The Decentralised Enforcement of the Provisions on Measurement and Assessment of Air Quality under Directive 2008/50/EC

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-261
Author(s):  
Kendro Pedrosa
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Pollution Level ◽  
Sampling Point ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Limit Value ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Sampling Points

In the Craeynest case, the Court of Justice interpreted some of the core provisions of the Air Quality Directive 2008/50 in a preliminary ruling. Firstly, the court ruled that national courts may review the siting of sampling points. This manuscript pays special attention to the minimum standard of review that national judges must perform and considers to what extent the Court of Justice departs from its established case law. Secondly, the Court considered that, for an exceedance of a limit value within a zone to exist, it suffices that a pollution level higher than that value is measured at a single sampling point. Thus, the results of all sampling points within a zone must not be averaged. The ruling can be considered as a landmark judgment, as it strengthens the role of citizens, engo’s and national courts in the decentral enforcement of the Air Quality Directive.

Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 73-120
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The One

AbstractThe question of exactly who benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of which range of persons and bodies should be recognised as legally competent to enforce any given provision of Union law before the national courts, is surprisingly murky. This lack of clarity is due partly to the inherent complexity of the question, as well as to the complication posed by the interdependent relationship between the Union and national legal orders. The confusing approach adopted by the Court of Justice compounds the matter. This chapter discusses some observations on why this is a question which poses particular policy challenges for the Union legal order, before going on to summarise the relevant tools employed by the Court of Justice when addressing issues about the decentralised enforcement of Union law by private and public actors. It is argued that, despite the apparent confusion, it is possible to construct a workable division of labour between the role of Union law in defining its own protective scope (on the one hand) and the discretion of each Member State over access to the courts for the enforcement of Union law (on the other hand). A detailed analysis of the case law is conducted in order to identity the weakest links in the system, or at least those which suffer from the greatest degree of doctrinal and conceptual neglect. The question of who exactly benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of enjoying rights of standing to enforce Union law before the national courts, presents both surprisingly difficult challenges and promising research issues for the future.

scholarly journals Platforms as contract partners: Uber and beyond

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 565-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Domurath
Keyword(s):  
Service Provision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Second Step ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice

This article analyses the recent case law concerning Uber and other platforms. Its main objective is to examine the question of whether and under what conditions platforms can be considered the contract partners of the individuals who seek goods and services through the platform’s infrastructure. In a first step, the criteria employed by the courts, both the Court of Justice of the European Union and national courts, are identified that characterise the role of platforms in relation to the underlying service provision. In a second step, the article looks at the approach to intermediaries in more traditional consumer contract law. A differentiated image emerges, which underlines the need for legislative clarification.

Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 73-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The One

AbstractThe question of exactly who benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of which range of persons and bodies should be recognised as legally competent to enforce any given provision of Union law before the national courts, is surprisingly murky. This lack of clarity is due partly to the inherent complexity of the question, as well as to the complication posed by the interdependent relationship between the Union and national legal orders. The confusing approach adopted by the Court of Justice compounds the matter. This chapter discusses some observations on why this is a question which poses particular policy challenges for the Union legal order, before going on to summarise the relevant tools employed by the Court of Justice when addressing issues about the decentralised enforcement of Union law by private and public actors. It is argued that, despite the apparent confusion, it is possible to construct a workable division of labour between the role of Union law in defining its own protective scope (on the one hand) and the discretion of each Member State over access to the courts for the enforcement of Union law (on the other hand). A detailed analysis of the case law is conducted in order to identity the weakest links in the system, or at least those which suffer from the greatest degree of doctrinal and conceptual neglect. The question of who exactly benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of enjoying rights of standing to enforce Union law before the national courts, presents both surprisingly difficult challenges and promising research issues for the future.

Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Perspective of the National Judge

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
Petr Mádr
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the national application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') by assessing what challenges national courts face when dealing with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the Charter's material scope of application. In keeping with this aim, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – with its general formulas, abstract guidance and implementation categories – is discussed strictly from the perspective of the national judge. The article then presents the findings of a thorough study of the case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and evaluates this Court's track record when assessing the Charter's applicability. National empirical data of that kind can provide valuable input into the CJEU-centred academic debate on the Charter's scope of application.

Financing Social Security and Regulation (EEC) 1408/71

2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Direct Link ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Social Security Benefits

This article seeks to provide a clearer picture of the role of methods for funding social security benefits in EC Coordination Regulation 1408/71. In past literature and in the case law surrounding Regulation 1408/71, this role has seldom been mentioned. However, this is changing in light of increasing numbers of questions emerging at both the policy-making level and at the level of Court of Justice proceedings. The first part of this paper deals with the role of different methods of financing social security in determining the material scope of the coordination regulation and the question of whether the method of financing certain benefits has a bearing on this material scope. The second part deals with the existing link within the coordination context between paying or having paid contributions and entitlement to benefits. I discuss, inter alia, the extent to which benefit levels are determined by the same legislation as that which determines contribution levels. I examine the extent to which Member States collecting contributions are also responsible for bearing the cost of the corresponding benefits and the extent to which a person who is paying or has paid contributions is entitled to benefits corresponding to those contributions. In light of this examination of the facts as they stand, I endeavour to consider possible alternatives, including the desirability of having a more direct link within the coordination context between payment of contributions and entitlement to benefits.

