REFUND FOR CANCELLED TRAVEL DURING THE PANDEMIC: COMMISSION DECIDES TO REFER SLOVAKIA TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Monika Jurčová ◽  
Peter Varga
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Travel Agencies ◽  
Package Travel ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Assessment Of Compliance

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to assess the conformity of the Slovak solutions with regard to refunds for cancelled travels and their conformity with EU law, i.e. the Package Travel Directive. In the article, the position is analysed of the European Commission and its reflection to Slovak legislation on refunds of travels after cancellation of the breach concerning travels by the travel agencies. Method. Legal analyses regarding the Slovak amendment of Package Travel Act and comparison of its provisions with the Package Travel Directive. Findings. In the article, the way is described as to how the Slovak legislator solved the reimbursement for cancelled travels due to pandemic situation. Also provided is the statement regarding the reasoned opinion of the European Commission that followed the adoption of the amendment of the Slovak Package Travel Act. The authors analyse compatibility of the COVID PTA Amendment with European Union law. In the article, it is described that due to time constraints set by the COVID PTA Amendment for refund because of cancelled travels, non-compliance with EU legislation had probably expired by September 2021. Research and conclusions limitations. The research was focused on EU (Package Travel Directive) and Slovak legislation (Package Travel Act) and assessment of compliance of Slovak with EU law. Practical implications. The article draws attention to the question whether some effects of the COVID PTA Amendment will persist after September 2021 provided that the topical purpose of this legislation to postpone refund for travellers has already been accomplished by setting the deadline for 14 September 2021. Secondly, it raises the question of possible damage suffered by the individuals due to the breach of EU law by the Slovak Republic. Originality. As the article is focused on the most current situation, this topic has not been discussed by other authors in other studies. The authors assume a view that makes assessment regarding legality of the Slovak amendment for Package Travel Act with EU law. Type of paper. Research paper.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea BV (C.J.E.U.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 1101-1113
Author(s):  
Jawad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
European Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty

On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v. Achmea B.V. that the arbitration agreement contained in the 1991 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic (BIT) had an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law and, thus, was incompatible with EU law. This important decision has ignited a debate on the compatibility of other arbitration agreements in both intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) with EU law.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

The European Union’s Community Method: Foundations and Evolution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youri Devuyst
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The People ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers

The objective of the Community method is to ensure that, in the making, implementing, and enforcing of European Union law and policy, (a) the general European interest is safeguarded by the independent European Commission, which is responsible for proposing new EU legislation; (b) democratic representation of the people and the Member States takes place at the level of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which together form the EU’s legislature; and (c) judicial control is secured by the European Court of Justice. The article traces the historical origins and evolution of the Community method and assesses its continuing relevance against the background of alternative ways of decision making and coordination such as “intense transgovernmentalism” or “deliberative intergovernmentalism,” in which the European Council plays the leading role.

What’s in a Name? Equal Treatment, Union Citizens and National Rules on Names and Titles

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ágoston Mohay ◽  
Norbert Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Relevant Judgment

AbstractThe construction of names and the use of nobility titles is not regulated by European Union law. Yet the Court of Justice of the EU has had to deal with such issues on various occasions where national rules on names or titles had to be contrasted with the EU law on equal treatment, Union citizenship and free movement and residence. Rules on names fall essentially within the competence of the member states, but the states have to regard EU law when exercising this competence. Our paper undertakes to analyse this issue in light of a recent relevant judgment, the Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff case, having regard also to the Court’s reasoning regarding the national constitutional identity clause [Art 4 (2)TEU]. We argue – inter alia – that the Court of Justice decided in this judgment not to favour the rights of a free-moving EU citizen (even if the judgment admittedly affects only a limited circle of individuals) and put national constitutional identity first, yet the way in which the identity clause was used by the Court is also debatable in our view.

scholarly journals Federal Proportionality Review in EU Law: Whose Rights are they Anyway?

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 303-326
Author(s):  
Darren Harvey
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

Abstract The principle of proportionality has always operated as a means of protecting individuals from excessive uses of public power. When situated alongside the principles of conferral and subsidiarity, proportionality also possesses a federal dimension. In this guise, the principle limits the intensity of EU intervention in order to protect national regulatory autonomy. This federal element of proportionality has featured in recent Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) cases. For example, Member States have challenged European Union (EU) legislation for imposing disproportionate social and economic costs in their particular States. This article considers whether individuals can similarly challenge EU legislation for disproportionately interfering with the regulatory autonomy of the Member States? Having considered this question from the perspective of US federalism, it is argued that individuals are actually articulating “Member States’ rights” in such cases. In so doing, attention is drawn to the question of whose rights and interests are really being articulated and balanced in these disputes.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice, the National Courts, and the Controversy over the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of the Constitutionality of Law in the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Roman Kwiecień
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The One

The paper addresses the issue of a judicial forum entitled to resolve conflicts between European Union law and national constitutional rules. First and foremost, the issue is discussed under the old primacy/supremacy of EU law controversy. The author seeks to answer whether the national law, including constitutional rules, of a Member State can be ineffective owing to being contradictory to EU law. If so, by whom can national laws be held ineffective? In other words, which of the two judicial fora (national and European) have the last word in these conflicts or who is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of law within the European legal space? The author argues that legal reasoning should reconcile, on the one hand, the specificity of the EU’s unique legal order and effective application of its provisions and, on the other hand, the international legal status of the Member States and their constitutions. This approach leads to the conclusion that there is no ultimate judicial arbiter within the European legal space.

The External Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 16-37
Author(s):  
Joanne Scott
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
External Influence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Global Reach

This chapter explores aspects of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law that highlight the role that this Court has played in enhancing the global reach of EU law and the influence of its own judgments abroad. It addresses two main themes. The first theme is concerned with the CJEU’s contribution in shaping the institutional arrangements established by international agreements concluded by the EU with its neighbouring countries, particularly as regards the role carved out for the CJEU within them. The CJEU has succeeded in enhancing its own role and interpretative authority within the framework of these agreements. The chapter argues that the CJEU has emerged as an agent of its own authority by jealously guarding its interpretative supremacy, as well as the autonomy of EU law. The second theme is concerned with CJEU case law addressing ‘global reach’ EU law. This includes EU law which is extraterritorial, or which gives rise to territorial extension. It also covers EU legislation, which serves as a catalyst for the ‘Brussels Effect’. It is argued that the CJEU has enhanced the external influence of EU law by interpreting broadly and upholding the lawfulness of global reach EU law. Taken together, these two themes exemplify the ways in which EU law, including CJEU judgments, can have influence in third countries. This analysis contributes to our understanding of why some judgments issued by the CJEU have proved to be particularly influential in third countries, as exemplified by the various chapters included in this volume.

10. Introduction to the European Law of Copyright and Related Rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 221-247
Author(s):  
Justine Pila ◽  
Paul L.C. Torremans
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice

This chapter introduces the European law of copyright and related rights with an overview of its basic principles. It then considers the European (EU) statutory framework governing copyright and related rights and the policy agenda of the European Commission on which it is based, including the Commission’s digital single market initiatives. The chapter then concludes with a wider discussion of the EU’s response to the challenges posed by globalization and digital technology. The picture to emerge is one of ever-growing legislative fragmentation off-set by ever-growing substantive harmonisation as a result of thirty years of active EU law- and policy-making, including a large number of policy communications and harmonizing directives, the ratification of several international agreements, and almost daily decisions from the Court of Justice.

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document