scholarly journals Dyrektywa 2005/29/WE o nieuczciwych praktykach handlowych w świetle najnowszego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej - część I

2021 ◽  
pp. 123-169
Author(s):  
Magdalena El-Hagin

Dyrektywa 2005/29/WE o nieuczciwych praktykach handlowych obowiązuje od ponad 15 lat. W tym czasie interpretowana była w literaturze przedmiotu, wytycznych Komisji Europejskiej oraz orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE. W niniejszym opracowaniu przeanalizowano 12 orzeczeń TSUE z ostatnich pięciu lat (2016–2021). W pierwszej kolejności omówiono stanowisko TSUE w przedmiocie relacji dyrektywy 2005/29/WE do innych instrumentów unijnych i krajowych. Następnie przedstawiono dorobek TSUE w kwestii podmiotowego zakresu stosowania dyrektywy 2005/29/WE. Z uwagi na fakt, że dyrektywa zmierza do ochrony zarówno konsumentów, jak i profesjonalistów funkcjonujących zgodnie z prawem, ma ona znaczenie dla – bez mała – ogółu obywateli UE. W tym kontekście precyzyjne określenie zakresu jej stosowania jest niezwykle istotne dla przedsiębiorców, konsumentów oraz wszystkich praktyków interpretujących prawo krajowe w świetle przepisów dyrektywy (zwłaszcza sądów), a także – choć w mniejszym zakresie – dla ustawodawców krajowych.   During the fifteen years since its adoption, Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices has been interpreted in the subject literature, the guidelines of the European Commision and in the case-law of the Court of Justice. The paper analyses 12 judgements of the CJEU imposed in the last five years (2016–2020) in the context of the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC. First, the CJEU’s take on the relationship between Directive 2005/29/EC and other union and national regulations is discussed. Then the CJEU’s acquis regarding the subjective scope of the Directive is presented. In light of the fact that the Directive leads to the protection both consumers and traders operating legally, it is of importance for almost all UE citizens. Thus the precise determination of the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC is tremendously important for traders, consumers and all practitioners interpreting national law in the light of the Directive’s provisions (especially courts), but – also although to a lesser extent – for Member States’ legislators.

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.


Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull

From its origins in the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, the Court of Justice of the European Union has developed into a legal leviathan, exercising a profound influence on the Union through its widely studied case law. That case law has been lauded and criticized in equal measure. Some see it as bold and ingenious, while others consider it the product of a rogue court. Who were the individuals who made the early Court tick? What were the obstacles the Court had to overcome in order to achieve its current status? Why were the Member States slow to grasp the significance of the Court’s work? What is the relationship between the Court and the General Court, created by the Council in 1988 to alleviate the pressure imposed on the Court itself by its growing case load? This chapter addresses these questions in their temporal, political, and geopolitical context.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.


2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Alan Dashwood

IN its Keck judgment—famous or notorious according to taste—the Court of Justice drew a distinction, for the purposes of the application of the prohibition in Article 28 EC against measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions (“MEEQRs”), between two categories of national measures. On the one hand were “product requirements”: measures specifying requirements to be met, in order to obtain access to the market of a Member State, by products coming from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed, like the minimum alcohol requirement for fruit liqueurs in Cassis de Dijon (Case 120/78 [1997] E.C.R. 649). Such product requirements are liable to constitute MEEQRs, and therefore require specific justification, in order to escape prohibition, on one of the public interest grounds recognised by Community law. On the other hand was the category of measures described in the judgment as “provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements”. An example was the legislation at issue in the main proceedings in Keck, which prohibited the resale of products below their purchase price, thereby depriving retailers of a form of sales promotion. Other examples, attested by the case law post-Keck, are measures regulating advertising methods, the kind of shop in which goods of a certain description can be sold, shops’ opening hours and Sunday trading. National provisions in this latter category are not normally such as to hinder trade between Member States under the test formulated by the Court in Dassonville (Case 8/74 [1974] E.C.R. 837, at para. 5), and so do not call for justification; not, that is, “so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and those from other Member States”: see Joined Cases C-267 and 268/9 [1993] E.C.R. I-6097, at paras. 15–17.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jozef Valuch ◽  
Tomáš Gábriš ◽  
Ondrej Hamuľák

