A quest for consistency in the law of commercial agency. Loss of the right to remuneration in Polish and European law

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Piotr Sitnik

In a recent judgment in ERGO Poist’ovňa, a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková, the Court of Justice of the European Union attempted to clarify the ambit of Article 11 of Council Directive of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, that is the circumstances where a commercial agent’s right to remuneration may be extinguished should a negotiated transaction not be executed between the principal and the client. Notably, the Court held that in the event of even partial non-execution of a negotiated contract between the principal and the third party client, provided it happened due to no fault on the part of the principal, the agent’s right to commission is proportionately extinguished. The paper discusses the judgment in the light of previous CJEU case law and the Polish transposition of the said European standards with a view to finding any potential divergences between the two. The paper notes two problems. First, Polish law, as opposed to Slovak law, does not recognize an automatic termination of an insurance contract in the event of default on the part of the customer. Conversely, whether such an effect eventuates is left to contractual discretion of the parties. Second, Polish courts have been recently willing to substitute unjust enrichment for contractual liability even where, it appears, complainants have valid claims under Article 7614 of the Civil Code.

Author(s):  
Yurii Kapitsa

Kapitsa Y. Unregistered industrial design: protection in the European Union and the problem of trolling in Ukraine. The article considers a new provisions concerning unregistered industrial design (hereinafter — UD), introduced by the Law of Ukraine № 815-IX of 21.07.2020.There is an incomplete reflection in the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine and in the adopted Law of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs, in particular the lack of implementation of Art. 85 (2) of the Regulation concerning the conditions under which courts consider UD to be valid; and the rulings of the Court of Justice that the right holder must provide evidence that the UD was copied by a third party, Case C-345/13 etc.This may result in trolling in Ukraine with the use of UD to prohibit the use of known products or products created independently, bypassing trademarks.It is actual to:• provide amendments to the Law of Ukraine «On protection of rights to industrial designs» concerning the provisions of Art. 85 (2) of Regulation № 6/2002 and the case law of the Court of Justice;• extend the competence of the Appeals Chamber to cases concerning the recognition of UD as invalid;• amend the Law as well Art. 139, 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine and Art. 151, 153 of the Economic and Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the provisions of Art. 50 TRIPS which stipulates that judicial authorities shall have the authority to require the applicant to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is the right holder and that the applicant’s right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent.There is a danger of partial approximation not to the whole EU acquis governing the protection of relevant IP rights which may result in the difficulty of applying implemented provisions of EU acts and developing national case law which could contradict EU case law.Key words: unregistered industrial design, protection of intellectual property rights, approximation of legislation, trolling


Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reingard Zimmer

A number of countries worldwide provide for a statutory minimum wage. Generally speaking, however, it is not a living wage, although the right to a living wage is guaranteed in a variety of agreements under both international and European law. The Council of Europe’s European Social Charter (ESC), for example, codifies a living wage and, according to the case-law of its supervisory body, the level of 60 per cent of the net average wage is to be taken as the basis for appropriate remuneration. This article argues that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also incorporates the right to a living wage, which should be at least 60 per cent of the net average wage. The Charter is legally binding for EU institutions, agencies and other bodies. Member States are bound only to the extent that the material scope of the relevant EU laws has been opened, which is the case when EU law is implemented or when obligations arising out of specific Union legislation are required for the relevant subject area, as will be explained in the article. In purely national situations nevertheless, values laid down in international law have to be observed when interpreting national laws.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Verica Trstenjak

Since its formation in 1950s as the economic community, the EU has created the monetary union and is increasingly evolving also into a political union – part of which is also a union or Europe of citizens. This article explores the development and the existing EU legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Union citizenship. The article emphasises the importance of the case law of the CJEU for the development of this concept, focusing especially on the case law pertaining to access to social security benefits in another Member State, the rights of students, tax relief, and personal rights such as the right to write a name in a certain way and the right to family life. Case law of the CJEU has, inter alia, confirmed that even economically inactive Union citizens lawfully residing in another Member State have a right to access to social benefits under the same conditions as the Member State’s own nationals. The concept of the Union citizenship is of key importance in the development of EU law, as it expands the scope of the applicability of the provisions on free movement of persons and other fundamental freedoms. New challenges and questions linked to Union citizenship are arising over time, which should also be regulated at the EU level in the future. Therefore, further development of this concept can still be expected in the EU.


