Personality and Powers of the EU

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Powers ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides an overview of the questions pertaining to the international legal personality and external powers of the Union. It presents and analyses the seminal judgments of the extensive case law of the Court of Justice on the external powers of the Union that span almost fifty years. It thereby explains the distinction between the existence and nature of external powers of the EU as well as the doctrine of implied external powers. Starting from ERTA and Opinion 1/76, the chapter brings together this case law, discusses its latest codification in the EU Treaties with the Treaty of Lisbon, and how this has been interpreted by the Court in its judgments and Opinions. Lastly, a section is dedicated to the recently highly contested question whether the Union may exercise external powers in areas of shared competence. Answering in the affirmative, the Court further clarified the relationship between Articles 3(2) and 216(1) TFEU.

1 Legal Status (Personality), 1.2 Case 22/70, Commission v Council ( European Road Transport Agreement ), Court of Justice of the EC, [1971] ECR 263

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klabbers Jan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Road Transport ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This note addresses arguably the CJEU’s most important external relations decision, in a case involving the relationship between Council and Commission, the powers of the EU to act externally, the implied powers doctrine in one of its many guises, and even the international legal personality of what was at the time still the EEC.

Freedom to conduct a business and EU labour law

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Giubboni
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Social Europe

Critical-contextual analysis of case law of the European Court of Justice on employers’ contractual freedom – Fundamental right to be immunised against the alleged disproportional protection enjoyed by employees – Progressive ideological overthrow of the original constitutional assumptions of the founding treaties – Prominent example of ‘displacement of social Europe’ – Court of Justice’s case law on the relationship between freedom to conduct a business and labour law – Neoliberal understanding of the freedom of enterprise – Alternative interpretation of Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Effective Judicial Protection: some recent developments – moving to the essence

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sacha Prechal
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This article looks briefly into the evolution of the principle of effective judicial protection in EU law and into the relationship between the different manifestations of that principle, which is by now given expression in Article 47 CFR, Article 19 TEU and various provisions of secondary law. Next, it focusses on recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, which concern two central aspects of the principle of effective judicial protection: the compliance with court judgments and the independence of the judiciary. As far as the first topic is concerned, two rather extreme cases addressed the issue what should be done, as a matter of EU law, in situations where a public authority refuses to comply with a final judicial decision. Then the article continues by discussing the independence of the judiciary as a key rationale for the principle of effective protection. In particular, it summarizes the increasingly detailed requirements to be satisfied in order to protect the independence of judges and indicates how an alleged lack of independence should be assessed in a concrete case.

Composing Europe’s Fundamental Rights Area: A Case for Discursive Pluralism

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 210-246
Author(s):  
Louise HALLESKOV STORGAARD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article offers a perspective on how the objective of a strong and coherent European protection standard pursued by the fundamental rights amendments of the Lisbon Treaty can be achieved, as it proposes a discursive pluralistic framework to understand and guide the relationship between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. It is argued that this framework – which is suggested as an alternative to the EU law approach to the Strasbourg system applied by the CJEU in Opinion 2/13 and its Charter-based case law – has a firm doctrinal, case law and normative basis. The article ends by addressing three of the most pertinent challenges to European fundamental rights protection through the prism of the proposed framework.

Spelling It Out−Convergence and Divergence in the Judicial Dialogue between cjeu and ECtHR

2019 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-458
Author(s):  
Amalie Frese ◽  
Henrik Palmer Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Content Search ◽  
Convergence And Divergence ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

In this article we investigate the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as it manifests in explicit cross-references between the two Courts’ jurisprudence. The analysis detects cross-references, how they are used and indications of converge or divergence in the jurisprudence through their explicit citations and references. Our dataset consists of the entire corpus of judgments from both Courts from 2009 (when the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights came into force and until the end of 2016. On the basis of a content search for references to the other Court in both corpora we detect all their cross-references. We find that 1) the Courts’ use each other’s case law surprisingly little, but when they do, it is 2) primarily within the legal domains of criminal justice and immigration policies, and 3) displaying convergence towards the jurisprudence of the other Court.

The International Legal Personality of the Individual

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Legal Personality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Second World

This book scrutinizes the relationship between the concept of international legal personality as a theoretical construct and the position of the individual as a matter of positive international law. By testing four main theoretical conceptions of international legal personality against historical and existing international legal norms that govern individuals, the book argues that the common narrative about the development of the role of the individual in international law is flawed. Contrary to conventional wisdom, international law did not apply to States alone until the Second World War, only to transform during the second half of the twentieth century to include individuals as its subjects. Rather, the answer to the question of individual rights and obligations under international law is—and always was—solely contingent upon the interpretation of international legal norms. It follows, of course, that the entities governed by a particular norm tell us nothing about the legal system to which that norm belongs. Instead, the distinction between international and national legal norms turns exclusively on the nature of their respective sources. Against the background of these insights, the book shows how present-day international lawyers continue to allow an idea, which was never more than a scholarly invention of the nineteenth century, to influence the interpretation and application of contemporary international law. This state of affairs has significant real-world ramifications as international legal rights and obligations of individuals (and other non-State entities) are frequently applied more restrictively than interpretation without presumptions regarding ‘personality’ would merit.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

scholarly journals Free movement of workers in the EU and occupational pensions

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document