European Court of Justice Reporter; A Digest of All Decisions and Opinions of the European Court of Justice. Jan. 1982 —(10x/year, plus cumulative supplement—$90.00). Elsevier Information Services, P.O. Box 470, 100 AL, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Information Services ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Standards for Independent Oversight

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Point Of Departure

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.

scholarly journals Compulsory membership of pension schemes and the free movement of services in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans van Meerten ◽  
Elmar Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Mandatory Participation ◽  
The Eu

Mandatory pension participation in the Netherlands is currently under review. This article examines the manner in which the system of mandatory participation in sectoral pension funds is presently organised as well as future proposals from the perspective of the freedom to provide services. It also briefly reviews mandatory participation in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and Sweden and asks whether it constitutes a barrier to the freedom enshrined in Article 56 TFEU. Restrictions of this freedom in the field of mandatory participation are too easily excused in the Netherlands by pointing to decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in which it judged the system to be permissible. These decisions, however, were made from the perspective of competition law, and not on the basis of Article 56 TFEU. Grounds for justifying restrictions to this freedom exist, although different justifications are available for direct and indirect discrimination. The article questions how mandatory participation in the Member States considered in this article fare from this perspective?

scholarly journals Law and Politics in River Basin Management; The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Mostert
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
River Basin ◽  
River Basin Management ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Basin Management ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Environmental Objectives ◽  
European Court

This article discusses the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the Netherlands and intends to show how law and politics combine in river basin management. Initially, the implementation of the WFD in the Netherlands was approached as a technical and administrative issue, handled by water quality and ecology experts, but in 2003 this approach was broken open by the agricultural sector, who were worried about stricter regulation. Subsequently, the environmental objectives of the WFD were set as low as possible and they are not used in authorising individual projects. Yet, in 2015 of the European Court of Justice determined that the environmental objectives have binding effect and that Member States have to refuse authorisation for projects that endanger the achievement of these objectives. In the future, the European Court of Justice and national courts may force the Dutch government to change its approach. They may only do so because and as long as they enjoy sufficient social and political support and function relatively independently. The article concludes that, to understand river basin management fully, one has to open up the black box of water law and become a kind of water lawyer.

scholarly journals Exemptions of the EU Water Framework Directive Deterioration Ban: Comparing Implementation Approaches in Lower Saxony and the Netherlands

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan R. Starke ◽  
Marleen H.F.M.W. van Rijswick
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Water Framework Directive ◽  
Goal Achievement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Lower Saxony ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Environmental Goal

The sustainable use of precious water resources requires effective water management. In the European Union, water management is mainly regulated by the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), introducing an integrated river basin management approach. As EU directive, the legislation needs to be implemented in the Member States, entailing not only legal transposition, but also application and enforcement in Member States. One major instrument introduced by the Water Framework Directive is the environmental goal achievement obligation of art. 4 WFD, containing also a deterioration ban with several exemptions. This study compares transposition, application and enforcement of the exemption of permanent deterioration (art. 4 (7) WFD) in the context of the environmental goal achievement obligation regime in Lower Saxony (Germany) and the Netherlands. The study rests on a legal analysis of literature, policy documents and jurisprudence. Although based on the same EU directive wording and case law of the European Court of Justice, the deterioration ban and the exemption of permanent deterioration are implemented rather differently: While the deterioration ban is predominantly understood as planning obligation in the Netherlands, it became an important permit requirement in Lower Saxony since the Weser-ruling of the European Court of Justice.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document