scholarly journals The possibility of colour registration per se

2014 ◽  
pp. 81-99
Author(s):  
Maria Miguel Carvalho
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Great Length ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Current State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Trade Mark Registration

The admissibility of colour registration per se has been discussed at great length. In opposition to this possibility, the valuation of the general interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours for other operators in the market («depletion theory»), has been invoked, among other things. Nevertheless, in the current state of Community law the answer to this possibility seems to be affirmative, after the requirements of trade mark registration have been met. In this study we focused briefly on the main issues that arise in this area, in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law.

The ECJ as the EU Court of Appeal: some evidence from the appeal case-law on the non-contractual liability of the EU

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-107
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Appeal Procedure ◽  
The Eu

Legal scholarship has devoted limited attention to the appeal procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, appeal judgments have assumed renewed importance following the recent EU judicial reform in 2015. Firstly, the centralisation of the appeal procedure in the hands of the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice (ECJ) has further strengthened the ECJ's role as a court of appeal of the EU legal order. Secondly, the number of appeal judgments delivered by the ECJ has drastically increased.<br/> The scope of this article is twofold: it presents findings on how the ECJ exercises its role as court of appeal; it also seeks to initiate an academic debate on how the appeal procedure shapes the judicial dialogue between the GC and the ECJ in the interpretation of EU law. For this purpose, the article firstly investigates how the ECJ interprets the notion of 'pleas of law' and 'complex factual assessment'. Since appeals may cover only questions of law, these notions are pivotal in determining the limits of the ECJ jurisdiction when reviewing the decisions of the GC. Secondly, it analyses the interpretative methods used by the ECJ on appeal, and the divergent judicial interpretations of EU law followed by the GC at first instance. Thirdly, it analyses the balancing of individual rights and general interest in the context of this procedure, and the instances in which the ECJ has reviewed the balance struck by the GC. Far from being merely doctrinal research, this analysis offers evidence of how the ECJ interprets EU law on appeal, and provides guidance to practitioners and academics as to procedural and substantive aspects of this procedure. As a case study, the paper focuses on the EU case-law issued on appeals concerning the non-contractual liability of EU institutions.

scholarly journals Obrót nieruchomościami rolnymi w świetle traktatowej swobody przepływu kapitału – rozważania na gruncie orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej

2020 ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
Beata Włodarczyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
General Interest ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital

The aim of the article is to outline the legal issues of trading in agricultural property in the European Union, which is entirely subject to basic treaty rules. The free movement of capital, regulated in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is of particular importance in relation to cross-border operations connected with trading in agricultural property. Therefore the legislation in force and applicable in EU Member States should ensure that citizens of other Member States have the possibility of exercising this freedom. However, the free movement of capital is not absolute. In the light of the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, regulations limiting free movement of capital may be introduced at national level, provided that they pursue general interest objectives and comply with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

scholarly journals Direct Applicability of Generally Accepted Principles of International Law in Legal Order of the Republic of Slovenia

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 141-159
Author(s):  
Anton Olaj
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The One ◽  
Direct Applicability

Self-executing, incorporated and generally accepted principles of international law have been used directly in legal order of the Republic of Slovenia. Systematic records of these identified and enforced norms do not exist. It is difficult for lawyers and judges to get acquainted with them. The predicament is even greater because, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a translation of the relevant case law of international tribunals is not available. Generally accepted principles of international law are applicable in Slovenian legal order per se. Despite that, it is not entirely clear how administrative bodies should react in situations where the rights and obligations of legal entities are on the one hand regulated by law and customary international law but on the other hand are contradictory.

Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

Even if an external observer who takes an interest in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may not have such an impression at first sight, comparative law plays a central role in the activities of these courts. It means much more than simply looking at solutions given to certain problems in the legal orders of the Member States. As a former president of the Court of Justice rightly observed, recourse to comparative law is for the Court of Justice essentially a method of interpretation of Community law itself.1 For the Court of Justice and the CFI (below often referred to as ‘Community judge’ or ‘Community courts’), it is one method amongst other methods of interpretation of the law (such as literal, exegetic, historical, systematic interpretation) and it constitutes a tool for establishing the law.2

scholarly journals Adesão da União Europeia à Convenção Europeia de Direitos do Homem e a Interação entre o Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia e a Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Fernandes Santos Matos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

