scholarly journals Fill in the Gaps: EU Sanctioning Requirements to Improve Member State Enforcement of EU Environmental Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-162
Author(s):  
Roel Meeus
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Governance ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe enforcement deficit in EU environmental law would stem from bad Member State governance of the autonomy they traditionally enjoy regarding the enforcement of EU law. Both the EU legislator and the European Court of Justice take steps to 'fill in the gaps' and develop sanctioning requirements to improve Member State enforcement of EU (environmental) law. These requirements are discussed in this article. The Eco Crime Directive 2008/99/EC and the Ship Source Pollution Directive 2005/35/EC, the latter as recently amended, deserve some particular attention. Also the novelties of the Lisbon Treaty are considered.

scholarly journals The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Law and Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.

The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Riffel
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In Opinion 1/17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the investment court system compatible with European Union (EU) law. The ruling concerned the mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) but the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to other investment courts as established, for example, in the EU’s investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. This outcome was far from clear, given that in the past the accession to international dispute settlement bodies regularly foundered on the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article parses the CETA Opinion and explores its implications. It particularly focuses on autonomy as a constitutional principle and its advancement in Opinion 1/17. Importantly, the ECJ accepted the superiority of a court created by international agreement in relation to the said agreement. Furthermore, it clarified that it is not prerequisite for the Court to rule first on the meaning to be given to an act of EU law before that act can be the subject matter of an investment dispute. Finally, the pdrerogative of the EU to autonomously set the level of protection of a public welfare goal must be secured in a treaty for the EU to join it.

National Procedural Autonomy and General EU Law Limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Rob Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent approach of the European Court of Justice of the EU towards the applicability of procedural national law in cases falling within the scope of Union law. It argues that the Court increasingly assesses such rules within the framework of the principle of effective judicial protection, as bindingly codified in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU since December 2009. This test is gradually replacing the rather deferential test on the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness and implies a further limitation of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The reason for the shift seems to be the necessity to coordinate the Court's case law on Article 47 CFR with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR, because this coordination requires the application of a similar standard by both European Courts. As a result, the importance of, in particular, the Rewe principle of effectiveness, has already decreased to a considerable extent and might decrease further in future. Nevertheless, it is not to be expected that this standard will be abolished completely. First, because it may provide an adequate standard for assessing procedural issues that are not related to effective judicial protection or Article 47 CFR. Secondly, because incidentally it may be used by the Court for modifying national procedural law with a view to the effective application of substantive EU rules.

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 Randstad Case: Melki Reloaded? The Fundamental Right to Effective Judicial Protection as Battleground for Judicial Supremacy in European Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Orlando Scarcello
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This paper will examine the recent preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice issued by the Italian Court of Cassation in the Randstad case, aimed at rearranging the internal constitutional separation between ordinary and administrative courts (article 111(8) of the Constitution). I will first provide some context on both the relations between Italian and EU courts (2.1) and on the confrontation between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in interpreting article 111 (2.2). I will then specifically examine the referring order to the Court of Justice of the EU (3), focusing on the role of general clauses of EU law as articles 4(3) and 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter in it. Finally, I will consider the instrumental use of EU law made by the Cassation to overcome an unpleasant constitutional arrangement. This aligns Randstad with previous cases such as Melki or A v. B and may foster constitutional conflict in the future. 

‘A Missing Piece of European Emergency Law: Legal Certainty and Individuals’ Expectations in the EU Response to the Crisis’

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Martín Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Mixed Nature ◽  
The Eu

The principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations as a legal tool for individuals in EU law – the mixed nature of EU emergency law: the ‘conferral principle’ limitation and the ways to expand executive powers in the EU response to the crisis (Pringle,ESMA,BPP,OMT) – the existence of legal certainty failures in that response: unpredictable and disjointed legislation and adjudication – arguments blurring legal certainty as the standard of review for EU emergency law: conditionality, international law and indirect legislation – the self-restraint attitude of the European Court of Justice and the risks of leaving litigation under the sole remit of national courts: normalising emergency powers and EU law autonomy at stake

scholarly journals Dyskusja nad modelem wykładni prounijnej w polskiej nauce prawa

2018 ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Wojciech Rowiński
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Consistent Model ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Normative Models ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to present the discussion on normative models of the pro-EU interpretation of national law in Polish jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice drew only general assumptions concerning the pro-EU interpretation, and left the Member States free to choose the methods of its implementation. The author analyses the proposals of the models described in the science of European law as well as in the theory of law, and on that basis comes to the conclusion that a universal and consistent model that would ensure full realisation of the EU law objectives regarding the pro-EU interpretation has not yet been developed.

5. Supremacy of EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-152
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over the law of the member states and the relationship with international law. It suggests that the reasons and logic for the supremacy of the EU law have been developed through the decisions and interpretation of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and provides relevant cases to illustrate the views of the CJEU on the superiority of EU law. It also considers the transfer and division of competences. This chapter also describes the reception and implementation of EU law in several member states, including Germany, Italy, France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Spain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document