Commission v. Kadi

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-884
Author(s):  
Clemens A. Feinäugle
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Commission Regulation

In the joined cases brought by the European Commission (Commission), the United Kingdom, and the Council of the European Union (EU) against Yassin Abdullah Kadi, decided on July 18, 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or Court) sustained the judgment of the General Court that had annulled the Commission regulation freezing Kadi’s funds in accordance with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council’s sanctions committee. The ECJ ruled that, although the majority of the reasons relied on by EU authorities for listing Kadi were sufficiently detailed and specific to allow him to exercise his rights of defense and judicial review effectively, no information or evidence had been produced to substantiate the allegations, when challenged by Kadi, that he had been involved in activities linked to international terrorism.

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression and Events of Major Importance: An Analysis of the Issues in Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission in the context New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philip Zander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Current Action

<p>This paper discusses the context of a Directive of the European Union which allowed for events of major importance to society to be listed and televised in a manner deemed appropriate by Member States. Union des associations européennes de football challenged the validity of the acceptance of the list of the United Kingdom by the European Commission in 2007. The challenge questioned whether the entirety of the European Championship finals could be included in the list given that this appeared to breach multiple rights and all the matches may not be of major importance.  The General Court of Europe and the Court of Justice of the European Union both found for the United Kingdom, highlighting that their powers were limited in respect of the current action. In doing so the courts left open the question of whether the designation properly balanced relevant rights. As every nation has a different context that may influence the balancing of these rights, any decision on the validity of the designation would have to consider large quantities of information. This paper aims to discuss the designation of the EURO championships in light of the circumstances of New Zealand.</p>

scholarly journals Freedom of Expression and Events of Major Importance: An Analysis of the Issues in Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission in the context New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Philip Zander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Current Action

<p>This paper discusses the context of a Directive of the European Union which allowed for events of major importance to society to be listed and televised in a manner deemed appropriate by Member States. Union des associations européennes de football challenged the validity of the acceptance of the list of the United Kingdom by the European Commission in 2007. The challenge questioned whether the entirety of the European Championship finals could be included in the list given that this appeared to breach multiple rights and all the matches may not be of major importance.  The General Court of Europe and the Court of Justice of the European Union both found for the United Kingdom, highlighting that their powers were limited in respect of the current action. In doing so the courts left open the question of whether the designation properly balanced relevant rights. As every nation has a different context that may influence the balancing of these rights, any decision on the validity of the designation would have to consider large quantities of information. This paper aims to discuss the designation of the EURO championships in light of the circumstances of New Zealand.</p>

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2 Direct Actions and Judicial Review before the Union Courts

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject

This chapter addresses access to justice in the context of centralized enforcement of EU State aid law and judicial review before the Union courts. The subject matter of litigation is State aid measures adopted in particular by the European Commission as the main supervisory body in this field pursuant to Article 108 TFEU. The term ‘access to justice’ is meant to comprise both the various conditions of standing for bringing direct actions against such measures before the General Court (GC), which essentially comprise actions for annulment (Article 263 TFEU), actions for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU), and actions for damages (Article 268 in combination with Article 340(2) TFEU). The chapter also looks at the nature and the types of acts that are possibly subject to judicial review before the GC.

4. International Sources of Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-153
Author(s):  
Alisdair A. Gillespie ◽  
Siobhan Weare
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Primary Sources ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom

This chapter discusses international sources of law. Conventions and treaties are the primary sources of international law. International law also relies on custom, that is to say informal rules that have been commonly agreed over a period of time. Resolving disputes in international law is very different to resolving domestic disputes, including the fact that in some instances, there is no court that can hear a challenge. The United Nations, particularly its Security Council, has the primary role in upholding international law, meaning that it is often political rather than judicial resolution. In 1972, the United Kingdom joined the (then) European Economic Community (EEC). As part of that process, it agreed to shared sovereignty, meaning that in some areas, European law would take precedence. The United Kingdom has now left the European Union but, as will be seen, its laws will remain an important source of English law for some time.

4. Direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 TFEU

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-89
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.

scholarly journals Przeciwdziałanie emisjom do powietrza. Analiza ochrony atmosfery i regulacji dotyczących zanieczyszczeń w Wielkiej Brytanii przed przystąpieniem, w trakcie i po opuszczeniu UE

2021 ◽  
pp. 76-92
Author(s):  
Joseph McMullen ◽  
Tilak Ginige
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Responses ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
And Function

Air pollution is a severe issue in the United Kingdom. Legal and scientific efforts to combat the deleterious health effects arising from polluted air are wide-ranging but suffer a lack of enforcement. The issue of enforcement is a central theme within this paper; the most stringent or ambitious limits are meaningless without enforcement. Legal responses to specific pollutants and polluting industries are first explored to establish a narrative of the United Kingdom’s approach to air quality protection throughout the Industrial Revolution. Legal issues and regulatory methods during the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union are then discussed in juxtaposition to domestic historical approaches, acknowledging the United Kingdom’s utilisation of displacement methods and general failures to adhere to European Union law. Beyond 2020, the retention and function of EU-derived and domestic legislation is considered in light of Brexit. The United Kingdom faces – post-Brexit – an opportunity for improvement in its atmospheric quality. However, without the enforcement capabilities of the Court of Justice of the European Union there is a real possibility that atmospheric quality in the United Kingdom will face a severe and dangerous regression – becoming, once again, the “dirty man of Europe”.

scholarly journals Commitment Decisions: Is the Sky the Limit? - Commentary to Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, Case T-76/14, Morningstar, Inc. v European Commission

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-212
Author(s):  
Rita Leandro Vasconcelos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Abuse Of Dominant Position ◽  
Limited Scope

In its judgment of 15 September 2016, the General Court ruled on whether the commitments offered by Thompson Reuters to the European Commission during an investigation of a possible abuse of dominant position were sufficient to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission. This is only the second time the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Commission decisions rendering binding the commitments offered by an undertaking Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. With regard to standing, the General Court ruled the appeal lodged by a competitor admissible. As for substance, the General Court generally confirmed the previous case law. It ruled on the commitments meet the competition concerns identified by the institution, the different proportionality standard in Article 9 decisions as compared to Article 7 Regulation 1/2003 decisions (formal decision finding an infringement), and the limited scope of judicial review of the Court of Justice of the European Union in these appeals.

The History and Growth of Judicial Review, Volume 1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Positive Account ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

These two books examine the history and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union. Both books look at four different theories, which help to explain the birth of judicial review, and to identify which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. The two books consider not only what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to grow and become more powerful and prominent over time. The positive account of what causes the origins and growth of judicial review in so many very different countries, over such a long period of time, has normative implications for the future of judicial review, of the G-20 nations, and of the European Union. This is first sustained positive account of the origins and growth of judicial review in the G-20 constitutional democracies, and in a few other regimes as well. Volume I discusses the G-20 Nations that are Common Law democracies, as well as Israel, and Volume II discusses the G-20 Nations that are Civil Law democracies, as well as the mixed civil law/common law power of the European Court of Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights.

4. Direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 TFEU

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.

Overview of Climate Change Litigation

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 194-197
Author(s):  
Michael Gerrard
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Tribunals

Climate change litigation is a global phenomenon. According to a database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, as of February 4, 2019 a total of 1,297 climate cases had been filed in courts or other tribunals worldwide. Of these, 1,009—78 percent—were from the United States, Australia was a distant second, with ninety-eight, followed by the United Kingdom with forty-seven. No other country had as many as twenty. The cases were filed in twenty-nine countries and six international tribunals, led by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had forty-one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document