Achmea and the Implications for Challenge Proceedings before National Courts

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-166
Author(s):  
David Sandberg ◽  
Jacob Rosell Svensson
Keyword(s):  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Almost two years have passed since the CJEU delivered its ruling in the Achmea case. Since then, the topic of intra- EU investment arbitration has been frequently debated by academics and practitioners. However, only two national courts in EU Member States have rendered judgments in which the CJEU’S findings in Achmea have been subject to interpretation; the German Bundesgerichtsh of (BGH) which set aside the arbitral award between Slovakia and Achmea B.V., and the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal which dismissed the challenge of the arbitral awards between Poland and pl Holdings. This article examines the interpretation of the CJEU’S judgment in Achmea by the BGH and the Svea Court of Appeal, focusing on the reasoning of the latter. The article seeks to explain the different outcomes in light of, in particular, differences in Slovakia’s and Poland’s respective conduct during the arbitral proceeding, and differences between German and Swedish law. This article argues that the Svea Court of Appeal’s approach was fully reconcilable with the BGH’S judgment as well as EU law as interpreted by the cjeu in Achmea.

scholarly journals European law, national law and (un)certainty of law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-177
Author(s):  
Gian Benacchio
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
Radical Shift ◽  
The Eu

One of the fundamental values of any legal system is the principle of certainty of law, whose highest expression is its encoding in the various bodies of law. However, today this value is strongly, albeit inadvertently, called into question by the European Union - in particular, by a set of principles, and related mechanisms, designed to ensure uniformity of law across the EU Member States. These include the principle of primacy of EU law over the laws of its Member States, the principle of the disapplication of national laws that are incompatible with EU law (including the provisions of directives that have not yet been implemented, or that have implemented in a manner deemed incorrect), the principle of interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law and, above all, the conclusive and binding effect of the judgments of the EU Court of Justice even when they provide a 'unique' or unusual interpretation, not expressly provided for in EU law. These principles are now well-established benchmarks in supreme and national courts as well, to the extent that there has been a radical shift in the system and hierarchy of sources of law in each legal system of the EU Member States, at the expense of citizens, businesspeople and legal practitioners, who all find it hard to identify the exact rule to apply to specific cases.

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.

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

Higher Education, Equal Access, and Residence Conditions: Does EU Law Allow Member States to Charge Higher Fees to Students Not Previously Resident?

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth Davies
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Financial Benefit ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Eu

This article looks at the law and policy issues surrounding the practice of charging uniform fees for higher education to home students and students coming from other EU Member States. It begins with the observation that within the EU such fees are heavily subsidised by governments and therefore amount to a financial benefit (or a disguised grant) to students. In the light of this, this article suggests that restricting that subsidy to students resident prior to their studies would be not only compatible with recent case law on non-discrimination but would also fit better with the underlying logic of free movement, which denies any right to benefits for non-economic recent migrants. Secondly, it looks at the policy, and finds that while equal fees have a number of very positive social effects, they also carry moral and economic risks. A better approach, less distorting of the market for higher education and more consistent with the wider EU approach to welfare migration, might be to require exportability of subsidies from the student's state of origin.

scholarly journals Sudska zaštita prava potrošača 

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 535-570
Author(s):  
Paula Poretti
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Member States ◽  
Protection Policy ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Protection

<span>At EU level, discussions on the future direction of development of consumer protection policy revolve around the open question of efficiency of mechanisms for protection and realisation of consumer rights in national legal systems of EU Member States. Measures and activities of the EU legislator resulted in ‘competing’ mechanisms, which objectively creates a need for examination of the extent to which their functions overlap as well as if it is possible to detect the (most) appropriate way for protection of consumer rights. The analysis in the paper starts from the presumption that the consumer protection policy was developed within the measures aimed at integration of the Single Market and harmonization of consumer laws, on the one side and the recognized need of consumer protection as a social and political goal, on the other side. In this sense, the main point discussed in the paper is whether the recent development in the field of consumer protection, including the recent judgments of the European court could be interpreted as a reflection of the notion that the efficient judicial protection of (individual) consumer rights is (yet) again a priority at EU level. In the first part of the paper the development and application of mechanisms which represent a certain kind of alternative to the judicial consumer protection will be presented. In the second part of the paper, we will consider if the all the more present focus on judicial protection of consumer rights at EU level is an indication of a ‘successful experiment which resulted in unexpected outcome’. The required argumentation will be provided through monitoring of the trend of ‘proceduralization’ or ‘europeanisation’ of the national consumer law in the jurisprudence of the European court. The effect of Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its requirement of efficient protection of procedural rights of individuals before national courts of EU Member States will be analysed in detail. At the same time, the recent activities of the European Commission directed at court proceedings before national courts and removal of barriers in their work in the field of consumer protection will be taken into account.</span>

