scholarly journals Hiszpania: postanowienie Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 9 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie specjalnej o numerze 20907/2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5(160) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Dziedzic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Prison Sentence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court ruled on the legal consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras – the supporter of the independence of Catalonia convicted of sedition and misappropriation of public funds. Mr O. Junqueras was elected Member of the European Parliament while he was in provisional detention, but after the trial stage of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been opened. The CJEU judgment concerned the scope of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs. The Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the CJEU interpretation, that Mr Junqueras enjoyed the immunity. However, the prison sentence passed on him deprived him of his MEP status and therefore a request to waive the immunity in this particular case was not applicable.

Compliance with European Environmental Law—Deficiencies and Approaches: The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sobotta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Considerations

The article discusses the contribution of the ECJ to the reduction of compliance deficiencies with regard to European environmental law. The Court is not a specialised environmental court but the supreme court of the European multilevel legal system. Therefore its contribution is primarily characterised by a concern for effective and uniform application of EU law in general while specific environmental considerations do not figure as prominently.

scholarly journals The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 150-172
Author(s):  
Václav Stehlík ◽  
David Sehnálek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

scholarly journals Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (20) ◽  
pp. 160-187
Author(s):  
Laura Šāberte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Court ◽  
Hospital Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Objective Investigation

In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

scholarly journals Support Schemes in Renewable Energy: Commentary to Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017, ENEA S.A. v. Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-183
Author(s):  
Nevin Alija
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Penalty ◽  
The Eu

In its September 13th 2017 decision,1 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) in proceedings between ENEA S.A. (ENEA) and the president of the Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Office for the regulation of energy, URE) on the imposition by the latter of a financial penalty on ENEA for breach of its obligation to supply electricity produced by cogeneration. The judgment of the Court of Justice follows many decisions of the European Commission and judgments of the EU courts assessing the involvement of State resources in support schemes in energy, particularly with the aim of switching towards more environmentally friendly sources. This case reaffirms that support schemes may, in certain circumstances, fall outside the scope of the EU State aid rules.

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

22. A Revolution by Due Process of Law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 613-648
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process Of Law

This chapter analyses the conduct and constitutional implications of the United Kingdom’s proposed withdrawal from the European Union. The chapter begins by examining the legal basis, conduct, and result of the withdrawal referendum. The chapter then assesses the High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the first of the two Miller judgments. It continues with a discussion on the extreme positions of ‘hard brexit’ and ‘soft brexit’ and the assesses the significance of the results of the unexpected 2017 general election. The chapter goes on to examine the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the subsequent fall of the May government and its replacement by an administration led by Boris Johnson. In the final part of the chapter the Miller (No 2) and Cherry litigation and its political aftermath are discussed in full, with a particular focus laid on the controversial way in which the Supreme Court deployed the notion of ‘justiciability’ in its judgment in Miller (No 2).

6. The European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 126-141
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
European Community ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
European Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

The aims of this chapter are threefold. It first briefly considers the events that have led to the creation of the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU). Secondly, it introduces the reader to the principal institutions of the Union: the European Council; the Council of Ministers; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the EU and General Court. The nature and functions of each of these bodies is considered. Thirdly, the chapter indicates, where appropriate, the nature of the institutional reforms which have occurred following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the member states.

2. The Union institutions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
Committee Of The Regions

This chapter focuses on the institutions responsible for executing the different tasks of the European Union (EU). The main seven institutions are complemented by two advisory bodies, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which are responsible for gathering inputs for use in decision-making. The initial institutions of the Commission, Council, European Parliament, and Court of Justice were expanded to five to include the European Council, Court of Auditors, and the European Central Bank in 2009 with the entry into force of the Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaties. This chapter also describes the roles and responsibilities of the institutions, including the Council of Ministers of the European Union, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice (CoJ).

June–September 2019

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Frank Cranmer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
The Supreme Court

On 9 September, the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019 received Royal Assent and Parliament was prorogued until 14 October. The prorogation was challenged in the courts both in England and Wales and in Scotland, and a strong Divisional Court of Queen's Bench and the Inner House of the Court of Session came to opposite conclusions as to its legality. The judgments were appealed to the Supreme Court, and on 24 September an eleven-judge bench handed down a unanimous judgment in the conjoined cases of Miller and Cherry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document