Institutional dynamics reloaded: the Court of Justice and the development of the EU internal market

2017 ◽  
pp. 401-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Horsley
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Institutional Dynamics ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Law and Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.

scholarly journals Access to justice in State aid: how recent legal developments are opening ways to challenge Commission State aid decisions that may breach EU environmental law

ERA Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliette Delarue ◽  
Sebastian D. Bechtel
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Current System ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAccess to justice in State aid matters is very limited. In particular, the admissibility test before the Court of Justice of the EU excludes private parties who are not market operators. The recent CJEU ruling in the Hinkley Point C case and the findings of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee call into question the adequacy of the current system. The findings demand an opening for non-market actors, including non-governmental organisations, to allege breaches of EU environmental law by the beneficiary of a State aid measure and consequently, the incompatibility of the aid measure with the internal market.

scholarly journals Unveiling the overlooked freedom – the context of free movement of capital and payments in the EU law

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-145
Author(s):  
Ondrej Hamuľák
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Slow Release ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Provision ◽  
Free Movement Of Capital ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Free movement of capital and payments represents the youngest of the freedoms within the single internal market of the European Union. Th e title “youngest” points on the very slow release of capital markets within the European Community and the European Union which leads to the tardy development of this freedom. It is young also from the view of the legal effects because it was the last of the freedom where direct effect of basal Treaty provision was accepted by the Court of Justice. In the heading of this article I awarded the forth freedom with the adjective “overlooked” which is clearly my subjective opinion on the approach of the EU law scholars to this part of the internal market law. In the most of the substantive textbooks and casebooks we may find only marginal space devoted to this field, especially in comparison with the other market freedoms. My objective is to off er and general introductive insight to this area and to certain extent cover the emerging gap.

Some Issues on Public Procurement Principles

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
Albena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
The Eu

AbstractPublic Procurement regulation is mainly justified by economic considerations. The reasons for this are based on the assumption that through the introduction of competitiveness in the respective markets of the Member States, their liberalization as well as integration will follow. As an essential part of the Internal Market, one of the main goals of Public Procurement is to guarantee the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, which is accomplished specifically through transparent procedures in which participants are placed on equal and non-discriminatory terms. The purpose of this article is to show how the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union fills in a gap in the EU law regarding Public Procurement due to a lack of explicit regulations on some issues.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Epilogue

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Positive Answer ◽  
The Past ◽  
Output Legitimacy ◽  
The Eu

Can the judicial creation of the EU internal market be justified? A famous—positive—answer has, in the past, been suggested by Miguel Maduro’s We the Court; and the first section explores the credentials of his ‘majoritarian activism’ thesis. The second section surveys alternative forms of legitimacy, such as ‘output legitimacy’ and ‘messianic legitimacy’, but it also offers a new Kantian approach to the legitimacy question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document