The Application of EC Law by National Courts: The Free Movement of Goods by Malcolm A. Jarvis, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998, lxviii + 472 pp and We, The Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution by Miguel Poiares Maduro, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1998, xii + 194 pp

1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 723-726
Author(s):  
J. Scott
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rugge

This article provides an analysis of the recent European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in Council v. K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others. After the Cypriot financial and banking crisis of 2012-13, the case raised the issue as to whether the Euro Group could be considered as an ‘institution’ for the purposes of non-contractual liability under Art. 340 para. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Court replied in the negative, offering a set of arguments on the nature and role of the Euro Group within the European economic constitution and on the legal protection of individuals vis-à-vis austerity measures. The article summarises and criticises those arguments, showing how this judgment of the Court has made the Euro Group essentially immune against judicial proceedings, despite its pivotal role in the management of European economic and monetary issues.


2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

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.


Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski

This chapter provides a conceptual analysis of judicial deference in free movement law. It argues that the reason for the growing relevance of deference in free movement cases is rooted in a shift in focus away from the scope of rights towards justification and proportionality. The European Court of Justice has created two deference doctrines: the margin of appreciation and decentralized judicial review. While the margin of appreciation doctrine is employed to pass certain regulatory decisions over to national legislatures and executives, decentralized judicial review is used to delegate responsibilities connected with free movement review to national courts. Both deference techniques represent a departure from the Cassis de Dijon approach, which has, for a long time, defined large parts of free movement adjudication, and have significant institutional consequences.


Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

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 ‘Keck’.


Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.


2020 ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski

This chapter examines the application of the margin of appreciation in free movement cases. It identifies the doctrine’s legal scope and investigates the scenarios in which the European Court of Justice defers to national authorities. A statistical analysis suggests that there is a significant gap between theory and practice, with only a small number of factors influencing the way in which the margin of appreciation is used. The results show how much regulatory autonomy Member States retain in free movement law. They also expose which concerns the Court prioritizes in its jurisprudence and which decisions it feels safe, or forced, to delegate to domestic institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document