Some Issues on Public Procurement Principles

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
Albena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractPublic Procurement regulation is mainly justified by economic considerations. The reasons for this are based on the assumption that through the introduction of competitiveness in the respective markets of the Member States, their liberalization as well as integration will follow. As an essential part of the Internal Market, one of the main goals of Public Procurement is to guarantee the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, which is accomplished specifically through transparent procedures in which participants are placed on equal and non-discriminatory terms. The purpose of this article is to show how the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union fills in a gap in the EU law regarding Public Procurement due to a lack of explicit regulations on some issues.

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 Article 3(5) TEU a decade on: Revisiting ‘strict observance of international law’ in the text and context of other EU values

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110151
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Eu

Article 3(5) of the Treaty on the European Union concerns EU external relations and was a new provision of the Lisbon Treaty. It has been seized upon by scholars for its reference to ‘strict observance of international law’ by the EU in its relations with the wider world. However, recent case law in the Court of Justice of the European Union has demonstrated little movement towards this supposed ideal. This article supports the fact that rigid and unquestioning adherence to international law has not emerged in case law, particularly as Article 3(5) TEU also mandates that the Union ‘uphold and promote its values and interests’. By taking a broader view of both the text and context of Article 3(5) TEU in EU law as a whole, and through consideration of the limited demands international law places on domestic courts, the article argues that – contrary to current literature – a more expressly balanced approach towards respect for international law is required and should be nurtured in the case law.

scholarly journals Działalność gospodarcza poddana reglamentacji w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na przykładzie prowadzenia gier hazardowych

2018 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 413-429
Author(s):  
Stanisław Biernat
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Indirect Assessment ◽  
Court Of Justice

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SUBJECTED TO REGLAMENTATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EXEMPLIFIED BY CONDUCTING GAMBLINGIn EU law, conducting gambling is classified as the exercise of the freedoms of the internal market, regulated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Conducting gambling is not currently regulated or harmonized at EU level, and therefore the regulation of gambling is the competence of Member States. EU law defining acceptable ways of regulating gambling in the Member States is now a judge-made law and the result of the creative jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. So far, the Court has issued dozens of judgments in which it interpreted Treaty provisions proclaiming the freedoms of the internal market in the context of conducting gambling. These judgments provide a direct or indirect assessment of whether national law complies with EU law.

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

Abstract While 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.

Travauxto the EU Treaties: Preparatory Work as a Source of EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 145-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuli MIETTINEN ◽  
Merita KETTUNEN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preparatory Work ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union has historically rejected references to preparatory work in the interpretation of EU Treaties. However, the preparatory work for the EURATOM, Maastricht, and Constitutional Treaties have played a role in recent judgments. The ‘explanations’ to the Charter of Fundamental Rights are expressly approved in the current Treaties. We examine the emerging case law on preparatory work. Reference to the drafters’ intent does not necessarily support dynamic interpretation, and may potentially even ossify historical interpretations. Even if the consequence of their introduction is a conservative interpretation, their use raises questions of transparency and democracy, and complicates the already difficult task of interpreting the EU constitution.

scholarly journals Unveiling the overlooked freedom – the context of free movement of capital and payments in the EU law

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-145
Author(s):  
Ondrej Hamuľák
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Slow Release ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Provision ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Free movement of capital and payments represents the youngest of the freedoms within the single internal market of the European Union. Th e title “youngest” points on the very slow release of capital markets within the European Community and the European Union which leads to the tardy development of this freedom. It is young also from the view of the legal effects because it was the last of the freedom where direct effect of basal Treaty provision was accepted by the Court of Justice. In the heading of this article I awarded the forth freedom with the adjective “overlooked” which is clearly my subjective opinion on the approach of the EU law scholars to this part of the internal market law. In the most of the substantive textbooks and casebooks we may find only marginal space devoted to this field, especially in comparison with the other market freedoms. My objective is to off er and general introductive insight to this area and to certain extent cover the emerging gap.

European Court of Human Rights case law as a source of European Union law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Vitalii Hryhoriev
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law of the European Union. Within the scope of the doctrinal sources and the existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, the authors substantiate the logic of including existing the European Court of Human Rights case law in the EU law sources, citing arguments based on the EU law and the case law.

The European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Eu

The EU’s accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) implies an important role for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Given that the Court has the task of interpreting the CRPD as an instrument of EU law and, in particular, ensuring that EU secondary legislation is interpreted in a manner which is compatible with the Convention wherever possible, it is not surprising to find references to the CRPD in a number of judgments and Opinions of its Advocate General rendered both before, and primarily after, the conclusion of the CRPD by the EU. This chapter explores those judgments and Opinions in some depth, looking at the status of international agreements concluded by the EU; how the CRPD has been incorporated into EU law; and discussing case law that has referred to the CRPD, and analysing the extent to and way in which the CJEU has interpreted the CRPD.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document