Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

Even if an external observer who takes an interest in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may not have such an impression at first sight, comparative law plays a central role in the activities of these courts. It means much more than simply looking at solutions given to certain problems in the legal orders of the Member States. As a former president of the Court of Justice rightly observed, recourse to comparative law is for the Court of Justice essentially a method of interpretation of Community law itself.1 For the Court of Justice and the CFI (below often referred to as ‘Community judge’ or ‘Community courts’), it is one method amongst other methods of interpretation of the law (such as literal, exegetic, historical, systematic interpretation) and it constitutes a tool for establishing the law.2

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

The Google Ireland Case and the Legal Battle over Digital Taxes in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Way

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

The Practices of ‘Splitting’ and ‘Common Accord’ Under Scrutiny: the European Parliament‘s Request for an Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the Istanbul Convention

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-486
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Samoilova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forms Of Violence ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With all eyes on the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, another pandemic has been growing in the shadows: violence against women. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention creates a legal framework in order to protect women against all forms of violence. Its ratification process, however, has faced considerable challenges, particularly in the Central and Eastern European Member States. This article discusses the basic elements of the Istanbul Convention, reflects on the ratification process in the EU and its Member States, and sets out the main legal issues raised in the European Parliament’s request for an opinion (A-1/19 of 22 November 2019) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Special focus is put on the choice of the correct EU legal basis and the practices of ‘splitting’ and ‘common accord’. This article argues that the European Parliament’s request for an opinion provides the perfect opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to further clarify the law and the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its Member States.

Article 262 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Article 229a EC Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaties, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to confer jurisdiction, to the extent that it shall determine, on the Court of Justice of the European Union in disputes relating to the application of acts adopted on the basis of the Treaties which create European intellectual property rights. These provisions shall enter into force after their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document