Exploring the European Council's Legal Accountability: Court of Justice and European Ombudsman

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1661-1686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikos Vogiatzis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
The One

The purpose of this article is to explore the avenues for legal accountability vis-à-vis the European Council after the Treaty of Lisbon. This will be achieved through an assessment of the jurisdictional realms of, on the one hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and on the other hand, the European Ombudsman, always in relation to the European Council. Legal accountability may be understood in this respect as the supervision of the observance of the European Union (EU) rule of law. The European Ombudsman is an EU body established by the Treaty of Maastricht; by virtue of Art. 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), he or she has the power to investigate complaints of maladministration “in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.”

Euro-Centrism vs. International Thinking

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Stefan Fersterer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Identity ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Familiar Environment ◽  
The One ◽  
European Citizen

If European people are asked to answer the question, “Which of your different identities has the highest rank in your personal sense: the local, the national or the European?”, a high percentage rate would definitely still report to the two former and only a minority would define themselves primarily as an European citizen. This is no surprise. On the one hand, one defines its identity through that origin, with which he or she has the strongest relation. On the other hand it is extremely difficult for a huge and often aloof entity like the European Union to develop a common European identity that evokes those impressions and sentiments that people combine with their familiar environment.

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

The evolving notion of mutual recognition in the CJEU’s case law on detention

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Caeiro ◽  
Sónia Fidalgo ◽  
João Prata Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Case Basis

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on detention and the possible evolution of the understanding of mutual recognition stemming therefrom. In the Lanigan, JZ, and Ognyanov decisions, the CJEU assimilated mutual recognition with the effectiveness of cooperation, which should be understood as maximum compliance with the issuing state’s interests. Arguably, this approach is detrimental to other important values, such as, for example, the rights arising from excessively long detention and a rational and meaningful approach to the enforcement of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment has detached mutual recognition from the exclusive protection of the issuing state and has turned it into a neutral governance principle. If mutual trust is not a given and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis through common objective parameters, the decisions deserving recognition may be uttered either by the issuing or the executing authority.

scholarly journals Legal Obstacles for Chinese Companies Investing in the Infrastructure Construction in the Europea Union: From a Labour Law Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Kai Liu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Chinese Companies ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Annual infrastructure investment by Chinese companies in Europe continues to climb. However, the legal obstacles arising from the labour law system of the European Union has been not paid sufficient attention to. This research has taken use of a legal analyzing approach, to probe into on the one hand, the EU labour law framework; and on the other hand, to analyze the specific aspects of the labour law filed which would lead to the legal obstacles against the Chinese companies investing in the infrastructure construction.

Article 265 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice

Article 232 EC Should the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, in infringement of the Treaties, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement established. This Article shall apply, under the same conditions, to bodies, offices and agencies of the Union which fail to act.

Regarding the Purpose of the Interim Measures, ordered by the Court of Justice of the European Union

De Jure ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iliyan Baychev ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Discretionary Powers

The article analyses the purpose of interim measures ordered by the CJEU. On one hand, it presents the restrictions limiting the CJEU, which are determined by this purpose. On the other hand, it also illustrates the vast discretionary powers the purpose grants the court within the procedure for adjudication of interim measures.

The Cases of Edam Holland and Gouda Holland

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 444-450
Author(s):  
Vadim Mantrov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Geographical Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

Cases C-517/14 P and C-519/P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie, unreported 24 October 2014 (Seventh Chamber).In the two related cases commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealt with assessment of locus standi in the case of an applicant who disputed the validity of registration of two indications of geographical origin (IGOs), namely Edam Holland and Gouda Holland, being compound designations and containing a famous generic word designation (name), i.e. Edam and Gouda respectively. The importance of both cases relates, on the one hand, to the fact that registration of these IGOs was challenged on the basis of the generic names Edam and Gouda which are extensively used in practice, occupying a considerable market share. On the other, both cases could be a signal whether the CJEU re–affirms its restrictive approach to assessment of locus standi under Article 263 (4) TFEU. Although the CJEU re–affirmed its longstanding case law on restrictive assessment of locus standi also concerning registration of a compound geographical designation on the basis of a generic name, yet, as is argued in this case note, this approach did not take into account the specifics of registering IGOs (author's summary).

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Tunisian Judges: Quo Vadis?

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-346
Author(s):  
Béligh Elbalti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the question whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has exercised an influence on Tunisian judges and the extent of that influence. After explaining the general legal background of Tunisia as a legal system and the attitude of Tunisian judges towards foreign legal sources in general, the chapter explores the available case law of Tunisian courts in order to identify the areas of law where such an influence manifests itself. It shows that, generally speaking, Tunisian judges are quite open to foreign legal sources and frequently cite those sources in their judgments. However, when it comes to the case law of the CJEU, two opposite trends could be identified. On the one hand, the case law of Tunisian ordinary courts shows that the CJEU exercises little influence on Tunisian judges, despite extensive and diversified cooperation between the EU and Tunisia. On the other hand, the case law of the Competition Council shows that the Council is more willing to refer to CJEU decisions in deciding the cases pending before them. The chapter considers several reasons that are likely to explain this double aspect of the influence of the CJEU on Tunisian judges. It argues that the weakness of comparative research, legal education in general, as well as the role played by legal actors in Tunisia are among the main reasons behind the current situation.

Exit from Joint-decision Problems?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-27
Author(s):  
Lucas Schramm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
The Other ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eurozone Crisis ◽  
Joint Decision ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Over the last decade, the European Union (EU) has faced a multitude of crises. Importantly, the various crises have led to different outcomes: Whereas the Eurozone crisis, for example, led to more European integration, the Schengen crisis arguably resulted in a partial European disintegration. Applying models of joint-decision problems in the EU, this paper analyses why and how these two crises led to divergent outcomes. It finds that higher levels of functional pressures, higher capacities of supranational agency, and more room for package deals enabled the EU to exit from joint-decision problems in the Eurozone crisis, whereas these and other potential exit mechanisms were widely unavailable in the Schengen crisis. Looking explicitly at the (missing) availability of exit mechanisms from joint-decision problems, this paper goes beyond the application of the usual European integration theories, which struggle to explain the variation in crisis outcomes. Furthermore, the paper makes a contribution to the more recent academic discussions on European integration/ disintegration, on the one hand, and the legitimacy-effectiveness gap, on the other hand.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document