The next part of this section explores the role of the ECJ in more detail through the reading of a case. The following diagram explains the way in which Community law enters the English legal system. The detail of this will be explored in your substantive law course. Figure 5.23: main types of EC law

2012 ◽  
pp. 169-169
1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 373-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors Llorens

The judgments of the Community judicature are often subject to intense scrutiny by the media and by academic writers. The European Court of Justice, in particular, is regularly accused of being by and large an “activist” court, namely a court that construes EC law in the light of the objective the judges are trying to pursue. In particular, it is argued that the European Court uses the teleological method of interpretation to enhance the effectiveness of Community law at the expense of the written legal texts. Several studies have been published on the supposed “activist” role of the European Court and as many (or more) have been written in defence of the Court. The common denominator of all these works is that they are selective.



2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetlana Tulaeva

This article is devoted to the consideration of land disputes between oil companies and reindeer-herding communities. This research analyzes the legal framework within which the participants of conflict act, with particular reference to legal anthropology. Most of the focus is not so much on formal laws as on the way in which they are understood and interpreted by the participants in relations. It is shown that various groups are guided by different laws and regulations, determining for themselves their priority over others. Emphasis is placed on the role of custom and the way in which it influences the appeal of locals to the state legal system. Starting from the specificity of legal environment, this article explains the use by the participants of conflicts of various strategies to settle them.


2012 ◽  
pp. 148-148

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 373-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albertina Albors Llorens

The judgments of the Community judicature are often subject to intense scrutiny by the media and by academic writers. The European Court of Justice, in particular, is regularly accused of being by and large an “activist” court, namely a court that construes EC law in the light of the objective the judges are trying to pursue. In particular, it is argued that the European Court uses the teleological method of interpretation to enhance the effectiveness of Community law at the expense of the written legal texts. Several studies have been published on the supposed “activist” role of the European Court and as many (or more) have been written in defence of the Court. The common denominator of all these works is that they are selective.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-95
Author(s):  
Giacomo Delledonne

Abstract The aim of this contribution is to make some points on the distinction between ‘perfect’ (or equal) and ‘imperfect’ (or unequal) bicameralism and its relevance to contemporary discussions about second chambers and their constitutional position. The analysis starts with an assumption that this distinction is somehow under-theorised. The distinction between perfect and imperfect bicameralism, finally resulting in a clear prevalence of the latter, mainly focuses on two aspects: the exercise of legislative function and, in parliamentary regimes, the confidence vote. In spite of the unquestionable relevance of these two components to the activity of parliaments, these analyses are incomplete. The functions and competences of a given second chamber depend on the way it represents pluralism: the weight that each legal system attaches to the representative role of its own second chamber decisively shapes the perimeter of their functions. Important evidence for validating this claim comes from the procedures for passing constitutional amendments, in which second chambers, even in a number of ‘unequal’ bicameral systems, are put on equal footing with first chambers.


There have been changes to institutions: some have had name changes (such as the ‘Assembly’ to ‘European Parliament’); some have had powers removed or added, and some have been relatively recently created (for example, the Committee of the Regions). It is therefore important to be clear about the construction of the EU, the place of the EC, its areas of legal competency and the extent and limits of EC law, name changes of institutions and treaties, and changes to the numbering of articles in the treaties. This introduction sets out the approach taken, and the terms to be used in this section with the reasons for their use explained. The section will also give a historical and chronological review of the development of the Union and the current place of the Community. This should enable you to read most texts in the area with a reasonably clear map of your own of the interconnections between the EU, the EC, EC law and their effects on the English legal system. For the rest of this section the following abbreviated terms will normally be used: • ‘Union’ when referring to the European Union; • ‘Community’ when referring to the European Community; • ‘Community law’ or ‘EC law’ when referring to European Community law. The relationship between the English legal system, the Union and the Community is complex. But then the very concept of the Union itself is complex. The Union was established in 1992 and currently there are 15 Member States, with 13 more candidate States waiting to join. There are three spheres of activity in the Union customarily referred to as the three ‘pillars’ of the Union. Pillar 1: the three founding Communities established in the 1950s: (a) the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC); (b) the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom); (c) European Economic Community (EEC), since 1992 called the European Community, which was set up by the EEC Treaty. Pillar 2: agreed co-operation in the area of foreign affairs and security. Pillar 3: agreed co-operation in the areas of home affairs and justice. It is a Union that is joined together not as a federal system of States, such as the United States of America, nor as a range of States contracting at only the political level. The Union is a supra-national Union of States agreeing to be bound together in part politically, in part co-operatively and socially and in large part through a unique legal order—the acquis communautaire (‘community patrimony’) or ‘Community law’. A legal order that has effect by being incorporated into the legal systems of every Member State, and the English legal system is no exception. The legal order of the Union remains rooted in that part of the Union that is the Community. It is the nature of the legal order that makes the Union unique. For although the Union is established by treaties, it is not just governed by international law and political relationships based on agreement at intergovernmental level. The founding treaties of the Union which date back to the inception of the Communities in the 1950s insist that the law of the Union (which technically remains Community law) becomes part of the legal systems of all of the States who are members of the Union.

2012 ◽  
pp. 144-144

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 498-516
Author(s):  
Neil O'Sullivan

Of the hundreds of Greek common nouns and adjectives preserved in our MSS of Cicero, about three dozen are found written in the Latin alphabet as well as in the Greek. So we find, alongside συμπάθεια, also sympathia, and ἱστορικός as well as historicus. This sort of variation has been termed alphabet-switching; it has received little attention in connection with Cicero, even though it is relevant to subjects of current interest such as his bilingualism and the role of code-switching and loanwords in his works. Rather than addressing these issues directly, this discussion sets out information about the way in which the words are written in our surviving MSS of Cicero and takes further some recent work on the presentation of Greek words in Latin texts. It argues that, for the most part, coherent patterns and explanations can be found in the alphabetic choices exhibited by them, or at least by the earliest of them when there is conflict in the paradosis, and that this coherence is evidence for a generally reliable transmission of Cicero's original choices. While a lack of coherence might indicate unreliable transmission, or even an indifference on Cicero's part, a consistent pattern can only really be explained as an accurate record of coherent alphabet choice made by Cicero when writing Greek words.


Author(s):  
Linda MEIJER-WASSENAAR ◽  
Diny VAN EST

How can a supreme audit institution (SAI) use design thinking in auditing? SAIs audit the way taxpayers’ money is collected and spent. Adding design thinking to their activities is not to be taken lightly. SAIs independently check whether public organizations have done the right things in the right way, but the organizations might not be willing to act upon a SAI’s recommendations. Can you imagine the role of design in audits? In this paper we share our experiences of some design approaches in the work of one SAI: the Netherlands Court of Audit (NCA). Design thinking needs to be adapted (Dorst, 2015a) before it can be used by SAIs such as the NCA in order to reflect their independent, autonomous status. To dive deeper into design thinking, Buchanan’s design framework (2015) and different ways of reasoning (Dorst, 2015b) are used to explore how design thinking can be adapted for audits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document