scholarly journals El urbanismo sostenible de proximidad: La Ley 10/2019, de 27 de junio, de Ordenación Territorial de Grandes Establecimientos Comerciales del País Vasco.

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-135
Author(s):  
Iñaki SERRANO LASA
Keyword(s):  
Basque Country ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Sustainable Mobility ◽  
Compact City ◽  
Territorial Planning ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pais Vasco ◽  
Triple Condition

LABURPENA: Eusko Legebiltzarrak onartu berri du 10/2019 Legea, ekainaren 27koa, establezimendu komertzial handien lurralde antolamenduari buruzkoa (EHAA, 2019ko uztailaren 9koa), Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoko merkataritzagune handien ezarpena eta handitzea arautzen duena, haien araudia Zerbitzuen Zuzentarauaren eta Europar Batasuneko Justizia Auzitegiaren eta Auzitegi Gorenaren doktrinaren eskakizunetara egokitzeko. Lurralde-antolamenduaren ikuspegitik, eta segurtasun juridiko handiena lortze aldera, legeak behar bezala arrazoituta egiaztatu nahi du antolamendu berriak honako baldintza hirukoitza betetzen duela: beharra —Bereziki, periferiako merkataritzaren ondoriozko arazo jasangarriak eta ingurumenekoak saihestea—, diskriminaziorik eza eta proportzionaltasuna, eta teorikoki ez dagoela merkataritza txikia babesteko interes ekonomikorik. Alde horretatik, edukiaren azterketatik ondorioztatzen da lege honek hiri konpaktuaren lurralde-eredu iraunkor bat aldarrikatzen duela, mugikortasun jasangarria sustatzen duena eta hurbileko hiri-merkataritza babesten duena, eta horrek ongi pentsatutako oinarri gisa balio dio establezimendu komertzial handiak lehentasunez hiriko bizitegi sarean ezar daitezen agintzeko. ABSTRACT: The Basque Parliament has approved the Law 10/2019, of 27 June, on the territorial planning of large commercial spaces, regulating the establishment and enlargement of large commercial establishments in the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, in order to adapt its regulations to the requirements of the Services Directive and the doctrine of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court. From the perspective of territorial planning, and for the sake of greater legal certainty, it seeks to demonstrate in a sufficiently reasoned manner that the new planning observes the triple condition of necessity —especially to avoid sustainable and environmental problems derived from peripheral trade—, non-discrimination and proportionality and the theoretical non-existence of an economic interest in protecting the small commerce. In this sense, the analysis of its content shows that this law promulgates a sustainable territorial model of compact city that promotes sustainable mobility and protects urban commerce of proximity, which serves as a matured basis to dictate precepts that establish the preference of the implantation of large commercial establishments in the residential urban area. RESUMEN: El Parlamento Vasco ha aprobado la Ley 10/2019, de 27 de junio, de ordenación territorial de grandes establecimientos comerciales (BOPV de 9 de julio de 2019), regulando la implantación y ampliación de los grandes establecimientos comerciales en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, con el fin de adaptar su normativa a las exigencias de la Directiva de Servicios y a la doctrina del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea y del Tribunal Supremo. Desde la perspectiva de la ordenación del territorio, y en aras de la mayor seguridad jurídica, trata de acreditar de forma suficientemente motivada que la nueva ordenación observa la triple condición de necesidad —especialmente, de evitar problemas sostenibles y ambientales derivados del comercio periférico—, no discriminación y proporcionalidad, y la teórica inexistencia de un interés económico de proteger al pequeño comercio. En este sentido, del análisis de su contenido se desprende que esta ley promulga un modelo territorial sostenible de ciudad compacta que fomenta la movilidad sostenible y protege el comercio urbano de proximidad, lo cual le sirve de fundamento madurado para dictar preceptos que establecen la preferencia de la implantación de los grandes establecimientos comerciales en la trama urbana residencial.

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.

Taricco principles beyond Taricco

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuffrida
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Alleged Incompatibility ◽  
The Eu

This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (‘ Taricco II’) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

Wykładniki modalności w wyrokach Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE i Sądu Najwyższego RP – analiza korpusowa

2021 ◽  
pp. 78-101
Author(s):  
Dariusz Koźbiał
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Modal Verbs ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Raising Awareness ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Reference Corpus ◽  
Polish Language ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Degree Of Convergence

The aim of this paper is to investigate the distribution of exponents of modality in the justifications of judgments passed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and judgments passed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland (SN) in the post-accession period of 2011 to 2015. In particular, the paper aims to establish the degree of convergence between translated EU judgments and non-translated national judgments in terms of the employment of modality markers. The research material consists of a large corpus of Polish-language versions of 897 judgments passed by the Court of Justice (CJ), 384 judgments passed by the General Court (GC), a corpus of 2564 non-translated judgments delivered by the SN, and a reference corpus of contemporary Polish (NKJP). The quantitative data point to the high salience and divergent distribution of a number of various markers in both EU and national judgments, such as the value-laden modal verbs należy [(one) must/should] and trzeba [(one) should/must]. It is argued that the frequent use of markers of modality constitutes a generic feature, as it raises the perceived level of authoritativeness of judicial argumentation. The findings may contribute to raising awareness of language patterns which involve the expression of modal stance.

