Comparative Advertising in the European Union

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Spink ◽  
Ross Petty
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Single Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Comparative Advertising ◽  
Advertising Law

More than 20 years after the measure was first proposed, the European Union has finally succeeded in adopting a directive designed to harmonise disparate national laws relating to the use of comparative advertising in the single market.1 In this article the authors examine the background, rationale and substance of the new legislation, before considering its impact on the current UK law. With a view to the possibility that implementation may contribute to the transatlantic harmonisation of advertising law, the new regime is measured against the liberal benchmark of US case law and recent Federal Trade Commission policy.

Nowe podejście do harmonizacji technicznej w Unii Europejskiej a swoboda przepływu towarów

2016 ◽  
pp. 70-86
Author(s):  
Iwona Miedzińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Single Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Primary Method ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This article is about the new approach directives and their impact on ensuring the free movement of goods in the single market. The author analysed the relevant legislation of the European Union adopted in the field of technical harmonisation: regulations and directives. The primary method of research used in this article is the legal and institutional analysis. Neofunctionalism and rational choice theory were also helpful to explain the processes of integration in this area. The analysis shows that the new approach directives affect the streamlining of procedures for the movement of goods in the single market. However, despite the simplification of procedures for the movement of goods, an adequate level of safety and consumer protection is ensured. The member states and the European Commission have effective response mechanisms when a product endangers life, health or safety of consumers.

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

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.

Case Law of the European Union Courts

ERA Forum ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-117
Author(s):  
Sofía Mairal Montero De Espinosa ◽  
Laviero Buono ◽  
Balázs Rozsnyai
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union

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.

From ‘Don’t Mention the Titanium Dioxide Judgment’ to ‘I Mentioned it Once, But I Think I Got Away with it All Right’: Reflections on the Choice of Legal Basis in EU External Relations after the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures Judgment

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 537-562
Author(s):  
Geert de Baere
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Titanium Dioxide ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Restrictive Measures

Abstract This chapter examines the choice of legal basis in EU external relations post-Lisbon in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures case. Before reaching the conclusion that the regulation at issue there was rightly based on Article 215(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and rejecting the European Parliament’s argument that the measure ought to have been taken on the basis of Article 75 TFEU, the Court made a number of important observations on the principles to be followed when choosing a legal basis and recalled some of its earlier case law, in particular Titanium Dioxide and its progeny. This chapter reflects upon the application of those principles in a post-Lisbon framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document