Centre of Main Interest (otherwise known as COMI) with Regard to the Existing Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

2019 ◽  
pp. 196-210
Author(s):  
Lucia Gandžalová ◽  
Nikola Pacalajová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Main Interest ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Centre Of Main Interest

The centre of main interests is the key concept of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings. Its significance lies in the fact that this concept constitutes the sole determinant for establishing international jurisdiction for the opening of the main insolvency proceedings. The paper deals with the analysis of the concept of COMI, including the presentation of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

scholarly journals Zdolność rejestrowa zapachowych znaków towarowych przed i po wprowadzeniu dyrektywy 2015/2436. Zmiana w praktyce czy jedynie w teorii?

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 319
Author(s):  
Barbara Pietrzyk-Tobiasz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Marketing Strategies ◽  
Graphic Representation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Before And After

<p>Smells are an unusual way of communication, allowing not only for the creation of associations in the minds of the recipients, but also for evoking certain emotions. Therefore, they are used in marketing strategies and they may become trade marks. Unfortunately, until the adoption of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, these signs were, in principle, excluded from registration. This was due to their inability to meet the requirement of graphic representation as understood by the criteria established by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. However, under this Directive, this requirement was abolished and replaced by the criterion of so-called representativeness of the sign. The purpose of this article is to present olfactory marks from both a marketing perspective and the admissibility of their registration, as well as to analyze the practice of registering them before and after the adoption of Directive 2015/2436.</p>

CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON MARKET ABUSE AT EUROPEAN LEVEL

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 294-313
Author(s):  
LIBOR KLIMEK ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
Court Of Justice

A set of legislative instruments regulating market abuse have been adopted by the European Union. The principal contemporary legislative instrument in this field, addressed to its Member States, is the Regulation No 596/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council on market abuse. Legislation has been supplemented by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities). It is a key element for the development of legal practice in all Member States of the European Union. The assessment of case-law on market abuse is therefore needed. The paper analyses relevant cases. In each case at the outset a reference for a preliminary ruling is mentioned. Further, dispute in the main proceedings and the question(s) referred for a preliminary ruling are analysed. The most important parts of analyses are considerations by the Court of Justice and its rulings

scholarly journals Podstawa traktatowa przyjmowania aktów prawa pochodnego z dziedziny środowiska i energii w prawie UE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Przemysław Siwor
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emission ◽  
Emission Trading ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Secondary Importance ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Procedure

Despite the considerable volume of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law on Treaty basis for secondary legislation, the claim that any doubts concerning the choice of the Treaty basis for secondary legislation in the area of environment and energy in the EU law have been clarified is incorrect. On several occasions, the choice of the proper legal basis for such a legal act gave rise to serious doubts. It was unclear whether the subject matter of the act determined the application of Article 192(1) TFEU (ordinary legislative procedure) or Article 192(2), first paragraph of the TFEU (special legislative procedure). The aim of this article is to analyse the control criteria for the check of the Treaty basis for secondary legislation in the area of environment and energy conducted by the CJEU. This issue is considered in a broader context of the Treaty provisions, practice and the CJEU case law. The utmost attention is given to the judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued on 21 June 2018 in the case C-5/16, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, where the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the Decision (EU) 2015/1814 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and amending Directive 2003/87/EC. The Author of the article comes to the conclusion that the Court, when reviewing the choice of the Treaty basis for a legal act, considers mainly its purpose and content, while the likely impact is of secondary importance. According to the Author, the judgement of the Court in the case C-5/16, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union is likely to impede the application of Article 192(2)(c) TFEU (special legislative procedure) as a proper legal basis for legal acts in the area of environment which may affect a Member State’s energy mix.

Recent Developments in European Private International Law under Case Law of the Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 315-335
Author(s):  
Miroslav Slašťan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Subject

Within the context of the subject of the Private International Law Section, the contribution identifies selected recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which indicate further developments in this area of law. The contribution will focus on the provisions for determining international jurisdiction as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions.

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.

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

From ‘Don’t Mention the Titanium Dioxide Judgment’ to ‘I Mentioned it Once, But I Think I Got Away with it All Right’: Reflections on the Choice of Legal Basis in EU External Relations after the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures Judgment

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 537-562
Author(s):  
Geert de Baere
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Titanium Dioxide ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Restrictive Measures

Abstract This chapter examines the choice of legal basis in EU external relations post-Lisbon in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Legal Basis for Restrictive Measures case. Before reaching the conclusion that the regulation at issue there was rightly based on Article 215(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and rejecting the European Parliament’s argument that the measure ought to have been taken on the basis of Article 75 TFEU, the Court made a number of important observations on the principles to be followed when choosing a legal basis and recalled some of its earlier case law, in particular Titanium Dioxide and its progeny. This chapter reflects upon the application of those principles in a post-Lisbon framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document