4 Legal Acts, 4.5 Case T-315/01, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, 21 September 2005, [2005] ECR II-3649 (Kadi I CFI); Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission , Court of Justice of the EC [2008] ECR I-6351 (Kadi I ECJ); Case T-85/09, Kadi v Commission [2010] ECR II-5177 (Kadi II GCEU); Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Commission and United Kingdom v Kadi , Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (Kadi II CJEU)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzanakopoulos Antonios
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This casenote reviews and discusses the series of decisions regarding sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, as implemented in the EU legal order. In this series of cases, the EU Courts at different times take different positions regarding the relationship of the UN and the EU legal order, as well as their power to review EU acts implementing Security Council sanctions and (indirectly) the sanctions themselves. The series of cases marks a watershed moment in UN Security Council targeted sanctions, forcing EU member states to disobey them and eventually leading to the creation and strengthening of an internal UN review mechanism, the Office of the Ombudsperson.

scholarly journals Commissaire Général Aux Réfugiés et Aux Apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani (C.J.E.U.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1080-1096
Author(s):  
Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

On January 31, 2017, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union rendered its judgment in the case Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani. In the judgment, the Court had to interpret the exclusion grounds of the EU Qualification Directive of 2004 that in its Article 12(2) has literally duplicated Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It had to answer the question of whether an applicant for international protection can be excluded from being a refugee even though it is not established that he himself committed, attempted to commit, or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, but has “just” been convicted of participation in the activities of a terrorist group.

The European Union and the Territorial Scope of European Territories

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper Professor Ziller addresses the intriguing question of the relationship of the European Union – which is not a state and which has no territory of its own – to the territories of EU Member States. The paper provides a survey of the overseas territories affected and the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the extent to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply to the European territories overseas.

scholarly journals The European Union and WTO law: a nexus of reactive, coactive, and proactive approaches

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIS ANTONIADIS
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Comprehensive View ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Legal Order ◽  
The Eu

Ranging from the denial of direct effect to WTO law by the Court of Justice to a WTO-friendly legislative culture currently booming in the EU's political institutions, different approaches towards WTO law have been adopted within the EU. This article classifies the different approaches into reactive, coactive, and proactive by drawing on their common characteristics. The principal aim is to explore the considerations shaping the development of the different approaches and to argue that these stem from the interaction between the judiciary and the legislature. In doing so, this article purports to provide a comprehensive view of the application of WTO law within the Community legal order.

scholarly journals TAX GAP AS A TOOL FOR MEASURING VAT EVASION IN THE EU COUNTRIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
ALENA ANDREJOVSKÁ ◽  
VERONIKA KONEČNÁ ◽  
JANA HAKALOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Tax Evasion ◽  
Sharp Change ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Tax Revenues ◽  
Tax Gap ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

VAT is one of the most decisive tax revenues sources in the EU Member States. Due to financial frauds and insufficient tax system, there is a billion loss of EUR every year in the European budget. The article deals with the impact of the tax evasion on economies of the EU Member States. By applying the top-down approach, we observed tax gaps as a quantifier of tax evasion from 2004 to 2017. The period around the economic crisis in 2009 was examined in more detail, as there was a sharp change in the evolution of tax gaps. We constructed a regression model, which examined the relationship of the tax gap and VAT tax revenues to selected determinants of tax evasion. The results showed that tax gaps in the Member States have been growing every year. We also found that there is an increase in tax revenues, but tax liabilities increase to greater extent.

Beyond Chapter VIII: Limits and Opportunities for Regional Representation at the UN security Council

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Drieskens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Eu

AbstractZooming in on the serving European Union (EU) Member States and exploring the legal parameters defining regional actorness both directly and indirectly, this article analyzes the EU's representation at the United Nations (UN) Security Council. Looking at the theory and practice behind Articles 52, 23 and 103 of the UN Charter, we shed fresh light on the only provision in the European Treaties that explicitly referred to the UN Security Council, i.e. the former Article 19 of the EU Treaty. We define that provision as a regional interpretation of Article 103 of the UN Charter and discuss its implementation in day-to-day decision-making, especially as for economic and financial sanctions measures. Hereby, we focus on the negotiations leading to UN Security Council Resolution 1822(2008).

12. The peaceful settlement of disputes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Advisory Opinions ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses some of the more relevant methods for peaceful dispute settlement. It begins by introducing a number of non-adjudicatory settlement mechanisms and providing a brief overview of the role played by the UN. It then discusses the adjudicatory means of settling disputes, including international arbitration; the competences and powers of the International Court of Justice; issues of access to the Court and the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases; the power of the Court to issue provisional measures; the effects of the Court's decisions; the relationship between the Court and the UN Security Council; and the Court's competence to issue advisory opinions.

scholarly journals Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
Monika Zalnieriute
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Data Privacy ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Data ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In Google LLC v. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) held that the EU law only requires valid “right to be forgotten” de-referencing requests to be carried out by a search engine operator on search engine versions accessible in EU member states, as opposed to all versions of its search engine worldwide. While the ruling has been perceived as a “win” for Google and other interveners, such as Microsoft and the Wikimedia Foundation, who argued against worldwide de-referencing, the Court also made clear that that while the EU law does not currently require worldwide de-referencing, “it also does not prohibit such a practice” (para. 72). As a result, the CJEU found that an order by a national supervisory or judicial authority of an EU member state requiring worldwide de-referencing in accordance with its own national data protection laws would not be inconsistent with EU law where the data subject's right to privacy is adequately balanced against the right to freedom of information. By leaving the door to extraterritorial de-referencing wide open, the CJEU continues to pursue its post-Snowden hard-line stance on data privacy in a manner that is likely to transform the data privacy landscape.

CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea: Single Decision and Its Multi-Faceted Fallout

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-32
Author(s):  
Bartosz Soloch
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Investments ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Recent decisions of European and national courts, as well as those of arbitral tribunals, concerning the Achmea saga seem to be plentiful enough to draw preliminary conclusions as to the relationship between EU law, intra-EU international investment agreements (IIAs) and the national laws of EU-Member States. In order to get the proper picture of the situation, however, it is necessary not only to analyse the recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and their consequences from these three perspectives, but, equally, to understand how they interact with each other. Such an analysis indicates the real possibility of the emergence of a rift between the practice of the EU and national courts rejecting the validity of investment arbitration agreements, on the one hand, and investment tribunals, on the other. In any case, such a divergence would put into question the IIAs’ claim to provide a stable regulatory framework for international investments in the EU, which, in turn, would strengthen the argument for termination of intra-EU IIAs.

The Continuing Contributions of Ronald St. J. Macdonald to UN Charter and Peace and Security Issues

2003 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 265-285
Author(s):  
John H. Currie
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Relationship

SummaryIn this article, the author focuses in particular on Macdonald’s writings on the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council. After considering the continuing uncertainties in that relationship, the author argues that the emerging practice of “evolving reinterpretation” of Security Council Chapter VII resolutions suggests yet another important role for the court — that of guardian of Security Council authority through authoritative, judicial interpretation of purported Security Council authorizations to use force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document