16. Damages Actions and Money Claims

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) governs compensation against the EU. It leaves the Court of Justice of the European Union with considerable room for interpretation, and directs it to consider the general principles common to the laws of the Member States. The key issue is the test for liability where losses are caused by EU acts that are illegal. The Court has fashioned different tests for cases where the challenged act is of a discretionary nature and for those where it is not. This chapter discusses the application of Article 340 in relation to discretionary and non-discretionary EU acts, official acts of Union servants, valid legislative acts, causation and damage, joint liability for the EU and Member States, contractual liability, and restitution.

17. Damages Actions and Money Claims

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 638-662
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) governs compensation against the EU. It leaves the Court of Justice of the European Union with considerable room for interpretation, and directs it to consider the general principles common to the laws of the Member States. The key issue is the test for liability where losses are caused by EU acts that are illegal. The Court has fashioned different tests for cases where the challenged act is of a discretionary nature and for those where it is not. This chapter discusses the application of Article 340 in relation to discretionary and non-discretionary EU acts, official acts of Union servants, valid legislative acts, causation and damage, joint liability for the EU and Member States, contractual liability, and restitution. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of Article 340 in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

17. Damages Actions and Money Claims

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 616-640
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) governs compensation against the EU. It leaves the Court of Justice of the European Union with considerable room for interpretation, and directs it to consider the general principles common to the laws of the Member States. The key issue is the test for liability where losses are caused by EU acts that are illegal. The Court has fashioned different tests for cases where the challenged act is of a discretionary nature and for those where it is not. This chapter discusses the application of Article 340 in relation to discretionary and non-discretionary EU acts, official acts of Union servants, valid legislative acts, causation and damage, joint liability for the EU and Member States, contractual liability, and restitution. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of Article 340 in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

The Practices of ‘Splitting’ and ‘Common Accord’ Under Scrutiny: the European Parliament‘s Request for an Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the Istanbul Convention

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-486
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Samoilova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forms Of Violence ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With all eyes on the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, another pandemic has been growing in the shadows: violence against women. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention creates a legal framework in order to protect women against all forms of violence. Its ratification process, however, has faced considerable challenges, particularly in the Central and Eastern European Member States. This article discusses the basic elements of the Istanbul Convention, reflects on the ratification process in the EU and its Member States, and sets out the main legal issues raised in the European Parliament’s request for an opinion (A-1/19 of 22 November 2019) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Special focus is put on the choice of the correct EU legal basis and the practices of ‘splitting’ and ‘common accord’. This article argues that the European Parliament’s request for an opinion provides the perfect opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to further clarify the law and the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its Member States.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

Case C-233/18 Zubair Haqbin v. Federaal Agentschap Voor de Opvang van Asielzoekers (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-707
Author(s):  
Justine N. Stefanelli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Violent Behavior ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

In its preliminary ruling in Haqbin, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) ruled for the first time on whether the EU Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33 (RCD) prohibits Member States from withdrawing material reception conditions in the event of a breach of the rules of accommodation centers, or in the context of violent behavior within those centers. In holding in the negative, the CJEU affirmed the important role played by fundamental rights in the EU's asylum system.

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.

scholarly journals Mechanizm współpozwania w świetle przystąpienia Unii Europejskiej do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 63-75
Author(s):  
Anna Moskal
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Joint Liability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European System ◽  
The Eu

The co-respondent mechanism in the view of accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human RightsFor the past seventy years there have been discussions and activities on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ratio of the Union’s accession to the Convention is a need to harmonize the European system of protection of individual rights. There are numerous problems and obstacles to achieve this goal created by the specific, supra-national character of the Union sui generis. It requires the introduction of unique mechanisms and procedures that would allow an international organization such as the EU to become a party to the Convention. One such procedure is provided in art. 3 of the draft agreement, the co-respondent mechanism of the European Union and the Member State in proceedings under the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to present the allegations of the Court of Justice, assess their validity and indicate possible future solutions regarding the co-respondent mechanism. After analyzing the European Commission’s request for an opinion on the compliance of the draft agreement with community law, the CJEU considered the draft as incompatible with EU law and listed ten issues that prevented the Union from joining the Convention in the proposed form. Among them, as many as three points refer to the corresponding mechanism and concern in particular the decision on the validity of the conclusions of the Union or a Member State by the Strasbourg Court, accepting joint liability and deciding on the division of responsibility between the Union and the Member State. In the article dogmatic method was used in order to analyze three aforementioned points. Due to the provision of art. 218 par. 11 p. 2 TFEU, the Commission is bound by the opinion of the Court of Justice, and that the presented draft agreement cannot constitute an international agreement allowing for the accession of the Union to the Convention in the proposed form.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document