ADESÃO DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA À CONVENÇÃO EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS DO HOMEM E A INTERAÇÃO ENTRE O TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA E A CORTE EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS EUROPEAN UNION’S ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Monique Fernandes Santos MatosRESUMO: Dentre os valores que devem fundamentam a União Europeia - UE, o Tratado de Lisboa prescreve: o respeito à dignidade humana, liberdade, democracia, igualdade, Estado de Direito e respeito aos direitos humanos, incluídos os direitos das pessoas pertencentes às minorias. Neste contexto, é importante a análise da importância do papel exercido pela corte supranacional (Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia - TJUE) e pela corte internacional (Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos – Corte EDH), ambas atuantes no cenário europeu, especialmente a interação de suas jurisprudências em matéria de direitos humanos. Para tanto, cabe retratar a forma institucional de interação de tais cortes após a adesão da UE à Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos, especialmente as atribuições e competências e observância às jurisprudências adotadas por cada uma delas. Não será objeto deste estudo, dado aos limites do objeto, o conteúdo material das jurisprudências de tais cortes em matéria de direitos humanos, nem as questões políticas envolvidas nessa interação institucional. Observa-se uma crescente fertilização e fecundação cruzadas, bem como um diálogo de juízes entre esses tribunais, contribuindo para a harmonização da jurisprudência em matéria de direitos humanos no Direito comunitário. O estudo desse processo é importante para a compreensão da harmonização de direitos humanos no Direito comunitário, bem como para outros contextos regionais que possam porventura utilizar o modelo europeu como referência. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos; Direito Comunitário; Sistema Europeu de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos; Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia; Diálogo de juízes. ABSTRACT: Among the values that ought to base the European Union - EU, the Lisbon Treaty prescribes: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. In this context, it is important to analyze the relevance of the role played by the supranational court (Court of Justice of the European Union) and the international court (European Court of Human Rights), both active on the European scene, especially the interaction of its case law on human rights. To do so, it is worth to delineate the institutional form of interaction of these courts after the EU’s accession to the European Convention of Human Rights, especially the tasks and powers, and the abiding by the case law adopted by each of them. It will not be the object of this study, given the limits of the object, neither the substantive content of the case law of such human rights courts nor the political issues involved in this institutional interaction. It is observed a growing cross-fertilization, as well as a dialogue of judges between these courts, contributing to the harmonization of case law on human rights in the context of EU law. The study of this process is important for the understanding of the harmonization of human rights in community law, as well as for other regional contexts that may possibly use the European model as reference.KEYWORDS: International Law of Human Rights; Community law; European System of Human Rights Protection; Court of Justice of the European Union; Dialogue of judges.SUMÁRIO: 1. Introdução: a importância da proteção aos direitos humanos para o Direito comunitário. 2. Estática das organizações europeias na proteção aos direitos humanos. 2.1. O Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia - TJUE. 2.2. O Sistema Europeu de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos - SEDH: marco regulatório, estrutura e funcionamento. A Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos – Corte EDH.  3. Dinâmica da interação entre o TJUE e a Corte EDH.  3.1. Adesão da União Europeia à Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos - CEDH. 3.2. Fertilização e fecundação cruzadas e diálogo de juízes entre o TJUE e a Corte EDH. 4. Considerações finais. 5. Referências.

Trade Mark Law in Europe

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Mühlendahl ◽  
Dimitris Botis ◽  
Spyros Maniatis ◽  
Imogen Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Trade Mark Law

In light of the ever-growing and developing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the General Court, and forthcoming substantive and systemic changes to the law, there is a need for a fresh and practical approach to the procedure and case law of trade marks in Europe. Trade Mark Law in Europe is a comprehensive guide to European trade mark law following the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the case law of the General Court. It provides a wide-ranging overview of the trade mark system, including detailed and critical discussion of forthcoming changes, as well as an in-depth look at the life of a trade mark up to enforcement. It considers the conditions for maintaining a registration, the protection and enforcement of trade marks, and the interface between trade mark law and other areas of practice. Finally, it offers detailed and insightful analysis of current developments, challenges, and opportunities. This is complemented by an international and comparative approach which selectively considers the contemporary jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States and general US practice, as well as national jurisprudence in areas not yet covered by the CJEU. Written by highly-regarded authors with considerable expertise across a range of constituencies, Trade Marks in Europe is a timely and important study of this complex and challenging area of law.

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.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document