The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice: An Opencast Constitutional Lab

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1529-1542
Author(s):  
Alessia Fusco
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
High Water ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Similar Remark

At the start of his paperKeeping Their Heads Above Water? European Law in the House of Lords, Anthony Arnull reports a judgment delivered by Lord Denning in 1979, in the early days of the process of the United Kingdom's European integration. It stated as follows:[The] flowing tide of the Community law is coming in fast. It has not stopped at high-water mark. It has broken the dykes and the banks. It has submerged the surrounding land. So much that we have to learn to become amphibious if we wish to keep our heads above water.Lord Denning made a similar remark in his judgment in Bulmer v. Bollinger, which was a pivotal case in the dialogue between the United Kingdom (UK) and European systems.

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.

I. Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 973-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter McEleavy ◽  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

On 1 March 2005 the European Court of Justice in Owusu v Jackson held that the English doctrine of forum non conveniens was inconsistent with the Brussels Convention (the ‘Convention’) when a defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom, even if the natural forum was in a Non-Contracting State.

COURAGE V. CREHAN: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR CONSISTENT APPROACH?

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Community Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Public House ◽  
European Court ◽  
A Company ◽  
Consistent Approach

IN Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd. v. Crehan (judgment of 20 September 2001, not yet reported), the European Court of Justice has been confronted once more with the difficult task of reconciling the effectiveness of Community rights with national rules on remedies. By virtue of a series of agreements between Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. (IEL), a company which owned public house estates, and Courage Ltd., a brewery with a 19% share of the United Kingdom market in sales of beer, all IEL tenants were required to purchase the whole of their beer requirements exclusively from Courage Ltd. In 1993, Courage Ltd. brought an action for the recovery from Mr. Crehan, a tenant of IEL, of a sum of more than £15,000 for unpaid deliveries of beer. Mr. Crehan contended that the exclusive purchasing obligation was anti-competitive because Courage Ltd. sold its beers to independent tenants of public houses at substantially lower prices than those imposed on IEL tenants. He claimed that the beer tie was therefore contrary to Article 81(1) EC and sought damages for loss caused to him by the imposition of the beer tie. Carnwath J. dismissed the counter-claim and found in favour of Courage Ltd. (Courage Ltd. v. Crehan [1998] E.G.C.S. 171). Mr. Crehan appealed.

TAX PLANNING AND STATE AID UNDER THE EUROPEAN LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 228-232
Author(s):  
Aygun Gunduz Guliyeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
State Aid ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

There is a strong link between funding criteria from government sources and the advantage and selectivity associated with classifying an event as government assistance. However, the selectivity criterion is very important when considering whether there is a banned state aid. Finally, the European Court of Justice no longer applies the rule of law and exclusion to selectivity. Instead, the selectivity review consists of two parts: whether a precaution is selective and whether preference is necessary and proportionate. Key words: EU, tax, tax avoidance, state aid, tax planning, competition

APPEALS

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-544
Author(s):  
Roger O’Keefe
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
House Of Lords

Appeals in cases noted in earlier numbers of the Journal have now been disposed of as shown: Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd. v. Johnson & Higgins Ltd., noted [2000] C.L.J. 446. Appeal dismissed: [2001] UKHL 51. Turner v. Grovit, noted [2000] C.L.J. 45. Question on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention of 1968 referred by the House of Lords to the European Court of Justice: [2001] UKHL 65, noted [2002] 1 All E.R. 960.

Constitutional Courts, Preliminary Rulings and the “New Form of Law”: The Adjudication of the European Stability Mechanism

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1771-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
European Stability Mechanism ◽  
New Form

In 2012 and 2013, we observed how the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was adjudicated by “EU courts, plural”: a number of high courts of the Member States (among them “Kelsenian” constitutional courts as well as representatives of a more hybrid model of judicial review of constitutionality) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU) were seized by challenges to the mechanism. What attracted attention was the fact that only one court, the Supreme Court of Ireland, decided to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU, while the other courts, as would appear from their judgments, did not even consider the option. This was a suboptimal example of judicial dialogue in the case of ESM adjudication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document