Orams V. Apostolides: A Case Study on the Application in English Law of the Brussels I Regulation in the Light of the Act of Accession 2003

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-146
Author(s):  
Phoebus Athanassiou
Keyword(s):  
Test Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Time ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This article uses a recent ruling of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales as the starting point for an enquiry into the interpretation of Protocol no. 10 to the Act of Accession 2003 and, more particularly, into its effects on requests for the recognition and enforcement of Cypriot court judgments formulated on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation. The High Court's ruling is of some significance, not only because Protocol no. 10 becomes, for the first time since its adoption, the subject matter of judicial interpretation but, also, because of its value as a test case on the European judiciary's perception of the impact of the reforms wrought by the Brussels I Regulation on the status quo ante in this field and as an illustration of the wider legal complications inherent in the participation in the European Union of a de facto divided Member State. This article also anticipates some of the arguments that the Court of Appeal and, eventually, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights might be faced with in deciding how best to address the broader legal issues that this case raises.

Court of Justice of the European Union: Decision of 2 March 2010, Case C-315/08, Janko Rottman v. Freistaat BayernCase Note 1 Decoupling Nationality and Union Citizenship? Case Note 2 The Consequences of the Rottmann Judgment on Member State Autonomy – The European Court of Justice's Avant-Gardism in Nationality Matters

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira ◽  
Gerard René de Groot ◽  
Anja Seling
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Relationship

This reference for a preliminary ruling raises for the first time the question of the extent of the discretion available to the Member States to determine who their nationals are. In so far as citizenship of the European Union, which depends, admittedly, on enjoyment of the status of national of a Member State, is established by the Treaty, can the powers of the Member States to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality still be exercised without any right of supervision for Community law? That is, in essence, the point at issue in this case. This case therefore calls for clarification of the relationship between the concepts of nationality of a Member State and of citizenship of the Union, a question which, it need hardly be emphasised, to a large extent determines the nature of the European Union.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

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.

The First Preliminary Reference of the French Constitutional Court to the CJEU:Révolution de Palaisor Revolution in French Constitutional Law?

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1471-1490
Author(s):  
François-Xavier Millet ◽  
Nicoletta Perlo
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
First Time

A preliminary reference on the part of the Constitutional Council was, in several respects, not to be expected. It was debatable whether it would consider itself as a “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and, therefore, whether it would refer a case to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) at all. The French constitutional court could also have resorted to theacte clairdoctrine so as to escape from their obligation to ask for the interpretive guidance of the CJEU. However, the main reason why a reference was not awaited by legal actors lies in the limited jurisdiction of the Constitutional Council. Until the introduction in 2008 of the so-called QPC, that is,question prioritaire de constitutionnalité(the Priority Preliminary Reference mechanism on issues of constitutionality), theConseil constitutionnelhad a very limited jurisdiction compared to its European counterparts. Its main mission was to assess the conformity of parliamentary bills and treaties with the Constitution and only with the Constitution. Its review could only take placeex ante, between the adoption and the promulgation of a text. By opening the way to anex postreview of statutes with regard to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the QPC brought about a major change in the French adjudication system: statutes are no longer immune from constitutional challenge once they are in force. However, treaties and other international or European commitments are no parameters of constitutional review. TheConseil constitutionnelmade this clear in 1975 and never seriously changed track, despite minor qualifications to the rule. In their seminalIVGruling on the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Act, they held that it was not up to them to review the compatibility of bills with treaties, in spite of Article 55 of the Constitution. Consequently, the task of the constitutional judges does not go beyond the assessment of laws with regard to the Constitution. This is the main reason that explains why, on the face of it, theConseil constitutionnelwas unlikely to refer a case to the CJEU. Why would it seek the interpretation or ask for the review of a European text if this text is immaterial for it and if the yardstick of its examination is the Constitution and only the Constitution? Yet, it happened. For the first time, theConseilreferred a case to the CJEU on 4 April 2013. Although this is undoubtedly a major legal breakthrough, we will see in due course that this is probably more arévolution de palaisthan a true revolution in French constitutional law.

