Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH und ihr Einfluss auf die nationalen Privatrechtsordnungen

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Carlos Iii

The final decision on the interpretation of Union law rests with the European Court of Justice. Such a ruling oftentimes affects national legal systems. Within the framework of a preliminary ruling procedure, the ECJ often has to decide on the interpretation of directives that are relevant for national private law. The consequence of such a decision is usually a change in the legal situation in the member states. This change in national private law can take place in many different ways. The possible consequences range from changes in the rulings of national courts to changes in member states' laws. This volume illustrates, by way of example, that and how the case law of the European Court of Justice has affected various areas of Spanish and German private law (e.g. sales law, general terms and conditions law and competition law). With contributions by Tatiana Arroyo Vendrell (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Markus Artz (Universität Bielefeld), Beate Gsell (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München), Carmen Jerez Delgado (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Johann Kindl (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster), Julia Ludwigkeit (Universität Bielefeld), Natalia Mato Pacín (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), David Ramos Munoz (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Reiner Schulze (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster)

Mail-Order Trade in Medicines in Europe — A Guide for Legislators to Protect Consumers

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels-J. Seeberg-Elverfeldt
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mail Order ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Safety Standards ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Prescription Medicines

AbstractThis article discusses mail-order trade in medicines. It explains why this trade has developed and why there is a need for strict safety standards. The European Court of Justice obliged member states to allow such trade in non prescription medicines but did not specify any safety standards. The 2007 resolution of the Council of Europe lays these down precisely. An analysis of the legal situation in the 30 EU and EEA states shows that they increasingly permit this trade. However, there are considerable deficits as regards the necessary safety standards. To protect consumers from illegal medicine sales via the internet, they should be able to easily identify legal products online. Legislators should act accordingly.

scholarly journals Transformation of the European arrest warrant in light of protection of the rights of extradited individuals

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Kamila Danilovna Shaibakova
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

The subject of this research is the norms of international legal acts, legislations of the EU member-states, decisions of foreign national courts, as well as decisions of the European Court on Human Rights and European Court of Justice. A hypothesis is advanced that within the framework of the European arrest warrant there are new trends associated namely with the desire to strengthen the system of protection of rights of the extradited individuals, which can negatively affect functionality of the procedure as a whole. Thus, a number of cases of the national courts (for example Artur Celmer case) and Court of the European Union (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru case), as well as provisions of the constitutional courts lead to the fact that the principle of mutual recognition of court decision is used with caution. The article examines the case law of national courts of the EU member-states, as well as practice of the European Court of Justice and European arrest warrant. The author compared the decisions of the aforementioned courts for confirming the hypothesis that the protection of extradited individuals plays a significant role in the context of operation of the European arrest warrant. The intention to provide legal guarantees to individuals extradited in the context of the European arrest warrant, which loses its main influence; particularly the procedure is interrupted due to absence of guarantees of protection of rights in case of extradition, as well as raises doubt towards judicial systems and their decisions of some EU member-states brought forth by political actions of these countries. Moreover, protection of rights and guarantee of fair trial increases.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

Does the Codification of the Principle of Supremacy Matter?

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 57-79
Author(s):  
Per Cramér
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Institutions ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law

A little more than four decades ago, the European Court of Justice declared that the law of the European Communities constitutes the supreme law of the Member States. The national institutions, most importantly the national courts, were to apply rules of Community law and, in so doing, were required to set aside conflicting provisions of national law, however framed. Since then, this judicially formulated constitutional principle has been developed and restated in later judgments by the ECJ. However, during the same period the absolute character of the principle has been continually challenged by the Member States.

Standards for Independent Oversight

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
Digital Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Point Of Departure

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice: What are the Limits of its Exclusive Jurisdiction?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Lock
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Discussion

The article explores the limits of the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction by addressing two main issues: firstly, whether there are exceptions to that exclusivity, such as the application of the CILFIT case law or the exclusion of Community law from the dispute. Secondly, it asks whether other international courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction over a case. The article commences by briefly discussing the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction as it was established in Opinion 1/91 and the Mox Plant-Case and draws conclusions from this case law. It then addresses the above-mentioned points and comes to the conclusion that there are generally no exceptions to the ECJ's exclusive jurisdiction and that the only option open to Member States is to exclude Community law from a dispute (and even that option is subject to limitations). Furthermore, after exploring several routes advanced in the academic discussion, the article comes to the conclusion that other courts must respect the ECJ's jurisdiction and as a consequence declare the case inadmissible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document