Abstract The aim of this paper is to evaluate and differentiate between the phenomena of cyberwarfare and information warfare, as manifestations of what we perceive as postmodern warfare. We describe and analyse the current examples of the use the postmodern warfare and the reactions of states and international bodies to these phenomena. The subject matter of this paper is the relationship between new types of postmodern conflicts and the law of armed conflicts (law of war). Based on ICJ case law, it is clear that under current legal rules of international law of war, cyber attacks as well as information attacks (often performed in the cyberspace as well) can only be perceived as “war” if executed in addition to classical kinetic warfare, which is often not the case. In most cases perceived “only” as a non-linear warfare (postmodern conflict), this practice nevertheless must be condemned as conduct contrary to the principles of international law and (possibly) a crime under national laws, unless this type of conduct will be recognized by the international community as a “war” proper, in its new, postmodern sense.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-83
Author(s):  
Božidar Forca ◽  
Dragoljub Sekulović ◽  
Igor Vukonjanski

Security is one of the most common terms in the modern world. This statement is supported by the fact that the term security is used in a wide range of areas. The subject of this paper is national security and the challenges, risks and threats to that security in contemporary international relations. The purpose of the work is twofold. First, to show the diversity of theoretical understanding of the term challenge, risk and threat by various authors. On the other hand, the overriding goal is to analyze the relationship to the challenges, risks and threats in different countries. When it comes to national security, challenges, risks and threats, most often, are identified in a document called the national security strategy. This document, as one of the highest in the hierarchy of political acts of every state, when it comes to security, is passed by almost all modern states of the world. The analysis of numerous national security strategies has revealed that it is possible to identify: 1) the challenges, risks and threats that appear in all strategies, 2) the challenges, risks and threats of security that appear in most strategies, and 3) the challenges, risks and threats of security which are country specific.


2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren

This article seeks to provide a clearer picture of the role of methods for funding social security benefits in EC Coordination Regulation 1408/71. In past literature and in the case law surrounding Regulation 1408/71, this role has seldom been mentioned. However, this is changing in light of increasing numbers of questions emerging at both the policy-making level and at the level of Court of Justice proceedings. The first part of this paper deals with the role of different methods of financing social security in determining the material scope of the coordination regulation and the question of whether the method of financing certain benefits has a bearing on this material scope. The second part deals with the existing link within the coordination context between paying or having paid contributions and entitlement to benefits. I discuss, inter alia, the extent to which benefit levels are determined by the same legislation as that which determines contribution levels. I examine the extent to which Member States collecting contributions are also responsible for bearing the cost of the corresponding benefits and the extent to which a person who is paying or has paid contributions is entitled to benefits corresponding to those contributions. In light of this examination of the facts as they stand, I endeavour to consider possible alternatives, including the desirability of having a more direct link within the coordination context between payment of contributions and entitlement to benefits.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-125
Author(s):  
D.A. Krasilo ◽  
T.A. Krassilo ◽  
A.N. Zalipaeva

Objectives. Studying the relationship of autonomy and attachment in relationships with parents with real self-determination in students. Background. The growing world globalization, intercultural contradictions, confrontation within society seriously complicate the path of self-determination of modern youth. At the same time, due to technical progress and digitalization of the communication and education environment, there are significant transformations in the interaction of people in almost all spheres, including in the family. Therefore, the question of studying the most important aspects in the relationship of young people with their parents for real self-determination is especially acute. Study design. The work studied the indicators of real self-determination, attachment to parents and autonomy among students. The presence of a relationship between these parameters was established by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient. Participants. 60 college students aged 18 to 21. Measurements. Methodology “Scale of adult attachment for close relationships”; autonomy questionnaire (authors O.A. Karabanova and N.N. Poskrebysheva); questionnaire “ORS” (author D.A. Krasilo). Results. An inverse relationship of indicators of real self-determination of students with the level of intimacy and the level of anxiety (scales of attachment to parents) was established. A direct relationship was revealed between the indicators of real self-determination and the level of autonomy. Conclusions. Proximity and anxiety (components of attachment) have a significant inverse relationship with the level of real self-determination in students. There are no significant connections between reliability (a component of attachment) and real self-determination in the sample under study. Emotional autonomy, cognitive autonomy, behavioral autonomy, and value autonomy have significant positive correlations with the level of real self-determination in students.


1996 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 610
Author(s):  
Andrew S Butler

This article is a book review of Stephanos Stavros The Guarantees for Accused Persons under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: An Analysis of the Application of the Convention and a Comparison with Other Instruments (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1993) 388 pp (including 3 appendices), price (hbk) £87.00. This book is a detailed analysis of the case law of the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights on the interpretation and application of Article 6 of the Convention. That article guarantees fair trial rights in the determination of criminal charges and in the determination of civil rights and obligations. The scope of Dr Stavros' study is the rights of an accused under Article 6. Butler praises Dr Stavros for being thorough in his treatment of both case law and international law, providing a closely argued critique alongside the law presented, and for his general enthusiasm for the subject matter (reflected in the book's readability). Despite its limitations, Butler commends this book's high standard of scholarship overall.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document