Initialzündung oder Katalysator einer wettbewerbsorientierten Verkehrspolitik? Die Untätigkeitsklage und Verurteilung des Rats durch den EuGH im Mai 1985

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-266
Author(s):  
Christian HENRICH-FRANKE
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Transport Policy ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Justice condemned the EC-Council (of transport ministers) in an unprecedented process for inaction in the realisation of a common transport policy on 22nd May 1985. The Court confirmed the plaintiff’s (the European Parliament) statement of claim that the Council hadn’t met his obligation to enact a competition order, to provide freedom services in crossborder transportation and to regulate access to domestic transport markets. This contribution analyses the Court’s verdict within the context of the EC transport policy in the 1980s. This also sheds new light on the realisation of the EC internal market, especially regarding sectors like infrastructures which define fundamental conditions for market operations within the EC.

scholarly journals The Principle of Mutual Trust in EU Law and Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Mutual trust is one of the central principles of the area of freedom, security and justice and the whole EU. Despite the fact, that mutual trust is not stipulated in founding treaties, this principle has been widely developed by the European Court of Justice. The purpose of this article is to identify the legal and political components of mutual trust in the EU, as well as the approaches to its implementation. The author comes to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust originated from the internal market, however its development is mostly associated with the area of freedom, security and justice. Mutual trust in the EU presupposes that a member state does not need additional verification that another member state respects Union law and fundamental rights. Initially, the principle of mutual trust was given the absolute character, but in the post-Lisbon period, “blind trust” was replaced by the “earned trust”, which implies the possibility, in exceptional cases, to refuse mutual trust to another member state if the latter violates fundamental rights. Despite the development of the concept of mutual trust by the European Court of Justice and other EU institutions, recently there has been a serious deficit of interstate trust within the Union. In this regard, the principle of mutual trust is becoming declarative.

3. The EU’s Institutions

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Corbett ◽  
John Peterson ◽  
Daniel Kenealy
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Council ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines five of the European Union's key institutions: the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It draws analogies to these institutions' counterparts at the national level while also highlighting their distinct and unique features. It discusses the structures and formal powers of the five EU institutions and how they ‘squeeze’ influence out of their limited Treaty prerogatives. It concludes by explaining why these institutions matter in determining EU politics and policy more generally, focusing on three central themes: the extent to which the EU is an experiment in motion; the importance of power sharing and consensus; and the capacity of the EU structures to cope with the Union's expanding size and scope.

The Wall Around EU Fundamental Freedoms: the Purely Internal Rule at the Forty-Year Mark

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 153-219
Author(s):  
Amedeo Arena
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Fortieth Anniversary ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms

Abstract ‘Purely internal situations’ are sets of facts entirely confined within a single Member State. According to the ‘purely internal rule’, introduced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1979, purely internal situations lie outside the scope of the internal market fundamental freedoms and of other EU provisions having a cross-border scope. On the fortieth anniversary of the jurisprudential genesis of the purely internal rule, this article seeks to examine its origins, rationale, and evolution, by analyzing the most relevant patterns in the over 250 preliminary rulings handed down in disputes involving purely internal situations. This survey will enable an assessment of the systemic significance of the purely internal rule and of the consequences that abolishing that rule would have for the European integration process.

THE ‘BABY-DRY’ CASE: THE MODERNISATION OF TRADE MARKS?

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Jennifer Davis
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

WHEN is a monopoly not a monopoly? Following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v. Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) [2002] E.T.M.R. 3, the answer appears to be when it is a registered trade mark.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING: IF YOU MUST, YOU MAY

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Hillion
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
Member States ◽  
Tobacco Advertising ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
European Court

InGermany v. European Parliament and Council (Case C-376/98, judgment of 5 October 2000) the European Court of Justice held that Directive 98/43/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products ([1998] O.J. L 213/9), the legality of which had been challenged in various earlier cases (e.g., Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander AG et al. v. European Parliament and Council; Case C-74/99 The Queen and Secretary of State for Health ex parte Imperial Tobacco Ltd. and Others), was invalid.

Mutual Trust in Criminal Matters: the European Court of Justice gives a first interpretation of a provision of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Thwaites
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Small Extent ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters

It is common knowledge that the Internal Market is based on the notion of free movement which, in turn, rests on four basic freedoms (goods, persons, services and capital). The European Court of Justice (hereinafter “Court”) has always interpreted these freedoms broadly while construing the exceptions to these freedoms strictly. This approach was to no small extent based on a presumption of mutual trust and mutual recognition among Member States. It allowed the Court, in many cases, to ensure free movement within the Internal Market without having to await the adoption of harmonised European Community measures.

I. Constitutional Aspects

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 701-703
Author(s):  
Karl Newman ◽  
Sophie Boyron
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
First Report ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
First Time

Although these last two years have been relatively quiet in terms of institutional developments, a number of important inter-institutional agreements have been negotiated in order to facilitate the working of some of the powers granted by the Maastricht Treaty, while some other powers were used for the first time: the European Ombudsman has issued his first report, the European Parliament has set up two Committees of Inquiry. Lastly, the European Court of Justice delivered an important opinion as regards the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document