scholarly journals The Country of Origin Principle and the Applicable Law for Obligations Related to the Benefit of Information Society Services

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 161-183
Author(s):  
Mateusz Kotkowski
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Audiovisual Media ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Media Services ◽  
Origin Principle ◽  
Scope Of Application

The article takes all of the abovementioned legacy of European Union Law into consideration while analysing them in depth through the prism of the principle in question and via careful comparisons of each of them as well. Particular attention is paid to the following issues, namely: the legal nature of the principle in question, its treaty sources, its scope of application, the principle in question in the light of the abovementioned directives – namely the Directive on audiovisual media services and the Directive on electronic commerce; and finally – relationships between provisions of the two aforementioned directives in the context of audiovisual media services on demand. While working on the text, all of the mentioned parts of the main subject turned out to be important enough to put them into separated sections of the text with their own individual headings. In the meantime, several interesting subject-related sentences by the European Court of Justice were also taken into account for a broadened pool of reference. To sum it all up: ultimately, the principle in question and its potential influence on the practical functioning of the European Union’s law and economy has been considered thoroughly.

European Court of Human Rights case law as a source of European Union law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Vitalii Hryhoriev
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law of the European Union. Within the scope of the doctrinal sources and the existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, the authors substantiate the logic of including existing the European Court of Human Rights case law in the EU law sources, citing arguments based on the EU law and the case law.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

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.

Die Nacherfüllung aus Verkäufersicht

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantin Jungclaus
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
High Level

The thesis examines the question of which of the compared sales law systems is most likely to realize the (economic) interests of the seller in connection with the consumer’s claim for specific performance, which is characterized by a high level of consumer protection. In this respect, the thesis examines 7 different complexes - from the position of specific performance in the system of purchase warranty rights to the scope of specific performance owed and the objection of disproportionality. Dogmatic focal points are, for example, the problem of self-execution in the light of European Union law and the allocation of certain damage items to specific performance or to damage claims in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

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.

Convergence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daithí Mac Síthigh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Audiovisual Media ◽  
On Demand ◽  
European Court ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Media Services ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Telecommunications Law

The purpose of this chapter is to explain, in the context of telecommunications law and regulation, the regulation by EU and UK law of audiovisual and radio media services. Overarching principles are found in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which takes an approach described as technologically neutral, but established two top-level categories of regulation, for television (or linear) services and on-demand (or non-linear) services. In the case of television services, a wide range of standalone works and comprehensive Sections or chapters on the regulation of broadcasting are available. As such, the focus here (with a view to the interests of readers) is on licensing of content and multiplex services by Ofcom and the handling of complaints about those services, with a bias towards the standard licences for services on cable, satellite, internet, and digital terrestrial platforms, and the regulation of DTT multiplexes and of on-demand services, as opposed to detailed description of the BBC and the commercial public service broadcasters. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has regularly found that the regulation of communications infrastructure can have a real impact on the receiving and imparting of information.

Harmony and Dissonance in Free Movement

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 315-341
Author(s):  
Miguel Poiares Maduro
Keyword(s):  
Free Movement ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

There is a generalised perception that the European Court of Justice has adopted different approaches to the different free movement rules included in the Treaties. In particular, the free movement of goods has ‘benefited’, until 1993, from a wider scope of application. Contrary to what has for long constituted the standard approach to the free movement of persons, the free movement of goods was constructed as requiring more than national treatment and non-discrimination in regard to goods from other Member States. Even non-discriminatory restrictions on trade in goods could constitute a violation of Community rules if not justified as necessary and proportional to the pursuit of a legitimate public interest. The freedom to provide services has somewhat occupied a middle ground between the interpretation given to the goods and persons provisions. Following the Court’s decision in Keck & Mithouard in 1993, a reversal of fortune appears to have taken place regarding the Court’s approach to the different free movement provisions, with the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services now benefiting from a more ‘aggressive’ interpretation in comparison with the free movement of goods.

The European Union’s Community Method: Foundations and Evolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youri Devuyst
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The People ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers

The objective of the Community method is to ensure that, in the making, implementing, and enforcing of European Union law and policy, (a) the general European interest is safeguarded by the independent European Commission, which is responsible for proposing new EU legislation; (b) democratic representation of the people and the Member States takes place at the level of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which together form the EU’s legislature; and (c) judicial control is secured by the European Court of Justice. The article traces the historical origins and evolution of the Community method and assesses its continuing relevance against the background of alternative ways of decision making and coordination such as “intense transgovernmentalism” or “deliberative intergovernmentalism,” in which the European Council plays the leading role.

Statut ochrony dóbr osobistych w ustawie – Prawo prywatne międzynarodowe – wybrane zagadnienia

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 386-401
Author(s):  
Nikodem Rycko
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Personality Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Law

Law applicable to the protection of the rights of personality rights is regulated by a method of alternative indication with two equivalent connecting factors. The interpretation of these criteria – the place of the infringement of personal rights and the place where the damage occurred – may cause difficulties. The interpretation given by the European Court of Justice in the cases of Shevill and eDate Martinez seems to be the first to be taken into account, although exceptions should be admitted in justified cases. If the effects of infringement of the rights of personality occur in the territory of many states, it is to be assumed that the damage existing in each of them is governed by its legal system. However, this mosaic principle should only be applied where the person requesting the protection indicates the applicable law of the place of effect. If the law of the place of the infringement of personal rights is indicated, the norms of one legal system should be applied.

scholarly journals European Union citizenship: The acquisition of nationality and the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

<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>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document