scholarly journals Judicial Cooperation in Environmental Matters: Mapping National Courts’ Behaviour in Follow-up Cases

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-170
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Squintani ◽  
Dionne Annink
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate ◽  
Large Corpus

The need to ensure a uniform interpretation and effective application of the large corpus of EU environmental regulation in the jurisdictions of the Member States remains a task of pivotal importance for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A quick look at the CURIA database reveals that many judgments are handed down every year to clarify the meaning of EU environmental provisions. It is therefore important to study the proper functioning of the tandem composed of the CJEU and the national courts in this field of EU law. In that sense, this article responds to Bogojević’s call ‘to draw a grander map of judicial dialogues initiated across various Member States’. More specifically, the topic investigated by this article is how Dutch courts have followed up on responses received from the CJEU to their preliminary reference requests in the field of EU environmental law, until January 2017. Almost all the cases we have retrieved from the Netherlands show various degrees of willingness to cooperate with the CJEU. This article highlights the existence of three trends: full cooperation, gapped cooperation and withdrawn cooperation.

scholarly journals Judicial cooperation in environmental matters

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Squintani ◽  
Jon Rakipi
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate

The need to ensure a uniform interpretation and effective application of the large corpus of EU environmental regulation in the jurisdictions of the Member States remains a task of pivotal importance for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A quick look at the CURIA database reveals that many judgments are handed down every year to clarify the meaning of EU environmental provisions. It is therefore important to study the proper functioning of the tandem composed of the CJEU and the national courts in this field of EU law. In that sense, this article responds to Bogojević’s call ‘to draw a grander map of judicial dialogues initiated across various Member States’. More specifically, the topic investigated by this article is how the United Kingdom (UK) courts have followed up on responses received from the CJEU to their preliminary reference requests in the field of EU environmental law, from the UK’s accession in 1972 until January 2017. All the cases we have retrieved from the UK show various degrees of willingness to cooperate with the CJEU. This article highlights the existence of three trends: full cooperation, fragmented cooperation and presumed cooperation.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

Better Regulation’ with ‘Make it Work’: An assessment of the Make it Work’s Drafting Principles on Compliance Assurance

elni Review ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. 2-9
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Squintani
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Smart Regulation ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Selection Of

The ‘better regulation’ agenda developed as a follow-up to the 2000 Lisbon Strategy. Especially after the 2002 ‘Better Law-Making’ Communication, the subsequent initiatives on ‘better’ and ‘smart’ regulation have added to simplification a fairly strong emphasis on reducing administrative burdens. In the context of EU law, environmental legislation is considered one of the sectors that is suitable for simplification and a reduction of administrative burdens. While mainly focusing on the European Environmental acquis, the Better Regulation programme has highlighted on several occasions that the lack of simplification and the presence of burdens may actually derive from national (environmental) law. Led by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany, a group of about 14 member states created the so-called Make it Work (MiW) Project. This project is a form of international cooperation between states, but, at the same time, it aims at influencing the functioning of the European Union. Indeed, this network of states “wants to open an ongoing debate on how the clarity, coherence and structure of EU environmental legislation can be improved, making it simpler for Member States to implement and easier for businesses and others to comply.” The MiW Project works on the basis of topics, which are discussed in meetings presided by civil servants at ministerial level with expertise on the subject matter of the discussion. The main output of these meetings is the drafting principles on making EU environmental legislation smarter, both generally and for specific policies, tools and procedures. Given the limited space available for this article, only a selection of drafting principles is discussed in this article. In order to provide a context to this selection, an overall description of the MiW Guiding Principles of Compliance Assurance is given.

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

Effective judicial protection in judicial cooperation in civil matters and the Court of Justice of the European Union case law: the public policy clause and the absolute default of appearance as denial causes of judgments’ recognition and enforcement in E

2014 ◽  
pp. 147-161
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Protection

The Brussels I Regulation’s re-foundation by the New Brussels I Regulation was thought to secure reciprocal trust on justice administration among Member States and to grant full access to justice for those who inhabit and circulate in its territory. In a Union characterized by circulation freedoms and an internal market existence, those principles justify a situation in which judgments ruled by a Member State’s court are automatically recognised and enforced, in other Member-State, except when the defendant evokes the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement. There would not be judicial cooperation and integration’s prosecution without trust – trust must exist among Member States’ courts and it must be felt by EU citizens so they can acknowledge that EU is actively seeking to improve their life and working conditions. The European Commission made constructive efforts to promote an exequatur’s abolition, making recognition and enforcement proceedings on the New Brussels I Regulation simpler (it even proposed to remove the “public policy” clause, which was not accepted). It is necessary to analyse howthe CJEU applies the rules on denial of judgments’ recognition and enforcement to perceive if the principle of an effective judicial protection is fulfilled under New Brussels I Regulation.

