scholarly journals Indirect Taxation of Events Beyond the Control of the Taxpayer in Crucial Tax and Customs Judgements of the Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 297-312
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Lasiński-Sulecki

Indirect taxes are shaped in such a way that the final customers bear their economic burden.  The scope of taxation is usually delineated to cover all goods (and services) reaching the afore-mentioned final consumers. One may assume that the aim of a lawmaker is that goods (or services) supplied to the consumers should not remain untaxed. However, the intensity of pursuing this aim differs between VAT, excise duties, and customs duties. A scientific question that the rules outlined above bring about is whether it is acceptable – under the general principles of the European Union law perceived through a number of tax (customs) cases – to impose duties on a person or to deprive a taxpayer of rights owing to tax-relevant facts that have been entirely out of the control of this person or this taxpayer (customs debtor). Although the position of the Court of Justice towards this issue is not homogenous, the author of this article claims that situations that are wholly beyond the scope of control of a diligent person should not affect the tax (customs) situation to the detriment of such a person.

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.


Author(s):  
Karol Lange

The article focuses on discussing the norms of Polish transport law and European Union regulations on the correctly defined of the moment and form of concluding a contract of passengers transport in railway systems. The article also describes the problem of discourse between the content of these legal norms and the jurisprudence practice and doctrine opinion. Moreover, was performed to present a comparative analysis of the relation of the Court of justice of the European Union judgment to the norms of Polish and European law and the case law. Commented on the practices of carriers in regulating the said matter. Internal law acts applicable to the means of transport of Polish railway companies were also analyzed. Keywords: Transport law; Contract of passenger transport; European Union law; Railway transport


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-138
Author(s):  
Joana Sousa Domingues

It is generally accepted that the development of a Union of law is largely due to the judicial decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU). With its judicial pronouncements, the CEJEU aims to achieve the same legal effects in every language version of its judgments and, through them, to ensure the uniform application and interpretation of European Union law. Nevertheless, such judicial pronouncements, with normative and binding force, are the result of collegial decisions and drafted by jurists in a language that is usually nottheir mother tongue. In addition, they are also the result of various permutations associated with the necessary legal translation from and to (and vice versa) the working language of the Court and the official languages of the European Union. The published judgments presented as authentic are, in most cases, translations. To understand the construction of decisions of the CJEU is to understand the construction of the European Union law, and by consequence, the European project itself.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-89
Author(s):  
Anna Kęskiewicz

The use of dogmatic-legal, empirical and linguistic semantics methodology is focused on sharing for better understanding of the law. Therefore, views on European jurisprudence have been presented in the paper. Without a doubt, the law-making nature of European Union law takes into account the field of environmental protection. Articles in law define the tasks that are important from the point of view of European legislation. The written nature of these determinants of the reasoning of the possibilities of environmental protection plays an important role in the interpretation of environmental law.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková

AbstractThe EU trademark law has recorded the important changes in the last years. The Community trademark in the past and the EU trademark at the present have become very popular legal measures not only in the EU Member States but also in the third countries. Its preferences are increasing year to year. The EU trademark may consist of a sign that fulfils two main attributes. Firstly, there is a distinctive character. Secondly, there is a capability of being represented on the Register of the EU trademarks. The second attribute is new and replaced the previous attribute - capability of being represented graphically. The interpretation of the above mentioned attributes is not possible without the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is necessary to take into account the kind of trademark, list of the goods and services, which should be signed by the trademark, and its perception by the public. The paper includes the main judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to the interpretation of the sign that may be registered as the EU trademark. They are very helpful in the application practice of the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the national offices of the intellectual property as well.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Roman Kwiecień

The paper addresses the issue of a judicial forum entitled to resolve conflicts between European Union law and national constitutional rules. First and foremost, the issue is discussed under the old primacy/supremacy of EU law controversy. The author seeks to answer whether the national law, including constitutional rules, of a Member State can be ineffective owing to being contradictory to EU law. If so, by whom can national laws be held ineffective? In other words, which of the two judicial fora (national and European) have the last word in these conflicts or who is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of law within the European legal space? The author argues that legal reasoning should reconcile, on the one hand, the specificity of the EU’s unique legal order and effective application of its provisions and, on the other hand, the international legal status of the Member States and their constitutions. This approach leads to the conclusion that there is no ultimate judicial arbiter within the European legal space.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 866
Author(s):  
Ibon Hualde López ◽  
Victoria Sánchez Pos

  Resumen: El pasado mes de marzo el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea abrió una vía favo­rable para España al declarar, mediante la sentencia resolutoria de una petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Tribunal de casación alemán, que la cláusula de arbitraje incluida en el Tratado para el Fomento y la Protección Recíprocos de las Inversiones celebrado en 1991 entre el Reino de los Países Bajos y la República Federal Checa y Eslovaca (TBI) no es compatible con el Derecho de la Unión Europea. El presente trabajo tiene por objeto realizar un análisis de la mencionada sentencia, recaída el 6 de marzo de 2018, con el objetivo de valorar su incidencia en el arbitraje de inversión en nuestro país.Palabras clave: Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, petición de decisión prejudicial, arbitra­je de inversión, cláusula de arbitraje, Derecho de la Unión Europea.Abstract: This past March, the European Union Court of Justice provided a favorable opening for Spain when it held (by its judgement on a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the German Court of Cassation) that the arbitration clause which had been included in the “Treaty on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments” signed in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) was not compatible with European Union law. This paper aims at analyzing the above-mentioned judgment, which was issued on 6 March 2018 (Case C-284/16), assessing its impact on investment arbitration in our country.Keywords: European Union Court of Justice, request for a preliminary ruling, investment arbitra­tion, arbitration clause, European Union Law. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-107
Author(s):  
Brian McGarry

The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Slovenia v. Croatia marks the anticlimax of a long-running territorial dispute. It is also only the sixth time the CJEU has issued a judgment in a case instituted by one European Union member against another. Among these cases, it is the first to consider an arbitral award in a dispute between members, the first to consider a boundary dispute between members, and the first to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that it cannot rule on alleged infringements of European Union law when these arise from the breach of a treaty falling outside of the Union's subject-matter competence. Most directly, the Judgment may pose significant consequences for European Union internal affairs in the near term, such as Croatia's ambitions to join the Schengen Area and the Eurozone. More broadly, several of the Court's findings will be relevant beyond the European legal order, particular those concerning the meaning and effect of “ancillary” legal questions, and the bilateral or multilateral character of a dispute involving admission to an international organization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document