scholarly journals Quantification of Harm and the Damages Directive: Implementation in CEE Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 111-131
Author(s):  
Valentinas Mikelėnas ◽  
Rasa Zaščiurinskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Full Compensation

Quantification of harm is regarded as one of the most significant obstacles for the full compensation of harm and development of private enforcement within the European Union, including CEE Member States. Consequently, the Damages Directive establishes general rules and requirements for the quantification of harm, such as a rebuttable presumption of harm in case of cartels, the power of national courts to estimate harm as well as others, which closely interact with the principle of full compensation emphasized by the case-law of the European Union and directly established in the Damages Directive. The main focus of this paper is the effectiveness of the rules on the quantification of harm in general, and how these rules will contribute to the development of private antitrust enforcement in CEE Member States. Therefore, one of the issues to be discussed in the paper is the analysis of how, and to what extent specific rules and requirements for the quantification of harm have been transposed into the national legislation of CEE Member States. As certain CEE national jurisdictions have had certain rules for the quantification of harm already before the implementation of the Damages Directive, the paper analyses how effective these rules have been, and how much they have contributed to the development of private antitrust enforcement of those CEE national jurisdictions. Previous experience of those CEE Member States in applying specific rules for the quantification of harm is important, in order to assess the possible impact of the newly introduced rules on the quantification of harm and on private antitrust enforcement in general in other CEE Member States. The rules for the quantification of harm will not enhance private antitrust enforcement on their own, however, their effective application by national courts together with other rules under the Damages Directive should contribute to a quicker development of private enforcement in CEE Members States.

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

scholarly journals Expulsion or Imprisonment? Criminal Law Sanctions for Breaching an Entry Ban in the Light of Crimmigration Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Jim Waasdorp ◽  
Aniel Pahladsingh
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Illegal Migrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

At EU-level, the use of substantive criminal law as a response to illegal migration is materialised by both the EU legislator and the Member States individually. EU involvement in criminalizing illegal migration takes place in a twofold manner: directly, through harmonization of national legislations, and indirectly, through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). An example of the latter is the case law of the CJEU regarding criminal law sanctions for breaching an entry ban. In 2008 the EU adopted the Return Directive. This directive aims at establishing common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. To actually effectuate their return, the Return Directive provides for several instruments, inter alia, entry bans. In this article, we will analyse six judgments of the CJEU in the light of crimmigration law and make a distinction between the Member Statesʼ power to classify a breach of an entry ban as an offence and to lay down criminal law sanctions in national legislation, and their power to impose such sanctions.Key notes: Return Directive, entry ban, illegal migrant, criminal law sanctions, crimmigration, expulsion  

Reflectarea jurisprudenței Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene privind clauzele abuzive în materia executării silite în dreptul român, în special în ceea ce privește regimul contestației la executare

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2021) ◽  
pp. 208-224
Author(s):  
Mirela STANCU ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Unfair Terms

"Although the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union is commonly reflected in the practice of the national courts, unfortunately, more than ten years after Romania's accession to the European Union, there are still some syncopations at the legislative level. There are an example in that sense some of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution (contestatia la executare). Indeed, on closer examination, it appears that these provisions do not fully comply with the requirements which, according to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, must be respected by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers. The present article aims at such an examination of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure regarding the contestation against the forced execution from the perspective of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of unfair terms. Thus, after having identified from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice the requirements that must be met by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers, the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution, the stay of execution and the time limit for the contestation will be examined from the perspective of the said jurisprudence. Finally, and without claiming to be exhaustive, in this article, the author also puts forward a possible interpretation of the national provisions examined from the point of view of the case law of the Court of Justice."

scholarly journals Crafting Constitutional Identity in the Era of Migration and Financial Crises–The Case of Greece

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 1683-1702
Author(s):  
Dimitra Gamba ◽  
Dimosthenis Lentzis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Under Construction ◽  
Constitutional Identity ◽  
Of Greece ◽  
Do So

The debate on the exact meaning and content of their constitutional identity has a long history in many European countries, with national courts playing the leading role. Ten years ago, this debate was given a new boost by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), article 4 paragraph 2 of which urges the European Union to respect the constitutional identities of the Member States. The national courts in a number of Member States saw in this provision the recognition of their zealous efforts to control the ongoing expansion of EU competences and to overcome the absolute primacy of EU law over domestic constitutional law. In Greece, however, no debate on the possible use of constitutional identity as a limit to the European Union and its law had taken place—at least not until recently. Our main objective in this article is to try to explain why Greek courts, and especially the Symvoulion Epikrateias, the supreme administrative court, failed to develop and make recourse to a notion of constitutional identity, even in cases they had good reasons to do so, and to find out if—and, if yes, to what extent—the situation has changed after the outbreak of the financial and, soon after, the migration crises. The analysis of the relevant case-law will permit us to conclude that the Greek constitutional identity is currently still under construction and that it is constructed using elements from both the liberal and the exclusionist models.

scholarly journals Provisions of the Damages Directive on Limitation Periods and their Implementation in CEE Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 147-175
Author(s):  
Ana Vlahek ◽  
Klemen Podobnik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Limitation Periods

The article analyses the provisions on limitation of antitrust damages actions set out in Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union. It presents (draft) implementing legislation of CEE countries from the perspective of their general rules on limitation, and the problems the Member States have faced in the process of transposing the Directive into their national legal systems. Within that, focus is placed upon the analysis of the types of limitation periods, their length and their suspension or interruption. In addition, the authors present the effects of the new limitation regime on the balance between the interests of the claimants and of the defendants, as well as on the relation between public and private antitrust enforcement.

How to Assess the Effectiveness of the Pan-European General Principles of Good Administration

2020 ◽  
pp. 55-77
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens ◽  
Agnė Andrijauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
The Impact

This chapter discusses the approach used in this book to assess the effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration in harmonizing the domestic administrative law of the Member States of the Council of Europe with regard to the ‘limiting function’ of administrative law. It explains the criteria justifying the choice of the twenty-eight Member States included in the research and the exclusion of the others. It gives reasons why the research is not extended to the impact of these principles on the (supranational) legal order of the European Union. Finally, it explains the methods used by the national experts to assess the impact and effectiveness of the pan-European general principles of good administration in their respective legal orders, i.e. the so-called paths of reception, namely through national legislation, through administrative self-commitments, and through national case law referring to and directly applying these principles as standards of review.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-254
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is a former member state of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, i.e. the treaties; secondary legislation, including regulations and directives; and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts, or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that member states are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage. The Withdrawal Act 2018 includes the key provisions for EU law in the UK post-Brexit.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is currently a Member State of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council; the Council of the European Union; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, ie the treaties, secondary legislation, including regulations and directives, and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that Member States are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage.

scholarly journals Lower Instance National Courts and Tribunals in Member States and Their Judicial Dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Graham Butler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts’ more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court’s approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court’s broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document