scholarly journals La precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo como foro de competencia y punto de conexión en los reglamentos europeos = The determination of the habitual place of work as jurisdiction rule and as connecting point in the European regulations

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
José Luis Iriarte Ángel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Regulations ◽  
Para Determinar ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

 Resumen: La finalidad de este trabajo es identificar y analizar los indicios que las autoridades judiciales de la Unión Europea utilizan para determinar el lugar habitual de trabajo, como foro de com­petencia judicial internacional y como punto de conexión, en los casos en que el mismo es impreciso, porque el trabajador realiza sus funciones en varios países. También se estudian los principales índices que la jurisprudencia europea ha rechazado o aquellos cuya utilidad ha matizado. El estudio es eminen­temente casuístico y se articula a través de las sentencias del TJUE y las conclusiones de los distintos Abogados Generales.Palabras clave: contrato de trabajo internacional, precisión del lugar habitual de trabajo, método indiciario, indicios empleados por la jurisprudencia, indicios matizados, indicios rechazados.Abstract: The purpose of this paper is the identification and analysis of the indicia used by the judicial authorities of the European Union to determine the habitual place of work, as forum of interna­tional jurisdiction and as connecting point, in cases where it is diffuse because the employee performs his duties in several countries. It will also be analyzed the main indicia rejected by the European Court of Justice, or those whose usefulness has been qualified. This work is mainly casuistic and it is framed through the judgments of the ECJ and the conclusions of different General Advocates.Keywords: international employment contract, accuracy of the habitual place of work, circumstan­tial method, indicia used by the Case Law, nuanced indicia, rejected indicia.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

scholarly journals The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.

scholarly journals The 346 Clause of TFEU Regulation in Different EU Member States

Teisė ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Vilius Kuzminskas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The article discloses the fixed exclusion regulation of Clause 346 in the Treaty of Function of the European Union in different EU member states. A further assessment of different relevant judicial approaches to regulation are disclosed and evaluated in accordance with the European Court of Justice case law and procurement in the defense area doctrine.

The European Union and the Territorial Scope of European Territories

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Ziller
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Overseas Territories ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper Professor Ziller addresses the intriguing question of the relationship of the European Union – which is not a state and which has no territory of its own – to the territories of EU Member States. The paper provides a survey of the overseas territories affected and the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Justice on the extent to which the provisions of the EC Treaty apply to the European territories overseas.

Treaty-making Procedures

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-100
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Historical Evolution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Important System ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides an overview of the treaty-making procedures in the European Union. It explains the historical evolution of primary law in the field and gives examples for each step under Article 218 TFEU (negotiation, signature, provisional application, and conclusion). Excerpts of European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law illustrate how these provisions are interpreted and applied in practice. The chapter also discusses the principles covering suspension and termination of EU agreements, and the ever more important system that allows the EU to contribute to the adoption of international secondary law under Article 218, paragraph 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A final section describes EU practice for adopting non-legally binding instruments and reproduces the new guidance of December 2017 issued by the Council and the Commission in this respect after the ECJ’s judgment in the case relating to the EU–Swiss Memorandum of Understanding.

11. Free movement of goods II: non-tariff barriers

2020 ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines European Union (EU) law concerning non-tariff barriers to free movement of goods. It describes member states’ attempts to influence imports and the way the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (CoJ) handled these issues. This chapter explains the provisions of the relevant legislation for non-tariff barriers, which include Articles 34, 36, and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It also analyses example cases including ‘Dassonville’, ‘Cassis de Dijon’, and post ‘Keck’ case law. It concludes with a consideration of the latest trend of cases concerning product use and residual rules.

Part A Annotated Guide, 1 History, Application, Interpretation, and Legal Sources of the Market Abuse Regulation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mock Sebastian
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Core ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Annotated Guide ◽  
European Regulations ◽  
The 1960S

This chapter presents an overview of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). The MAR is based on the competence of the Union in Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The regulation of market abuse has a long history in the Union and dates back to the 1960s. As is the case for many European regulations such as this one, the Market Abuse Regulation is directly applicable and must be interpreted by the General Court of the European Court of Justice as the court of last instance. In this regard, autonomous interpretation is the core principle for the interpretation of the Market Abuse Regulation.

The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Garrett ◽  
R. Daniel Kelemen ◽  
Heiner Schulz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Theoretic Model ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Agricultural Imports ◽  
State Liability

We develop a game theoretic model of the conditions under which the European Court of Justice can be expected to take “adverse judgments” against European Union member governments and when the governments are likely to abide by these decisions. The model generates three hypotheses. First, the greater the clarity of EU case law precedent, the lesser the likelihood that the Court will tailor its decisions to the anticipated reactions of member governments. Second, the greater the domestic costs of an ECJ ruling to a litigant government, the lesser the likelihood that the litigant government will abide by it (and hence the lesser the likelihood that the Court will make such a ruling). Third, the greater the activism of the ECJ and the larger the number of member governments adversely affected by it, the greater the likelihood that responses by litigant governments will move from individual noncompliance to coordinated retaliation through new legislation or treaty revisions. These hypotheses are tested against three broad lines of case law central to ECJ jurisprudence: bans on agricultural imports, application of principles of equal treatment of the sexes to occupational pensions, and state liability for violation of EU law. The empirical analysis supports our view that though influenced by legal precedent, the ECJ also takes into account the anticipated reactions of member governments.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document