scholarly journals The regulation of collaborative economy in the european union

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-53
Author(s):  
Nuno Cunha Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Sharing Economy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Specific Regulation

The paper distinguishes between sharing economy and collaborative economy, focusing on the legal framework of collaborative platforms (such as Uber or Airbnb) according to EU law. Case-law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the position of the European Commission are analyzed in this regard. It is concluded that there is no harmonization, within the European Union, of the legal regime applicable to certain collaborative platforms. As such, specific regulation of collaborative platforms has followed different paths within the Member States.

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.

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.

scholarly journals The Rise and Expressions of Consistency in EU Law: Legal and Strategic Implications for European Integration

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 139-167
Author(s):  
Ester Herlin-Karnell ◽  
Theodore Konstadinides
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Scope Of Application

Abstract The principle of consistency has a prominent place in EU law. In the Treaty of Lisbon, it constitutes an umbrella under which a number of legal principles of EU law follow as corollaries. Consistency manifests itself within both horizontal and vertical levels of governance. This chapter will unpack this principle and will focus on the broader implications of consistency for the division of powers in EU law. In doing so, the authors aim to discuss the rise of consistency in EU law and decrypt its various constitutional expressions in order to determine its scope of application. Two notions of consistency are presented: a formal one that appears in the Treaty of Lisbon and a strategic one, prominent in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is argued that consistency is relevant to both traditional (integrationist) and alternative (differentiated) routes to European integration. The chapter concludes by discussing whether the undefined nature of ‘consistency’ puts it at risk of becoming an empty vessel.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

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 ESTUDO SOBRE A REALIZAÇÃO DO DIREITO DA PROTECÇÃO DE DADOS PESSOAIS ATRAVÉS DA JURISPRUDÊNCIA DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita De Sousa Costa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Data ◽  
Data Protection Law

[PT]No presente texto, apresentamos as grandes linhas de aplicação do direito europeu da protecção de dados conforme gizadas pela jurisprudência do TJUE, com o objectivo de demonstrar como e em que medida este Tribunal modelou – e continua a modelar – o quadro jurídico em vigor, na certeza de que aquela jurisprudência impõe um conjunto de desafios determinantes para a realização material do direito europeu da protecção de dados pessoais. [ESP]Este texto presenta las líneas generales de la aplicación de la legislación europea de protección de datos tal como se establece en la jurisprudencia del TJUE, con el objetivo de demostrar cómo y en qué medida este Tribunal ha configurado -y sigue configurando- el marco jurídico vigente, con la certeza de que la dicha jurisprudencia plantea una serie de retos cruciales para la aplicación material del derecho europeo de la protección de datos personales. [ENG]This text outlines the implementation of the European data protection law as laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, with the aim of demonstrating how and to what extent the Court has shaped – and continues to shape – the current legal framework. The case-law analysed points out a plethora of challenges which are key to the implementation of the European personal data protection law.

scholarly journals National and Constitutional Identity in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-27
Author(s):  
Ondrej Hamuľák ◽  
David Kopal ◽  
Tanel Kerikmäe
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Identity ◽  
Main Part ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Introductory Part ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Constitutional Identity

The aim of this paper is to determine the position of the CJEU towards the national identity with regard to its case law and whether the Court gives preference to the national identity or to the primacy of EU law during the balancing between the constitutional principles and the interests of member states with EU law. The introductory part of the paper addresses the insertion and the development of the national identity clause in the primary law. Its main part consists of analysis of the case law of the CJEU, as well as of the opinions of Advocates General, in the period before and after the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon.

scholarly journals Exceptions to the Principle of Free Transmission and Retransmission of Audiovisual Media Content − Recent European Case-Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-103
Author(s):  
Zsolt Kokoly
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Media Content ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Audiovisual Media ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Media Services

Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as procedures taking place before the Commission aiming to clarify certain aspects regarding freedom of services – in this case, the principle of free transmission and retransmission of audiovisual media services – have always been regarded as particularly important in offering guidance in interpreting and applying European legal norms. The adoption in December 2018 of the revised text of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2018/1808) marks the transition to a new, amended legal framework. It also enables the critical review of the last case decided in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union, still instrumented according to the provisions of Directive 2010/13/EU: Case C‑622/17 (Baltic Media Alliance v. Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija). While the main focus of the present paper lies with Case C‑622/17, for a cogent understanding of the extended judicial and legal context of the case, we will briefly examine the four procedures successfully submitted to the Commission (by Lithuania and Latvia between 2015 and 2018), based on Art. 3 of the AVMSD (restriction based on public policy reasons, in this case incitement to hatred), and the only procedure based on Art. 4 (the “anti-circumvention procedure”) submitted in the lifespan of Directive 2010/13/EU by the Kingdom of Sweden (2017).

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.

scholarly journals Understanding National Remedies and the Principle of National Procedural Autonomy: A Constitutional Approach

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Daniel HALBERSTAM
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
The Way

Abstract This article provides a constitutionally grounded understanding of the vexing principle of ‘national procedural autonomy’ that haunts the vindication of EU law in national court. After identifying tensions and confusion in the debate surrounding this purported principle of ‘autonomy’, the Article turns to the foundational text and structure of Union law to reconstruct the proper constitutional basis for deploying or supplanting national procedures and remedies. It further argues that much of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may be considered through the lens of ‘prudential avoidance’, ie the decision to avoid difficult constitutional questions surrounding the principle of conferral. As the last Part shows, a constitutional understanding of ‘national procedural authority’—not ‘autonomy’—helps clear up some persistent puzzles, and provides critical guidance for when deference to national procedures and remedies is appropriate, and when such deference is misplaced. Comparative references inform the argument along the way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document