The Relationship between the OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 329-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Meeusen

Family law has long been considered a domain which virtually escaped any impact from European Community law. Insofar as European cooperation was aimed at economic integration in the context of the EEC, the arguments in favour of keeping it that way seemed obvious and convincing. Today, the relationship between European law and (international) family law is often viewed in an entirely different way. The explanation for this shift lies in the broad, functional approach adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the free movement of persons in the European Union, as well as in the transformation of the Community from the EEC into the EC and its incorporation into a ‘European Union’ (EU) not exclusively oriented towards economic integration.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì

This case note examines the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn on 6 November 2018. It engages with the noteworthy aspects of the ruling, such as the horizontal direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the relationship between primary and secondary law in the European Union legal order and the scope of application of the Charter.


2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller

In this paper Professor Ziller addresses the intriguing question of the relationship of the European Union – which is not a state and which has no territory of its own – to the territories of EU Member States. The paper provides a survey of the overseas territories affected and the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the extent to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply to the European territories overseas.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 383-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher McCrudden

AbstractThis chapter examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers

This chapter examines the relationship between the Court of Justice (CJ) and the national courts in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter focuses on the text of Article 267 TFEU. It analyses the extent to which national courts are willing and able to gain access to the CJ in order to resolve the questions of European Union (EU) law before them. The chapter also explains the concept of acte clair. The analysis reveals that the CJ has rarely refused its jurisdiction and has interpreted broadly the term ‘court or tribunal’. The CJ has also rarely attempted to interfere with national courts’ discretion in matters of referral and application of EU law, while national courts have generally been ready to refer cases to the CJ.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain

European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: relationship – Teleological method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Originalist method of interpretation: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Original meaning of Article 52(3) of the Charter: text, drafting history, case law – Conclusion: case law of European Court of Human Rights not strictly binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union.


Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-116

The present article is dedicated to one of the most debatable aspects of human rights protection in the European Union (EU), specifically the question of whether the EU should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article analyzes the maintained deficit in the functioning of the European Union in terms of the important parameters of democracy as a result of the failed EU accession to the ECHR as well as the new reality created in the relationship between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) after the negative Opinion no. 2/13 of the CJEU and the changes in the nature of the interaction between the two European courts in this changed situation.


Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa

This chapter examines the common themes that affect the four freedoms which constitute the internal market in the European Union (EU): the free movement of goods, of people and of capital; and the freedom to provide services. It analyses the relationship between these four freedoms and highlights the role of the Court of Justice (CJ) in defining the freedoms’ scope, particularly as regards the social aspect of these freedoms. The chapter also suggests that these freedoms have operated to limit Member States’ regulatory freedom in wide-ranging policy fields.


2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 329-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Meeusen

Family law has long been considered a domain which virtually escaped any impact from European Community law. Insofar as European cooperation was aimed at economic integration in the context of the EEC, the arguments in favour of keeping it that way seemed obvious and convincing. Today, the relationship between European law and (international) family law is often viewed in an entirely different way. The explanation for this shift lies in the broad, functional approach adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the free movement of persons in the European Union, as well as in the transformation of the Community from the EEC into the EC and its incorporation into a ‘European Union’ (EU) not exclusively oriented towards economic integration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document