The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Legal System of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
pp. 173-198
Author(s):  
Roman Petrov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Integration Project ◽  
The Eu

This contribution looks at the application of EU case law by the Ukrainian judiciary in the course of implementation of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement, which triggered unprecedented political, economic, and legal reforms in Ukraine. Several issues form the focus of consideration in the chapter. The first issue is the evolution of EU–Ukraine relations and reform of the Ukrainian legal system and judiciary in the course of the ‘Europeanization’ of Ukraine since its independence in 1991. The second issue is effective implementation and application of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement within the Ukrainian legal order and its compatibility with the Ukrainian Constitution. The latest political and legal developments in Ukraine are analysed through the prism of effective implementation of the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement and the rise of pro-European reforms of the Ukrainian judiciary since the ‘Maidan Revolution’/‘Revolution of Dignity’ in 2014. In conclusion, it is argued that the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement enhanced the adaptability of the national constitutional order to the European integration project and reinvigorated judicial activism by Ukrainian judges to refer to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Anti-discrimination Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union before and after the Economic Crisis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amalie Frese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Role ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Income inequality is at an all-time high in the Europe Union (EU). Implications from the economic crisis which broke out in 2008, and in particularly the austerity measures introduced by Governments in Eurozone countries receiving bailout programmes, created further inequalities, for example between men and women. This paper starts from the hypothesis that whereas other institutions in the EU have played a direct role in tackling the economic crisis, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may have played a more indirect role, which nonetheless can have an overlooked value in particular for setting direction for legal norms of equality and anti-discrimination in Europe. The paper therefore addresses a legal-empirical question: To what extent does the anti-discrimination case law of the CJEU reflect the increased inequalities in Europe following the economic crisis? Based on a dataset of all anti-discrimination cases of the CJEU, I conduct a quantitative analysis of changes in the case law from before to after the economic crisis. I find that there is only weak evidence, which suggests that the case law of the CJEU reflects the increased inequalities following the economic crisis.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

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.

scholarly journals The Role of the Court of Justice in Creating Standards for the Implementation of Cultural Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Anna Kosińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Cultural Life ◽  
Court Of Justice

The present study seeks to answer the question whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases concerning the exercise of broadly understood cultural policies may in reality affect the extent of implementation of cultural rights—that is, access to products of culture, participation in cultural life and freedom of artistic creativity—at the level of Member States. Cultural rights are traditionally regulated by the constitutions of EU Member States and are classified by legal scholars and commentators as second generation rights. Culture, in turn, according to primary legislation of the European Union, is only a supporting competence (Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). However, a review of the Court’s case law demonstrates that CJEU’s judgments form standards that contribute to a more effective implementation of cultural rights guaranteed in the national law of the Member States and international agreements to which they are parties. This results from the nature of the Union’s law, which penetrates a national system and thanks to the principle of direct effect and supremacy truly affects the situation of EU citizens.

Treaty-making Procedures

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-100
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Important System ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides an overview of the treaty-making procedures in the European Union. It explains the historical evolution of primary law in the field and gives examples for each step under Article 218 TFEU (negotiation, signature, provisional application, and conclusion). Excerpts of European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law illustrate how these provisions are interpreted and applied in practice. The chapter also discusses the principles covering suspension and termination of EU agreements, and the ever more important system that allows the EU to contribute to the adoption of international secondary law under Article 218, paragraph 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A final section describes EU practice for adopting non-legally binding instruments and reproduces the new guidance of December 2017 issued by the Council and the Commission in this respect after the ECJ’s judgment in the case relating to the EU–Swiss Memorandum of Understanding.

scholarly journals Article 3(5) TEU a decade on: Revisiting ‘strict observance of international law’ in the text and context of other EU values

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110151
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Eu

Article 3(5) of the Treaty on the European Union concerns EU external relations and was a new provision of the Lisbon Treaty. It has been seized upon by scholars for its reference to ‘strict observance of international law’ by the EU in its relations with the wider world. However, recent case law in the Court of Justice of the European Union has demonstrated little movement towards this supposed ideal. This article supports the fact that rigid and unquestioning adherence to international law has not emerged in case law, particularly as Article 3(5) TEU also mandates that the Union ‘uphold and promote its values and interests’. By taking a broader view of both the text and context of Article 3(5) TEU in EU law as a whole, and through consideration of the limited demands international law places on domestic courts, the article argues that – contrary to current literature – a more expressly balanced approach towards respect for international law is required and should be nurtured in the case law.

Saving Judicial Independence: A Threat to the Preliminary Ruling Mechanism?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Charlotte Reyns
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Admissibility of questions for preliminary ruling – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as Dorsch Consult criterion under Article 267 TFEU – Independence of courts and tribunals in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as element of the Rule of Law value under Article 19 TEU – Structural inadmissibility of questions for preliminary ruling as perverse consequence of the attempts to safeguard independence of the EU judiciary

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document