scholarly journals Differences Between the Recognition and Enforcement of Authentic Instruments and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

Lexonomica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Maria Dymitruk ◽  
Jacek Gołaczyński ◽  
Maria Kaczorowska ◽  
Piotr Rodziewicz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of

The subject of the article is to analyse and compare the specificity of judgments and authentic instruments in terms of cross-border recognition and enforcement under the Brussels I Recast Regulation framework. Particular focus has been put on the practical aspects of the definition of an authentic instrument. Selected detailed issues arising against this background have been discussed with reference to the Polish legal order as well as the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Based on the undertaken considerations, some proposals have been formulated regarding the enhancement of the free circulation of authentic instruments within the European Union.

Recent Developments in European Private International Law under Case Law of the Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 315-335
Author(s):  
Miroslav Slašťan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Subject

Within the context of the subject of the Private International Law Section, the contribution identifies selected recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which indicate further developments in this area of law. The contribution will focus on the provisions for determining international jurisdiction as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions.

Part I General and Introductory, 4 Subject-Matter Scope: Civil and Commercial Matters

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartley Trevor C
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Civil Matter

This chapter discusses the ‘subject-matter scope’ of Brussels 2012, Lugano 2007, and the Hague Convention. ‘Subject-matter scope’ refers to the scope covered by a measure as regards its subject matter, that is to say the branches and areas of the law to which it applies. For the three legal instruments under consideration, the relevant provisions are contained in Article 1 of Brussels 2012 and Lugano, and Articles 1 and 2 of Hague. A review of case law shows that the distinction between a civil matter and public matter is far from straightforward. There is a significant grey area in which the Court of Justice of the European Union could legitimately go either way.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

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 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.

A Digital Cross-border Interest in the Framework of Public Procurement Legislation: The Game Changer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-68
Author(s):  
Delia Lucía Martínez Lorenzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procurement Contracts ◽  
Game Changer

Originally introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the presence of 'certain cross-border interest' is used to justify the application of EU principles to public procurement contracts that fall out the scope of EU law. Nonetheless, crossborder interest needs to be proven based on the criteria settled by the CJEU. This article presents, firstly, a definition of cross-border interest and its relevance; secondly, the latest trends on digital public procurement and e-administration. Finally, the paper will discuss whether, based on the criteria of the CJEU, the expansion of digitalisation will render the presence of cross-border interest automatic, thus increasing transparency and consequently changing forever how we apply EU law.

scholarly journals Tracing the Boundaries between Disability and Sickness in the European Union: Squaring the Circle?

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-35
Author(s):  
Silvia Favalli ◽  
Delia Ferri
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Model ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Social Model Of Disability ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Employment Equality

In recent years the European Union (eu) has sought to develop a far-reaching policy regarding persons with disabilities. However, to date, eu non-discrimination legislation does not provide any clear legal definition of what constitutes a disability. The Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) has attempted to fill this gap and, in several decisions, has elaborated on the concept of disability and its meaning under eu law. The cjeu, with reference to the application of the Employment Equality Directive, has explained the notion of disability mainly by comparing and contrasting it to the concept of sickness. Against this background, this article critically discusses recent case law and attempts to highlight that, even though the Court has firmly embraced the social model of disability envisaged by the un Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the boundaries between the concepts of sickness and disability remain blurred.

scholarly journals Cross-Border Conversions in the European Union After the Polbud Case

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-77
Author(s):  
Iryna Basova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
A Company ◽  
Legislative Measures

Cross-border conversions may be considered as an achievement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court) since its case law paves the way towards acceptance of such cross-border operations in all Member States. In the Polbud case, the CJEU clarified the scope of the freedom of establishment in regard to cross-border conversions. That judgement should give an impulse to those Member States whose law remains silent on the issue, lacks regulation or is not in line with the provisions on the freedom of establishment, to take appropriate legislative measures. However, a creation of a legal framework at the European level is still needed to provide a commonly-accepted procedure for such operations, to secure protection for vulnerable constituencies of a company, to prevent abusive practices and to regulate cooperation between the states which are involved in cross-border conversions.

scholarly journals Less Is More? Protecting Databases in the EU after Ryanair

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matěj Myška ◽  
Jakub Harašta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Synthetic Data ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Status ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Less Is More ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject ◽  
C 30

This paper discussed the current status quo of legal protection of databases after the Ryanair case (C-30/14). The first part focuses on the subject matter, scope and limits of legal protection for databases according to the Directive 96/9/EC and the related relevant Court of Justice of the European Union case law. Next, it briefly discusses further possibilities of protection for databases not protected by the copyright and/or sui generis database rights. The second part analyses the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case Ryanair (C-30/14). The third part then discusses the consequences of this decision as regards to potential monopolisation of synthetic data by contract. The conclusions are summed up in the final fourth part.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

Abstract While investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document