7. The Court of Justice of the European Union:

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-174
Author(s):  
Sabine Saurugger ◽  
Fabien Terpan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Political System ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Uk ◽  
British Court

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the key institutions in the European political system, and amongst the less well known. Described as one of the most powerful international courts, and perceived as one of the reasons the UK left the European Union (EU) (their main argument being that they did not want to be held to account by an unelected and non-British court), the Court continues to be shrouded in mystery. The aim of this chapter is to facilitate an understanding of the structure, history, and workings of this Court, as a key actor in the EU’s institutional system. As such, it is not only a judicial actor but a ‘political’ actor too. Its constitutional role, as well as its role during the economic and financial crisis, illustrates these multiple facets.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

The Health of Nations and the Health of Europe

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Great Contribution ◽  
Ordinary Citizen ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
At Home

It is an honour to be invited to give this year’s Mackenzie Stuart Lecture. Jack Mackenzie Stuart was a distinguished graduate of this University and of ours in Edinburgh. As a member, and subsequently the President, of the Court of Justice of the European Communities he made a great contribution to the cause of European integration through implementing the laws of the Communities, subsequently the ‘European Union’. As well as performing the ordinary tasks of judging and also latterly of presiding over the Court’s business, he was an apparently tireless publicist for that cause throughout Europe, but most particularly at home in the UK. By seeking to make the work of his Court and the law it administered less mystifying to the ordinary citizen and to the lawyerly public, he made it also less threatening.

scholarly journals Escape from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice: A good reason to quit the European Union?

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
Phedon Nicolaides
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Open Economy ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Present System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Large Member ◽  
Judicial Action ◽  
The Uk

One of the principal objectives of Brexit is to end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) over the UK. It raises the question whether the UK has ‘suffered’ more than other Member States from judicial action. To answer this question, this paper examines statistics on judicial action and finds that i) the UK has not been embroiled in more proceedings before the Court of Justice than other large Member States; ii) fewer proceedings have been initiated against it by the Commission than other larger or medium-size Member State; and iii) the UK has won relatively more cases than other large Member States. The paper also argues that in principle judicial bias towards integration is not necessarily harmful to the interests of a relatively open economy like that of the UK. This is because such an integrationist tendency would pry open other markets which would be beneficial to UK firms. In addition, the distortion-preventing powers of other EU institutions such as the European Commission also tend to favour pro-market countries like the UK. Lastly, the paper considers alternative dispute resolution arrangements identified by the UK and suggests that they are more likely to reduce legal certainty and delay effective enforcement than the present system based on the Court of Justice.

BENEFITS FOR EU CITIZENS: A U-TURN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE?

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Welfare Benefits ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.

scholarly journals Liability threshold for damages in public procurement: the EFTA Court’s Fosen-Linjen saga

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. OA25-OA35
Author(s):  
Albert Sanchez-Graells
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Nuclear Decommissioning ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Correct Understanding

In this case comment, I explore the two EFTA Court Judgments in the Fosen-Linjen saga and their opposing views on the interaction between EU/EEA rules on procurement remedies and the more general principle of state liability for breaches of EU/EEA law. I review the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in particular, the perceived inconsistencies between the two 2010 judgments in Strabag and Spijker, which featured very prominently in the legal arguments submitted to the EFTA Court in both Fosen-Linjen cases. I also use the benchmark of the UK Supreme Court's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority judgment to support the view that Spijker reflects the correct understanding of EU/EEA law and that there should be no further debate about it. I submit that the Court of Justice of the European Union would be well-advised to (re)confirm the position enshrined in Spijker at the earliest opportunity, to avoid any perpetuation of this debate in the context of EU/EEA public procurement law.

Citizens’ Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-130
Author(s):  
Catherine Barnard ◽  
Emilija Leinarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter addresses the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement dealing with the protection of citizens’ rights. It explains the scope of application and the content of the rights afforded to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU after Brexit. The chapter also looks at the enforcement of citizens’ rights, both in the EU and the UK. While the rights of EU citizens already in the UK, and rights of UK citizens in the EU, are fairly generously protected under the WA, the mechanism for enforcement of such rights raises questions of effectiveness. Moreover, the special jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning Part Two of the Withdrawal Agreement, while a logical outcome from the perspective of EU constitutional law, will disappoint those who supported the UK government’s insistence that ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU was one of the UK’s red lines during the Article 50 TEU negotiations.

The Health of Nations and the Health of Europe

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Great Contribution ◽  
Ordinary Citizen ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
At Home

It is an honour to be invited to give this year’s Mackenzie Stuart Lecture. Jack Mackenzie Stuart was a distinguished graduate of this University and of ours in Edinburgh. As a member, and subsequently the President, of the Court of Justice of the European Communities he made a great contribution to the cause of European integration through implementing the laws of the Communities, subsequently the ‘European Union’. As well as performing the ordinary tasks of judging and also latterly of presiding over the Court’s business, he was an apparently tireless publicist for that cause throughout Europe, but most particularly at home in the UK. By seeking to make the work of his Court and the law it administered less mystifying to the ordinary citizen and to the lawyerly public, he made it also less threatening.

20. Free movement of payments and capital

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Monetary Union ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

This chapter examines the rules concerning free movement of payment and capital within the European Union provided in Articles 63–6 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains the scope of and exceptions to the free movement of capital. The chapter also considers restrictions on free movement of capital between Member States and third countries. It highlights the willingness of the Court of Justice (CJ) to borrow principles from the other freedoms. This chapter also considers briefly the provisions relating to monetary union and the developments in the light of the financial crisis.

scholarly journals Objective justification, less discriminatory alternatives, and the ‘Great Repeal Bill’

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Michael Connolly
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Apparent Reason ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The Eu

On the 13 July of this year, the UK Government published the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, 1 more commonly called the ‘Great Repeal Bill’. Aside from the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (and with it the proposed ousting of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice), the Bill’s purpose is to ‘convert the acquis’ of EU law and preserve any UK law implementing EU law.2 This will include ‘workers’ rights’ and with it their employment discrimination rights.3 The efficacy of such a move will be limited if the British judges fail to adopt the same interpretations of these rights as their counterparts in the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Over the years of Britain’s membership, there have been many references to Luxembourg to clarify the meaning of particular aspects of the discrimination provisions, with the Court generally giving a more liberal interpretation than the domestic courts had suggested would be their preference. One element of the law largely untouched by this process is the objective justification defence to claims of indirect discrimination. This is because the domestic courts have maintained a fiction that their interpretation is consistent with the EU formula. For no apparent reason, the domestic courts have reworded the EU formula while labelling it as being no different. This presents a major challenge for the Bill. It would be all too easy for Parliament to assume all is well with this aspect of workers’ rights, especially when the judges tell them so. Using a handful of cases, this article exposes the shortfalls within the domestic law and suggests some solutions. It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the Bill (which no doubt is due for many amendments), but to focus on one important aspect of discrimination law, both pre- and post-Brexit.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the court of justice of the European Union (April−September 2017)

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-362
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Third Country Nationals

This contribution presents an overview of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the period April–September 2017 on social security matters. The relevant rulings concern first and foremost the rules determining the applicable legislation as enshrined in Regulation 883/2004 and Regulation 1408/71. In addition, the Court of Justice has delivered important rulings concerning posted worker and the binding effect of A1 certificates, the social security rights of third country nationals holding a single-permit and the protection of social rights in the context of financial crisis and austerity measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document