Approaches to the law applicable to proprietary effects of transactions in securities taken in uniform law: a lesson for the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-723
Author(s):  
Michael F Müller

Abstract The modern practice of securities trading has led to almost insurmountable tensions with classical conflict-of-laws doctrine. The Hague Securities Convention set out to provide for a new and uniform solution. In a recent communication from the Commission, the topic has resurfaced on the European agenda. Against this background, this article poses the question of whether the discussion around the Convention can serve as a lesson for the European Union (EU). It is submitted that neither the status quo of EU law is satisfactory nor does the adoption of the Convention offer a fully convincing solution but that the problem should be targeted at its root: the outdated concept of some national substantive laws in intermediated securities.

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.


Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C

This chapter discusses the scope of the Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. This is an important issue because if a case is outside their scope, they will not apply. It considers the international and territorial aspects: the rule that the instruments apply only in situations with an international element; and the fact that they apply only to particular territories. All three instruments apply in the European Union as part of EU law. Their territorial scope is, first and foremost, to be determined by looking at the EU Treaties. In the non-EU Parties to Lugano and Hague, the position is different. In those States, the instruments apply by virtue of international law.


Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Riaan Eksteen

Central to EU law and policies is the protection of human rights. For the European Union (EU), these rights are sacrosanct. Over the years, more substance to the protection of fundamental rights emerged. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is notably entrusted with the protection of human rights and has always deemed it imperative that fundamental rights must be protected within the scope of EU law. The Court has always relied on strong European traditions and values and is guided by the inalienable principle of the rule of law. In the human rights record of the EU, the Kadi cases occupy a special place. The scope of the application of Article 46 is limited, and the application of the Charter is still not used to its full potential, and too few citizens are even aware of it. The Commission intends to present a strategy that would improve the use and awareness of the Charter. By the middle of 2020, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU had become acrimonious. One issue that still begs the conclusion is the status of and protection available to EU citizens living in the UK beyond 31 December 2020. These basic rights of its citizens are not negotiable for the EU.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (S1) ◽  
pp. 131-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Wikinson

The result of the Brexit referendum sends shockwaves through the political fabric of the UK, Europe and beyond. It is the latest instance in a series of anti-systemic shocks to hit the EU, but will almost certainly not be the last, as discontent with the status quo and a disconnected elite continues unabated across the Continent (and is replicated across the Atlantic), and the European Union provides a convenient target for voters to express their anger and resentment.


2006 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas König ◽  
Jonathan B. Slapin

In spite of the recent failure of two referendums, the drafting of a constitution for the second biggest economic power in the world, the European Union (EU), remains a major event in the history of European integration. Whether the constitution or a revised version of it will come into force or not, several important questions emerge. How did an increased number of twentyfive member states reach a conclusion, whereas a lower number of fifteen had failed at previous intergovernmental attempts? In particular, how did the constitutional convention differ from previous intergovernmental conferences (iGCs) at which the EU exclusively bargained its treaty documents in the past? How can one explain the outcomes of the convention, which proposes redistribution of power and resources among twenty-five or more member states? This article uses the positions of the delegates of the EU's constitutional convention to examine bargaining in a setting with few formal rules. The authors use theoretical insights from a spatial model and new survey data to determine the implicit voting rule used at the convention. They find that the convention differed from previous IGCs because the convention was governed by consensus, whereas previous EU bargains on treaties had always required unanimous support. The level of consensus was higher than simple majority rule but lower than unanimity. Since this threshold impacted who won and who lost at the convention, the authors also examine the sources of bargaining power, such as delegates' distance to the status quo, distance to the median, population size, and domestic constraints. The results confirm several findings in the EU bargaining and two-level game literature, for example, that actors closer to the status quo hold a stronger bargaining position and that actors from larger member states are neither more likely nor less likely to win at the negotiating table than are actors from smaller states. The findings on the irrelevance of domestic constraints also indicate why the popular votes in France and the Netherlands failed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Pacuła