scholarly journals The Application of International Law in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Proportionality Rising

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 557-592
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Frequent Absence

AbstractApplication of international treaty and customary international law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is increasingly recognized by scholars as problematic regarding legal certainty. This Article seeks to illustrate why this is and to propose reform. Through comparing judicial approaches in the application of international law at the CJEU to its approach in internal case law, it is argued that in the frequent absence of proportionality in external case law the Court has utilized, redeployed, or varied other judicial devices in an effort to retain the discretion which proportionality affords. These are argued to effect legal certainty and established concepts of justice within the EU legal system. Accordingly, it is submitted that proportionality should be transplanted fully and openly to external relations case law and that support for this can be extrapolated from existing literature.

scholarly journals Hiszpania: postanowienie Izby Karnej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 9 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie specjalnej o numerze 20907/2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5(160) ◽  
pp. 251-267
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Dziedzic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Prison Sentence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Funds ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Consequences

The Supreme Court ruled on the legal consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-502/19 concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras – the supporter of the independence of Catalonia convicted of sedition and misappropriation of public funds. Mr O. Junqueras was elected Member of the European Parliament while he was in provisional detention, but after the trial stage of the criminal proceedings brought against him had been opened. The CJEU judgment concerned the scope of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs. The Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the CJEU interpretation, that Mr Junqueras enjoyed the immunity. However, the prison sentence passed on him deprived him of his MEP status and therefore a request to waive the immunity in this particular case was not applicable.

scholarly journals O fim do descanso semanal obrigatório ao sétimo dia?

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 42-63
Author(s):  
Francisco Liberal Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Final Conclusion ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Labour Contracts ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
General Scope ◽  
Labour Regulation

The monologue that is reproduced has in its genesis two sentences related to the imperfect problem of the enjoyment of weekly rest at shift work: the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 9-11-2017 (Maio Marques da Rosa, case C - 306/16), and the Supreme Court of Justice, of 14-11-2018 (case 1181/15.4T8MTS.P1.S1). The fact that the issue in question was decided on the basis of rules of general scope (respectively, Article 5, first part, of the Directive 2003/88, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, and Article 232, paragraph 1, of the Labour Code) has given to give these decisions an innovative dimension, potentially disruptive in the social and legal sphere, if it is under-stood that the normativity of the first sentence is directly extendable to the com-mon of labour contracts. The final conclusion is that the Portuguese labour system enshrines the weekly rest rule on the seventh day, allowing for the possibility of derogations for a limited set of activities; however, in relation to these, the application of this regime depends on provision in terms of collective labour regulation instruments.

Comisión Arbitral del País Vasco y control autonómico de constitucionalidad

2012 ◽  
pp. 59-93
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier FLÓREZ TURRADO
Keyword(s):  
Basque Country ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Autonomous Community ◽  
Broad Area ◽  
Preventive Control ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Pais Vasco

