Regulating short-term rentals: Joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18 Cali Apartments

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110146
Author(s):  
Tania Pantazi
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Short Term ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Tourist Accommodation ◽  
First Time

The increase in short-term rentals via online platforms has captured the attention of scholars and regulators. Short-term letting is now considered a considerable alternative to traditional tourist accommodation contracts, challenging matters such as conditions in the housing market and consumer protection. Online platforms, such as Airbnb, Booking.com , Expedia and Tripadvisor, now provide offers for short-term accommodation contracts along with traditional accommodation options (hotels, hostels, apartments). The recent decision of the European Court of Justice in Joined cases C-724/18 and C-727/18 addresses for the first time the issue of regulation of short-term rentals in Member States and evaluates a national authorization scheme in light of the Services Directive. The present paper provides a brief background of European regulation affecting short-term rentals and discusses the judgment and its implications for future developments.

Would chocolate by any other name taste as sweet?

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 571-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Slater
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
European Community ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Generic Product ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Food Law ◽  
European Court

Food law in the European Community is a touchy subject. One of the big ongoing debates in this area centres on the question of what names we call our foodstuffs by. In an internal market where local supermarket shelves are stocked with products coming from all around the EC and beyond, how can we be sure that the contents of the packets conform to our connotations of the name on the label? For example, if it says “chocolate” on the label, how can we be sure that it really is “chocolate” within our understanding of the word? The question of what names can or should go on labels is, sadly, very complicated. This article therefore intends to look at only one aspect of this problem: when a Member State is allowed to insist that the name of an imported “generic” product be changed. We will begin by briefly looking at the case law and one of the major pieces of legislation in this area – the Labelling Directive – before going on to discuss application of the law to the recent Chocolate Cases, handed down by the European Court of Justice (hereafter the “Court”) at the beginning of this year. This discussion will give some (hopefully) interesting insights into the way in which primary law, as interpreted by the Court, and secondary legislation interact and into the balancing of consumer protection and free trade performed by the Court.

scholarly journals The interpretation practice of The European Court of Justice while judging the conflict between labelling applied as trademark with elderly right of another person

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Hana Kelblová
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the verification of the starting hypothesis of complementariness of the law of consumer protection and the law of intellectual property. In order to achieve that goal the author analyzes individual the Czech Trade Marks Act from the standpoint of protection of rights and interests of consumers.The article follows the categorical requirement of a public law rule, the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits deceiving consumers and establishes that deceiving may also consist in offering products and services unjustified designated by misleading trade mark.The consumer is deceived most frequently when trade marks are used for designation of products and their promotion. The Trade Marks Act may be analyzed in relation to consumer protection first from the standpoint of consumer protection against trade marks misleading someone about the origin and quality of products and services designated by them. Then it is possible to examine the question whether requirements of a designation for being registered as a trade mark are at the same time those attributes of the trade mark which meet the declared intention of the lawmaker, i.e. that the trade mark should be a source of information for the consumer about the origin and quality of the product de­sig­na­ted by it.Especially, the article deals with an interpretation of the conception „Likelihood of Confusion“ as the fundamental conception while judging the conflict with elderly trademarks applying for the re­gi­stra­tion into the list of The Patent Office.A perception of an average consumer is a fundamental factor for a judgement of „Likelihood of Confusion“ as results from the decision practice of The Czech Patent Office, Czech courts and The European Court of Justice. This is proof of the conclusion that rules of the Trademark Law are rules of the Consumer protection Law.

I. Constitutional Aspects

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 701-703
Author(s):  
Karl Newman ◽  
Sophie Boyron
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
First Report ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
First Time

Although these last two years have been relatively quiet in terms of institutional developments, a number of important inter-institutional agreements have been negotiated in order to facilitate the working of some of the powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, while some other powers were used for the first time: the European Ombudsman has issued his first report, the European Parliament has set up two Committees of Inquiry. Lastly, the European Court of Justice delivered an important opinion as regards the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Divergent Jurisprudential Paths of the Andean Tribunal of Justice and the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Alter ◽  
Laurence R. Helfer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
First Time ◽  
Integration Rules ◽  
Laws And Regulations

This chapter explains how the Andean Tribunal of Justice (ATJ) has significantly diverged from several foundational integration law doctrines developed by the European Union's Court of Justice (ECJ). As such, this updated analysis discusses how the ATJ refined the complemento indispensable principle to more clearly delineate the boundary between Community and national legal authority and to uphold the primacy of clear Andean rules. This principle is a doctrine that permits national laws and regulations to implement and fill gaps in Andean secondary legislation (known as Decisiones). The ATJ has also asserted the supremacy of Andean law over conflicting bilateral and multilateral treaties, and accepted preliminary references from administrative agencies and arbitral panels. In addition, the ATJ has for the first time addressed human rights, stating, albeit in dictum, that governments must prioritize the socio-economic rights of Community citizens over free trade and integration rules.

Karlsruhe Makes a Referral

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Di Fabio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Central Bank ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
First Time

On 7 February 2014 in the OMT Case, the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe referred a question about the interpretation of Treaty law to the European Court of Justice for the first time. The question was whether the European Central Bank exceeded its mandate when it declared, in September 2012, that it was prepared to make emergency, unlimited purchases of specific states' bonds. Some view the referral as a genuflection acknowledging the judicial superiority of European Union jurisprudence. Has the Karlsruhe Court relinquished its role as “the final arbiter” and thereby surreptitiously bid farewell to the German sovereignty that the same Senate of the Constitutional Court so vigorously endorsed in the Lisbon Treaty Case in 2009?

scholarly journals The Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 22 September 2020 C-724/18 and Its Impact on the Real Estate Market in the EU

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-92
Author(s):  
Ewelina Badura ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rental Housing ◽  
Real Estate Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Market ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Real Estate ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

In 2020 two significant events affected the property market. The first one was the pandemic of COVID-19, which brought unprecedented uncertainty and resulted in a dramatic drop in property prices on rental market and hampered growth of the sales market. Another significant event this article is going to examine was the judgment C-724/18 of the European Court of Justice issued on 22 September 2020. The ECJ ruled that the authorisation scheme for short-term rental does not constitute a breach of the freedom of services warranted by the EU. The judgment concerns the legitimacy of the constraints imposed by local authorities on entrepreneurs operating short-term rentals. It also establishes the applicability of the EU’s Services Directive (2006/123/EC) to short-term rental. The ECJ holds in the judgment that the measure requiring an authorisation for short-term rental aimed tackling shortage of long-term rental housing represents an overriding reason of public interest and as such it is justified. The article analyses the consequences of the ECJ judgment for the market of short-term rentals, in view of the existing legal regulations and in respect of its possible consequences for short-term rental in the EU member states.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document