Habitats Directive and Environmental Assessment of Plans and Projects

2007 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agustin Garcia Ureta
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Assessment ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Special Protection

AbstractThe article analyses the mechanism for the assessment of the effects of plans and projects on special protection and conservation areas, as required by the Habitats Directive. It examines the case-law of the European Court of Justice concerning the criteria that require the carrying out of the assessment. It also examines the generous and in certain cases open-ended exceptions that may be invoked by the Member States in order to execute a plan or project despite its negative effects on the areas concerned, and the different opinions delivered by the European Commission when considering whether those exceptions have been correctly adopted by the Member States in the case of sites containing priority habitats or species.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of its Exclusive Jurisdiction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Discussion

The article explores the limits of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

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 346 Clause of TFEU Regulation in Different EU Member States

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Vilius Kuzminskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The article discloses the fixed exclusion regulation of Clause 346 in the Treaty of Function of the European Union in different EU member states. A further assessment of different relevant judicial approaches to regulation are disclosed and evaluated in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law and procurement in the defense area doctrine.

Natura 2000: deterioro, desclasificación de lugares de importancia comunitaria y derecho de propiedad

2014 ◽  
pp. 1543-1561
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

LABURPENA: Lan honek, Europar Batasuneko habitatei buruzko Zuzentarauaren eta Justizia Auzitegiaren gaiari buruzko doktrinaren pean, garrantzi erkideko lekuei ken dakiekeen sailkapena aztertzen du. Iruzkinak Auzitegiak onartutako fokatzeari kritikak egiten dizkio, bereziki, Cascina uzian, balizkotasun hura onartzen baitu, Zuzentarauaren hitzez hitzekoak kontserbazio bereziko guneak bakarrik aipatu arren. Agerian jartzen dira baita ere beste alderdi batzuekiko Auzitegiaren jarrerak dakarren sendotasunik eza, besteak beste, kontserbazio bereziko gune izendatu aurretik garrantzi erkideko lekuen babesarekiko eta garrantzi erkideko lekuen behin betiko zerrenda onartzen duen Batzordearen erabakia aurkaratzeko legitimazioarekiko. Azkenik, garrantzi erkideko leku bati sailkapena kentzen zaionean jabetza-eskubideak duen papera ere aztertzen da. RESUMEN: Este trabajo examina la posible desclasificación de los lugares de importancia comunitaria (LIC) bajo la Directiva de hábitats de la Unión Europea y la doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia a este respecto. El comentario plantea una serie de críticas al enfoque adoptado por el Tribunal, en particular en el asunto Cascina, en el que se acepta tal eventualidad a pesar del tenor literal de la Directiva, que solo se refiere a las zonas de especial conservación (ZEC). También se ponen en evidencia las inconsistencias que plantea la postura del Tribunal con otros aspectos, tales como la protección de los LIC antes de designarse como ZEC y la legitimación para recurrir la decisión de la Comisión que aprueba la lista definitiva de LIC. Finalmente, se examina el papel del derecho de propiedad en el caso de la desclasificación de un LIC. ABSTRACT: This contribution examines the declassification of sites of community importance (SCIs) under the European Union Habitats Directive and the case law of the European Court of Justice. The comment criticizes the approach adopted by the Court, in particular in the Cascina case, which admits that possibility despite the Directive’s express wording that only refers to special conservation areas (SCAs). The comment also highlights other inconsistencies derived from the case law such as the provisional protection of SCIs before being designated as SCAs and the locus standi to challenge the Commission’s decision adopting the definitive list of SCIs so far rejected by the Court. The comment also examines the role of private ownership in the declassification procedure.

The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to Give Preliminary Rulings on the Interpretation of Mixed Agreements

2000 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Case ◽  
European Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
Mixed Agreements

AbstractThis article is about the scope of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to interpret, under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, international agreements which include among their contracting parties the European Community, all or some of its Member States and one or more other subjects of international law and which fall partly within the competence of the Community and partly within the competence of the Member States (so-called ‘mixed agreements’). In particular, the article addresses the question of whether, and if so to what extent, the Court's jurisdiction covers those provisions of mixed agreements which have been concluded under Member State powers. New light has been shed upon the question of jurisdiction by the Court's judgment in Case C-53/96 Hermès v. FHT concerning the interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the 1994 Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the first case where the jurisdiction issue is addressed by the Court outside the context of association agreements. The article analyses the judgment and its implications in the light of both the Court's earlier case law and the legal and policy considerations at stake when the scope of the Court's jurisdiction is determined.

MOX Plant Dispute – Court of Justice of the European Communities

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 456-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Union Member States

It is uncommon for a provision of the EC Treaty to remain all but unnoticed for fifty years by both legal literature and the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, that is what happened to Article 292 EC, which states that ‘Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for therein.’ This provision can be taken to mean that if a dispute arises between European Union member states involving Community law, they shall bring the dispute exclusively before the European Court of Justice.

scholarly journals El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como actor de constitucionalidad. Repertorio bibliográfico

2017 ◽  
pp. 677
Author(s):  
Ciro Milione ◽  
María Dolores Montero Caro
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Critical Studies ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

El presente repertorio bibliográfico recoge diversos estudios (artículos doctrinales, capítulos de libros, monografías, comentarios jurisprudenciales) que han abordado, desde distintas perspectivas, el papel del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE) en el proceso de integración comunitaria. Para facilitar su consultación, esas publicaciones ha sido clasificadas en seis apartados principales: la cuestión prejudicial ante el TJUE; el TJUE ante la responsabilidad de los Estados miembros por el incumplimiento del Derecho de la Unión; el TJUE y los principios generales del Derecho de la Unión; el TJUE en diálogo con otras jurisdicciones; el TJUE y la protección de los derechos en ámbito europeo; la jurisprudencia del TJUE.The present repertoire gathers the various doctrinal contributions (books, chapters, critical studies…) which have analyzed the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from different legal perspectives. In order to facilitate its consultation, the studies are classified in different sections according with its topic. Basically, all the contributions may be included under the ECJ preliminary ruling; the ECJ and member States liability in EU law fulfillment; the ECJ and the general principles of EU law; the ECJ and its dialogue with other jurisdictions; the ECJ’s protection of rights; the ECJ’s case law.

scholarly journals Analysis of ECJ case law on discriminatory treatment of cross-border inheritance tax

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28
Author(s):  
Gracia Luchena
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Inheritance Tax ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

Recently, the European Commission has launched a package which deals with issues of double taxation and discriminatory tax treatment in the area of inheritance and estate tax. In the paper the Commission discusses ten cases in which the European Court of Justice examined the inheritance tax rules of Member States. In eight out of the ten cases it concluded that the Member States in question breached EU rules on the free movement of capital and/or freedom of establishment. For example, on the 3rd of September 2014, the ECJ entered/made a judgment resolving that the Spanish Inheritance Tax should impose restrictions on the free movement of capital, one of the fundamental principles of the EU’s Single Market. Taking into consideration the merits of the case the Court of Justice finally concluded that the situations between resident and non-resident taxpayers or between goods located in Spain or abroad are comparable and that therefore the applicable tax treatment should be the same.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document