scholarly journals How Far Is It from Warsaw to Luxembourg and Karlsruhe: The Impact of the PSPP Judgment on Poland

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 1104-1115
Author(s):  
Stanisław Biernat
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Impact

AbstractA concern was voiced in commentaries after the PSPP judgment that the BVerfG’s position regarding the refusal to apply in Germany the CJEU judgment as issued on an ultra vires basis might be used in EU Member States infringing the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary in particular. This issue is presented in relation to Poland. The article sets out the constitutional provisions which proclaim openness to European integration, as well as the union-friendly case-law of the Constitutional Tribunal (CT) until 2016. The CT jurisprudence at that time provided, however, for the possibility of refusing to apply EU law in exceptional situations, even though this never happened. Next, the article discusses endeavors of the new Polish authorities since the end of 2015 which drastically breach the rule of law in the field of the judiciary, as well as the measures taken by EU institutions to counteract these adverse phenomena. The Polish authorities argue that the competence to define the legal position of the judiciary has not been conferred on the Union and remains within the exclusive competence of the Member States. Such a stance was also taken by the politically dependent CT in April 2020. The PSPP judgment was therefore welcomed with joy by Polish politicians. There are major differences, however, between the rulings of the BVerfG and those of the Polish CT in its current composition, and the hopes pinned on the PSPP judgment by the Polish authorities are unfounded.

Disclosure rules in eu public procurement: Balancing between competition and transparency

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsi-Maria Halonen
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
Procurement Procedure ◽  
The Eu

The paper examines the disclosure of information within public contract awards under EU law. EU Public Procurement rules have several objectives that may at some times be conflicting with each other. A certain level of transparency of public procurement procedure is necessary in order to fight corruption, enhance trade opportunities and ensure effective legal remedies. On the other hand, too much transparency may have certain anti-competitive effects. The national laws regarding disclosure of information vary in different EU member states. In Finland the EU law principle of effective remedies has been interpreted as requiring full transparency among the bidders. The transparency rules under EU law and certain Member States' national laws are analysed. As a conclusion, it is suggested that the rules on disclosure should not be left solely to the discretion of member states as the over-transparent approach taken by certain member states may negatively affect the markets both on a national and EU level.

scholarly journals Joined Cases A. K. v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (C-585/18) and CP (C-624/18), DO (C-625/18) v. Sąd Najwyższy (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-486
Author(s):  
Joelle Grogan
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Standard ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
National Measure ◽  
The Eu

Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, and C-625/18 concerning the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) is the latest in a series of European Union (EU) Member States requesting the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to rule on the independence of their judicial systems. While the organization of justice systems within Member States is a competence of Member States (and thus not for the EU to determine or decide), the CJEU has held that Member States are nevertheless required to comply with obligations under EU law to ensure effective judicial protection and, as a necessary corollary, judicial independence. The significance of the current case lies in the formulation by the CJEU of a “European” standard of judicial independence, and its finding that national judges may set aside the jurisdiction of courts found not to be independent against that standard and to disapply any national measure (in accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law) that gives jurisdiction to a non-independent court.

scholarly journals National Law or EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-191
Author(s):  
Georgi Mihaylov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Respective State ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article examines cases of conflict between the national law of the EU Member States and European Union Law. There is an analysis of the legal advantage of EU law over national law or vice versa. Conclusions have been drawn that the national law should maintain its advantage when the reason for it is contained in the Constitution of the respective state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document