4. The European Courts: composition, functions, jurisdiction; preliminary rulings

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-107
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Future ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter discusses the composition, functions and jurisdiction of the European Courts. It discusses indirect actions (preliminary rulings) and direct actions, i.e. actions brought by or against the European Institutions and the Member States, and between the Member States. The Courts are the CJEU, which includes the Court of Justice, the General Court, and specialised courts. The chapter explains the role of the Advocate General (AG), and further discusses rules of procedure, judicial activism, preliminary rulings, the jurisdiction of national courts, discretionary and mandatory references, when national courts should refer, interim measures, effect of preliminary rulings, and the future of preliminary rulings. The chapter also explains the role of the EFTA Court.

4. The European Courts: composition, functions, jurisdiction; preliminary rulings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Future ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter discusses the composition, functions and jurisdiction of European Courts. It discusses indirect actions (preliminary rulings) and direct actions, i.e. actions brought by or against the European Institutions and the Member States, and between the Member States. The Courts are the CJEU which includes the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts. The chapter discusses rules of procedure, judicial activism, preliminary rulings, the jurisdiction of national courts, discretionary and mandatory references, when national courts should refer, whether, interim measures, effects of preliminary rules, and the future of preliminary rulings.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

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.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

Financing Social Security and Regulation (EEC) 1408/71

2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Social Security Benefits

This article seeks to provide a clearer picture of the role of methods for funding social security benefits in EC Coordination Regulation 1408/71. In past literature and in the case law surrounding Regulation 1408/71, this role has seldom been mentioned. However, this is changing in light of increasing numbers of questions emerging at both the policy-making level and at the level of Court of Justice proceedings. The first part of this paper deals with the role of different methods of financing social security in determining the material scope of the coordination regulation and the question of whether the method of financing certain benefits has a bearing on this material scope. The second part deals with the existing link within the coordination context between paying or having paid contributions and entitlement to benefits. I discuss, inter alia, the extent to which benefit levels are determined by the same legislation as that which determines contribution levels. I examine the extent to which Member States collecting contributions are also responsible for bearing the cost of the corresponding benefits and the extent to which a person who is paying or has paid contributions is entitled to benefits corresponding to those contributions. In light of this examination of the facts as they stand, I endeavour to consider possible alternatives, including the desirability of having a more direct link within the coordination context between payment of contributions and entitlement to benefits.

Article 255 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Set Up

A panel shall be set up in order to give an opinion on candidates’ suitability to perform the duties of Judge and Advocate-General of the Court of Justice and the General Court before the governments of the Member States make the appointments referred to in Articles 253 and 254.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

7. The Direct Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 208-248
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter considers the actions commenced before the Court of Justice. These include actions by the European Commission and other member states against a member state (Articles 258–60 TFEU); judicial review of acts of the institutions (Article 263 TFEU); the action against the institutions for a failure to act (Article 265 TFEU); actions for damages (Articles 268 and 340 TFEU); and the right to plead the illegality of an EU regulation (Article 277 TFEU). The chapter also considers interim measures under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and enforcement actions arising from the Commission enforcement of EU competition law against individuals.

scholarly journals An Agreement to Disagree: The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Absence of Regional Identity in Southeast Asia

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Davies
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Southeast Asia ◽  
Member State ◽  
Regional Identity ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Institutional Origins

ASEAN's engagement with human rights culminated in the creation of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration in 2012. The Declaration is fascinating in three ways: Its institutional origins are surprising, it was agreed upon by states with very different positions on the role of human rights domestically, and it both contains commitments far in advance of some members and is at the same time dangerously regressive. The three leading frameworks that currently interrogate the Declaration fail to provide convincing insights into all three of those dimensions. To correct these shortcomings, this article applies the notion of an “incompletely theorized agreement” to the study of the Declaration, arguing that member states understand the Declaration in very different ways and agreed to it for similarly diverse reasons. Further, I argue that the Declaration neither articulates a shared regional identity relating to respect for human rights, nor can it be understood as marking an early point towards the creation of this identity. Instead, the current diversity of regional opinions on human rights and democracy is perceived as legitimate and will endure. The article concludes by considering whether this denudes the Declaration of value, arguing that its importance will vary: The more progressive the member state, the more important the Declaration will be in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document