The Impact of the European Court of Justice on Neighbouring Countries

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Objective ◽  
Eurasian Economic Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
External Sources ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This book explores the impact of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) outside the borders of the EU on the legal systems of countries in the European neighbourhood. Considering that ‘export’ of some of the acquis communautaire to neighbouring countries appears to be an EU policy objective, and that legal approximation provisions are included in all of the EU’s agreements with these countries, one must ask whether this objective applies also to EU case law, or only to written laws and regulations. If actual harmonization of rules and standards is desired, the rules must be interpreted and implemented similarly to how this is done in the EU. And where CJEU judgments are cited and followed in neighbouring countries, what are the factors bringing about such influence? Is it a result of these international obligations of legal approximation, or are other, more unilateral and spontaneous modes of influence of CJEU judgments at work, such as territorial extension or the ‘Brussels Effect’? We have brought together scholars from the countries involved who have each explored, documented, and analysed the extent of citing of CJEU judgments in their respective country and assessed what influence such judgments have had on their legal systems. The contributions cover the legal systems of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Russia, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Ukraine, and also the Eurasian Economic Union. There are also chapters on the modes of external influence of the CJEU, and on how the CJEU uses external sources.

scholarly journals Public policy: united in diversity... within the marriage?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1022-1031
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The present paper tackles the development of the notion of public policy in the definition of the concept of marriage. It starts from brief remarks on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of the right to free movement of people and of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to private and family life. Then, it analyses the uncertainties stemming from the national divergences. Further, the impact of the Coman case on the applicability of EU measures on civil judicial cooperation and on the notion of public policy is examined. Conclusively, the paper submits some considerations on the modern function of the public policy.

16. The European Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 290-307
Author(s):  
Ian Bache ◽  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Owen Parker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Service Tribunal ◽  
Legal Judgments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Functions

This chapter focuses on the European Court of Justice (ECJ), one of the three courts that make up the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); the others are the General Court and the EU Civil Service Tribunal. It first provides an overview of the ECJ’s structure and functions before discussing some of its main rulings and their significance. It then considers rulings on the powers of the institutions, some key legal judgments made in response to questions referred to the ECJ by national courts, the impact of ECJ rulings on EU policy, and post-Maastricht trends in the ECJ and EU law. It also assesses the evolving political reactions towards the judgments of the Court, along with the debate over whether the member states have lost control of the process of European integration because of the ECJ’s radical jurisprudence.

23. Citizenship of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter reviews EU citizenship law. It considers the rights of free movement and residence of EU citizens, political rights of citizenship, and Directive 2004/38 on the rights of free movement and residence for EU citizens and their families. The status of EU citizenship created by EU law has been criticized on various grounds, including the thinness of the rights created and their economic focus, the conditions to which they are subject, the reinforcement of the distinction between third-country nationals and EU nationals, the limited impact of the new electoral rights, and the reluctant pace of implementation. On the other hand, the legal rights of citizenship have been expanded by the European Court of Justice, even in the face of vocal Member State opposition. The case law in this area continues to develop and the chapter provides a considered evaluation of this difficult body of law.

The European Court of Justice and Citizenship of the European Union: New Developments Towards a Truly Fundamental Status

ICL Journal ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Hailbronner ◽  
Sara Iglesias Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Development ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

AbstractIn two recent, revolutionary decisions, - Janko Rottmann C-135/08 and Ruiz Zambrano C-34/09 - the European Court of Justice has firmly emancipated the status of citizenship of the Union from the “cross-border” requirement and has inaugurated a new area for the protection of rights closely linked to the core of sovereignty of States, - nationality and residence. This Article examines these two judgments and argues that they take the construction of citizenship towards a federal status. The “genuine enjoyment of the substance of citizenship rights” has emerged as a new legal category that is capable of providing a uniform and general protection and entails the affirmation of a core of rights of a supranational nature. This new development raises questions as to whether the ECJ's expansionist reading of citizenship constitutes a legitimate exercise of judicial power and as to what will be the relationship between citizenship and EU fundamental rights. We conclude by exploring the potential of the judgments analyzed in terms of placing Union citizenship at the center of the emergence of a constitutional patriotism in Europe.

Competence of the Community to Conclude the New Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters: Opinion 1/03 of 7 February 2006

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 705-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristan Baumé
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Exclusive Or

On March 5, 2003, the Council of the European Union (hereafter the ‘Council’) submitted a request for an opinion to the European Court of Justice pursuant to Article 300 (6) EC. This request was intended to clarify whether the Community had an exclusive or shared competence to conclude a new convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters intended to replace the existing Lugano Convention (hereafter the ‘new Lugano Convention’ or the ‘envisaged agreement’).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document