LABURPENA: Arbitraje Batzordea organo berezi gisa eratzen da Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoko sare instituzionalean. Batzordeburua izatea Auzitegi Nagusiaren presidentea, Autonomia estatutuak agindu bezala (39. art.), aski harrigarria da, ez baita Botere Judizialaren aipamenik egiten, eta ez baitauka inongo loturarik organo horrekin. Batzordearen zeregina da ebaztea Euskadin dauden bi aginte-mailen arteko auziak eta gatazkak, alegia: alde batetik, Erkidego osorako erakundeak, Jaurlaritza eta Legebiltzarra, eta bestetik, lurralde historiko bakoitzeko foru-erakundeak, aldundiak eta batzar nagusiak. Benetan berezia eta garrantzi handikoa zera da, Arbitraje Batzordean aurkeztutako errekurtsoa nahitaezkoa dela auzi horietan, ez dago-eta beste erakundeetara jotzeko aukerarik, ezta erakunde judizialetara ere, eta, gainera, Batzordearen ebazpena loteslea eta behin betikoa da, eta haren aurka ezin da beste errekurtsorik jarri. Hori dela eta, Batzordearen izaerak badu zerizan judizialetik asko, materialki jurisdikzionalak diren funtzioez hornituta baitago, eta lehen mailako galbahe autonomiko bat bilakatu da konstituzionaltasunaren kontrolari dagokionez. Hori horrela izanik ere, 2006ko Kataluniako Estatutuak sorturiko Estatutua Bermatzeko Kontseiluak asmoa zuen, kontsultarako eginkizun propioaren eremua gaindituz eta bere irizpen lotesleen bitartez, estatututasunaren benetako kontrol prebentiboa bere gain hartzeko, Estatutuak aitortutako eskubideen alorrean, zeina oso ibilbide luzeko alorra baita. Auzitegi Konstituzionalak, alabaina, 31/2010 epaiaren bidez ez dio utzi, aintzat hartu gabe Arbitraje Batzordea hor dagoela. Eta gure ustez erakunde biek badute zerbait antzekotasun. RESUMEN: La Comisión Arbitral se configura como un órgano singular en el entramado institucional de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. Presidido por el Presidente del Tribunal Superior de Justicia, como lo prescribe directamente el Estatuto de Autonomía (art. 39), de manera un tanto sorprendente, sin remitirse al Poder Judicial, del que no forma parte, su función es la de resolver las cuestiones y los conflictos de competencia que se susciten entre los dos niveles de poder existentes en el País Vasco, las Instituciones Comunes, Gobierno y Parlamento Vasco, por un lado, y las Instituciones Forales, Diputaciones y Juntas Generales de cada Territorio Histórico, por otro. Lo verdaderamente singular y trascendente es que el recurso a la Comisión Arbitral es obligatorio en dichas controversias, sin posibilidad de acudir a otras instancias, tampoco judiciales, así como su decisión es vinculante y definitiva, y contra ella no cabe otro recurso. Esto la convierte en un órgano muy cercano a lo judicial, con funciones que son materialmente jurisdiccionales, y en un filtro autonómico de primer orden para el control de constitucionalidad. Frente a esta realidad, el Consejo de Garantías Estatutarias que crea el Estatuto catalán de 2006 pugnaba por asumir, más allá de la función consultiva propia, un verdadero control preventivo de estatutoriedad, a través de sus dictámenes vinculantes en un apartado de tanto recorrido como los derechos reconocidos por el Estatuto. El Tribunal Constitucional, en su sentencia 31/2010, lo ha impedido, sin haber tenido en cuenta la existencia de la Comisión Arbitral, con la que entendemos comparte alguna similitud. ABSTRACT: The Arbitration Committee is shaped as a singular body within the institutional framework of the Basque Autonomous Community. It is chaired by the President of the High Court of Justice, as it is prescribed in the Statute of Autonomy (art. 39), in sort of surprisingly fashion, with no direct reference to the Judiciary, of whom it is not part, its task is to solve the questions and disputes over the competences that might arise among the two levels of power in the Basque Country, the common institutions, Basque Government and Parliament on the one hand, and the Foral institutions of each Historic Territory, on the other hand. The singularity and significance lies on the fact that the use of this Arbitral Committee is compulsory in order to solve those aforementioned disputes, with no other options for settlement, nor even judicial, and its decisions are binding and final, lacking appeal against them. This makes this body very similar to a judicial one with tasks materially jurisdictional and a first level autonomic filter regarding the control of constitutionality. Against this reality, the Council for Statutory Guarantees envisaged by the Catalan Statute of 2006 strove to take on beyond its classic consultative tasks, a true preventive control about statuteness by means of its binding opinions regarding such a broad area as rights acknowledged by the Statute. The Constitutional Court in its judgment 31/2010 has prevented it without taking into account the Arbitration Committee, which in our opinion is arguably very similar to it.

scholarly journals From Portugal to Poland: The Court of Justice of the European Union as watchdog of judicial independence

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Aida Torres Pérez
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Open Door ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Limited Scope

In Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, the CJEU seized the occasion to uphold the principle of judicial independence as a primary obligation for the Member States under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU. This newly crafted interpretation of Article 19(1) has crystallized in Commission v. Poland, in which the CJEU declared that the reform of the Polish law on the Supreme Court lowering the retirement age of judges breached the obligation to respect judicial independence. The goal of this piece is to assess the bold interpretation given to the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) as a building block of the EU’s constitutional order. First, the expansion of the substantive content of Article 19(1) TEU will be analysed. How did the CJEU justify the shift from an obligation to establish a system of remedies ensuring effective judicial review to an obligation of respect for judicial independence? Second, the scope of this obligation and its potential reach will be critically examined. I will argue that Article 19(1) TEU may actually trigger the application of the Charter. Eventually, Article 19(1) TEU has the potential to become an open door for enforcing the Charter against the States regardless of its limited scope of application.

Reconciling legal certainty in corporate divisions with respect for civil law remedies: Case C-394/18 I.G.I. Srl v. Maria Grazia Cicenia

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-378
Author(s):  
David Ramos Muñoz ◽  
Montserrat Rodríguez Riu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
Civil Codes ◽  
A Company

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the Case C 394/18 I.G.I. Srl v. Maria Grazia Cicenia et al. The case offers an interpretation of the Directive on corporate divisions in a case that fell outside its scope, and a delicate balancing act between the need to protect legal certainty in corporate divisions, and the need to respect Private Law remedies enshrined in domestic civil codes. The CJEU ruled that the rules of the Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC did not preclude the creditors of a company being divided from bringing an actio pauliana against the corporate division, in order to obtain a declaration that the division does not have effects against them, nor did it preclude them from bringing enforcement proceedings against the assets transferred to the newly formed company.

Compliance with European Environmental Law—Deficiencies and Approaches: The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Sobotta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Environmental Considerations

The article discusses the contribution of the ECJ to the reduction of compliance deficiencies with regard to European environmental law. The Court is not a specialised environmental court but the supreme court of the European multilevel legal system. Therefore its contribution is primarily characterised by a concern for effective and uniform application of EU law in general while specific environmental considerations do not figure as prominently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document