From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

Abstract While investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

scholarly journals The interpretation complying with EU law manifested in the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013 of the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 82-96
Author(s):  
Carla Machado
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One

This article aims to address the interpretation that has been made by Portuguese courts in relation to the concept of “communication of the work to the public” enshrined in Article 3 (1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001, duly transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Law No. 50/2006 of 24 August, which culminated in the drafting of the case law unifying judgment No. 15/2013. By verifying its content and analysing the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter CJEU), concerning the interpretation of that concept, we conclude that the said case law unifying judgment does not comply with EU law. Therefore, we will list, on the one hand, the inherent consequences regarding the upkeep of the interpretation that has been held by the Portuguese judicial authorities and, on the other, we will suggest solutions for the resolution of similar cases by appealing to the principle of conforming interpretation.

scholarly journals Article 3(5) TEU a decade on: Revisiting ‘strict observance of international law’ in the text and context of other EU values

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110151
Author(s):  
Rupert Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Eu

Article 3(5) of the Treaty on the European Union concerns EU external relations and was a new provision of the Lisbon Treaty. It has been seized upon by scholars for its reference to ‘strict observance of international law’ by the EU in its relations with the wider world. However, recent case law in the Court of Justice of the European Union has demonstrated little movement towards this supposed ideal. This article supports the fact that rigid and unquestioning adherence to international law has not emerged in case law, particularly as Article 3(5) TEU also mandates that the Union ‘uphold and promote its values and interests’. By taking a broader view of both the text and context of Article 3(5) TEU in EU law as a whole, and through consideration of the limited demands international law places on domestic courts, the article argues that – contrary to current literature – a more expressly balanced approach towards respect for international law is required and should be nurtured in the case law.

7. Framework for enforcement

2020 ◽  
pp. 183-190
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
National Legal System ◽  
The Eu

This chapter outlines the framework for enforcement of European Union (EU) law, and describes the various actions that may be brought before the Court of Justice (CJ). In interpreting the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the CJ has played a key role in the enforcement of EU law especially with its insistence on the effective protection of individuals’ Union rights. The chapter also explains the significance of judicial review in the EU legal order by focusing on the jurisdiction of the CJ in the appeal cases originating from the General Court (GC). Finally, the chapter outlines how questions of infringement of EU law can also be raised in the national legal system.

The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Armenian Legal Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 199-219
Author(s):  
Narine Ghazaryan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Eu

The chapter analyses the limited impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on the legal order of the Republic of Armenia. Despite Armenia’s geographic proximity to the EU, CJEU precedents feature in only two cases of the Constitutional Court of Armenia. In both cases, CJEU case law is seen merely as part of comparative international legal practice, informing the judgment of the national court, rather than affecting the ratio per se. The chapter analyses the main reasons behind the apparent lack of CJEU impact on Armenian judicial practice and the legal order more generally. These include, for example, low intensity in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia and cognitive barriers. The chapter also addresses the main features of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement and covers future possibilities for judicial interaction between the two legal orders.

Travauxto the EU Treaties: Preparatory Work as a Source of EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 145-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuli MIETTINEN ◽  
Merita KETTUNEN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preparatory Work ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union has historically rejected references to preparatory work in the interpretation of EU Treaties. However, the preparatory work for the EURATOM, Maastricht, and Constitutional Treaties have played a role in recent judgments. The ‘explanations’ to the Charter of Fundamental Rights are expressly approved in the current Treaties. We examine the emerging case law on preparatory work. Reference to the drafters’ intent does not necessarily support dynamic interpretation, and may potentially even ossify historical interpretations. Even if the consequence of their introduction is a conservative interpretation, their use raises questions of transparency and democracy, and complicates the already difficult task of interpreting the EU constitution.

scholarly journals Court of Justice of the European Union: historiography of European sources published in the period 1957-1992

2021 ◽  
pp. 292-299
Author(s):  
I. V. Kaminska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Eu

Before proceeding to the analysis and characterization of foreign publications, all the sources we found were systematized according to the time criterion, according to which all the publications found, which in one way or another examined the Court of Justice, we divided into three periods, namely: I period (1957–1992); II period (1992–2007); III period (2007-present). The division was based on the periodization of the development of European integration, or rather its main stages. And the period – the creation and functioning of the European Communities (from the Treaties of Rome to the signing of the Maastricht Treaty); II period – the formation of the European Union (signing of the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice treaties); Period III – the functioning of the European Union in its modern form (after the signing of the Lisbon Treaty and until now). Thanks to this systematization, we were able to demonstrate what topics were relevant among scholars in a particular period of development of integration and functioning of the Court of Justice. The main presentation of the material is devoted to the results of the analysis of foreign scientific publications concerning the principles of organization and functioning of the Court of Justice published in the period 1957–1992. We found that most scientific papers were published by scientists from Great Britain, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France which account for a significant share of the work of judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice. All foreign sources published in this period were analyzed by us on the subject of research and grouped by subject. Thus, we found that in the period 1957–1992.current research topics on the Court of Justice of the EU were: protection of individuals in the EU law and order; methods of interpretation in the decision of the Court of Justice of the EU; judicial control in the EU; the legal nature of the interaction between national judicial institutions and the Court of Justice and their impact on the uniform application of the Community legal order and its organic combination with the national legal order; judicial activism; principles of EU law; the role of EU judges in the development of European integration. Keywords: EU Court, judicial activism, EU legal order, principles of EU law, EU court decision.

European Court of Human Rights case law as a source of European Union law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro Boichuk ◽  
Vitalii Hryhoriev
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law of the European Union. Within the scope of the doctrinal sources and the existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, the authors substantiate the logic of including existing the European Court of Human Rights case law in the EU law sources, citing arguments based on the EU law and the case law.

Enforcement Actions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Prete
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Procedures ◽  
The Eu

The enforcement of EU law on non-compliant national authorities has, at its heart, infringement proceedings brought pursuant to Articles 258 to 260 TFEU. That focus is embedded in the scheme of the EU Treaties. In that regard, infringement proceedings are a particular feature of the EU legal order. As the Court of Justice stated in one of its first cases, ‘it is a procedure far exceeding the rules heretofore recognized in classical international law, to ensure that obligations of States are fulfilled’. Indeed, under the rules of public international law, there is no obligation to settle disputes or to establish formal and legal procedures for dispute resolution, which, where they exist, always depend on the consent of the parties concerned. By contrast, the jurisdiction of the Court in cases of EU law infringements by Member States is compulsory and constitutes a corollary to membership in the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document