Protection and repair of concrete structures as an important contribution to sustainability

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Retzepis
Keyword(s):  
Concrete Structures ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Long Period ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Individual Structure ◽  
Protection Strategies ◽  
And Shifts ◽  
The Right

<p>Effective protection strategies and repair methods of concrete structures guarantee their serviceability and durability for a long period of time. However, the choice of the “right” materials, according to the code-family EN 1504, does not generally ensure the success of the application. It is the choice of the right system of materials as well as the application rules and quality control which guarantee this success. To achieve this, additional regulations have been introduced in Germany in the past. However, this procedure has been declared illegal according to the decision of the European Court of Justice, so a new way had to be found. This new way is based on the specific requirements for protection and repair of each individual structure and shifts the responsibility to the design engineer.</p><p><br clear="none"/></p>

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Centros Ltd—A Complete U-Turn in the Right of Establishment for Companies?

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Looijestijn-Clearie
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

InCentros Ltd and Erhvers-og Selskabsstyrelesen (hereinafter Centros),1 the European Court of Justice ruled that it is contrary to Article 52 (now Article 432) and Article 58 (now Article 48) of the EC Treaty for the authorities of a member State (in casu Denmark) to refuse to register a branch of a company formed under the law of another member State (in casu the United Kingdom) in which it has its registered office, even if the company concerned has never conducted any business in the latter State and intends to carry out its entire business in the State in which the branch is to be set up. By avoiding the need to form a company there it would thus evade the application of the rules governing the provision for and the paying-up of a minimum share capital in force in that State. According to the Court, this does not, however, prevent the authorities of the member State in which the branch is to be set up from adopting appropriate measures for preventing or penalising fraud, either with regard to the company itself, if need be in co-operation with the member State in which it was formed, or with regard to its members, where it has been determined that they are in fact attempting, by means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations towards creditors established in the territory of the member State of the branch.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

Re-Conceptualizing the Right to Seek and Obtain Asylum in International Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-332
Author(s):  
Salvatore Fabio Nicolosi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
Triggering Factor ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Over the past few years the issue of asylum has progressively become interrelated with human rights. Asylum-related stresses, including refugee flows and mass displacements, have mitigated the traditional idea of asylum as an absolute state right, in so far as international human rights standards of protection require that states may have the responsibility to provide asylum seekers with protection. Following this premise, the article argues that the triggering factor of such overturning is significantly represented by the judicial approach to the institution of asylum by regional human rights courts. After setting the background on the interrelation of asylum with human rights, this article conceptualises the right to asylum as derived from the principle of non-refoulement and to this extent it delves into the role of the two regional human rights courts, notably the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in order to explore whether an emerging judicial cross-fertilisation may contribute to re-conceptualisation of the right to asylum from a human rights perspective.

Taricco principles beyond Taricco

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuffrida
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Alleged Incompatibility ◽  
The Eu

This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (‘ Taricco II’) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

The Effect of WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in the EC Legal Order: Reviewing Van Parys v Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (C-377/02)

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1032
Author(s):  
Delphine De Mey
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
National Court ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Community Legal Order

On 1 March 2005, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ‘ECJ’ or ‘the Court’) got another opportunity to rule on the effect of recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (hereinafter ‘DSB’) in the Community legal order. The ECJ concluded that an individual does not have the right to challenge, before a national court, the incompatibility of Community measures with WTO rules, even if the DSB had previously declared the Community legislation to be incompatible with those rules.

scholarly journals Information delayed is justice denied

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jurij Toplak ◽  
Boštjan Brezovnik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right

European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2016 that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to access information held by public authorities. While according to international documents the procedures for accessing information should be ‘rapid’, the courts have yet to rule on what ‘rapid’ means and when the procedures are so long that they violate rights of those asking for information. This article analyses the length of proceedings in access to information cases in Slovenia and Croatia. It shows that these two countries do not have a system of effective protection of rights because the authorities can easily delay disclosure of information for several years. It argues that lengthy procedures violate the right to access the information and the freedom of expression. It then presents solutions for improving access to information procedures in order for them to become ‘rapid’

The ECJ's Inspire Art Decision of 30 September 2003 and its Effects on Practice

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 1277-1291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Kersting ◽  
Clemens Philipp Schindler
Keyword(s):  
Company Law ◽  
Foreign Company ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Host State ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Inspire Art ◽  
The Right

In its most recent judicature the European Court of Justice (ECJ) continued its tendency of deciding in favor of the freedom of establishment by holding that rules submitting pseudo-foreign companies to the company law of the host state were inadmissible. It clarified that a foreign company is not only to be respected as a legal entity having the right to be a party to legal proceedings, but rather has to be respected as such, i.e. as a foreign company that is subject to the company law of its state of incorporation. Any adjustment to the company law of the host state is, hence, not compatible with European law. In addition to commenting on the decision and its effects, this article points out potential for corporate restructuring in the field of codetermination.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

scholarly journals O Papel do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia Como Guardião do Direito Fundamental Comunitário Europeu à Livre Circulação de Trabalhadores

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 469-480
Author(s):  
Alexandre Coutinho Pagliarini ◽  
Maria Fernanda Augustinhak Schumacker Haering Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Workers ◽  
The Right ◽  
Economic Bloc ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
Second World

This research has as general objective to analyze the guardian role exercised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) for the protection of the Fundamental Community Right to the free movement of workers within the scope of the European economic bloc and the importance of the migratory flow for the maintenance of the said block. The spouse of this article previously analyzes the emergence of the European Communities and the need for the defense, reconstruction and stabilization of Europe after the end of the Second World War, as well as dealing with the Treaties of Paris and Rome, propellants of the European Communities, characterized as an autonomous legal system and of great importance for the development of European primary law. Then, he discusses the movement of workers within the European Union (EU) and the right of the European citizen to look for a job, to work, to settle or to provide services in any EU Member State, and then to address the issue of the role of the worker. CJEU as guardian of the fundamental European Community law on the free movement of workers. After the analysis of recent judgments of the European Court of Justice, the need to protect the free movement of European workers, with due regard to the founding treaties of the European Union, remains necessary for the proper maintenance of the European bloc European Union. The methodology used in the research is critical reflexive, which operates through the bibliographic review and the analysis of concrete cases assessed by the CJEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document