Indirect taxes and national remedies

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-48
Author(s):  
Angela Ward
Keyword(s):  
Attorney General ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Special Edition ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Rule ◽  
Indirect Taxes

IN Case C-188/95 Fantask A/S and Others v. Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) [1997] E.C.R. I-6783 the European Court of Justice provided further guidance on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335 EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (O.J. English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as most recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (O.J. 1985 L 156, p. 23), and elaborated its case law concerning Member State remedies and procedural rules. More particularly, it was held that a national rule which would have allowed Danish authorities to escape the duty to refund charges levied in breach of the Directive on the ground of “excusable error” rendered Community law impossible in practice or excessively difficult to enforce (Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. San Giorgio [1983] E.C.R. 3595), while a five-year time limit for bringing proceedings under Danish law was upheld as a reasonable limitation period (cf. Case C-208/90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and the Attorney General [1991] EC.R. I-4269).

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of its Exclusive Jurisdiction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Discussion

The article explores the limits of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 505-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Answering Questions

On 22 November 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgement in a preliminary ruling procedure from the Arbeitsgericht München (Labour Court Munich), answering questions concerning the interpretation of Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and as regards the construction of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Essentially, the Arbeitsgericht wanted to know whether a statutory provision exempting employees of 52 years of age and older from limitations to the conclusion of fixed-term contracts was compatible with Community law.

European Community Law in National Courts: a Continuing Contradiction

1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-185
Author(s):  
Christine Boch ◽  
Robert Lane
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Challenge ◽  
European Community Law

Unless the law is enforced, it cannot command respect. Securing proper observance and protection of Community rights has long been recognized to be a fundamental challenge for the Community. The burden falls principally to the national courts, guided by the European Court of Justice. However, the guidance offered appears at times at variance with itself. It seems in particular that, in some instances, the obligation of result laid down in directives simply cannot be achieved. This article looks at the case law on remedies developed by the European Court, seeks to identify inconsistencies therein and suggests how they might be cured.

The Double Life of Effectiveness

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 287-302
Author(s):  
Paolisa Nebbia
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

As a general principle of Community law elaborated by the European Court of Justice (hereinafter, ECJ or ‘the Court’), effectiveness ‘requires the effective protection of Community rights and, more generally, the effective enforcement of Community law in national courts’: its origins—it has been argued—‘lie in the interpretative techniques of the Court which, even at an early stage, favoured a liberalised construction of the Treaty provisions so as to ensure their effet utile’. In fact, the roots of the principle of effectiveness can be found in the seminal case of Van Gend en Loos, which, without expressly naming that principle, provided the conceptual tools that have moulded its construction throughout the Community case law.

MOX Plant Dispute – Court of Justice of the European Communities

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Union Member States

It is uncommon for a provision of the EC Treaty to remain all but unnoticed for fifty years by both legal literature and the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, that is what happened to Article 292 EC, which states that ‘Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.’ This provision can be taken to mean that if a dispute arises between European Union member states involving Community law, they shall bring the dispute exclusively before the European Court of Justice.

Case Note – Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 539-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Wiesbrock
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Implementation Period ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Relationship

On 19 January 2010 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to rule on the application and scope of the general principle of non-discrimination under Community law. In Kücükdeveci the Court had the opportunity to clarify a number of questions concerning the principle of non-discrimination and the application of Directive 2000/78 that had remained unanswered after the famous Mangold judgment and subsequent case law. The case was particularly apt to clarify the scope of Mangold, as it concerned a similar factual situation, albeit after the implementation period of Directive 2000/78 had expired. Consequently, many issues addressed in that judgment arose anew. The Court had to deal with the relationship between Directive 2000/78 and the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, the possibility of justifying differential treatment on the basis of national social and employment policies, the extent of the doctrine of indirect effect, and the direct horizontal effect of directives.

Free Movement, Immigration Control and Constitutional Conflict

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
Family Members ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
Immigration Control ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

European Court of Justice decision of 25 July 2008, Case C-127/08, Metock et al. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform – EU citizens and their third-country family members – ECJ largely reverses Akrich case-law – Dividing line between national and Community competences on immigration – ‘Reverse discrimination’ not a matter of concern for Community law – Analysis of repercussions of decision on EU and national legal orders

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document