Regarding the Purpose of the Interim Measures, ordered by the Court of Justice of the European Union

De Jure ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iliyan Baychev ◽  
◽  
◽  

The article analyses the purpose of interim measures ordered by the CJEU. On one hand, it presents the restrictions limiting the CJEU, which are determined by this purpose. On the other hand, it also illustrates the vast discretionary powers the purpose grants the court within the procedure for adjudication of interim measures.

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Caeiro ◽  
Sónia Fidalgo ◽  
João Prata Rodrigues

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on detention and the possible evolution of the understanding of mutual recognition stemming therefrom. In the Lanigan, JZ, and Ognyanov decisions, the CJEU assimilated mutual recognition with the effectiveness of cooperation, which should be understood as maximum compliance with the issuing state’s interests. Arguably, this approach is detrimental to other important values, such as, for example, the rights arising from excessively long detention and a rational and meaningful approach to the enforcement of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment has detached mutual recognition from the exclusive protection of the issuing state and has turned it into a neutral governance principle. If mutual trust is not a given and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis through common objective parameters, the decisions deserving recognition may be uttered either by the issuing or the executing authority.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1661-1686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikos Vogiatzis

The purpose of this article is to explore the avenues for legal accountability vis-à-vis the European Council after the Treaty of Lisbon. This will be achieved through an assessment of the jurisdictional realms of, on the one hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and on the other hand, the European Ombudsman, always in relation to the European Council. Legal accountability may be understood in this respect as the supervision of the observance of the European Union (EU) rule of law. The European Ombudsman is an EU body established by the Treaty of Maastricht; by virtue of Art. 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), he or she has the power to investigate complaints of maladministration “in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.”


Author(s):  
Isaac MERINO JARA

LABURPENA: Justizia Auzitegiak 2000ko martxoaren 21ean emandako epaian —Gabalfrisa, C-110/98tik C-147/98ra arteko gai metatuak— xedatu zuen auzitegi ekonomiko-administratiboek «jurisdikzio-organotzat» hartuak izateko baldintzak betetzen zituztela, arazo prejudizialak aurkezteko ondoreetarako. Hau da, epai horrek ez zituen bere egin Saggio abokatu nagusiaren ondorioak, zeinen arabera prozedura ez baitzen kontraesanezkoa eta auzitegi ekonomiko-administratiboak ez baitziren independenteak. Ostera, Justizia Auzitegiak (Sala Nagusia) 2020ko urtarrilaren 21ean emandako epaian —Santander Bankua, C-274/14— zera dio: auzitegi ekonomiko-administratiboa ez da jurisdikzio-organotzat hartuko, ez delako independentea. Europar Batasunean eta Espainiako barne-zuzenbidean gertatu diren aldaketek funtsatzen dute norabide berria, bai eta jurisprudentziaren bilakaerak ere —Justizia Auzitegiaren 2018ko otsailaren 27ko epaian laburbildua; Associação Sindical dos Juízes portugueses, C‑64/16—. ABSTRACT: The Judgment of the Court of Justice of March 21, 2000, Gabalfrisa, accumulated cases C-110/98 to C-147/98, considered that Spanish Administrative Tax Courts fulfilled the requirements to be treated as «courts or tribunals» for the purpose of being able to raise questions for a preliminary ruling, ignoring the conclusions of Advocate General Saggio, who denied the contradictory nature of the procedure and, furthermore, their independence. On the other hand, the recent judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of January 21, 2020, Banco de Santander, C-274/14, refuses to consider the Spanish Administrative Tax Courts as a judicial body, since they are not presumed to be independent. The modification of doctrine is explained by the changes produced both at the level of the European Union and at the level of Spanish domestic law, and, specifically, by the jurisprudential evolution produced at the Court of Justice summarized in its judgment of February 27, 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes portugueses, C 64/16. RESUMEN: La Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 21 de marzo de 2000, Gabalfrisa, asuntos acumulados C-110/98 a C-147/98, consideró que los Tribunales económico-administrativos cumplen con los requisitos para ser considerados «órganos jurisdiccionales» a los efectos de poder plantear cuestiones prejudiciales, desoyendo las Conclusiones del Abogado General Saggio, quien negaba el carácter contradictorio del procedimiento y, asimismo, su independencia. En cambio, la reciente sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Gran Sala) de 21 de enero de 2020, Banco de Santander, C-274/14, rechaza considerar al Tribunal Económico Administrativo de órgano jurisdiccional, dado que no es independiente. La modificación producida se explica por los cambios tanto a nivel de la Unión Europea como a nivel del derecho interno español, y, asimismo, por la evolución jurisprudencial producida, que ha sido resumida por el Tribunal de Justicia en su sentencia de 27 de febrero de 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes portugueses, C‑64/16.


