scholarly journals La Salud y la regulación alimentaria europea: el nivel de riesgo tolerado

2020 ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Marc Suñer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Elevated Level ◽  
Risk Tolerance ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Food Legislation ◽  
Appeal Process ◽  
Appeals Court

T. Boer & Zonen es una empresa neerlandesa productora de carne. Por violaciones de la normativa alimentaria europea, se le imponen sendas multas que, tras ser recurridas, culminan en una cuestión prejudicial del tribunal en cuestión ante Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea sobre si la refrigeración de los productos puede entenderse realizada dentro de los camiones frigoríficos (encontrándose estos en las dependencias del matadero), como pretende la empresa, o debemos atender a la literalidad de la norma y otros requisitos, que este proceso solo puede entenderse realizado en el sitio especificado como “matadero”. Por la propia naturaleza del bien jurídico y el elevado nivel de precaución y riesgo tolerable que ha asumido la Unión Europea, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea falla en favor de la interpretación consonante con dichos principios y de manera desfavorable para la empresa.   Boer & Zonen is a meat producing Dutch company. Due to breaches of the European food legislation, it is fined and, after the appeal process, culminates in a preliminary ruling from the appeals court to the Court of Justice of the European Union about whether it can be interpreted that the refrigeration process requirement was met if it was performed in the freezing trucks (being these located within the slaughterhouse), as the company pretends, or it must be understood as met only if it was performed as the literality of the rule expresses and also other requirements. Given the nature of the legally protected good and the elevated level of precaution and risk tolerance assumed by the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules in favor of the interpretation compatible with said standards and against the company.

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).

The Google Ireland Case and the Legal Battle over Digital Taxes in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Way

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Comune di Genova

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Author(s):  
Bjarney Friðriksdóttir
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.

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.

40. References to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 443-447
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
English Court ◽  
Court Of Justice

An English court faced with a question of EU law may sometimes decide it itself, or may refer it to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling. If a reference is made, the English proceedings will be stayed pending the ruling of the CJEU. Once it is made, the ruling is binding on the English court, but it is only a preliminary ruling, in that the English court is left to apply the ruling to the facts of the case and to give judgment. This chapter discusses the questions which may be referred to the CJEU; mandatory references; discretionary references; procedures in England; procedure in the CJEU; and costs of the parties in seeking a ruling from the CJEU.

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-176
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the Court of Justice (CJEU). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties. This ensures legal unity.

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

scholarly journals Fact or Fiction? Case C-616/17 and the Compatibility of the EU Authorisation Procedure for Pesticides with the Precautionary Principle

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-497
Author(s):  
Sophia PAULINI
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Legal Standard ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This contribution analyses whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provides clarifications on the normative implications that the precautionary principle entails in the context of Regulation 1107/2009, laying out the EU authorisation procedure for pesticides, in its recent judgement in Case C-616/17. In this judgement, which is a response to a request for a preliminary ruling by a French criminal court on the compatibility of certain aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle, the CJEU concludes that the questions of the referring court reveal nothing capable of affecting the validity of the regulation. According to the CJEU, to ensure conformity with the precautionary principle, the EU legislature must establish a normative framework that makes available to competent authorities sufficient information to adequately assess the risks to health resulting from the pesticide in question. However, the CJEU’s substantive analysis of the compatibility of the different aspects of Regulation 1107/2009 with the precautionary principle is not conducted concretely in light of this legal standard, but constitutes a mere testing of the general adequacy of Regulation 1107/2009. Furthermore, the CJEU’s judgement examines Regulation 1107/2009 in a vacuum without considering problems that have occurred in its implementation or application.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document