scholarly journals Foreign overriding mandatory provisions under the regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I Regulation). Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 18 october 2016, case c-135/15 = Leyes de policía de terceros estados en el ámbito del reglamento (CE) No 593/2008 (Reglamento Roma I). Comentario a la STJUE de 18 de octubre de 2016, asunto c-135/15

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 873
Author(s):  
Alexander Kronenberg
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
European Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Conflict Of Law

 Abstract: The role and treatment of foreign overriding mandatory provisions in international con­tract law have been subject to academic discussions for a long time. This has not changed with the introduction of Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. In the judgment discussed in this case note, the Eu­ropean Court of Justice addressed some of the contentious issues in relation to Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation. This note examines and evaluates the solutions found by the ECJ and puts them into context. It also points out some questions the ECJ did not discuss; these questions remain open for now but will need to be addressed in the future.Keywords: Article 9(3) Rome I Regulation, foreign overriding mandatory provisions, conflict-of-law level consideration, substantive law level consideration, principle of sincere cooperation.Resumen: El tratamiento de las leyes de policía de terceros estados en derecho de contratos inter­nacionales ha sido objeto de la polémica desde hace tiempo. Esto no ha cambiado con la entrada en vigor del artículo 9 del Reglamento Roma I. Con la sentencia comentada el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea ha tratado algunas de la cuestiones debatidas respecto al artículo 9.3 del Reglamento Roma I. Este comentario analiza, evalúa y pone en contexto las soluciones encontradas por el TJUE. También aborda las cuestiones que no han sido comentadas por el TJUE; estas cuestiones permanecen abiertas por el momento pero deberán ser examinadas en el futuro.Palabras clave: leyes de policía de terceros estados, consideración en nivel conflictual, considera­ción en nivel sustantivo, principio de cooperación leal.

Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1505-1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Jaap Kuipers
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
The Status ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The relationship between Community law and Private International Law (PIL) did not have an easy start. The original EEC Treaty merely made one reference to PIL. The notable exception was the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968), an international convention concluded on the basis of art. 220 EEC (293 EC). The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980) did not even have an explicit legal basis. After the adoption of the Rome Convention it remained relatively silent on the Community level. It did not help that due to the status of international convention the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was deprived of any power of interpretation. The problem was resolved in two separate protocols. The protocol on the Brussels Convention entered into force in 1975 and the protocol on the Rome Convention only entered into force in 2004. Whereas there has been a substantial amount of case-law on the Brussels Convention, the ECJ only delivered its first judgment on the Rome Convention in October 2009.

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 Vidaus pirkimai kaip viešojo pirkimo sutarties išimtis

Teisė ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Deividas Soloveičikas
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Substantive Law

Ši publikacija skiriama pozityviosios viešųjų pirkimų teisės nereguliuojamai temai – vidaus sandorių iš­imčiai. Straipsnyje siekiama pateikti vidaus sandorių išimties koncepcijos analizę, Europos Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudenciją šioje srityje, taip pat ištirti, kokios yra praktinės vidaus sandorių sudarymo Lietu­voje ir Europos Sąjungoje galimybės ir prielaidos. This article is dedicated to the analysis of the subject that is not regulated by the substantive law – in-house procurement. The author seeks to examine the whole concept of the in-house procurement as well as the case-law of the European Court of Justice related to the mentioned field. Besides, it is the aim of this publication to investigate the pragmatic possibilities of the in-house procurement in Lithuanian jurisdiction as well as within the European Community dimension.

The European Court of Justice as a Political Actor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
State Courts ◽  
State Control ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Private Actors

Chapter 2 summarizes research in political science on the ECJ as a political actor. Discussions about the Court have for a long time focused on the question of ‘judicial activism’ versus member-state control of the Court. The support of the EU’s legal community, the Commission, the litigation of private actors, and member-state courts has been important for the Court’s development of case law. It is argued that current analyses have overlooked the importance of ‘over-constitutionalization’, in light of the Treaty’s detailed policy aims. Case law shares the Treaty’s constitutional status. Its detailed policy prescriptions cannot be overruled. In addition, a Court that pays attention to member states’ preferences will have a significant impact on policy if its rulings establish policy requirements derived from the constitution.

The New Free Movement Architecture

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-40
Author(s):  
Jan Zglinski
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Regulatory Decisions ◽  
National Legislatures

This chapter provides a conceptual analysis of judicial deference in free movement law. It argues that the reason for the growing relevance of deference in free movement cases is rooted in a shift in focus away from the scope of rights towards justification and proportionality. The European Court of Justice has created two deference doctrines: the margin of appreciation and decentralized judicial review. While the margin of appreciation doctrine is employed to pass certain regulatory decisions over to national legislatures and executives, decentralized judicial review is used to delegate responsibilities connected with free movement review to national courts. Both deference techniques represent a departure from the Cassis de Dijon approach, which has, for a long time, defined large parts of free movement adjudication, and have significant institutional consequences.

Case-note on Joined Cases C-402/05 P & C-415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi & Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union & Commission of the European Communities

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Tzanou
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Union Commission ◽  
Court Of First Instance

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”On 3 September 2008, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down its long-awaited decision on the Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation where, setting aside the relevant judgments of the European Court of First Instance (CFI), the Court held that the Community judicature must ensure the full review of the lawfulness of all Community acts. This included those deriving from UN Security Council's resolutions, in the light of the fundamental rights as protected by Community law.

scholarly journals Notion of good faith in European Court of Justice practice as a regulatory instrument for civil matters in the European UnionGeorgiy D. Travin

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-256
Author(s):  
Georgiy D. Travin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Substantive Law

This article analyses construction and application of the “good faith” concept by the European Court of Justice. Historically having played an important role in the national law of the EU member states the term functions with a similar but not identical purpose on the supranational level within the European Union law. Topicality of the referenced practices is based on the EU’s leading role in the general globalisation and unification of substantive law. After an analysis of the European Court of Justice judgements constructing EU Secondary law provisions which refer to “good faith” the role said construction plays in regulation of civil matters in the European Union as a supranational authority is outlined. Case law on matters concerning consumer protection and intellectual property are analysed and a conclusion on probability of applying foreign practices to Russian law is made.

Case Note – Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci v. Swedex, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 539-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Wiesbrock
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Implementation Period ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Relationship

On 19 January 2010 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to rule on the application and scope of the general principle of non-discrimination under Community law. In Kücükdeveci the Court had the opportunity to clarify a number of questions concerning the principle of non-discrimination and the application of Directive 2000/78 that had remained unanswered after the famous Mangold judgment and subsequent case law. The case was particularly apt to clarify the scope of Mangold, as it concerned a similar factual situation, albeit after the implementation period of Directive 2000/78 had expired. Consequently, many issues addressed in that judgment arose anew. The Court had to deal with the relationship between Directive 2000/78 and the general principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, the possibility of justifying differential treatment on the basis of national social and employment policies, the extent of the doctrine of indirect effect, and the direct horizontal effect of directives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document