A Need for Change: The Romanian Supreme Court's Approach to 'Appeals in the Interest of Law'

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-305
Author(s):  
Norel Neagu
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
First Century ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decisions

AbstractThis article deals with the possibility of changing the approach to appeals in the interest of law in Romania according to the relevant guidelines extracted from the case law of the European Court of Justice. It provides a comparative analysis of Romanian Supreme Court decisions with those of the European Court of Justice with respect to guiding principles versus a strict interpretation of written legislation. The author highlights a modern path for the Romanian Court to follow in light of the requirements of the twenty-first century.

The Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and the “Dormant” Commerce Clause by the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Haibach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Ec Law

There are numerous publications on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty by the European Court of Justice1 which for the last 20 years has been one of the most controversial issues in EC law. It is, however, surprising that there is much older, yet strikingly similar, case law of the US Supreme Court which has remained almost unnoticed in Europe. In this article the respective case law of the two courts will be compared. Such a comparison is not only of interest as such, but can also contribute to the discussion about the correct scope of Article 30—which has certainly not yet been exhausted.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

Die Nacherfüllung aus Verkäufersicht

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantin Jungclaus
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
High Level

The thesis examines the question of which of the compared sales law systems is most likely to realize the (economic) interests of the seller in connection with the consumer’s claim for specific performance, which is characterized by a high level of consumer protection. In this respect, the thesis examines 7 different complexes - from the position of specific performance in the system of purchase warranty rights to the scope of specific performance owed and the objection of disproportionality. Dogmatic focal points are, for example, the problem of self-execution in the light of European Union law and the allocation of certain damage items to specific performance or to damage claims in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice.

Judges and Policy Making Authority in the United States and the European Union

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Kouroutakis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reason­ing.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activ­ism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it ex­presses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would even­tually react and would limit such activism.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document