The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Emerging EU Investment Policy

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 570-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment

The transfer of an exclusive competence for “foreign direct investment” to the European Union (eu) in the Lisbon Treaty (2009) has raised numerous legal questions and has tasked the eu institutions with developing a policy field almost entirely new to them. One of the matters that requires thorough consideration is the role the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) will enjoy with regard to this new policy, which role it may be given in investment agreements of the eu or to what extent its role may legally be excluded or diminished by iias. The policy documents published so far as well as leaked text of envisaged investment chapters of future eu trade and investment agreements disregard this matter entirely. Nevertheless, the cjeu will play a role on the basis of the provisions of the eu Treaties and it is largely for the Court itself to determine that role.

scholarly journals The Common European Investment Policy and Its Perspectives in the Context of the Achmea Case Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Daniela Nováčková ◽  
Tomáš Peráček
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Investment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract Current developments in the field of international investment relations are influenced by the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Achmea case, when de facto European law became superior to international law. The verdict of the Court of Justice changes the usual legal procedures and customs in the field of bilateral investment agreements. However, the impact of this court decision is an almost unexplored area due to the lack of interest of legal theorists, and it is relatively difficult to find answers to the ambiguities and problems that have arisen. The scientific study analyses the current process of introducing new rules in the field of investment policy within the European Union, which means the end of bilateral investment agreements within the European Union. It also examines the European Union’s activities in the field of foreign direct investment and the development of a stable European investment policy. Determining the goal of the scientific study is based directly on current needs and emerging practical problems in practice. Their correct understanding and application has a fundamental impact on the possibilities of rules in the field of investment policy. Due to the nature of the researched topic, we applied selected qualitative methods suitable for recognising the law. However, we also analysed scientific literature, case-law and the analogy of law, thus providing qualified answers to the application pitfalls of legal practice.

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

A Fourth in the Court: Why Are There Advocates General in the Court of Justice?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 529-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Why Questions ◽  
Internal Justification

AbstractWhy are there Advocates General in the Court of Justice of the European Union? A standard answer to this question is likely to be either a simple textual reference (because the Treaty provides for them); or an appeal to authority (because the original framers of the Treaties put them there, inspired by the French legal system); or a rather pragmatic appeal to their on-going utility (because they assist the Court and they do a great job); or any combination of these three. All of these explanations are valid. This contribution, however, attempts to go a little deeper in discerning what may be the ideological justification for Advocates General in the Court of Justice. It does so by carrying out a historical and comparative study concerning their origins and systemic justification from the vantage point of a national lawyer coming from a Member State that does not know any type of a ‘fourth in the court’.The first part of the contribution explains which factors have considerably eroded the position of Advocates General in the course of the last decade and why questions concerning their role and its justification became topical. Second, the commonly invoked reference to the French inspiration for introducing Advocates General is critically examined. It is suggested that justifications once provided with respect to the office of commissaire du gouvernement in the Conseil d’État can hardly be used on the European level with respect to Advocates General. Third, possibilities of internal justification of the role of Advocates General are examined: are Advocates General providing any unique assistance to the Court of Justice, which could not be provided for in different ways? With a negative answer to the latter question, the last part of the argument offers a simple yet solid overreaching justification as to why there should be Advocates General in the Court of Justice.

IMPACT OF THE ROLE OF THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-89
Author(s):  
Anna Kęskiewicz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Making

The use of dogmatic-legal, empirical and linguistic semantics methodology is focused on sharing for better understanding of the law. Therefore, views on European jurisprudence have been presented in the paper. Without a doubt, the law-making nature of European Union law takes into account the field of environmental protection. Articles in law define the tasks that are important from the point of view of European legislation. The written nature of these determinants of the reasoning of the possibilities of environmental protection plays an important role in the interpretation of environmental law.

A First Glimpse of Light on the Emerging Invisible EU Model BIT

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 379-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Gabriela Alexandru
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Political Orientations ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trade And Investment

The article recalls the general political orientations of the investment policy of the European Union (eu) as outlined by the three major institutions (Commission, Council, and Parliament) shortly after Lisbon. It then turns with some detail to the substantive standards and the enforcement chapter. The authors present a number of changes that the eu is pushing in its negotiations with Canada and Singapore and which are also outlined in the public consultation with respect to the eu-us Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (ttip). They come to the conclusion that all these elements present “[a] new start for investment and investment protection,” marked by the need for “a better balance between the right of states to regulate and the need to protect investors,” as well as for an improved arbitration system in the emerging eu practice in its negotiations with third states.

scholarly journals The Political Role of the European Court of Justice: How the EU Institutional Thresholds Shield the Integrationist Power of the Court

2019 ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Roberto Reyes Izquierdo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Role ◽  
Fundamental Factor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to analyse how the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been a fundamental factor in the integration process of the European Union, in spite of the obstacles posed by the intergovernmental dynamics that have traditionally hindered the construction of a stronger, cohesive and more integrated Europe. Important principles such as direct effect or supremacy of EU law have been developed through ECJ rulings and case law, even when such principles were not literally foreseen in the foundational Treaties. Therefore, this paper argues that the role and power of the Court as an “indirect law-maker” have been essential for the construction of the European Union, and this has been possible due to the complexities and weaknesses of the legislative process involving the three main decision-makers: the Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament.

scholarly journals The Role of the Court of Justice in Creating Standards for the Implementation of Cultural Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-56
Author(s):  
Anna Kosińska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Cultural Life ◽  
Court Of Justice

The present study seeks to answer the question whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases concerning the exercise of broadly understood cultural policies may in reality affect the extent of implementation of cultural rights—that is, access to products of culture, participation in cultural life and freedom of artistic creativity—at the level of Member States. Cultural rights are traditionally regulated by the constitutions of EU Member States and are classified by legal scholars and commentators as second generation rights. Culture, in turn, according to primary legislation of the European Union, is only a supporting competence (Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). However, a review of the Court’s case law demonstrates that CJEU’s judgments form standards that contribute to a more effective implementation of cultural rights guaranteed in the national law of the Member States and international agreements to which they are parties. This results from the nature of the Union’s law, which penetrates a national system and thanks to the principle of direct effect and supremacy truly affects the situation of EU citizens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document