Does Transparency Lead to Unfairness? The Court of Justice of the European Union on the Duty to Inform about Mandatory Rules

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-342
Author(s):  
Nicholas Mouttotos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Mandatory Rules ◽  
Duty To Inform ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Missed Opportunity

AbstractThe judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ottília Lovasné Tóth v ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt can be seen as a missed opportunity, first, in elaborating on Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13, in particular whether the two criteria set by the article, of a term causing a ‘significant imbalance’ and it being contrary to ‘good faith’ should be assessed separately; and, second, in clarifying the status of the transparency requirement found in Article 5 of the directive. This case note focuses on the latter question, taking into account the repercussions of the judgment of the CJEU in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl. In the latter case, the CJEU introduced an information duty about the existence of mandatory rules such as Article 6(2) of Rome I Regulation. In its decision in Ottília Lovasné Tóth, the CJEU decided to limit the scope of the judgment in Amazon to the particular circumstances of that case.

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.

scholarly journals The right to paid annual leave as an EU fundamental social right. Comment on Bauer et al.: Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn, EU:C:2018:871

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Horizontal Direct Effect

This case note examines the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn on 6 November 2018. It engages with the noteworthy aspects of the ruling, such as the horizontal direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the relationship between primary and secondary law in the European Union legal order and the scope of application of the Charter.

scholarly journals Commissaire Général Aux Réfugiés et Aux Apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani (C.J.E.U.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1080-1096
Author(s):  
Sarah Progin-Theuerkauf
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Eu

On January 31, 2017, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union rendered its judgment in the case Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides v. Mostafa Lounani. In the judgment, the Court had to interpret the exclusion grounds of the EU Qualification Directive of 2004 that in its Article 12(2) has literally duplicated Article 1F of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. It had to answer the question of whether an applicant for international protection can be excluded from being a refugee even though it is not established that he himself committed, attempted to commit, or threatened to commit a terrorist act as defined by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, but has “just” been convicted of participation in the activities of a terrorist group.

scholarly journals JURISDICTION FOR CROSS-BORDER BREACH OF PERSONALITY AND DEFAMATION: EDATE ADVERTISING AND MARTINEZ

2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007-1016
Author(s):  
Lorna Gillies
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Private Lives ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Communications Technologies ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Harmful Event ◽  
Newspaper Articles

In the conjoined cases C-509/09 e-Date Advertising GmbH v X and C-161/10 Olivier Martinez and others v MGN Ltd,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was required to determine the scope of applicability of both Article 5(3) of Regulation EC 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation)2 and Article 3 of Directive EC 2000/31 (the Electronic Commerce Directive). Both cases were concerned with defamation and breach of personality and image rights as a result of the publication of two newspaper articles which were accessible online via each of the defendants' websites. As readers will be fully aware, Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation enables claimants to establish special jurisdiction in the case of a tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts of the Member State where a harmful event has occurred or may occur. The effectiveness of Article 5(3) as a ground of jurisdiction focuses on the locality of the event. The question that arose in both cases was, essentially, where could the claimants bring proceedings for breach of personality and defamation as a result of newspaper articles published online via websites,3 when those websites were accessible in multiple jurisdictions? According to an experienced legal practitioner in the United Kingdom, ‘more than 25 billion individual items of content are shared each month on Facebook alone.’4 There are increasing concerns regarding the dissemination of comments through the medium of ‘ubiquit(ous), converged and displace(d)’5 Web 2.0 communications technologies. Such communications increase the potential for criminal and civil consequences in numerous jurisdictions. The ability of injured parties (famous or not) to seek redress in the most appropriate forum for the purposes of protecting their private lives and reputations is acutely significant.6

scholarly journals Jurisdiction and applicable law to claims related to the payment of contributions to the budget of an association of property owners for the maintenance of the communal areas of a building. Comment on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 8 May 2019, Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov and Natalia Postnova, C-25/18 = Jurisdicción y ley aplicable a las reclamaciones relacionadas con el pago de las contribuciones al presupuesto de una comunidad de propietarios para el mantenimiento de las zonas comunes de un edificio. Comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 8 de mayo de 2019, Brian Andrew Kerr contra Pavlo Postnov y Natalia Postnova, C-25/18