2019 ◽  
pp. 165-171
Author(s):  
Sergii Shkliar ◽  
Olha Bulaieva

Purpose. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the main changes introduced by the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition”. Methods. Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” proposes the implementation of several novelties. Among them are: the restriction for the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine by certain time limits for considering cases; possibility of extension of the term for consideration of cases by decision of the Committee’s State Commissioner or head of a territorial office; renewal of deadlines for consideration of cases where the respondent is replaced or a co-respondent is involved; provision for the consequences of missing the deadlines for considering cases and also the mechanism of consultations during the consideration of a case, which may be appointed either on the initiative of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or on the motion of interested persons. Results. The abovementioned amendments will influence the existing system of economic competition protection in a serious way. Among the changes are: – the fine for delayed payment of a fine imposed by the Antimonopoly Committees of Ukraine decision on violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition is cancelled; – the member of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine who conducted or organized an investigation is deprived of the right to vote in the process of decision-making in the respective case; – the procedure for holding hearings is defined; – recusals and self-recusals are envisaged for the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine officers; – the grounds for acquiring the third-party status in a case are changed; – the rights of persons involved in the case are specified and expanded. An important remark of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” is that a person that is exempted from liability or whose fine is reduced shall still be liable for damage caused by the violation to other persons. Conclusions. As a result, Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Some Laws of Ukraine ensuring the principles of procedural justice and increasing the efficiency of proceedings in cases of violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition” is expected to become an important step forward in increasing the effectiveness of investigations into violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition. It can also be regarded as the next step to harmonize Ukrainian legislation with the European Union acquis.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-17
Author(s):  
Réka Friedery

Family reunification is defined by primary and secondary EU law and by the case law of the CJEU. The cornerstones are the Charter of Fundamental Rights encompasses the principle of the respect of family life and the fundamental European standards for family reunification of third-state nationals are based in the Council Directive on the Right to Family Reunification. The EU directive explicitly confirms among others that family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. The article analyses the way the jurisdiction of the CJEU widens the notion of family reunification and how it offers more realistic picture for the growing importance of family reunification.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Darius-Dennis Pătrăuș

The non bis in idem principle was first established in the Hammurabi Code (2,500 BC), under the name of res judicata pro veritate habetur.According to the non bis in idem principle, "no one is allowed to be summoned again in court or punished in another criminal case for the same criminal offense for which he has already been convicted or acquitted under the law of a state". The non bis in idem principle has a broad field of application in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.The harmonization of Member States' laws and the abolition of borders at EU level created the premises for the widespread application of the non bis in idem principle.For this reason, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been charged with interpreting the rule, namely the non bis in idem principle, as regulated in art. 54 CISA.At the present stage of regulation, an interpretation contrary to the non bis in idem principle would be likely to erode the right and affect international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mazur

The author verifies the hypothesis concerning the possibility of using algorithms – applied in automated decision making in public sector – as information which is subject to the law governing the right to access information or the right to access official documents in European law. She discusses problems caused by the approach to these laws in the European Union, as well as lack of conformity of the jurisprudence between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.


Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati

This chapter discusses one of the most relevant developments in respect of online intermediaries, that is their direct (primary)—rather than just secondary—liability in relation to user activities, including user-uploaded content. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has expressly envisaged the possibility of direct liability for copyright infringement in the context of its increasingly expansive case law on the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29, including the 2017 decision in C-610/15 Stichting Brein (The Pirate Bay case). This chapter explains how the CJEU has come to consider the possibility of direct liability of intermediaries in relation to user activities and undertakes a reflection on the implications of said approach, also including the possibility of extending the reasoning in Stichting Brein to less egregious scenarios than the Pirate Bay.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Panara

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the regions. It argues that there is a discrepancy between the progressive framing of a ‘Europe with the regions’ in the political sphere and the limited impact of the Court in this field. This discrepancy does not emerge everywhere, nor does it emerge with the same intensity in all sectors. Indeed, in a number of areas, the CJEU has acknowledged the role and responsibilities of the regions. Examples include the right/duty of the regions to implement EU obligations, the protection of regional languages, as well as the ‘sufficient autonomy’ test developed by the CJEU in relation to state aid. There is no ‘ideological opposition’ of the CJEU to an increasing ‘regionalisation’ of the EU. There are, however, structural hindrances that prevent the Court from promoting further advancements of the status of the regions in the European edifice, particularly as regards their participation in EU processes. Since the EU remains a ‘union of states’, the ‘Europe with the regions’ has developed so far, and is likely to continue to develop, via advancements reflected in policy-making practices, soft-law arrangements and Treaty amendments rather than via the ‘judge-made federalism’ of the Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document