Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Autonomy ◽  
Eu Free Movement Law

This introductory chapter sets out the themes of the book. Doctrines of judicial deference have begun to appear with growing regularity in the European Court of Justice’s free movement case law, especially in relation to Member State action. Their application has been controversial, which is unsurprising in light of the constitutional issues which deference raises: should judges intervene in the work of the legislators? How far can the EU restrict national autonomy? And what is the division of power between European and Member State courts? The chapter sketches the approach taken in the book and explains the empirical study on which the analysis is based. The idea of the ‘passive virtues’ is introduced and linked to the developments in EU free movement law.

Decentralized Judicial Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-124
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
State Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Role Allocation ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Eu Free Movement Law

This chapter explores the practice of decentralized judicial review and its implications for the European Court of Justice’s relationship with Member State courts. The division of judicial powers in the EU is assessed with a focus on justification and proportionality review. Drawing on the data from the case law survey, the analysis sheds light on the role allocation between European and national judges in free movement disputes. It investigates to what extent the distinctions between law/fact and interpretation/application capture their respective functions. The findings show that the power of Member State courts has grown significantly over time, with the Court of Justice delegating an ever greater number of decisions to the domestic judiciaries. As a result of this, EU free movement law is being increasingly shaped at the national level.

The European Court of Justice as a Political Actor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Control ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Private Actors

Chapter 2 summarizes research in political science on the ECJ as a political actor. Discussions about the Court have for a long time focused on the question of ‘judicial activism’ versus member-state control of the Court. The support of the EU’s legal community, the Commission, the litigation of private actors, and member-state courts has been important for the Court’s development of case law. It is argued that current analyses have overlooked the importance of ‘over-constitutionalization’, in light of the Treaty’s detailed policy aims. Case law shares the Treaty’s constitutional status. Its detailed policy prescriptions cannot be overruled. In addition, a Court that pays attention to member states’ preferences will have a significant impact on policy if its rulings establish policy requirements derived from the constitution.

scholarly journals Libre circulación de personas y Derecho Internacional Privado: un análisis a la luz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea = Free movement of persons and International Private Law: an analysis in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Irene Blázquez Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
European Citizenship ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons

Resumen: El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar la interacción entre la libre circulación de per-sonas y el Derecho internacional privado. Mediante esta dimensión se profundiza en la esencia de esta movilidad intra-UE, al tiempo que se calibra el alcance del status civitatis europeo. Este estudio se sus-tenta en una jurisprudencia reciente –si  bien consolidada– del TJUE en la que se garantiza no sólo el desplazamiento sino también el reconocimiento de situaciones privadas en el espacio europeo, y ello con independencia de la regulación material o conflictual del Estado miembro de acogida. En esta acción, la persona tanto física como jurídica trasciende su propio Derecho nacional y adquiere una auténtica dimensión “europea”.Palabras clave: libre circulación de personas, ciudadanía de la Unión, Derecho internacional pri-vado, estatuto personal.Abstract: The aim of this paper is to analyse the interaction between the free movement of persons and private international law. This dimension deepens in the essence of this intra-EU mobility, at the same time as measuring the scope of the European status civitatis. This study is based on recent –yet already well defined– case law of the CJEU, guaranteeing not only the movement but also the mutual recognition of civil situations into the common European space, independent of substantive or conflict rules of the host member state. With this action, both natural and legal person go beyond their own na-tional law in order to acquire a truly “European” dimension.Keywords: free movement of persons, European citizenship, Private International Law, personal status.   

scholarly journals Is It Time to Abolish the Substance of EU Citizenship Rights Test?

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Martijn van den Brink
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Citizenship Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Eu Free Movement Law

Abstract It is almost ten years since Ruiz Zambrano decided that Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which deprive EU citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of their citizenship rights. The CJEU has since then clarified when the substance of rights test applies. This article highlights several inconsistencies and unresolved puzzles in the case law. First, contrary to what was initially suggested, EU citizens can be deprived of the substance of their rights. Second, contrary to what initial judgments suggested, the substance of rights test is not independent of but grounded in the right to free movement. This suggests that the same level of protection can be provided to EU citizens without this test, simply by relying on EU free movement law. The paper concludes by suggesting that these deficiencies can only be resolved by reconsidering the substance of rights test altogether.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

18. Free Movement of Goods:

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
State Action ◽  
Equivalent Effect ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with Member State action that creates barriers to trade. The most obvious form of protectionism occurs through customs duties or charges that have an equivalent effect, with the object of rendering foreign goods more expensive than their domestic counterparts. This is addressed by Articles 28-30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A state may also attempt to benefit domestic goods by taxes that discriminate against imports, which is covered by Articles 110-113 TFEU. These issues are considered within the chapter.

Jacobs, White, and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Seventh Edition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forced Labour

Nearly seventy years after the founding of the European Court of Human Rights it has dispensed more than 20,000 judgments and affects the lives of over 800 million people. The seventh edition of Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights provides an analysis of this area of the law. Examining each of the Convention rights in turn, this book lays out the key principles. Updated with all the significant developments of the previous three years, it offers a synthesis of commentary and carefully selected case-law, focusing on the European Convention itself rather than its implementation in any one Member State. Part 1 of the book looks at institutions and procedures, including the context, enforcement, and scope of the Convention. Part 2 examines Convention rights in terms of many aspects, including rights to remedy, rights to life, prohibition of torture, protection from slavery and forced labour, and family and private life. Part 2 also examines the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the freedom of expression; and the freedom of assembly and association. The rights to education and elections are considered towards the end of Part 2, as are the freedoms of movement and from discrimination. Part 3 reflects on the achievements and criticisms of the Court and examines the prospects and challenges facing the Court in the present political climate and in the future.

Would chocolate by any other name taste as sweet?

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Slater
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
European Community ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Generic Product ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Food Law ◽  
European Court

Food law in the European Community is a touchy subject. One of the big ongoing debates in this area centres on the question of what names we call our foodstuffs by. In an internal market where local supermarket shelves are stocked with products coming from all around the EC and beyond, how can we be sure that the contents of the packets conform to our connotations of the name on the label? For example, if it says “chocolate” on the label, how can we be sure that it really is “chocolate” within our understanding of the word? The question of what names can or should go on labels is, sadly, very complicated. This article therefore intends to look at only one aspect of this problem: when a Member State is allowed to insist that the name of an imported “generic” product be changed. We will begin by briefly looking at the case law and one of the major pieces of legislation in this area – the Labelling Directive – before going on to discuss application of the law to the recent Chocolate Cases, handed down by the European Court of Justice (hereafter the “Court”) at the beginning of this year. This discussion will give some (hopefully) interesting insights into the way in which primary law, as interpreted by the Court, and secondary legislation interact and into the balancing of consumer protection and free trade performed by the Court.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document