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

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Tunisian Judges: Quo Vadis?

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-346
Author(s):  
Béligh Elbalti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the question whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has exercised an influence on Tunisian judges and the extent of that influence. After explaining the general legal background of Tunisia as a legal system and the attitude of Tunisian judges towards foreign legal sources in general, the chapter explores the available case law of Tunisian courts in order to identify the areas of law where such an influence manifests itself. It shows that, generally speaking, Tunisian judges are quite open to foreign legal sources and frequently cite those sources in their judgments. However, when it comes to the case law of the CJEU, two opposite trends could be identified. On the one hand, the case law of Tunisian ordinary courts shows that the CJEU exercises little influence on Tunisian judges, despite extensive and diversified cooperation between the EU and Tunisia. On the other hand, the case law of the Competition Council shows that the Council is more willing to refer to CJEU decisions in deciding the cases pending before them. The chapter considers several reasons that are likely to explain this double aspect of the influence of the CJEU on Tunisian judges. It argues that the weakness of comparative research, legal education in general, as well as the role played by legal actors in Tunisia are among the main reasons behind the current situation.

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.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

Recent Golden Share Cases in the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1099-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamás Szabados
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Golden Share ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Special Rights ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

AbstractIn several golden share cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court”) condemned Member States for reserving certain special rights in privatized companies for themselves. In spite of the Court's consistently strict approach in the golden share cases, the more recent golden share judgments demonstrate that the Court's practice is not free from uncertainties. In its case law, the Court seems to hesitate between the application of the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital. Additionally, it is not entirely clear which measures are caught by provisions on the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

scholarly journals MULTILINGUALISM AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Łachacz ◽  
Rafał Mańko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Traditional Approaches

Abstract The paper analyses and evaluates the linguistic policy of the Court of Justice of the European Union against the background of other multilingual courts and in the light of theories of legal interpretation. Multilingualism has a direct impact upon legal interpretation at the Court, displacing traditional approaches (intentionalism, textualism) with a hermeneutic paradigm. It also creates challenges to the acceptance of the Court’s case-law in the Member States, which seem to have been adequately tackled by the Court’s idiosyncratic translation policy.

scholarly journals Liability threshold for damages in public procurement: the EFTA Court’s Fosen-Linjen saga

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. OA25-OA35
Author(s):  
Albert Sanchez-Graells
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Nuclear Decommissioning ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Correct Understanding

In this case comment, I explore the two EFTA Court Judgments in the Fosen-Linjen saga and their opposing views on the interaction between EU/EEA rules on procurement remedies and the more general principle of state liability for breaches of EU/EEA law. I review the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in particular, the perceived inconsistencies between the two 2010 judgments in Strabag and Spijker, which featured very prominently in the legal arguments submitted to the EFTA Court in both Fosen-Linjen cases. I also use the benchmark of the UK Supreme Court's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority judgment to support the view that Spijker reflects the correct understanding of EU/EEA law and that there should be no further debate about it. I submit that the Court of Justice of the European Union would be well-advised to (re)confirm the position enshrined in Spijker at the earliest opportunity, to avoid any perpetuation of this debate in the context of EU/EEA public procurement law.

scholarly journals The 346 Clause of TFEU Regulation in Different EU Member States

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Vilius Kuzminskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The article discloses the fixed exclusion regulation of Clause 346 in the Treaty of Function of the European Union in different EU member states. A further assessment of different relevant judicial approaches to regulation are disclosed and evaluated in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law and procurement in the defense area doctrine.

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document