scholarly journals Compulsory membership of pension schemes and the free movement of services in the EU

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans van Meerten ◽  
Elmar Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Pension Schemes ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Mandatory Participation ◽  
The Eu

Mandatory pension participation in the Netherlands is currently under review. This article examines the manner in which the system of mandatory participation in sectoral pension funds is presently organised as well as future proposals from the perspective of the freedom to provide services. It also briefly reviews mandatory participation in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France and Sweden and asks whether it constitutes a barrier to the freedom enshrined in Article 56 TFEU. Restrictions of this freedom in the field of mandatory participation are too easily excused in the Netherlands by pointing to decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in which it judged the system to be permissible. These decisions, however, were made from the perspective of competition law, and not on the basis of Article 56 TFEU. Grounds for justifying restrictions to this freedom exist, although different justifications are available for direct and indirect discrimination. The article questions how mandatory participation in the Member States considered in this article fare from this perspective?

Standards for Independent Oversight

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Point Of Departure

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.

The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Riffel
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In Opinion 1/17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the investment court system compatible with European Union (EU) law. The ruling concerned the mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) but the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to other investment courts as established, for example, in the EU’s investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. This outcome was far from clear, given that in the past the accession to international dispute settlement bodies regularly foundered on the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article parses the CETA Opinion and explores its implications. It particularly focuses on autonomy as a constitutional principle and its advancement in Opinion 1/17. Importantly, the ECJ accepted the superiority of a court created by international agreement in relation to the said agreement. Furthermore, it clarified that it is not prerequisite for the Court to rule first on the meaning to be given to an act of EU law before that act can be the subject matter of an investment dispute. Finally, the pdrerogative of the EU to autonomously set the level of protection of a public welfare goal must be secured in a treaty for the EU to join it.

Court of Justice of the eu Rules Collective and Inaccessible Electrical Metres Discriminate against Roma: chez Razpredelenie Bulgaria ad v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia (C-83/14)

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claude Cahn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Ethnic Origin ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Indirect Discrimination ◽  
Current Article ◽  
The Eu

The judgment of 16 July 2015 is ecj’s first substantive ruling in a case concerning racial discrimination against Roma. This is noteworthy, given the centrality of Roma to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of discrimination (on the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and racial discrimination, see C. Cahn (2015), ‘Triple Helix: The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, Roma and Racial Discrimination’, in: Claude Cahn, Human Rights, State Sovereignty and Medical Ethics, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, pp. 106–148.). The ecj ruling in the chez case is important for a number of reasons, including for recognizing that the ban on discrimination by association applies also to cases of indirect discrimination. Its most significant contribution however is its reflections on the role of stigma in driving discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin. Also of note is its rejection of a number of approaches used in national law – in Bulgaria and elsewhere – as incompatible with European Union anti-discrimination law. The judgment is among the most important ecj rulings to date on discrimination. The current article discusses some of the noteworthy aspects of the case.

The “essential facilities” doctrine in ec competition law

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-499
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors-Llorens
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Essential Facility ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ec Competition Law

INOscar Bronner GmbH&Co. KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH&Co. KG and others (Case C-7/97, [1999] 4 C.M.L.R. 112), the European Court of Justice has clarified the scope of the application of the “essential facilities” doctrine to EC competition law. The Commission defined an “essential facility” as a “facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers” (B&I Line plc v. Sealink Harbours Ltd., Commission Decision of 11 June 1992, [1992] 5 C.M.L.R. 255 at paragraph 41). Under the doctrine, a dominant undertaking that owns or controls such a facility and refuses, without an objective justification, to make it available to competitors–or makes it available on discriminatory terms–abuses its position of dominance.

National Procedural Autonomy and General EU Law Limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Rob Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent approach of the European Court of Justice of the EU towards the applicability of procedural national law in cases falling within the scope of Union law. It argues that the Court increasingly assesses such rules within the framework of the principle of effective judicial protection, as bindingly codified in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU since December 2009. This test is gradually replacing the rather deferential test on the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness and implies a further limitation of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The reason for the shift seems to be the necessity to coordinate the Court's case law on Article 47 CFR with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR, because this coordination requires the application of a similar standard by both European Courts. As a result, the importance of, in particular, the Rewe principle of effectiveness, has already decreased to a considerable extent and might decrease further in future. Nevertheless, it is not to be expected that this standard will be abolished completely. First, because it may provide an adequate standard for assessing procedural issues that are not related to effective judicial protection or Article 47 CFR. Secondly, because incidentally it may be used by the Court for modifying national procedural law with a view to the effective application of substantive EU rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document