scholarly journals EC Competition and Internal Market Law: On the Existence of a Sporting Exemption and its Withdrawal

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-237
Author(s):  
Alfonso Rincón
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Ec Law

Some authors argue that there is no such a thing as a sporting exemption under EC law. However, an in-depth analysis of the case law reveals that thirty years ago the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”, or “Court”) created an exemption specifically relating to sport. The judgment of the ECJ in Walrave established the basis for this exemption, which was confirmed and extended in Donà. Since then the exemption has been subject to the vicissitudes of legal interpretation. First of all, the Court endeavoured to contain its use, although the consequence of this was the expansion of the exemption from internal market to competition rules. This led to uncertainty and inaccuracy in the assessment of sporting practices. The ECJ reacted to the atmosphere of confusion created by the interpretation of the Walrave case and withdrew the exemption in Meca Medina. The correct test for assessing whether a sporting practice is contrary to EC law is now the proportionality test; however, further clarification is required.

The Interface Between Competition Law and Private Law: Article 81, Illegality and Unjustified Enrichment

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-243
Author(s):  
Barry J Rodger
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
General Question ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Private enforcement through private party litigation is to play a central role in the enforcement of the European Community competition rules. However, there has so far been little case-law in the national courts to explore in detail the range of issues concerning the award of remedies for breach of the competition rules, principally arts 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. This article considers the particular position of a cocontractor seeking to claim damages in unjustified enrichment in respect of a contract which is prohibited by art 81 and illegal. The Scots law position on the general question of recovery of damages with regard to an illegal contract is discussed, together with some recent English cases involving a breach of art 81. The article looks at the development of Community jurisprudence laying down the requirement for national courts to provide legal redress and to ensure the effectiveness of Community law. Finally, it considers the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in Courage v Crehan on a reference from the Court of Appeal.

scholarly journals The Principle of Proportionality Reflected in the Case-law of the Constitutional Court of Romania

2015 ◽  
pp. 73-93
Author(s):  
MONA-MARIA PIVNICERU ◽  
KAROLY BENKE
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Image ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Proportionality Test

This study aims at presenting a more complex image of the principle of proportionality through an analysis that combines the theoretical and the jurisprudential perspectives. The precondition of this analysis is the classic opinion of this originally German principle which requires a distinction between the objective and subjective conditions of limitation/restriction of fundamental rights/freedoms, each of which shall be subject to a separate test in order to determine whether limitations/restrictions thus established are justified. However, we reveal the way in which such principle has been accepted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, of the European Court of Justice and of the Constitutional Court of Romania, indicating the variations achieved in their case-law. As concerns the acceptance manner of the principle of proportionality in the case-law of the Constitutional Court of Romania, we analyze the fundamental differences between the classic principle of proportionality, which intrinsically characterizes the relative fundamental rights/freedoms, and the principle of proportionality covered by Article 53 of the Constitution. Likewise, the focus is on the analysis of subjective conditions of limitation of fundamental rights/freedoms in the light of the proportionality test conducted by the Constitutional Court of Romania and on the need for a precise constitutional review in order to avoid the development of distorted forms of implementation of this principle

The Interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and the “Dormant” Commerce Clause by the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Haibach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Controversial Issues ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Commerce Clause ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Ec Law

There are numerous publications on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty by the European Court of Justice1 which for the last 20 years has been one of the most controversial issues in EC law. It is, however, surprising that there is much older, yet strikingly similar, case law of the US Supreme Court which has remained almost unnoticed in Europe. In this article the respective case law of the two courts will be compared. Such a comparison is not only of interest as such, but can also contribute to the discussion about the correct scope of Article 30—which has certainly not yet been exhausted.

The Vaxholm case from a Swedish and European perspective

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Ahlberg ◽  
Niklas Bruun ◽  
Jonas Malmberg
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Collective Agreement ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
European Law ◽  
Building Site ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Industrial Action ◽  
European Court

The Vaxholm (or Laval) case concerns an industrial action undertaken on a building site in Vaxholm, a town not far from Stockholm, Sweden. The work was performed by Latvian workers employed by a Latvian company. In order to put pressure on the company to conclude a collective agreement the Swedish Building workers' union initiated industrial action, including a ban on all building and installation. This blockade was supported by the Electricians' Union through a secondary action. Both the primary and the secondary actions were lawful under Swedish law. The case raises the question whether the industrial action or Swedish law is contrary to Community law on the free movement of services or the Posted Workers Directive. The case is now pending before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The aim of this article is to present the background and context of the Vaxholm case for a non-Swedish audience and to outline the main issues of legal interpretation at stake, as well as their background in the Swedish industrial relations system and in Swedish and European law. The authors also point to some probable solutions in the light of earlier case-law of the ECJ.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

Initialzündung oder Katalysator einer wettbewerbsorientierten Verkehrspolitik? Die Untätigkeitsklage und Verurteilung des Rats durch den EuGH im Mai 1985

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Christian HENRICH-FRANKE
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Transport Policy ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Justice condemned the EC-Council (of transport ministers) in an unprecedented process for inaction in the realisation of a common transport policy on 22nd May 1985. The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s (the European Parliament) statement of claim that the Council hadn’t met his obligation to enact a competition order, to provide freedom services in crossborder transportation and to regulate access to domestic transport markets. This contribution analyses the Court’s verdict within the context of the EC transport policy in the 1980s. This also sheds new light on the realisation of the EC internal market, especially regarding sectors like infrastructures which define fundamental conditions for market operations within the EC.

Die Nacherfüllung aus Verkäufersicht

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantin Jungclaus
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
Damage Claims ◽  
High Level

The thesis examines the question of which of the compared sales law systems is most likely to realize the (economic) interests of the seller in connection with the consumer’s claim for specific performance, which is characterized by a high level of consumer protection. In this respect, the thesis examines 7 different complexes - from the position of specific performance in the system of purchase warranty rights to the scope of specific performance owed and the objection of disproportionality. Dogmatic focal points are, for example, the problem of self-execution in the light of European Union law and the allocation of certain damage items to specific performance or to damage claims in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document