The European Union and the Territorial Scope of European Territories

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper Professor Ziller addresses the intriguing question of the relationship of the European Union – which is not a state and which has no territory of its own – to the territories of EU Member States. The paper provides a survey of the overseas territories affected and the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the extent to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply to the European territories overseas.

scholarly journals The 346 Clause of TFEU Regulation in Different EU Member States

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Vilius Kuzminskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The article discloses the fixed exclusion regulation of Clause 346 in the Treaty of Function of the European Union in different EU member states. A further assessment of different relevant judicial approaches to regulation are disclosed and evaluated in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law and procurement in the defense area doctrine.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

Treaty-making Procedures

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-100
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Important System ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides an overview of the treaty-making procedures in the European Union. It explains the historical evolution of primary law in the field and gives examples for each step under Article 218 TFEU (negotiation, signature, provisional application, and conclusion). Excerpts of European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law illustrate how these provisions are interpreted and applied in practice. The chapter also discusses the principles covering suspension and termination of EU agreements, and the ever more important system that allows the EU to contribute to the adoption of international secondary law under Article 218, paragraph 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A final section describes EU practice for adopting non-legally binding instruments and reproduces the new guidance of December 2017 issued by the Council and the Commission in this respect after the ECJ’s judgment in the case relating to the EU–Swiss Memorandum of Understanding.

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.

The Relationship Between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights: an Originalist Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 482-511
Author(s):  
Stephen Brittain
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship

European Convention on Human Rights and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights: relationship – Teleological method of interpretation of the European Court of Justice: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Originalist method of interpretation: meaning, justifications, and criticisms – Original meaning of Article 52(3) of the Charter: text, drafting history, case law – Conclusion: case law of European Court of Human Rights not strictly binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

scholarly journals La precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo como foro de competencia y punto de conexión en los reglamentos europeos = The determination of the habitual place of work as jurisdiction rule and as connecting point in the European regulations

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
José Luis Iriarte Ángel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Regulations ◽  
Para Determinar ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

 Resumen: La finalidad de este trabajo es identificar y analizar los indicios que las autoridades judiciales de la Unión Europea utilizan para determinar el lugar habitual de trabajo, como foro de com­petencia judicial internacional y como punto de conexión, en los casos en que el mismo es impreciso, porque el trabajador realiza sus funciones en varios países. También se estudian los principales índices que la jurisprudencia europea ha rechazado o aquellos cuya utilidad ha matizado. El estudio es eminen­temente casuístico y se articula a través de las sentencias del TJUE y las conclusiones de los distintos Abogados Generales.Palabras clave: contrato de trabajo internacional, precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo, método indiciario, indicios empleados por la jurisprudencia, indicios matizados, indicios rechazados.Abstract: The purpose of this paper is the identification and analysis of the indicia used by the judicial authorities of the European Union to determine the habitual place of work, as forum of interna­tional jurisdiction and as connecting point, in cases where it is diffuse because the employee performs his duties in several countries. It will also be analyzed the main indicia rejected by the European Court of Justice, or those whose usefulness has been qualified. This work is mainly casuistic and it is framed through the judgments of the ECJ and the conclusions of different General Advocates.Keywords: international employment contract, accuracy of the habitual place of work, circumstan­tial method, indicia used by the Case Law, nuanced indicia, rejected indicia.

Judicial Dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Field of Legal Liability for Posting Hyperlinks

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 432-448
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Oręziak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Functional Interpretation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This paper discusses the judicial dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the placing of hyperlinks on the internet. Firstly, the case law of the CJEU in the light of the linkage is analysed. This shows the scope of restrictions created by this judicial authority in the area of copyright. Secondly, the judgment of the ECHR will be cited and analysed as regards the relationship between placing hyperlinks on the internet and freedom of expression. There is a judicial dialogue with the CJEU, which focuses attention on the human rights aspect of hyperlinks. Thirdly, the correlation between the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECHR will be analysed, including a functional interpretation. The paper ends with a discussion about the potential of this judicial dialogue for the wider purpose of building an optimal model for European dialogue.

The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Garrett ◽  
R. Daniel Kelemen ◽  
Heiner Schulz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Agricultural Imports ◽  
State Liability

We develop a game theoretic model of the conditions under which the European Court of Justice can be expected to take “adverse judgments” against European Union member governments and when the governments are likely to abide by these decisions. The model generates three hypotheses. First, the greater the clarity of EU case law precedent, the lesser the likelihood that the Court will tailor its decisions to the anticipated reactions of member governments. Second, the greater the domestic costs of an ECJ ruling to a litigant government, the lesser the likelihood that the litigant government will abide by it (and hence the lesser the likelihood that the Court will make such a ruling). Third, the greater the activism of the ECJ and the larger the number of member governments adversely affected by it, the greater the likelihood that responses by litigant governments will move from individual noncompliance to coordinated retaliation through new legislation or treaty revisions. These hypotheses are tested against three broad lines of case law central to ECJ jurisprudence: bans on agricultural imports, application of principles of equal treatment of the sexes to occupational pensions, and state liability for violation of EU law. The empirical analysis supports our view that though influenced by legal precedent, the ECJ also takes into account the anticipated reactions of member governments.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document