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 583
Author(s):  
Jonatan Echebarría Fernández
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Maintenance Costs ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Communal Areas ◽  
Rome I

Abstract: This comment on the judgment C-25/18 analyses the characterisation of the outstanding amounts payable by the owners of an apartment to the manager of the association of owners of the building in concept of maintenance costs of communal areas. The Court of Justice of the European Union identifies the court having jurisdiction according to Article 7(1)(a) (matters related to contract) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the applicable law according to Articles 4(1)(b) (provision of services). However, Article 4(1)(c) (rights in rem in immovable property) of the Rome I Regulation is not applicable.Keywords: actions in contract, provision of services, rights in rem, Court of Justice of the European Union, jurisdiction, applicable law, Brussels I Recast Regulation, Rome I Regulation, Rome II Regulation.Resumen: Este comentario sobre la sentencia C-25/18 analiza la caracterización de las cantidades pendientes de pago por los propietarios de un apartamento al gerente de la asociación de propietarios del edificio en concepto de gastos de mantenimiento de las zonas comunes. El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea identifica al tribunal competente según el artículo 7(1)(a) (asuntos relacionados con el contrato) del Reglamento de Bruselas I y la legislación aplicable según el artículo 4(1)(b) (prestación de servicios). Sin embargo, el artículo 4(1)(c) (derechos reales sobre bienes inmuebles) del Reglamento Roma I no es aplicable.Palabras clave: acciones contractuales, prestación de servicios, derechos reales, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, jurisdicción, legislación aplicable, Reglamento refundido de Bruselas I, Reglamento Roma I, Reglamento Roma II.

scholarly journals O fim do descanso semanal obrigatório ao sétimo dia?

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 42-63
Author(s):  
Francisco Liberal Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Final Conclusion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Labour Contracts ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
General Scope ◽  
Labour Regulation

The monologue that is reproduced has in its genesis two sentences related to the imperfect problem of the enjoyment of weekly rest at shift work: the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 9-11-2017 (Maio Marques da Rosa, case C - 306/16), and the Supreme Court of Justice, of 14-11-2018 (case 1181/15.4T8MTS.P1.S1). The fact that the issue in question was decided on the basis of rules of general scope (respectively, Article 5, first part, of the Directive 2003/88, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, and Article 232, paragraph 1, of the Labour Code) has given to give these decisions an innovative dimension, potentially disruptive in the social and legal sphere, if it is under-stood that the normativity of the first sentence is directly extendable to the com-mon of labour contracts. The final conclusion is that the Portuguese labour system enshrines the weekly rest rule on the seventh day, allowing for the possibility of derogations for a limited set of activities; however, in relation to these, the application of this regime depends on provision in terms of collective labour regulation instruments.

scholarly journals Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 12 lutego 2015 r. w sprawie Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry c/a Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (C‑396/13)

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Kurowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Employment Relationships ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Rome I

This paper aims to comment an important ruling concerning the Posted Workers Directive (Directive 96/71/EC). In the judgement C-396/13 (Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry v. Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna), the European Court of Justice providedits pro-worker’s interpretation of Art 3 of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the scope of the "minimum pay rate". The second issue raised by the European Court of Justice was the assignability of pay claims governed by Polish law based on Art 14 (2) of Rome I Regulation and prohibited under that law. In commented judgement, the Court admitted the assignment of claims arising from employment relationships in light of article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and accepted the trade union’s right to represent the posted workers.

scholarly journals Cancelamento de Voos - Circunstâncias Extraordinárias e Indemnização

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-157
Author(s):  
Bruno Teleze Stroebel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Air Carrier ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Air Carriers

The Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council established, in 2004, common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. The Article 5(3) of the Regulation states that the operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all rea-sonable measures had been taken. Thus, it was up to the Jurisprudence to analyze the situations brought to the court to exempt (or not) the air carriers from compensating their passengers. This text presents an analysis of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as Portuguese courts, through identification of which situations are considered extraordinary and, therefore, exempted from compensation to the passenger/consumer.

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document