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.

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.

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.

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.

Natura 2000: deterioro, desclasificación de lugares de importancia comunitaria y derecho de propiedad

2014 ◽  
pp. 1543-1561
Author(s):  
Agustín GARCÍA URETA
Keyword(s):  
Natura 2000 ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conservation Areas ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

LABURPENA: Lan honek, Europar Batasuneko habitatei buruzko Zuzentarauaren eta Justizia Auzitegiaren gaiari buruzko doktrinaren pean, garrantzi erkideko lekuei ken dakiekeen sailkapena aztertzen du. Iruzkinak Auzitegiak onartutako fokatzeari kritikak egiten dizkio, bereziki, Cascina uzian, balizkotasun hura onartzen baitu, Zuzentarauaren hitzez hitzekoak kontserbazio bereziko guneak bakarrik aipatu arren. Agerian jartzen dira baita ere beste alderdi batzuekiko Auzitegiaren jarrerak dakarren sendotasunik eza, besteak beste, kontserbazio bereziko gune izendatu aurretik garrantzi erkideko lekuen babesarekiko eta garrantzi erkideko lekuen behin betiko zerrenda onartzen duen Batzordearen erabakia aurkaratzeko legitimazioarekiko. Azkenik, garrantzi erkideko leku bati sailkapena kentzen zaionean jabetza-eskubideak duen papera ere aztertzen da. RESUMEN: Este trabajo examina la posible desclasificación de los lugares de importancia comunitaria (LIC) bajo la Directiva de hábitats de la Unión Europea y la doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia a este respecto. El comentario plantea una serie de críticas al enfoque adoptado por el Tribunal, en particular en el asunto Cascina, en el que se acepta tal eventualidad a pesar del tenor literal de la Directiva, que solo se refiere a las zonas de especial conservación (ZEC). También se ponen en evidencia las inconsistencias que plantea la postura del Tribunal con otros aspectos, tales como la protección de los LIC antes de designarse como ZEC y la legitimación para recurrir la decisión de la Comisión que aprueba la lista definitiva de LIC. Finalmente, se examina el papel del derecho de propiedad en el caso de la desclasificación de un LIC. ABSTRACT: This contribution examines the declassification of sites of community importance (SCIs) under the European Union Habitats Directive and the case law of the European Court of Justice. The comment criticizes the approach adopted by the Court, in particular in the Cascina case, which admits that possibility despite the Directive’s express wording that only refers to special conservation areas (SCAs). The comment also highlights other inconsistencies derived from the case law such as the provisional protection of SCIs before being designated as SCAs and the locus standi to challenge the Commission’s decision adopting the definitive list of SCIs so far rejected by the Court. The comment also examines the role of private ownership in the declassification procedure.

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

The classification as ‘worker’ under EU law

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-361
Author(s):  
Adam Sagan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Main Part ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Second Step ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Current Discussion ◽  
Court Of Justice

The paper discusses the concept of the term worker in European labour law, focusing on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Matzak case. First, the facts that are essential to Mr Matzak’s qualification as a worker are presented. In a second step, the part of the Court’s decision which refers to the concept of ‘worker’ is analysed. The third and main part deals in detail with the current discussion of the concept of the term ‘worker’ in EU law. This analysis should make it possible to systemise the decisions of the Court. Finally, an attempt is made to classify the decision of the Court in the Matzak within its own case law and to assess its consequences for future decisions.

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 THE CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlo V. Makushev ◽  
◽  
Andriy V. Khrid�chkin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Court Of Justice

The article considers the features of public administration in the field of intellectual property and the conceptual basis for the formation of its procedures in the European Union. The conceptual bases of formation and development of procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union are opened. The pluralism of approaches to the definition of public administration procedures in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is analyzed. The normative-legal base of procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is given. The acts of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on public administration in the field of intellectual property are analyzed. It is proved that the formation of European private law is due to the purpose of creating and functioning of a common market. It is established that in the national legal systems of European countries the regulation of public relations in the field of intellectual property is given considerable attention. The process of improving the procedures of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the European Union is analyzed and the legal framework of this process is given. A feature of European Union law is to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights through two main mechanisms: harmonization of legislation of member states of the European Union and the introduction of European Union protection documents for various intellectual property. Thus, other partner countries of the European Union, in addition to measures to approximate legislation, may decide on the signing of agreements on entry into the regional European system of protection of certain intellectual property. The member states of the European Union pursue a coherent policy in the field of legal protection and use of intellectual property. Guided by the principle of free movement of goods and services, they focus their efforts primarily on the unification and harmonization of legislation in the field of intellectual property and prevention of the use of intellectual property rights in unfair competition. Within the European Union, a system of direct regulation of the processes of unification and harmonization of legislation in the field of intellectual property, which is especially characteristic of the field of copyright and related rights. The Court of Justice of the European Communities plays a significant role in the unification and harmonization of the legal regulation of relations in the field of intellectual property. In the absence of appropriate harmonization of national legislation in the field of intellectual property with the principles of free movement of goods and services, as well as freedom of competition, proclaimed by the European Union, the importance of the case law of the European Court of Justice is difficult to overestimate. The beginning of unification and harmonization activities in the field of intellectual property protection is preceded by a stage of case law enforcement practice, which allows to identify existing gaps in legal regulation and solve relevant problems. At present, it is a question of the existence of a special system of intellectual property rights of the European Union, formed in its general features, built on principles different from the traditional national ones, with a special subject of regulation. At the same time, this system is a new legal phenomenon that is developing quite dynamically and rapidly along with national and international legal systems. The legal regulation of intellectual property relations in the European Union aims to ensure a high level of protection of these rights, as they are the legal basis for the protection of the results of creative activity. The conclusion about the urgency of research of problems of public administration in the field of intellectual property in the countries of the European Union is made.

Reflectarea jurisprudenței Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene privind clauzele abuzive în materia executării silite în dreptul român, în special în ceea ce privește regimul contestației la executare

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2021) ◽  
pp. 208-224
Author(s):  
Mirela STANCU ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Unfair Terms

"Although the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union is commonly reflected in the practice of the national courts, unfortunately, more than ten years after Romania's accession to the European Union, there are still some syncopations at the legislative level. There are an example in that sense some of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution (contestatia la executare). Indeed, on closer examination, it appears that these provisions do not fully comply with the requirements which, according to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, must be respected by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers. The present article aims at such an examination of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure regarding the contestation against the forced execution from the perspective of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of unfair terms. Thus, after having identified from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice the requirements that must be met by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers, the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution, the stay of execution and the time limit for the contestation will be examined from the perspective of the said jurisprudence. Finally, and without claiming to be exhaustive, in this article, the author also puts forward a possible interpretation of the national provisions examined from the point of view of the case law of the Court of Justice."

‘External’ Case Law as a Source of Inspiration for the Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-53
Author(s):  
Allan Rosas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Reverse Situation ◽  
Justice Judgments

Whilst the other contributions to this book focus on the extent to which the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is taken into account in EU neighbouring countries, notably by the national courts of these countries, this chapter deals with the reverse situation; that is, the extent to which the CJEU pays attention to the case law of both international courts and national courts of third countries. This is done mainly by looking at explicit references to such extraneous sources to be found in CJEU judgments and orders. The main focus is on the case law of the Court of Justice, but some information is also provided concerning the case law of the General Court. In the context of references to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law contained in Court of Justice judgments, some examples are also given of references to CJEU judgments which can be found in the case law of the Human Rights Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document