Calculation of access charges for rail infrastructure in the light of European Union’s regulations

The article presents evolution of EU’s regulations referring to the rules of calculation of access charges for rail infrastructure. In the opposite to payable utilization of road, harbor or airport infrastructure, payable access to the rail infrastructure for transport operators (rail carriers) is a relatively new issue in the European railways, because it emerged just in 1991 in relation with taken up system reforms of EU’s rail sector. In the introductory part of the article, the Directive 91/440 has been indicated as a historically first law act that referred to the issue of calculation of access charges for rail infrastructure. Next, there were presented regulations of the Directive 2001/14 adopted within so called first railway package and vagueness in their interpretation, which led to the trials before the European Court of Justice, whereas the most important was the one against Poland, ended with the sentence on the 30th of May 2013. The final part of the article presents references to this sentence and to the new regulations referring to the charges for the access to rail infrastructure, included in the Directive 2014/34 and executive ordinance 2015/909 issued on its basis.

Download Full-text

Fragmentation of international law paradigm and conflict of jurisdictions of international courts with special reference to the European Court of Justice

Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta Novi Sad ◽

10.5937/zrpfns54-29171 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (4) ◽

pp. 1203-1230

Author(s):

Sanja Đajić

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

International Courts ◽

The Third ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

International Court ◽

The One ◽

Fragmentation Of International Law ◽

The Eu

Fragmentation of international law can be studied from a variety of perspectives and the one chosen for this research is whether and how the conflict of jurisdictions (or other types of conflicts, in terms of interpretation or enforcement) of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies affect the unity of international law. While the answer might seem to be too obvious to justify the question, it is still not to be too easily assumed. The second issue discussed in this paper is whether and to what extent the external authority of an international court affects the resolution of a conflict. Both issues are too grand for a single paper so the research will be focused solely on three case studies involving the European Court of Justice: Mox Plant, Kadi and Achmea cases. In all three of them the EU Court of Justice clashed with another adjudicative authority and prevailed in the first two but seems to have lost a battle in the third. The article explores the reasons for these outcomes relying inter alia on the concept of external authority of a judicial institution. These findings are coupled with discussion on how these outcomes can be assessed from the perspective of (de)fragmentation of international law.

Download Full-text

Great Judgments of the European Court of Justice

10.1017/9781108615020 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

William Phelan

Keyword(s):

European Court Of Justice ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court

Download Full-text

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy Recht und Management ◽

10.3224/dms.v12i2.04 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽

pp. 419-433

Author(s):

Stefanie Vedder

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

Eu Law ◽

The European Union ◽

Principal Agent Theory ◽

Strategic Actions ◽

High Courts ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Download Full-text