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 Jurisdiction and applicable law to contracts for the sale of goods and the provision of services including the carriage of goods by sea and other means of transport in the European Union = Jurisdicción y derecho aplicable a los contratos de compraventa de mercaderías y de prestación de servicios incluyendo el transporte de mercancías por vía marítima y otros medios de transporte en la Unión Europea

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Jonatan Echebarría Fernández
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Para Determinar

Abstract: The article analyses the jurisdiction and applicable law to contracts for the sale of godos and the provision of services in the European Union. It particularly focuses on contracts that subsume different categories of contracts, such as the carriage of goods by sea, in a contract for the sale of godos and the provision of services. The European Union law and the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union shed light into the place of performance of the contract in order to set jurisdiction for national courts. This is explained through the current legal framework and the case law in order to ascertain where and under what legal regime the claimant may start proceedings for the breach of a contractual obligation or in case of a non-contractual claim.Keywords: provision of services, sale of goods, carriage of goods by sea and other means of transport, Court of Justice of the European Union, contractual actions, place of performance of the contractual obligation, non-contractual actions, applicable law, game theory, contractual efficiency.Resumen: El artículo analiza la jurisdicción y la ley aplicable a los contratos para la venta de bienes y la prestación de servicios en la Unión Europea. En particular, se centra en los contratos que subsumen diferentes categorías de contratos, tales como el transporte de mercancías por mar, en un contrato de venta de mercaderías o de prestación de servicios. El Derecho de la Unión Europea y la interpretación dada por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea arrojan luz sobre el lugar de cumplimiento del contrato con el fin de establecer el tribunal nacional competente. Esto se explica a través del marco legal actual y casos para determinar dónde y bajo qué régimen legal el demandante puede interponer una demanda por incumplimiento de una obligación contractual o en caso de una reclamación extracontractual.Palabras clave: prestación de servicios, compraventa de mercaderías, transporte de mercancías por vía marítima y otros medios de transporte, Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, acciones contractuales, lugar de ejecución de la obligación contractual, acciones extracontractuales, derecho aplicable, teoría de juegos, eficiencia contractual.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Wykładnia umowy jurysdykcyjnej zawartej na podstawie art. 25 Rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) Nr 1215/2012. Glosa do postanowienia Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 5 października 2018 r., I CSK 611/17

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 123-137
Author(s):  
Andrzej Torbus
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Formal Requirements

The choice of court agreement (forum selection clause) is effectively concluded if there is no doubt that the party has actually become acquainted with its content. The Court of Justice of the European Union focuses on those aspects of the conclusion of the contract that allow the assessment that the other party is not surprised by the establishment of a subjective link. The compliance with formal requirements implies that the parties agreed on the conclusion of the contract. There are no objections about so understood “real consent of the parties” as a consequence of fulfilling not only the requirements as to the form, but above all as the way of the conclusion of the contract. The acceptance of the thesis that since the party expressed the undoubted consent to conclude the contract, there is thus no problem of the interpretation of the declaration of intent, is impossible. There is no dispute that the interpretation of a declaration of intent is a legal matter,since the methods of interpretation are determined by the law. According to the Polish Supreme Court, on the basis of Regulation 1215/2012 there is no problem of seeking of the applicable law, because the rules for the interpretation of a jurisdictional agreement should be interpreted from the provision of art. 25 of this regulation. This position is based on the main argument that any deviation from the autonomous rules of interpretation creates the danger that the courts of the Member States will differently determine the law applicable. The Court of Justice of the European Union accepts that an objective (normative) method of interpreting party’s statements should be used. In some situations, it is necessary to apply legis causae to effectuate a supplementary interpretation of the declarations of will.

scholarly journals APPLICABLE LAW TO DISTRIBUTION CONTRACTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION REGULATION 593/2008 (ROME I)

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (28) ◽  
Author(s):  
William Fernando Martínez-Luna
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Rome I

<p>La ley aplicable al contrato internacional de distribución en la Unión Europea presentó muchas dificultades bajo la aplicación del Convenio de Roma de 1980, pues esta norma jurídica uniforme requería, para establecer la ley aplicable al contrato internacional, identificar la prestación característica de esa relación jurídica. La prestación característica del contrato de distribución no pudo ser determinada de manera uniforme, pues unos tribunales de los Estados parte entendían que la llevaba a cabo el distribuidor; otros sostenían que era el concedente de las mercancías; mientras que otros consideraban que a este contrato no podía establecérsele una prestación característica. El Reglamento Roma I de la Unión Europea ha hecho importantes modificaciones en cuanto a la determinación de la ley aplicable a este contrato, pues ha establecido de manera rígida y directa, que a esta relación jurídica le sea aplicable la ley de la residencia habitual del distribuidor. El presente artículo pretende analizar si la determinación rígida de la ley aplicable al contrato de distribución en el Reglamento de la Unión Europea Roma I logra solucionar los problemas interpretativos presentados en el Convenio de Roma de 1980, para otorgar seguridad jurídica mediante la previsibilidad de la ley aplicable al contrato internacional.</p>

scholarly journals The e-commerce international consumer contract in the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Anabela Susana de Sousa Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Electronic Commerce ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) adapts the rule laid down in the Rome Convention regarding international consumer contracts, to take into account the requirements of the consumer protection in an international contract, as the weaker party, and the demands of electronic commerce. Article 6 determines the types of international contract protected and establishes the mechanisms to protect the consumer. However, the legal provision in question is not free from complications and requires an effort of interpretation to adjust the rule to the diffuse nature of the internet and to the characteristics of electronic commerce. This paper identifies the difficulties of application of the provision to e-commerce and discusses the interpretative options of the European Union Court of Justice (ECJ).

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Legal System of Ukraine

2019 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
ROMAN PETROV
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact

У статті досліджено вплив Суду Європейського Союзу (ЄС) на впровадження і застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС, що викликало безпрецедентні політичні, економічні та правові реформи в Україні. Зокрема, розглядаються конституційні виклики, які постали перед державою під час виконання Угоди в правовій системі. Крім того, досліджено два питання. Перше – ефективне впровадження та застосування Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС в українській правовій системі. Друге – сумісність і відповідність Угоди Конституції України. Проаналізовано останні політичні та правові події в Україні через призму ефективної реалізації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і зростання проєвропейського правового активізму в державі. На закінчення стверджується, що Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС посилює пристосованість національного конституційного устрою до цілей досягнення європейської інтеграції та застосування європейських спільних цінностей в Україні. Угода про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС створила стійку інституційну та правову основу для застосування acquis ЄС (правового доробку ЄС), включаючи прецедентне право ЄС та комплексне законодавче наближення між законодавством України та ЄС. Однак інституційні реформи, які вже відбулися, не можна вважати цілком достатніми. Верховній Раді України не вдалося запровадити основні та процедурні засади для застосування та впровадження Угоди в правовий порядок України. Однак ця прогалина частково заповнюється зростаючим судовим активізмом в Україні. Вітчизняні судді вже почали посилатися на Угоду про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС і відповідні частини acquis ЄС у своїх рішеннях, тим самим закладаючи основу для регулярного застосування загальних принципів права ЄС у процесі виконання й імплементації Угоди про асоціацію між Україною та ЄС.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document