The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: Full Harmonisation, Scope and Key Notions Parts of this article have been borrowed from J Stuyck , ‘The Court of Justice and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ [2015] Common Market Law Review 65–84 .

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Market ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

scholarly journals The Interpretive Function of the CJEU and the Interrelationship of EU and National Levels of Consumer Protection

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. E-180-E-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraint Howells ◽  
Gert Straetmans
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Consumer ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Correct Information ◽  
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive ◽  
High Level ◽  
Flexible Application ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper analyses the ways in which the Unfair Contract Terms and Unfair Commercial Practices Directives try to steer a path between imposing a common European standard and allowing national variation. The open wording of the norms and safeguard clauses in both directives allows room for their flexible application. The differentiated role between the Court of Justice, as the interpreter of European law, and the national courts, as the party that applies it, provides a release valve to prevent any direct clashes and allows a subtle way for national perspectives to be reflected. The analysis finds that, irrespective of the underlying level of harmonisation, and with the backing of the European legislator’s intention of ensuring a high level of consumer protection, the CJEU is gradually painting the average European consumer with more realistic features. Here, the case law of the CJEU fulfils a bridging function between the labelling requirements in the Foodstuff Regulation, the transparency requirements in the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the informed decision requirements in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. In these three domains the CJEU recognises that the level of customer attention may be suboptimal, even in the presence of comprehensive and correct information. The CJEU’s approach contributes to more convergence in consumer protection throughout the EU. Yet, in terms of legitimacy, it must be noted that in all cases the CJEU has maintained a clear distinction between interpretation and application. The particular constitutional legal order in which the CJEU operates only allows for a process whereby the contours of a more coherent European consumer protection policy are gradually revealed. In the absence of sufficient legislative guidance at the European and national levels, national courts may be increasingly informed by the case law of the CJEU in an effort to establish clearly desirable common expectations. Those who believe that, in practice, uniformity can be achieved overnight by simply adopting a common maximum norm appear over-optimistic.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

The Limits of Free Circulation; The Torfaen Borough Council Case

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc van der woude
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Trade Liberalisation ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
The Common ◽  
Broad Interpretation

The energetic implementation of the 1992 programme should not be allowed to put the contribution of the Court of Justice to the establishment of the Common Market in the shade. Its case law on the direct effect of Treaty provisions concerning the free circulation of persons, services and goods enables European workers and business-men to fight effectively against protectionism in the EEC Member States. The Court gives, moreover, a very broad interpretation to the prohibitions contained in these provisions and, reciprocally, a very restrictive interpretation to their exceptions. This approach leads to the removal of nearly every obstacle to free trade. Liberalisation has its limits however. Certain economic activities require regulation, even if it has restrictive effects.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Harmonisation

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 360-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus KLAMERT
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
Origin Principle ◽  
The One ◽  
Regulatory Models

AbstractWhen we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years after Tobbaco Advertising I and II it remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.

9. The Relationship Between EU Law and National Law:

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Common Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the doctrine of supremacy of EU law, which was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) based on its conception of the ‘new legal order’. The ECJ ruled that the aim of creating a uniform common market between different states would be undermined if EU law could be made subordinate to national law of the various states. The validity of EU law can therefore, according to the ECJ, never be assessed by reference to national law. National courts are required to give immediate effect to EU law, of whatever rank, in cases that arise before them, and to ignore or to set aside any national law, of whatever rank, which could impede the application of EU law. Thus, according to the ECJ, any norm of EU law takes precedence over any provision of national law, including the national constitutions. This broad assertion of the supremacy of EU law has not however been accepted without qualification by national courts, and the chapter examines the nature of the qualifications that have been imposed by some national courts.

10. The Relationship Between EU Law and National Law: Supremacy

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 303-352
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Common Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the doctrine of supremacy of EU law, which was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) based on its conception of the ‘new legal order’. The ECJ ruled that the aim of creating a uniform common market between different states would be undermined if EU law could be made subordinate to national law of the various states. The validity of EU law can therefore, according to the ECJ, never be assessed by reference to national law. National courts are required to give immediate effect to EU law, of whatever rank, in cases that arise before them, and to ignore or to set aside any national law, of whatever rank, which could impede the application of EU law. Thus, according to the ECJ, any norm of EU law takes precedence over any provision of national law, including the national constitutions. This broad assertion of the supremacy of EU law has not however been accepted without qualification by national courts, and the chapter examines the nature of the qualifications that have been imposed by some national courts. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of the supremacy of EU law in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

Years an EU Lawyer—Apologia Pro Vita Sua Or EU Law—A 40-Year Journey and Still Motoring

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 47-64
Author(s):  
Alan Dashwood
Keyword(s):  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The Political ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Original Objective ◽  
Union Structure ◽  
Progressive Enlargement

AbstractThis lecture offers a justification of the choice of a career as an EU lawyer, which was made at the beginning of the 1970s. Its 40-year perspective covers a variety of themes, beginning with the political aims and values that underpin the European project. This is followed by a section on the development of the Treaty and Union structure, from the three original Communities to the Union of the Lisbon Treaty. Other themes are: the progressive enlargement of the Union’s membership, including the legal challenges facing new Member States; the expansion of Union competences, from the original objective of establishing a general common market; and, finally, the Union’s functional constitution, described as the chef d’oeuvre of the Court of Justice.

scholarly journals Fundamental rights in the reasoning of Judge Cunha Rodrigues

2014 ◽  
pp. 45-52
Author(s):  
José Manuel Cabrita Vieira e Cunha
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Common Market ◽  
The Political ◽  
Single Currency ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Current Prevalence ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
The Relationship

Based on the writings of Judge Cunha Rodrigues, the author finds that due to the current prevalence of the case law of the Court of Justice on fundamental rights, the primordial establishment of the principles of primacy and direct effect. He draws attention to the functionalist consequences of the case law of the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between the Union and the Member States and the birth of the concept of Union citizenship, contributing to overcome what had once only aspired to be the construction of a common market. Finally, he notes the Union deadlock after the creation of the single currency, divided between developing the political project and the intergovernmental retreat, supported by national electorates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document