Recognition Of Companies Incorporated In Other EU Member States

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 521-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Few decisions of the European Court of Justice have received as much attention as the 1999 judgement in Centros.1 This decision provided private international lawyers with an opportunity to examine choice of law in relation to companies against the background of European law. It also caused company lawyers to re-examine their national legislation in the light of foreign rules.

Transposition and Implementation of EIA Directive in some EU Member States (with special emphasis on transport infrastructure cases)

elni Review ◽  
2007 ◽  
pp. 18-24
Author(s):  
Pavel Černý ◽  
Jerzy Jendrośka
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Transport Infrastructure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Large Scope

One of the main goals of the Directive 85/337/EEC, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (“EIA Directive”), expressed in its Preamble, is to ensure that projects that are likely to have significant environmental impact proceed only after prior assessment of their likely effect on the environment, based on appropriate information supplied by the developer and with proper avenues for public participation. The European Court of Justice (ECD) repeatedly narrowed down the (originally large) scope of discretion of the member states in deciding whether a project shall be subject to EIA or not by requiring the environmental impact assessment for any project which is likely to have serious impacts de facto. Central to this article is a description of the typical and most important gaps of implementation of the EIA directive, emerging from the specific traffic infrastructure cases. Prior to that, some general remarks on the typical characteristics and problems concerning transposition of the EIA Directive are made.

scholarly journals The 346 Clause of TFEU Regulation in Different EU Member States

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Vilius Kuzminskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The article discloses the fixed exclusion regulation of Clause 346 in the Treaty of Function of the European Union in different EU member states. A further assessment of different relevant judicial approaches to regulation are disclosed and evaluated in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law and procurement in the defense area doctrine.

scholarly journals Transformation of the European arrest warrant in light of protection of the rights of extradited individuals

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Kamila Danilovna Shaibakova
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

The subject of this research is the norms of international legal acts, legislations of the EU member-states, decisions of foreign national courts, as well as decisions of the European Court on Human Rights and European Court of Justice. A hypothesis is advanced that within the framework of the European arrest warrant there are new trends associated namely with the desire to strengthen the system of protection of rights of the extradited individuals, which can negatively affect functionality of the procedure as a whole. Thus, a number of cases of the national courts (for example Artur Celmer case) and Court of the European Union (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru case), as well as provisions of the constitutional courts lead to the fact that the principle of mutual recognition of court decision is used with caution. The article examines the case law of national courts of the EU member-states, as well as practice of the European Court of Justice and European arrest warrant. The author compared the decisions of the aforementioned courts for confirming the hypothesis that the protection of extradited individuals plays a significant role in the context of operation of the European arrest warrant. The intention to provide legal guarantees to individuals extradited in the context of the European arrest warrant, which loses its main influence; particularly the procedure is interrupted due to absence of guarantees of protection of rights in case of extradition, as well as raises doubt towards judicial systems and their decisions of some EU member-states brought forth by political actions of these countries. Moreover, protection of rights and guarantee of fair trial increases.

Decision 22/2016. (XII. 5.) AB on the Interpretation of Article E)(2) of the Fundamental Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 468-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágoston Mohay ◽  
Norbert Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Law

In a case of first impression, the Constitutional Court of Hungary (CCH or Court) ruled on November 30, 2016 that, in exceptional cases, it is competent to consider whether Hungary's obligations to the European Union (EU) violate fundamental individual rights (including human dignity) or Hungarian sovereignty as protected by the Hungarian Constitution. The decision places Hungary squarely within the growing group of EU member states whose constitutional courts have decided that, despite the decisions of the European Court of Justice regarding the primacy of EU law, EU member states are not compelled to violate their domestic constitutional obligations in carrying out their shared EU commitments.

scholarly journals Dyskusja nad modelem wykładni prounijnej w polskiej nauce prawa

2018 ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Wojciech Rowiński
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Consistent Model ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Normative Models ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to present the discussion on normative models of the pro-EU interpretation of national law in Polish jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice drew only general assumptions concerning the pro-EU interpretation, and left the Member States free to choose the methods of its implementation. The author analyses the proposals of the models described in the science of European law as well as in the theory of law, and on that basis comes to the conclusion that a universal and consistent model that would ensure full realisation of the EU law objectives regarding the pro-EU interpretation has not yet been developed.

scholarly journals Not Running Wild With the CISG

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Lookofsky
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
The Political ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Union Legislation

In determining the boundaries of supranational legislation some courts adopt an expansionist (dynamic) line. To take a well-known regional example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long been engaged in an exercise in expansionist interpretation, thus broadening the scope of European Union legislation at the expense of the political discretion of EU Member States. Though surely seeking to advance what it sees as the Union’s best interests, the ECJ sometimes “runs amok,” actively extending regional rules in ways that constrain national sovereignty beyond what the Members had originally intended. Or, as one of my Copenhagen colleagues  once put it: the ECJ is “running wild.”

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

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document