scholarly journals The Interpretive Function of the CJEU and the Interrelationship of EU and National Levels of Consumer Protection

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. E-180-E-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraint Howells ◽  
Gert Straetmans
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Consumer ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Correct Information ◽  
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive ◽  
High Level ◽  
Flexible Application ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper analyses the ways in which the Unfair Contract Terms and Unfair Commercial Practices Directives try to steer a path between imposing a common European standard and allowing national variation. The open wording of the norms and safeguard clauses in both directives allows room for their flexible application. The differentiated role between the Court of Justice, as the interpreter of European law, and the national courts, as the party that applies it, provides a release valve to prevent any direct clashes and allows a subtle way for national perspectives to be reflected. The analysis finds that, irrespective of the underlying level of harmonisation, and with the backing of the European legislator’s intention of ensuring a high level of consumer protection, the CJEU is gradually painting the average European consumer with more realistic features. Here, the case law of the CJEU fulfils a bridging function between the labelling requirements in the Foodstuff Regulation, the transparency requirements in the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the informed decision requirements in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. In these three domains the CJEU recognises that the level of customer attention may be suboptimal, even in the presence of comprehensive and correct information. The CJEU’s approach contributes to more convergence in consumer protection throughout the EU. Yet, in terms of legitimacy, it must be noted that in all cases the CJEU has maintained a clear distinction between interpretation and application. The particular constitutional legal order in which the CJEU operates only allows for a process whereby the contours of a more coherent European consumer protection policy are gradually revealed. In the absence of sufficient legislative guidance at the European and national levels, national courts may be increasingly informed by the case law of the CJEU in an effort to establish clearly desirable common expectations. Those who believe that, in practice, uniformity can be achieved overnight by simply adopting a common maximum norm appear over-optimistic.

scholarly journals La posición de las sentencias del tribunal de justicia de la Unión Europea en el sistema constitucional de fuentes

2017 ◽  
pp. 483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miryam Rodríguez-Izquierdo Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law System ◽  
Spanish Law ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema

Este artículo propone un análisis sistemático de la posición de las sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia en el sistema constitucional de fuentes. El análisis parte de dos premisas: la primera es la de que los órdenes normativos supranacional y estatal tienen autonomía formal, pero no material; la segunda es que la integración del Derecho de la Unión en el ordenamiento estatal no puede explicarse sin la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia. Se describen los efectos de las sentencias del juez europeo en el orden supranacional, para luego ver cómo se transfieren al sistema de fuentes estatal, teniendo en cuenta la función integradora de la Constitución tanto en el plano interior como en el exterior.This article is a review of the different kind of rulings made by the European Court of Justice, in order to find their function and position in the Spanish Law system. The analysis is made under two assumptions: the first one about the formal autonomy but material dependency between EU and Spanish law systems; the second one is that the European Court of Justice case law rules over the interaction between both systems. Formal and substantive effects of ECJ rulings over both systems are described and analysed, considering the integrating role of the Spanish Constitution.

The European Parliament's Role in EU Treaty-Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1009-1039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Ott
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
External Relations

The European Parliament's role in EU external relations and treaty-making has increased over the years through constitutional practice and Treaty amendments. Finally, with the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament's constitutional rights in treaty-making establish – in the words of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) – ‘symmetry between legislation-making and treaty-making in compliance with institutional balance provided for by the Treaties’. In a comparative overview, the European Parliament has ascertained more extensive powers over treaty-making compared to the majority of national parliaments which are only involved in politically important international treaties. This contribution addresses the consequences of this symmetry or parallelism and asks whether it leads to structural symmetry or even procedural symmetry which synchronizes the acts of legislating and treaty-making with each other. This contribution analyses the role of the European Parliament in the different phases of international treaty-making against the backdrop of this constitutional practice. This constitutional practice is shaped by intergovernmental agreements, bilateral arrangements and European Parliament resolutions and is influenced by the mounting case law of the CJEU. It also assesses the European Parliament's role in concluding international administrative agreements concluded by the Commission and Europol and how far the constitutional practice is in line with EU primary law.

The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 53-71
Author(s):  
Samuel Boutruche Zarevac
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Phase ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
The Eu

Abstract ‘That assessment of the extent of the risk [of persecution] must, in all cases, be carried out with vigilance and care, since what are at issue are issues relating to the integrity of the person and to individual liberties, issues which relate to the fundamental values of the Union.’ The case law of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is still limited. Nonetheless, even this limited case law already offers interesting insights into analysing the potential role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the development of the CEAS, and this jurisprudence is in any event likely to grow significantly, due to the fact that the provisions of the CEAS are the result of a political compromise and so lack clarity. This chapter examines the ruling delivered by the Court in the case of Elgafaji, which contains certain elements which address the interpretative difficulties raised by Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive, and goes on to consider, through a discussion of the recent ruling in Abdulla, the extent to which the Court’s interpretation of those provisions of the CEAS which replicate the wording of the 1951 Convention will influence the interpretation of this international instrument, and the difficulties presented in this context. The extent of this influence remains to be seen, but it is clear in any event that the Court of Justice is likely to play a major role in the development of the CEAS. One amendment which may prove necessary is the modification of the Court of Justice’s procedural rules such that it can take into account the views of third-party organisations with a special expertise in this field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document