Would chocolate by any other name taste as sweet?

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Slater
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
European Community ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Generic Product ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Food Law ◽  
European Court

Food law in the European Community is a touchy subject. One of the big ongoing debates in this area centres on the question of what names we call our foodstuffs by. In an internal market where local supermarket shelves are stocked with products coming from all around the EC and beyond, how can we be sure that the contents of the packets conform to our connotations of the name on the label? For example, if it says “chocolate” on the label, how can we be sure that it really is “chocolate” within our understanding of the word? The question of what names can or should go on labels is, sadly, very complicated. This article therefore intends to look at only one aspect of this problem: when a Member State is allowed to insist that the name of an imported “generic” product be changed. We will begin by briefly looking at the case law and one of the major pieces of legislation in this area – the Labelling Directive – before going on to discuss application of the law to the recent Chocolate Cases, handed down by the European Court of Justice (hereafter the “Court”) at the beginning of this year. This discussion will give some (hopefully) interesting insights into the way in which primary law, as interpreted by the Court, and secondary legislation interact and into the balancing of consumer protection and free trade performed by the Court.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

European Community Law in National Courts: a Continuing Contradiction

1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-185
Author(s):  
Christine Boch ◽  
Robert Lane
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Challenge ◽  
European Community Law

Unless the law is enforced, it cannot command respect. Securing proper observance and protection of Community rights has long been recognized to be a fundamental challenge for the Community. The burden falls principally to the national courts, guided by the European Court of Justice. However, the guidance offered appears at times at variance with itself. It seems in particular that, in some instances, the obligation of result laid down in directives simply cannot be achieved. This article looks at the case law on remedies developed by the European Court, seeks to identify inconsistencies therein and suggests how they might be cured.

scholarly journals Vidaus pirkimai kaip viešojo pirkimo sutarties išimtis

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Deividas Soloveičikas
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Substantive Law

Ši publikacija skiriama pozityviosios viešųjų pirkimų teisės nereguliuojamai temai – vidaus sandorių iš­imčiai. Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti vidaus sandorių išimties koncepcijos analizę, Europos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudenciją šioje srityje, taip pat ištirti, kokios yra praktinės vidaus sandorių sudarymo Lietu­voje ir Europos Sąjungoje galimybės ir prielaidos. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the subject that is not regulated by the substantive law – in-house procurement. The author seeks to examine the whole concept of the in-house procurement as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice related to the mentioned field. Besides, it is the aim of this publication to investigate the pragmatic possibilities of the in-house procurement in Lithuanian jurisdiction as well as within the European Community dimension.

The European Court of Justice as a Political Actor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Control ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Private Actors

Chapter 2 summarizes research in political science on the ECJ as a political actor. Discussions about the Court have for a long time focused on the question of ‘judicial activism’ versus member-state control of the Court. The support of the EU’s legal community, the Commission, the litigation of private actors, and member-state courts has been important for the Court’s development of case law. It is argued that current analyses have overlooked the importance of ‘over-constitutionalization’, in light of the Treaty’s detailed policy aims. Case law shares the Treaty’s constitutional status. Its detailed policy prescriptions cannot be overruled. In addition, a Court that pays attention to member states’ preferences will have a significant impact on policy if its rulings establish policy requirements derived from the constitution.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Looijestijn-Clearie
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

InCentros Ltd and Erhvers-og Selskabsstyrelesen (hereinafter Centros),1 the European Court of Justice ruled that it is contrary to Article 52 (now Article 432) and Article 58 (now Article 48) of the EC Treaty for the authorities of a member State (in casu Denmark) to refuse to register a branch of a company formed under the law of another member State (in casu the United Kingdom) in which it has its registered office, even if the company concerned has never conducted any business in the latter State and intends to carry out its entire business in the State in which the branch is to be set up. By avoiding the need to form a company there it would thus evade the application of the rules governing the provision for and the paying-up of a minimum share capital in force in that State. According to the Court, this does not, however, prevent the authorities of the member State in which the branch is to be set up from adopting appropriate measures for preventing or penalising fraud, either with regard to the company itself, if need be in co-operation with the member State in which it was formed, or with regard to its members, where it has been determined that they are in fact attempting, by means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations towards creditors established in the territory of the member State of the branch.

Regulating short-term rentals: Joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18 Cali Apartments

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110146
Author(s):  
Tania Pantazi
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Short Term ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Tourist Accommodation ◽  
First Time

The increase in short-term rentals via online platforms has captured the attention of scholars and regulators. Short-term letting is now considered a considerable alternative to traditional tourist accommodation contracts, challenging matters such as conditions in the housing market and consumer protection. Online platforms, such as Airbnb, Booking.com , Expedia and Tripadvisor, now provide offers for short-term accommodation contracts along with traditional accommodation options (hotels, hostels, apartments). The recent decision of the European Court of Justice in Joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18 addresses for the first time the issue of regulation of short-term rentals in Member States and evaluates a national authorization scheme in light of the Services Directive. The present paper provides a brief background of European regulation affecting short-term rentals and discusses the judgment and its implications for future developments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document