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS: I. COMMUNITY COURTS IN THE AREA OF JUDICIAL COOPERATION

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Nascmbene
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Treaty Of Amsterdam ◽  
Community Courts

A. The area of freedom, security and justice and the role of the Court of JusticeOne of the subjects which has aroused particular interest in the study of the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam as an objective of the European Union (EU) inherent in the principle of the free movement of persons (see the preamble to, and Article 2, the Treaty on EU) is the role of the European Court of Justice (Court). The interest is both theoretical and practical, because one of the main issues is the Court's jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings and thus relations between national and Community courts and the protection of the interests of individuals before national courts wherever there is a conflict between national and Community law and thus a question of interpretation of Community law arises in national proceedings. The Treaty of Nice, which came into force on 1 February 2003, altered the jurisdiction and organisation of the Community judicature and therefore affected the ‘area of freedom, security and justice’.1

scholarly journals Art. 22(4) Brussels i regulation and its successoronly only apply to cases concerned with the actual registration or validityof the listed ip rights. Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 october 2017, c-341/16 = Artículo 22.4 del Reglamento Bruselas I y su sucesor solo se aplican a los casos relacionados con el registro efectivo o la validez de los derechos de propiedad intelectual enumerados. Comentario de la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 5 de octubre de 2017, c-341/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Kilian Sendlmeier
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Provision

Abstract: The CJEU reaffirms its established case law on Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001) and interprets the provision narrowly. Courts in member states in which patents, trade marks, designs, or similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered, have jurisdiction only in cases that are actually concerned with the registration or validity of these IP rights. A case concerned with the potential ownership of such rights falls within the general provision of Art. 2(1) Brussels I and, therefore, is to be brought before courts in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.Keywords: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001), Jurisdiction under Art. 2(1) and Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with IP rights, registration of property of a trade markResumen: El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea mantiene su jurisprudencia establecida sobre el Art. 22.4 del Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001 de Bruselas I e interpreta este artículo en sentido estricto. Los tribunales de los Estados miembros en los que se exige el depósito o el registro de patentes, marcas, dibujos y modelos u otros derechos similares solo son competentes en los casos en que se la posible titularidad de ese derecho entra en el ámbito de la disposición general del Art. 2.1 del Reglamento Bruselas I y, por lo tanto, debe ser llevado ante los tribunales de aquel estado miembro en el que el demandado esté domiciliado.Palabras clave: Procedimiento prejudicial, Cooperación judicial en materia civil y mercantil, Reglamento (CE) n° 44/2001, Competencia judicial, Artículo 2, apartado 1, Competencia de los órganos jurisdiccionales del domicilio del demandado, Artículo 22, punto 4, Competencia exclusiva en materia detítulos de propiedad intelectual, inscripción como titular de una marca.

scholarly journals The International Legal Nature of the Interaction between the Judicial Authorities of the Member States of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-164
Author(s):  
Anna PRYSIAZHNA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature

The current stage of development of international relations and international law is characterized by the active growth of interstate cooperation and the emergence of new more integrated forms of such cooperation. A special manifestation of this modern phenomenon is observed in the field of judicial cooperation. Moreover, the emergence in the modern world of international universal and regional courts and the gradual increase in their number, has become one of the prerequisites for a new form of international judicial cooperation — the interaction of national courts with international regional courts. In this regard, the greatest interest for the theoretical analysis of international legal regulation of judicial interaction is the study of the experience of such interaction in the European space, which operates the «oldest» international regional courts — the Court of Justice of the European Union, which was established in 1952 and was called the Court of Justice of t he European Coal and Steel Community and the European Court of Human Rights, established in 1959. The legal nature and forms of interaction of national courts of European states with the named international regional courts are of special interest for scientific analysis, which is explained both by considerable experience of judicial cooperation accumulated by them and novelty of legal forms and mechanisms of cooperation requiring theoretical understanding. Without exaggeration, the reopening of proceedings based on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the most effective, and often the only, measures to restore violated individual rights and improve the practice of national courts and ensure full and effective enforcement of ECHR judgments. The basis of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the ECHR is the provisions of the Convention, which makes the decision of the ECHR binding. The judicial authorities of the member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to apply the convention law of the Council of Europe, as well as the case law of the ECHR, which is the only source of cooperation between the courts of the member states of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document