scholarly journals Brak zainteresowania źródłem pochodzenia towaru jako przesłanka podważająca należytą staranność podatnika — glosa do wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego z siedzibą w Opolu, z dnia 27 stycznia 2017 r., o sygnaturze I SA/Op 428/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 103-111
Author(s):  
Dominika Maśkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Level Of Detail ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice

Lack of interest in the origin of the goods as a premise undermining the due diligence of the taxpayer — commentary on the verdict of the Provincial Administrative Court, seat in Opole, of 27th January 2017, on the signature I SA/Op 428/16Commented judgement concerns the conditions for granting good faith to a taxpayer participation in transactions where there is a likelihood of VAT fraud and the level of detail of control that a taxpayer must submit to his contractor. Doubts arouse the court’s motive of not being interested in the origin of the goods, as well as the thesis that it is in the taxpayer’s interest to verify the contractor as accurately as possible. Both issues are reconsidered in this opinion with the citation of the doctrine and the jurisprudence of national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESSORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-499
Author(s):  
Christina Angelopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Explicit Definition ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Gradual Accumulation ◽  
The Eu

In recent judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been developing its interpretation of the notion of “communication to the public”. This forms one of the exclusive rights of copyright holders that have been harmonised by the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC (OJ 2001 L 167 p.1)). As was established in 2006 (Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles, ECLI:EU:C:2006:764, at [31]), despite the lack of an explicit definition in that directive, the notion of a “communication to the public” must be given “an autonomous and uniform interpretation” throughout the EU. This finding initially resulted in the creation of a considerable amount of uncertainty for national courts. The gradual accumulation of information through subsequent CJEU judgments has begun to bring some clarity, while also raising new questions.

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 Court of Justice, the National Courts, and the Controversy over the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of the Constitutionality of Law in the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Roman Kwiecień
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The One

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.

scholarly journals Trends in resolution of disputes in the field of direct taxation (review of the conference “Recent and Pending Cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union on Direct Taxation”, Vienna, November 8–10, 2018)

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 144-147
Author(s):  
K. Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Income Taxation ◽  
Scientific Conference ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Taxation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Beneficial Ownership ◽  
Personal Income Taxation ◽  
The Eu

The report on the scientific conference “Recent and Pending Cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union on Direct Taxation”) is presented in the paper. The conference took place on November 8-10, 2018 at Vienna University of Economics and Business. Conferences on the EU Court of Justice decisions in the field of direct taxation have been held in Vienna annually since 2007. The most relevant topics at the 2018 conference were: increased understanding of state aid and the obligations of national courts to notify the European Commission; fiscal unity; taxation of dividends paid by non-residents; taxation of personal income; taxation of income from capital withdrawal; beneficial ownership issues; group taxation issues.

11. Judicial Powers II

2021 ◽  
pp. 409-450
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Duty ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Compensatory Damages

This chapter discusses the ‘decentralized’ powers of the European Court of Justice. It looks at two specific constitutional principles that the Court has derived from the general duty of sincere cooperation: the principle of equivalence and the principle of effectiveness. Both principles have led to a significant judicial harmonization of national procedural laws. The chapter then turns to a third incursion into the procedural autonomy of national courts: the liability principle. While the previous two principles relied on the existence of national remedies for the enforcement of European law, this principle establishes a European remedy for proceedings in national courts. An individual can here, under certain conditions, claim compensatory damages resulting from a breach of European law. Importantly, the remedial competence of national courts is confined to national wrongs. They cannot give judgments on ‘European’ wrongs, as jurisdiction over the latter is—like the power to annul Union law—an exclusive power of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally, the chapter explores what happens in areas in which the Union has harmonized the remedial or jurisdictional competences of national courts.

10. Judicial Powers I

2021 ◽  
pp. 357-408
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Central Pillar ◽  
Cooperative Federalism ◽  
Indirect Action

This chapter highlights the ‘centralized’ powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It begins with an analysis of the Court's annulment power. The power of judicial review is the founding pillar of a Union ‘based on the rule of law’. The chapter then moves to the remedial power of the European Court, and the question of when the Union legislative or executive branches will be liable to pay damages for an illegal action. It also investigates the Court's power to adjudicate disputes between parties. In addition to a number of direct actions (direct actions start directly in the European Court), the EU Treaties also envisage an indirect action starting in the national courts: the preliminary reference procedure. This procedure is the central pillar of the Union's cooperative federalism for it combines the central interpretation of Union law by the Court of Justice with the decentralized application of European law by the national courts.

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

10. The preliminary ruling procedure

2020 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Gain Access

This chapter examines the relationship between the Court of Justice (CJ) and the national courts in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter focuses on the text of Article 267 TFEU. It analyses the extent to which national courts are willing and able to gain access to the CJ in order to resolve the questions of European Union (EU) law before them. The chapter also explains the concept of acte clair. The analysis reveals that the CJ has rarely refused its jurisdiction and has interpreted broadly the term ‘court or tribunal’. The CJ has also rarely attempted to interfere with national courts’ discretion in matters of referral and application of EU law, while national courts have generally been ready to refer cases to the CJ.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document