Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision in Kadi and the forthcoming Kadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do in Kadi II is adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

Kadi and the Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the International Legal Order

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 587-617
Author(s):  
Veronika Fikfak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThis chapter investigates the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the international legal order in light of its decision inKadiand the forthcomingKadi II. It focuses on establishing how the Court perceives its relationship with the UN Security Council and its position in the international legal order. The CJEU’s approach is analysed by identifying the characteristics of review adopted by it as a ‘constitutional court of a municipal legal order’. In this context, the chapter reveals how the CJEU’s review resembles that employed by domestic courts seeking to give force to the same or similar actions of international institutions and shows which motives may have led the CJEU to follow the practice of national courts in constructing its relationship with the international organs. This practice is contrasted with Advocate General Bot’s desire to depart from the image of an all-powerful but isolated CJEU, a court ignorant of other legal orders. Bot insists that what the CJEU ought to do inKadi IIis adopt both a more modest, deferential role in reviewing international sanctions and a rather more active role as a participant in the international legal order.

The European Legal Order

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Stirn
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 3 shows that the confluence of the law of the European Union and of the European Convention on Human Rights is a European legal order worthy of the name. It outlines the law of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty, setting out its principles and the ways in which competences are shared in the EU post Lisbon, between the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter further sets out the outline of the system of rules of the European Union. Then the chapter turns to the characteristics of what has been termed a Europe of human rights, and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in conjunction with domestic courts, police the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the chapter brings together the law of the European Union and the ECHR.

Das Karlsruher PSPP-Urteil – ein Corona-Jahr danach

IG ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-234
Author(s):  
Peter-Christian Müller-Graff
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Future ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Impact

This article scrutinizes the impact of the widely criticized PSPP-judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on the Union´s legal order. It shows that the European Commission´s opening of an infringement procedure was inevitable due to the FCC´s disregard of the rules of the preliminary reference procedure, denies the necessity of a modification of the Union´s judicial architecture and develops recommendations for the future loyal cooperation between the FCC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in handling such disputes.

2. The Foundations of European Union Intellectual Property Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 36-66
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Central Bank ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Central ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Union Section ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the role of the EU in the IP field before and since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. To that end it introduces the EU legal order itself, including its founding Treaties, institutions, and authority to act (competence), with a focus on IP. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 traces the establishment of the European Economic Community and its development to the European Union. Section 2.3 describes the seven EU institutions: the European Council, European Commission, European Parliament, Council, Court of Justice of the EU, European Central Bank, and Court of Auditors. Section 2.4 explains the legal authority of the EU, in relation particularly to IP. Section 2.5 covers EU measures and their legal effects. And Section 2.6 discusses the actions of the Court of Justice.

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.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

Possession of significant quantity of narcotic drugs – problem overview in the context of the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 11 June 2020 C-634/18

2021 ◽  
Vol 2(24) ◽  
pp. 341-356
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Tkaczyk-Rymanowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Drug Addiction ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

In the judgment of 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union took the position that it is not contradictory to the community regulations for courts to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not in a specific case the quantity of drugs possessed by the offender is significant and therefore the penalty should be made more severe. The interpretation of the concept of a ‘significant quantity’ of drugs may be left for the national courts to decide on a case-by-case basis on condition that this interpretation is reasonably foreseeable. This article presents an opinion in the discussion of the problems generated by the concept of significant quantities of narcotic drugs in the Polish criminal law, as specified in article 62(2) of the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction of 29 July 2005. Most of all, however, the doubts that the judgment of the Court of Justice may raise in the context of the Polish legal order and recognised (and very diverse) case-law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document