Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Ramona Grimbergen ◽  
Norbert Kucharik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law

Toshiba Corp. v. European Commission, Case T-404/12, First Chamber, Judgment, 19 January 2016Ante Šumelj v. European Commission, Joined Cases T-546/13, T-108/14 and -109/14, Judgment, 26 February 2016Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v. European Commission, Case T-100/15, Fifth Chamber, Judgment, 16 March 2016...

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

V.2 LEGAL MAXIMS: SUMMARIES AND EXTRACTS FROM SELECTED CASE LAW

2020 ◽  
pp. 515-574
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Western Sahara ◽  
Secretary Of State

F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Case C-473/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 25 January 2018 Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Case C-498/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 25 January 2018 European Commission v. Republic of Poland, Case C-336/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 22 February 2018 Western Sahara Campaign UK v. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,...

Platforms as regulators

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Dunne
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Digital Era ◽  
Commission Report ◽  
Special Responsibility ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

Abstract The proposition that certain digital platforms act as ‘regulators’ within their own business models is a key pillar of the European Commission report on Competition Policy for the Digital Era, and the basis upon which its authors build a wide-ranging duty for dominant platforms to secure competition that is ‘fair, unbiased and pro-users’. This article seeks to shed light on this novel contention, exploring its meaning and the implications for platform operators. It considers the rationale provided within the report and compares the approach with established Article 102 TFEU case law, specifically the ‘special responsibility’ doctrine. Consideration is further given to whether the platforms-as-regulators notion aligns with alternative modes of regulation within the digital sphere. The aim is to explore whether this approach is coherent, and actually useful, as a means by which to frame and direct future enforcement against digital platforms.

scholarly journals The Recognition of Professional Qualifi cations in the European Union The Practice of Administration and European Courts – The Ski Instructor Example

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-115
Author(s):  
Stanisław Lipiec
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recognition System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Cation Recognition

The case of the English ski instructor Simon Butler working in France is the best example of the malfunctioning of the professional-qualifi cationsrecognition system in Europe. The practice of European and national administration as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU and French courts shows how important and complex the subject of qualifi cation recognition is. A review of administrative practices and an analysis of case law show the positive and negative sides of the EU’s qualifi cation recognition system. The European Commission is carrying out numerous activities aimed at improving said system. The latest solutions make the idea of qualifi cation without borders a reality. The most important task is to examine the changes and legislative proposals of the European Union, analyse the case of Simon Butler and present proposals for changes against the background of activities undertaken throughout the Union. They should be realised through legal research methods and non-reactive social methods.

scholarly journals Anticompetitive Patent Settlements – Where Are We Ten Years After the European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Inquiry?

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (21) ◽  
pp. 129-159
Author(s):  
Anna Laszczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Market Entry ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
A Value ◽  
Generic Company ◽  
Market Practices ◽  
The Eu

In 2009, the European Commission published a final report on its market inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector. The report revealed the authority’s concerns regarding market practices of pharmaceutical originator companies aimed at delaying the market entry of cheaper generic pharmaceutical products. One of the delaying practices identified by the European Commission were patent settlements between an originator and a generic company including: (i) a value transfer from the originator to a generic company, and (ii) an obligation of a generic company not to enter the market. These patent settlements were called pay-for-delay agreements since the payment was allegedly made in exchange for the non-market entry obligation. The European Commission continued the investigation of patent settlements by its continuous monitoring. It also initiated antitrust proceedings that terminated with huge fines imposed on pharmaceutical companies. The appeals are now pending before the EU courts. Ten years after the publication of the final report on the market inquiry, this article aims to summarise the development of the case law and provide its critical analysis. The article focuses on the analysis of pay-for-delay agreements as infringements of Article 101 TFEU only and does not consider the conclusion of these agreements as an abuse of a dominant position.

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.

The European citizens’ initiative: Lost in admissibility?

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-270
Author(s):  
Natassa Athanasiadou
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Participatory Democracy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Theoretical Underpinning ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

The present article aims to examine the admissibility requirements of the European Citizens’ Initiative in the light of primary law provisions and general principles, in particular the principles of conferral, participatory democracy, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and good administration, as reflected in the recent case law of the General Court. More specifically, it is examined how these principles and the primary law features of the instrument provide a clear theoretical underpinning for determining its material scope and serve as guidance for the legislator when regulating the admissibility mechanism and for the European Commission when applying the relevant rules. The recent Commission proposal on a new Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative is also assessed against this backdrop.

Long Awaited Guidance on the Meaning of “Regulatory Act” for Locus Standi Under the Lisbon Treaty

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Camilla Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Application ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Legal Standing ◽  
The Eu

Case T-262/20 Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd v. CommissionThe conditions for bringing direct actions before the EU General Court have been opened under Article 263, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) through the introduction of less restrictive rules on legal standing for private applicants challenging regulatory acts. The term “regulatory act” covers all acts of general application apart from legislative acts and includes implementing measures adopted by the European Commission under the comitology procedure. Initial case law provides welcome guidance on the application of the new rules on standing but questions still remain (author's headnote).

Integrating Environmental Values into the European Convention on Human Rights

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Desgagné
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Environmental Values ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Water Treatment Station

Over the last two decades, the protection of the environment has become a necessity so widely recognized that environmental concerns have pervaded most fields of international law, including the international law of human rights. In 1976 the European Commission of Human Rights dismissed an application on the ground that “no right to nature conservation [was] as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and in particular by Arts 2, 3, or 5.” In 1993, however, the Commission found that the erection and operation of a waste and water treatment station near the domicile of the applicant was such a nuisance as to amount to a violation of her right to a private life. This development in the case law of the European Commission reflects a growing awareness of the links between protection of human rights and protection of the environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document