The terms ‘characterization’ (‘classification’) and ‘exercise of characterization’ refer in particular to the efforts made to determine which conflict of law rule — and in the sense presented in this paper, also rule on jurisdiction — which is part of the law of the forum State, should be applied to the circumstances of a particular case. In relation to the norms of private international law of the European Union, the triumph of an autonomous characterization at first sight seems undeniable. The term autonomous characterization (in principle — ‘autonomous interpretation’, the case law usually does not distinguish between exercise of characterization and exercise of interpretation) has been referred to over the last fifty years in order to describe the vast majority of operations of interpretation undertaken in relation to the norms of EU private international law. The contemporary concept of characterization in private law of the European Union, although consistently referred to as ‘autonomous’, does not fully meet the criteria thereof. The papers argues that while the starting point was the autonomous characterization in its pure form (stage one), over time it partially gave way to the place of characterization according to the EU law-oriented legis fori (stage two), and finally it was enriched with new elements which gave it the form of a specific functional characterization (stage three). It is not so much about the consistency of the results of the exercises of characterization with the universal understanding of certain concepts. Exercises of characterization are carried out through the prism of their effects, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the norms of EU law (effet utile) other than rules on conflict of laws and on jurisdiction.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1066-1078
Author(s):  
Alexander Tischbirek

AbstractThe law on state-church relations is no longer exclusively a national concern of the EU Member States. Despite supposedly strict neutrality clauses in the primary law of the EU and rigid statements—inter alia—by the German Federal Constitutional Court, it is safe to assume the formation of a supranational EU law on religion, which also touches upon the status of the churches and religious associations. This becomes obvious when state-church relations in Europe are reconstructed as a double conflict of laws that comprises interlocked conflicts between ecclesiastical law and worldly law, as well as between EU law and national law. Within the triangular relationship of these different legal spheres, EU law steers state-church relations towards the non-discrimination principle. The controversy in German law on religion between the proponents of a collective, institutionalist understanding (classic “Staatskirchenrecht”) and advocates of a rather fundamental rights-centered, individualist reading of the Constitution (“Religionsverfassungsrecht”) hence needs to be reconsidered. EU law calls for including yet a third paradigm into the debate: Equality.


Author(s):  
Vlad Constantinesco

La construcción de la Unión Europea ha interactuado sistemáticamente con los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales, de los que procede. El conjunto de reglas que vienen del Derecho de la UE ha desafiado las nociones básicas y las viejas categorías jurídicas construidas por los sistemas jurídicos nacionales. Este artículo analiza el impacto de la legislación de la UE sobre la importante noción de la soberanía-consustancial, en Francia, a la noción de Estado y, en segundo lugar, se examinan las consecuencias que la legislación de la UE podría producir sobre la situación de los nacionales franceses, que se han convertido, desde el Tratado de Maastricht, en ciudadanos de la Unión Europea. Los dos términos de la importante relación política, Estado y ciudadanos, se encuentran sin duda bajo la influencia del Derecho de la Unión Europea.The construction of the European Union has consistently interacted with national legal orders which it proceeds. The set of rules coming from EU Law has challenged the basic notions and the old legal categories built by national legal systems. This article considers the impact of EU law on the important notion of sovereignty - consubstantial, in France, to the notion of State and, secondly, examines what consequences the EU law could produce regarding the status of French nationals, which have become, since the Treaty of Maastricht, citizens of the European Union. The two terms of the major political relation: State and citizen, are definitely under EU Law influence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erion Murati

Abstract Integrated and seamless mobility has been a futuristic vision of mobility for a few years already. Today, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) embodies that vision through the integration of existing and new mobility services into one single digital platform, providing customised door-to-door transport and offering personalised trip or packages planning and payment options. The MaaS concept enable a practical shift from a fragmented and unimodal transport towards a harmonized, centralized and multimodal one, yet the current EU transport law, which is based on the principle of unimodality transport regulation, does not cover any passenger multimodal transport. Thus, as MaaS providers generate multimodal travel chains, it’s problematic that under EU law there is no harmonised legal base for multimodal passenger travel. Moreover, passenger rights cannot be guaranteed when an event occurring during one transport segment affects the following one, if the latter segment is operated with another operator of transport. In light of this, the knowledge gaps that this paper aims to fulfil are to comprehend, on the one hand, the status quo of EU passenger legislation and, on the other hand, the impact of MaaS concept on EU passenger’s rights. This will be achieved by analysing the EU transport law and its adequacy to cover passenger’s rights through a MaaS multimodal journey, as well as the position of a MaaS provider in a travel chain.


Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington

The EU’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) implies an important role for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Given that the Court has the task of interpreting the CRPD as an instrument of EU law and, in particular, ensuring that EU secondary legislation is interpreted in a manner which is compatible with the Convention wherever possible, it is not surprising to find references to the CRPD in a number of judgments and Opinions of its Advocate General rendered both before, and primarily after, the conclusion of the CRPD by the EU. This chapter explores those judgments and Opinions in some depth, looking at the status of international agreements concluded by the EU; how the CRPD has been incorporated into EU law; and discussing case law that has referred to the CRPD, and analysing the extent to and way in which the CJEU has interpreted the CRPD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document