz de la normativa europea sobre esta materia, los requisitos que deben cumplir los mataderos y la imposibilidad de aplicar la normativa sobre producción y etiquetado de los productos ecológicos a los obtenidos a partir de tal sacrificio. Según el TJUE, la normativa europea no implica una restricción a la libertad religiosa, al exceptuar el caso de los sacrificios rituales. Tampoco los requisitos técnicos de los mataderos impiden el sacrificio ritual a la luz del artículo 10 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Por otra parte, si embargo, los productos obtenidos a partir del sacrificio ritual no se pueden beneficiar de la etiqueta ecológica. En todo caso, el Tribunal recalca que el sacrifico ritual se autoriza en la UE solo con carácter excepcional y con el único fin de garantizar el respeto de la libertad de religión.

The European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

The EU’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) implies an important role for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Given that the Court has the task of interpreting the CRPD as an instrument of EU law and, in particular, ensuring that EU secondary legislation is interpreted in a manner which is compatible with the Convention wherever possible, it is not surprising to find references to the CRPD in a number of judgments and Opinions of its Advocate General rendered both before, and primarily after, the conclusion of the CRPD by the EU. This chapter explores those judgments and Opinions in some depth, looking at the status of international agreements concluded by the EU; how the CRPD has been incorporated into EU law; and discussing case law that has referred to the CRPD, and analysing the extent to and way in which the CJEU has interpreted the CRPD.

scholarly journals Sacrificio de animales y libertad religiosa. Comentario a Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie Van België, STJUE (Gran Sala) de 17-12-2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-205
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Iruzkin honek Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren (EBJA, Sala Nagusia) epai bat aztertzen du, gai horri buruzko Europako araudiaren arabera animaliak erritualki hiltzeko murrizketei buruzkoa. Aurreko epaietan ez bezala, EBJAk esan du estatu kideek neurri murriztaileagoak ezar ditzaketela, aldez aurreko zorabio itzulgarriaren betekizuna ezarriz. Gai horri buruz estatu kideetan adostasunik ez dagoenez, EBJAk saihestu egin du horiei guztiei kanon komun bat ezartzea. ABSTRACT: This comment examines a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber) regarding the restrictions for the ritual slaughter of animals, in the light of the EU regulations on this matter. Unlike previous judgments, the CJEU has affirmed that the Member States are entitled to impose further restrictions, such as the previous reversible stunning of animals without causing their death. The lack of common consensus on this matter in the EU has led the CJEU not to set out a judicial canon on this matter. RESUMEN: El presente comentario examina una sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) (Gran Sala) respecto de las restricciones para el sacrificio ritual de animales a la luz de la normativa europea sobre esta materia. A diferencia de anteriores sentencias, el TJUE ha sostenido que los Estados miembros pueden establecer medidas más restrictivas, imponiendo el requisito del aturdimiento previo reversible. La ausencia de un consenso en los Estados miembros sobre esta cuestión ha llevado al TJUE a evitar imponer un canon común a todos ellos.

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.

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.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document