NEKOLIKO NAPOMENA O UGOVORU O TRGOVINSKOM ZASTUPANjU IZ UGLA MEĐUNARODNOG PRIVATNOG PRAVA SRBIJE

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-16
Author(s):  
Slavko Đorđević ◽  

This paper analyzes the influence of mandatory rules of EU Member States on commercial agent’s right to indemnity/compensation (which come from Art. 17 and 18 of Directive 86/653/EEC) on determining the law applicable to commercial agency contract in accordance with the conflict-of-law rules of Serbian Private International Act as well as on jurisdiction (prorogation) clause in favor of Serbian courts. Considering that these mandatory rules are usually classified as overriding mandatory rules which apply irrespective of which law is applicable to an agency contract, the author analyzes two situations in which their application can emerge: the first situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in EU Member State and an agent has seat in Serbia; the second situation relates to the cases in which a principal has seat in Serbia and an agent has seat in EU Member State. After that, author explains that the courts of EU Member States dismiss the jurisdiction clauses by which the courts of non-Member States have been prorogated, if these courts would not apply the rules which secure the same or similar level of protection for commercial agents as those of Directive 86/653/EEC. Bearing this in mind, author also analyzes whether the courts of EU Member States would recognize the effects of prorogation of Serbian courts in such cases

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli

AbstractIn recent years, the European Union (‘eu’) has taken a number of initiatives with a view to co-ordinating consular assistance in third countries. Not only have EU citizens an entitlement to consular assistance by any EU Member State in the absence of a representation of their own, but EU Member States themselves are encouraged to co-operate by means of the Lead State Concept and other forms of co-operation. While this may seem relatively unproblematic from the perspective of the EU, it is very difficult to reconcile with general international law. The various EU agreements in this area have no application to third States: some do not have legally binding form and even those that do only apply to the parties to the treaties, ie EU Member States. This article will present the situation, analyse its complexities and offer some reflections on the global application and desirability of the regime created by the EU.


Author(s):  
Caroline Heber

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.


Author(s):  
Petr David ◽  
Danuše Nerudová

There still exist the differences in provision of VAT, in interpretation of VAT provisions and application of the rules in practice between the EU member states. Application of VAT during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state, both during the existence of establishment in the state of customer and also without it, is considered to be one from the problematic field. Other discrepancies are created by inclusion of the sub suppliers, who can come from other EU member state or from the same state as customer, to this transaction. Questions of VAT application during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state were processed by using standard methods of scientific work in the frame of five selected EU countries – Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Czech Republic.


Author(s):  
Lorenzo Gasbarri

Functionalism is conventionally considered the mainstream paradigm of the law of international organizations: organizations are agents of their member states by the means of a contractual relationship; the law created by international organizations is purely international law; the institutional veil is characterized by a crystallin transparency; the autonomy of the organization is minimal and only granted by a rigid conferral of competences and few implied powers; the conduct of member states acting in the institutional forum is relevant as a matter of international law. This chapter introduces the historical roots of this conceptualization and elaborates why under this perspective the rules of the organizations are purely international law. It describes the flaws of this theory, discussing the breach of institutional rules by the organization and the adoption of countermeasures against a wrongful act committed by a member state.


Author(s):  
Charles Proctor

This chapter considers the substantive legal obligations of those European Union (EU) Member States that have adopted, or are to adopt, the euro as their currency. In other words, what is the nature of the burdens and obligations that a participating Member State is required to accept in return for its admission to the benefits of euro area membership?


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Williams

Do public attitudes concerning the European Union affect the speed with which member states transpose European directives? It is posited in this article that member state governments do respond to public attitudes regarding the EU when transposing European directives. Specifically, it is hypothesized that member state governments slow transposition of directives when aggregate public Euroskepticism is greater. This expectation is tested using extended Cox proportional hazard modeling and data derived from the EU’s legislative archives, the official journals of EU member states, and the Eurobarometer survey series. It is found that member state governments do slow transposition in response to higher aggregate public Euroskepticism. These findings have important implications for the study of European policy implementation, as well as for our understanding of political responsiveness in the EU.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 702
Author(s):  
Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo

Resumen: El artículo 19 del Reglamento 805/2004, relativo al título ejecutivo europeo, es el precepto objeto de estudio por parte del Tribunal de Justicia en esta sentencia. En este artículo, el legislador europeo regula el recurso extraordinario contra la resolución por la cual se emite el título ejecutivo europeo. En este sentido, el precepto indicado establece la necesidad de que exista esta posibilidad de revisión de la resolución, en los casos en los que el deudor haya permanecido en rebeldía forzosa durante el procedimiento que ha dado lugar a la misma, y como requisito para que pueda ser certificada como título ejecutivo europeo la mencionada resolución. En relación con este artículo 19, el Tribunal de Luxemburgo aclara, entre otras cuestiones, que no es obligatorio para los Estados miembros del Reglamento regular en sus ordenamientos el recurso al que alude el precepto. Sin embargo, en el caso de que no exista esa posibilidad de revisión conforme a la legislación del foro, la resolución no podrá ser certificada como título ejecutivo europeo. Todo lo cual no significa que aquella no pueda circular por la Unión Europea, lo puede hacer, pero siempre que se acoja a otras normas aplicables en la materia, como el Reglamento 1215/2012.Palabras clave: título ejecutivo europeo, recurso extraordinario.Abstract: Article 19 of Regulation 805/2004, creating the European Enforcement Order, is the precept studied by the European Court in this judgment. In this article, the European legislator regulates the extraordinary appeal against the decision by which the European enforcement order is issued. The indicated article establishes the need for this possibility of revision of the resolution, in cases in which the debtor has remained in forced rebellion during the procedure, and as a requirement for that the resolution may be certified as the European Enforcement Order. In relation to this article 19, the Luxembourg Court clarifies, among other things, that it is not compulsory for the Member States to regulate in their legal systems this review. However, in the event that there is no such possibility of revision under the law of the forum, the resolution can not be certified as a European Enforcement Order. In these cases, the creditor may instead choose the system of recognition and enforcement under Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 or other European instruments.Keywords: European Enforcement Order, review in exceptional cases.


Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.


Author(s):  
Ian F Fletcher

This chapter outlines the uniform rules of choice of law which are applicable to all proceedings governed by the original EC/EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings. It emphasizes Articles 4–15, which contain these rules. The uniform rules indicate, as between various Member States and also in relation to third states whose laws may potentially be applicable in a given situation, which state’s law shall govern. In most cases, the rules contemplate a choice only between the laws of different Member States. Article 4 expresses the basic principle of lex concursus which states that the law of the Member State in which proceedings are opened is to be applied, and shall determine their effects. The Article also states thirteen particular matters which these laws govern. The chapter concludes with a summary of particular changes once the RR comes into effect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document