Court of Justice of the European Communities

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dionysios Spinellis
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Institutional Conflict ◽  
The Relationship

The judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 September 2005 decided an important institutional conflict in the Union. At the request of the Commission, the Court annulled the Council’s Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law. In so doing, the Court acknowledged that the member states can be obliged under Community law and its system of conditions to impose criminal sanctions if this is necessary to protect Community law. It is beyond doubt that they thus can be obliged under Union law and its conditions. The underlying questions are about the relationship between the first and third pillars and the logic of each.

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.

Criminal Jurisdiction, the Public Dimension to ‘Effective Protection’ and the Construction of Community-Citizen Relations

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 25-46
Author(s):  
Estella Baker
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Law And Justice

In a series of decisions the European Court of Justice [‘the Court’] has ruled that Member States must deploy their law enforcement authorities, including their criminal justice systems, so as to safeguard Community interests from threat or damage. These rulings have received attention from commentators because, amongst other things, they make it explicit that Community law has a tangible impact on matters of criminal law and justice notwithstanding the absence of a criminal legal base in the Community Treaty.

scholarly journals Editorial

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-182
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

COURT, MEET THY PUBLICThe public stir caused by recent rulings of the European Court of Justice opens a new window on the EU judiciary's condition and especially on its relations with the public. In the Pupino judgment, the Court ordered Italian colleagues to align domestic rules of criminal procedure with the EU ones by way of construction, whenever possible. The Environmental Framework decision ruling was about a legislative act meant to have states protect the environment by the use of criminal sanctions.

Criminal Jurisdiction, the Public Dimension to ‘Effective Protection’ and the Construction of Community-Citizen Relations

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 25-46
Author(s):  
Estella Baker
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Law And Justice

In a series of decisions the European Court of Justice [‘the Court’] has ruled that Member States must deploy their law enforcement authorities, including their criminal justice systems, so as to safeguard Community interests from threat or damage. These rulings have received attention from commentators because, amongst other things, they make it explicit that Community law has a tangible impact on matters of criminal law and justice notwithstanding the absence of a criminal legal base in the Community Treaty.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

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.

scholarly journals The Direct Applicability of SADC Community Law in South Africa and Zimbabwe: A Call for Supranationality and the Uniform Application of SADC Community Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Tshidi Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
The European Union ◽  
East African ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship

The Southern African Development Community Tribunal (SADC Tribunal) became operational in 1992 and delivered several judgments against Zimbabwe. Some of those decisions are yet to be enforced. The attempt to enforce them contributed to the demise of the SADC Tribunal. The tension between community law and domestic law, international law and national law, and community law and international law is as old as the hills. The monist and dualist theories of international law assist in attempting to clarify the nature of the relationship between international law and municipal law. However, there is no guidance when it comes to community law and national law. This paper will explore on how SADC Community law can be applied uniformly by South Africa and Zimbabwe including all other SADC member states. This will be done through decided cases with specific reference to South Africa and Zimbabwe. In order to learn best practices from other jurisdictions, the paper will to the extent relevant, make reference to the East African Court of Justice, the European Union (EU) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The discourse will conclude by making a proposal for the adoption of a revised Protocol on the SADC Tribunal that will assist in clarifying the nature of the relationship between SADC Community law and national laws of SADC member states.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Castro-Montero ◽  
Edwin Alblas ◽  
Arthur Dyevre ◽  
Nicolas Lampach
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Politics ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Treaty Negotiations ◽  
The Relationship

Students of European Union judicial politics have debated the credibility of legislative override as constraint on the behaviour of the European Court of Justice. Yet because of the high political hurdles for the passage of treaty amendments, treaty revision has been dismissed as the ‘nuclear option’, exceedingly effective but difficult to use. However, when treaties are being renegotiated, the ability of member state governments to pass treaty amendments to either punish or reward the Court is greater. We argue that this may induce the Court of Justice to display more leniency towards member states in cases coinciding with ongoing treaty negotiations. To test this hypothesis, we examine the outcome of all infringement cases adjudicated between 1961 and 2016. We find that the European Court of Justice is significantly less likely to render adverse rulings in cases concomitant with the final, most salient stage of treaty negotiations. Our analysis suggests that the relationship between treaty revision and judicial behaviour may be more nuanced than commonly assumed in the literature.

5. Supremacy of EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-152
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the CJEU on the superiority of EU law. It also considers the transfer and division of competences. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states, including Germany, Italy, France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document