scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

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.

Article 43 CFR

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Martin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Role

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

The case of Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG. Comment to Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), judgment of 18 July 2017, Case C-566/15

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Seifert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.

scholarly journals The Chronology of the Negotiations that Led to the Historic Moment of the Signing of the Brexit Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Dumitrita Florea ◽  
◽  
Narcisa Gales ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
The Status ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The reality is that we have witnessed in the last 4 years, since the procedure of negotiating the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in 2016 has started, a real political impasse on the stage of European relations. Who would have imagined on the 1st of January 1973, when England became a member of the European Union after many indecisions – some of them more arrogant than others that in 47 years' time it will be the first Member State to avail itself of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which for the first time provided for the right of a Member State to withdraw voluntarily from the European Union? If we look a little at the historical context of England's accession to the EU, we may see similar hesitations that have delayed it so much in joining the EU. Although after the end of the Second World War the economic situation of England was precarious, it still manages to become one of the great world powers. However, in 1951 it refused to join the founding group of the ECSC and also refused to sign the Treaty of Rome in 1957. England believed that the status of leader of the Commonwealth offered you a privileged status compared to other European states in international affairs, especially those with the United States of America, but, nevertheless, it did not bring benefits in the relations with the 6 European states, that were going to establish the European Union. When it realized that this was not a good way for things to happen, in 1961 announced its intention to join the European Economic Community, only that in 1963 France voted against the request. It was only after Charles de Gaulle's resignation in 1969 that the United Kingdom's path to accession was opened. Political and economic integration seemed to be the best solution for achieving a stable economic future.

scholarly journals Gaps in social security protection of mobile persons: Options for filling these gaps

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ger Essers ◽  
Frans Pennings
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Sickness Benefit ◽  
Unemployment Benefits ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Disability Benefit ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Systems

The effects of crossing borders can be advantageous or disadvantageous for the persons concerned; these are all part of the game and cannot be challenged on the basis of EU law. After all, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not provide powers for harmonisation, but only for coordination. However, the coordination rules themselves may make a person worse off when he or she makes use of the right to free movement. More precisely, such an effect may occur in combination with differences between national systems to which coordination rules are applied. One example is that the coordination rules provide that a person is subject to unemployment benefits in the country of residence and, as a result, if that person becomes ill, also to sickness benefit in that country. If the duration of sickness benefit in the country of residence is 52 weeks, but the waiting period for disability benefit (supposing, for instance, that this is (mainly) due from the country of employment) is 104 weeks, there is a gap of 52 weeks in protection. The relevance of such gaps is not to solve particular cases as such; after all, these are closely linked to particular national systems. The relevance lies in the more general approach that is now being developed by the Court of Justice to address such gaps. This will be useful in cases other than those discussed here and may be further developed in order to be codified in the Coordination Regulation.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July – October 2018)

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-373
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Personal Care ◽  
Conflict Rule ◽  
Sole Purpose ◽  
Collective Agreements ◽  
Court Of Justice

In the reporting period July-October 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered three rulings ( Alpenrind, Walltopia, and Commission v Belgium) concerning the conflict rule for posted workers as contained in Article 12 of Regulation 883/2004. The CJEU clarified the meaning of the `non-replacement condition', the legal status of workers who are recruited for the sole purpose of being posted to another Member State as well as procedural aspects relating to A1 certificates. In addition, the CJEU delivered judgments on the portability of personal care benefits (A), the application of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability to social security provisions contained in collective agreements ( Bedi) and the protection of supplementary pension claims in the event of insolvency of the employer ( Grenville Hampshire).

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (February 2020-June 2020)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-332
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Old Age ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Santé Au Travail ◽  
Family Benefits

In the reporting period (1 February - 30 June 2020), there were five noteworthy cases in the field of social security. Two cases originated in French courts and concerned E 101 certificates. The Vueling case concerned the conditions for disregarding fraudulent E 101 certificates. Bouygues travaux publics dealt with the effects of E 101 certificates on obligations at the crossroads of social security and labour law. In Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v CW, the issue concerned whether a Member State of origin, Austria, must grant a rehabilitation allowance to a national no longer working or residing there. Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle v SJ related to the obligation for the competent institution to take into account an allowance paid by another Member State for raising a disabled child when calculating an insurance period for entitlement to an old-age pension. Finally, Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants v FV was a case about access to family benefits by a frontier worker for a child living in the same household but with whom there was no blood relationship.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the court of justice of the European Union (February 2019-June 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei ◽  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Family Benefits ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period (February 2019-June 2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union did not deliver any ground breaking rulings that really altered existing coordination rules on social security. Nonetheless, the Court did rule in various interesting cases. These include the material scope of Regulation 883/2004 ( Dreyer), the rules determining the applicable legislation ( SF), invalidity benefits ( Vester), and family benefits ( Bogatu). In addition, the Court brought about clarification of the possibility of retaining worker status (and thus claiming social benefits as a worker) under Directive 2004/38 ( Tarola) and the right of Turkish nationals to export benefits under Decision 3/80 when returning to Turkey ( Coban).

scholarly journals The Impact of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Field of Public Procurement

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-193
Author(s):  
Albena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The article examines the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Public Procurement issues. On the one hand, the paper analyzes the control exercised by the Court in this area while the Member States implement the Public Procurement Directives by transposing them into national law or by administrative practice which is subject to judicial review. The Court's control is executed through the interpretation of provisions and through actions taken by the European Commission against Member States for breaches of EU law in the area of Public Procurement. On the other hand, in the references for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice of the EU defines some basic terms, such as 'public procurement' (at Union level), a contractor, a minimum threshold, etc., and affirms the key principles that must be respected for the fulfilment of Public Procurement objectives such as transparency, competition and equal treatment. The article aims to show the contribution of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to the development and uniform application of Public Procurement legislation in the Member States and facilitates the functioning of the Internal market

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document