scholarly journals Evaluation of Pre-accession State Aid in the Energy Sector. Case Comment to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2015 Electrabel SA, Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. v European Commission (Case C-357/14 P)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 299-315
Author(s):  
Tihamér Tóth
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Eu Accession ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
One Year

The European Commission decided in 2008 that Hungary provided State aid through a set of Power Purchase Agreements1. Electrabel SA (hereinafter, Electrabel) and Dunamenti Erőmű Zrt. (hereinafter, Dunamenti Erőmű) brought an action for annulment against this decision that was dismissed by the General Court in 2014. One year later, the Court of Justice confirmed the first instance ruling, even though Advocate General Wathelet was of the opinion that the contested judgment should be set aside. According to the Advocate General (hereinafter, AG), the case raised three difficult issues: (i) is the relevant date for the assessment of the existence of the aid the date on which the measure was implemented (well before Hungary’s EU accession) or the date of the accession; (ii) should the date of accession be the relevant date, do facts prior to that date have to be included in the assessment of the existence of State aid, and (iii) which company should repay the aid granted.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 2 Direct Actions and Judicial Review before the Union Courts

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Subject

This chapter addresses access to justice in the context of centralized enforcement of EU State aid law and judicial review before the Union courts. The subject matter of litigation is State aid measures adopted in particular by the European Commission as the main supervisory body in this field pursuant to Article 108 TFEU. The term ‘access to justice’ is meant to comprise both the various conditions of standing for bringing direct actions against such measures before the General Court (GC), which essentially comprise actions for annulment (Article 263 TFEU), actions for failure to act (Article 265 TFEU), and actions for damages (Article 268 in combination with Article 340(2) TFEU). The chapter also looks at the nature and the types of acts that are possibly subject to judicial review before the GC.

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on ‘judicial authority’ and issuing European arrest warrants

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.

The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
One Year ◽  
United Nations Charter

On August 2, 1946, the United States Senate approved the Morse resolution by the overwhelming vote of 62-2, thereby giving its advice and consent to the acceptance on the part of the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the same Senate which, just one year and one week earlier, had cast a vote of 89-2 in favor of the United Nations Charter. On August 26 Herschel Johnson, acting United States representative on the Security Council, deposited President Truman’s declaration of adherence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At long last the United States assumed far-reaching obligations to submit its legal disputes to an international court.

TAX PLANNING AND STATE AID UNDER THE EUROPEAN LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 228-232
Author(s):  
Aygun Gunduz Guliyeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
State Aid ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

There is a strong link between funding criteria from government sources and the advantage and selectivity associated with classifying an event as government assistance. However, the selectivity criterion is very important when considering whether there is a banned state aid. Finally, the European Court of Justice no longer applies the rule of law and exclusion to selectivity. Instead, the selectivity review consists of two parts: whether a precaution is selective and whether preference is necessary and proportionate. Key words: EU, tax, tax avoidance, state aid, tax planning, competition

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.

After Kalanke and Marschall: Affirming Affirmative Action

1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Fredman
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Affirmative Action Policy ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Action Case

Is it legitimate to use discriminatory policies to achieve equality? As official support for reverse discrimination or affirmative action policies becomes more common among member states of the European Union, so does the potential for legal challenge. Yet no clear answer has yet been given by the European Court of Justice. The controversial European Court of Justice decision in Kalanke, striking down an affirmative action policy, was followed only two years later by that in Marschall, which signalled a significant change in approach to affirmative action policies. This change of attitude is likely to be tested in a variety of different ways in the near future. The next affirmative action case, Badeck, is now awaiting the opinion of the Advocate General, and a Swedish case is waiting in the wings. Both these cases are likely to take the Court into far stormier waters than those already traversed in Kalanke and Marschall.

scholarly journals Grading AG Szpunar's Opinion in Case C-18/18 – A Caution against Worldwide Content Blocking as Default

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Svantesson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Related Case ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Geographical Scope ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 4th of June 2019, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-18/18 between Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek (an Austrian politician) and Facebook Ireland Limited. The politician had sought to have certain current and future content – argued to be defamatory – blocked by Facebook with worldwide effect. This is arguably the most important Internet speech-related case currently before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and will doubtlessly influence court reasoning far beyond Europe.This Comment analyses AG Szpunar’s interesting, but problematic, Opinion with particular emphasis on his reasoning in relation to the question of scope of jurisdiction; that is, what is the appropriate geographical scope of orders in these circumstances, rendered by a court that has personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document