Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

Even if an external observer who takes an interest in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may not have such an impression at first sight, comparative law plays a central role in the activities of these courts. It means much more than simply looking at solutions given to certain problems in the legal orders of the Member States. As a former president of the Court of Justice rightly observed, recourse to comparative law is for the Court of Justice essentially a method of interpretation of Community law itself.1 For the Court of Justice and the CFI (below often referred to as ‘Community judge’ or ‘Community courts’), it is one method amongst other methods of interpretation of the law (such as literal, exegetic, historical, systematic interpretation) and it constitutes a tool for establishing the law.2

Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

scholarly journals Unregistered industrial design: protection in the European Union and the problem of trolling in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Yurii Kapitsa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Industrial Design ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Design Protection

Kapitsa Y. Unregistered industrial design: protection in the European Union and the problem of trolling in Ukraine. The article considers a new provisions concerning unregistered industrial design (hereinafter — UD), introduced by the Law of Ukraine № 815-IX of 21.07.2020.There is an incomplete reflection in the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine and in the adopted Law of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs, in particular the lack of implementation of Art. 85 (2) of the Regulation concerning the conditions under which courts consider UD to be valid; and the rulings of the Court of Justice that the right holder must provide evidence that the UD was copied by a third party, Case C-345/13 etc.This may result in trolling in Ukraine with the use of UD to prohibit the use of known products or products created independently, bypassing trademarks.It is actual to:• provide amendments to the Law of Ukraine «On protection of rights to industrial designs» concerning the provisions of Art. 85 (2) of Regulation № 6/2002 and the case law of the Court of Justice;• extend the competence of the Appeals Chamber to cases concerning the recognition of UD as invalid;• amend the Law as well Art. 139, 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine and Art. 151, 153 of the Economic and Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the provisions of Art. 50 TRIPS which stipulates that judicial authorities shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant’s right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent.There is a danger of partial approximation not to the whole EU acquis governing the protection of relevant IP rights which may result in the difficulty of applying implemented provisions of EU acts and developing national case law which could contradict EU case law.Key words: unregistered industrial design, protection of intellectual property rights, approximation of legislation, trolling

Case-note on Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi & Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union & Commission of the European Communities

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Tzanou
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Union Commission ◽  
Court Of First Instance

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”On 3 September 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down its long-awaited decision on the Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation where, setting aside the relevant judgments of the European Court of First Instance (CFI), the Court held that the Community judicature must ensure the full review of the lawfulness of all Community acts. This included those deriving from UN Security Council's resolutions, in the light of the fundamental rights as protected by Community law.

scholarly journals Adesão da União Europeia à Convenção Europeia de Direitos do Homem e a Interação entre o Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia e a Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Fernandes Santos Matos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

ADESÃO DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA À CONVENÇÃO EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS DO HOMEM E A INTERAÇÃO ENTRE O TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA E A CORTE EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS EUROPEAN UNION’S ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Monique Fernandes Santos MatosRESUMO: Dentre os valores que devem fundamentam a União Europeia - UE, o Tratado de Lisboa prescreve: o respeito à dignidade humana, liberdade, democracia, igualdade, Estado de Direito e respeito aos direitos humanos, incluídos os direitos das pessoas pertencentes às minorias. Neste contexto, é importante a análise da importância do papel exercido pela corte supranacional (Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia - TJUE) e pela corte internacional (Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos – Corte EDH), ambas atuantes no cenário europeu, especialmente a interação de suas jurisprudências em matéria de direitos humanos. Para tanto, cabe retratar a forma institucional de interação de tais cortes após a adesão da UE à Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos, especialmente as atribuições e competências e observância às jurisprudências adotadas por cada uma delas. Não será objeto deste estudo, dado aos limites do objeto, o conteúdo material das jurisprudências de tais cortes em matéria de direitos humanos, nem as questões políticas envolvidas nessa interação institucional. Observa-se uma crescente fertilização e fecundação cruzadas, bem como um diálogo de juízes entre esses tribunais, contribuindo para a harmonização da jurisprudência em matéria de direitos humanos no Direito comunitário. O estudo desse processo é importante para a compreensão da harmonização de direitos humanos no Direito comunitário, bem como para outros contextos regionais que possam porventura utilizar o modelo europeu como referência. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos; Direito Comunitário; Sistema Europeu de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos; Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia; Diálogo de juízes. ABSTRACT: Among the values that ought to base the European Union - EU, the Lisbon Treaty prescribes: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. In this context, it is important to analyze the relevance of the role played by the supranational court (Court of Justice of the European Union) and the international court (European Court of Human Rights), both active on the European scene, especially the interaction of its case law on human rights. To do so, it is worth to delineate the institutional form of interaction of these courts after the EU’s accession to the European Convention of Human Rights, especially the tasks and powers, and the abiding by the case law adopted by each of them. It will not be the object of this study, given the limits of the object, neither the substantive content of the case law of such human rights courts nor the political issues involved in this institutional interaction. It is observed a growing cross-fertilization, as well as a dialogue of judges between these courts, contributing to the harmonization of case law on human rights in the context of EU law. The study of this process is important for the understanding of the harmonization of human rights in community law, as well as for other regional contexts that may possibly use the European model as reference.KEYWORDS: International Law of Human Rights; Community law; European System of Human Rights Protection; Court of Justice of the European Union; Dialogue of judges.SUMÁRIO: 1. Introdução: a importância da proteção aos direitos humanos para o Direito comunitário. 2. Estática das organizações europeias na proteção aos direitos humanos. 2.1. O Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia - TJUE. 2.2. O Sistema Europeu de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos - SEDH: marco regulatório, estrutura e funcionamento. A Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos – Corte EDH.  3. Dinâmica da interação entre o TJUE e a Corte EDH.  3.1. Adesão da União Europeia à Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos - CEDH. 3.2. Fertilização e fecundação cruzadas e diálogo de juízes entre o TJUE e a Corte EDH. 4. Considerações finais. 5. Referências.

Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document