scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

scholarly journals Made in Luxembourg: The fabrication of the law on jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common

The article provides an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Articles 24 TEU, first paragraph, second subparagraph, and 275 TFEU governing the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The article first describes the background of those provisions as they resulted from the Convention on the Future of Europe and the 2003-4 and 2007 Intergovernmental Conferences and then compares the Court’s understanding of its jurisdiction to the drafting history of the provisions concerned. The main conclusion of the study of the case law suggests that the Court views its jurisdiction over the CFSP more broadly than the jurisdiction envisaged by the drafters of the Treaties. In particular, the Court both interprets the exclusion from its jurisdiction of acts based on the Treaty’s CFSP provisions in a narrow fashion and is prepared to review the legality of CFSP acts not only through direct actions but also through references for a preliminary ruling. However, the article argues that the provision of adequate legal protection in the field of the CFSP necessarily requires both the Court of Justice and domestic courts of the Member States to play their respective roles.

Introductory Note

2019 ◽  
pp. 551-562
Author(s):  
Antonio Tizzano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

The Introductory Note describes the main developments of 2017 with regard to the functioning and the organization of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as to its case-law. The Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union were confronted with many delicate legal questions pertaining to all aspects of EU law. The Introductory Note provides for an overview of the most important judgments that were delivered in 2017, in an array of legal domains, including rights and obligations of third-country migrants, fundamental rights, rules of competition and internal market, common commercial policy and common foreign and security policy.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

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.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

Article 275 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common

The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions.

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

International Jurisdiction for Investor Claims Based on Prospectus Liability following CJEU 12.9.2018, C-304/17, Löber/Barclays

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-81
Author(s):  
Thomas Thiede ◽  
Steffen Lorscheider
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Prospectus Liability

Abstract Lately, the value of many products on foreign financial markets has dropped considerably. As a result, affected investors regularly strive to hold the issuers of these products liable before domestic courts. In the following, the relevant European rules of international civil procedural law and the related case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union will be examined. Thereafter, a fresh methodological approach to the questions at hand will be presented.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

2020 ◽  
pp. 499-514
Author(s):  
Antonio Tizzano
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Introductory Note ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Migration Crisis

The introductory note describes the main developments of 2018 with regard to the functioning and the organization of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as to its case law. The Court of Justice and the General Court were confronted with many delicate legal questions pertaining to all aspects of EU law. Amongst others, the EU courts were confronted with the unresolved issues raised by the so-called “migration crisis,” by the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and by the threats to the values inherent in the rule of law, which are worryingly emerging in various member states. The introductory note provides an overview of the most important judgments that were delivered in 2018, in an array of legal domains, including rights and obligations of third-country migrants, fundamental rights, rules of competition and internal market, common commercial policy, and common foreign and security policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document