Bioethica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Αλεξάνδρα Κοζαμάνη (Alexandra Kozamani)

Euthanasia is one of the issues that bioethics deals with, which is one of the outmost importance. Furthermore it is very up-to-date. In Greece and in most countries of the European Union euthanasia has not been subject to specialized legislation. It is only occasionally debated, resulting in tension and conflict. On one hand, people have the right to self determination, so the end of life should be among them. On the other hand, life is considered to be of the highest value and it is the duty of healthcare personnel to guard and preserve it by any means, using their expertise and knowledge.In this paper, a brief report is made to the practices used across countries in the European Union regarding the end of life. Most countries are opposed to euthanasia while acknowledging the right of a patient to refuse or receive treatment. Only three countries have passed bills that legalize euthanasia under strict conditions. The rest, due to sensitivity in this matter, have not yet proceeded in reforming their laws accordingly. It seems that society does not have the necessary reassurances so that they can engulf that issue guarding the true will of a person.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 99-109
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Heredia Yzquierdo

The Shariʿa Law has a comprehensive vision of all human activities, including commerce. The peculiarities of the commercial legal system that derives from the legal principles of Shariʿa emanates from the concepts of forbidden or Haram and permissible or Halal. These principles are applied today to breakthrough commercial developments such as the Blockchain/Digital Ledger Technologies. On the other hand, there is a growing debate about the possibility of the application of Shariʿa Law in the Member States of the European Union, either for social reasons or for commercial reasons. The controversy and opportunities created in the smallest State of the Union, Malta, serves as a sample.


Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima

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.


Author(s):  
Armağan Gözkaman

The European Community/Union has always been a controversial issue in the UK. At present, the probability of an in-or-out referendum makes it all the more divisive. Eurosceptics see a brighter future for their country outside the union both in political and economic terms. Pro-Europeans, on the other hand, maintain that British membership brings up benefits that outweigh the costs. Both sides have their arguments. The former seek success through social mobilizations and debates. The latter believe that the anti-EU stance may be costly in economic and political terms. Hence, the public must be convinced before the referendum – if it ever takes place.


2006 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 12-14
Author(s):  
Stefan Fersterer

If European people are asked to answer the question, “Which of your different identities has the highest rank in your personal sense: the local, the national or the European?”, a high percentage rate would definitely still report to the two former and only a minority would define themselves primarily as an European citizen. This is no surprise. On the one hand, one defines its identity through that origin, with which he or she has the strongest relation. On the other hand it is extremely difficult for a huge and often aloof entity like the European Union to develop a common European identity that evokes those impressions and sentiments that people combine with their familiar environment.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.


Author(s):  
Jakub Kraciuk

The aim of the study was to show the state of food security in European Union countries and defines the basic factors determining the level of this security. There is a large disproportion in the state of food security between individual European Union countries, especially between old and new EU countries. It was determined that in the analyzed years average prices of products and their quality deteriorated in the countries of the European Union. The unfavorable changes that have taken place were not too great. On the other hand, the average indicator for the analyzed countries regarding access to food has clearly improved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document