Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 25

first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  CJEU
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
EN
In the author’s view, the judgment of the FCC concerning activities of the European Central Bank regarding the primacy of EU law over national law is of significance, due into the authority of the German constitutional court. However, it does not translate directly to foreign conditions. The view expressed in the judgment is that the ultra vires doctrine forms limits to the principle of primacy of European Union law over member state law. As a result, the principle of primacy may only be binding within the scope of the European Union law. Moreover, criteria of assessment of EU’s legislative activity and ECJ’s jurisprudence are drafted from the perspective of the ultra vires doctrine.
EN
The text comments on the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment of 26 February 2015 in the case C-472/13, Andre Lawrence Shepherd v Bundesrepublik Deutschland. The judgment was delivered within the framework of the preliminary ruling procedure following the request from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München. A.L. Shephered was a former US soldier who had deserted from the US Army and applied for refugee status in Germany as he opposed further service in Iraq due to the fear of committing war crimes. The judgment commented on places itself within the growing case-law of the CJEU interpreting the secondary EU legislation in asylum policies. As such – although remaining to some extent untypical – it deserves analysis that results in identification of some shortcomings of the reasoning.
EN
The article attempts to evaluate the conclusions of the TSUE case law concerning direct taxes on the activities of multinational enterprises, in particular with regard to the implementation of the principle of freedom of establishment.
PL
W artykule podjęto próbę oceny wniosków płynących z orzecznictwa TSUE dotyczących podatków bezpośrednich dla działalności przedsiębiorstw wielonarodowych, w szczególności pod kątem realizacji zasady swobody przedsiębiorczości.
EN
This article attempts to discover the key elements of the democratic principle, as described by the judges sitting in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, whose case law reveals the underlying idea of democracy at the supranational level. Until recently the debate on democracy was limited to the national level. But things are changing, and this article shows the gradual emergence of a process led by supranational courts, in which the application of the democratic principle finds multiple grades and variations. In this way the supranational/international courts have opened a new chapter in the process of constitutionalization of international law.
EN
This article seeks to explore whether the EU system of fundamental rights protection allows room for constitutional pluralism. By looking at recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice), it is submitted that the Court has answered that question in the affirmative, thereby respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as their national identities. The application of the Charter does not rule out a cumulative application of fundamental rights. That being said, pluralism is not absolute, but must be weighed against the indivisible and universal values on which the European Union is founded. Logically, the question that arises is how we order pluralism. In this regard, I shall argue that it is not for the Court of Justice to decide when an EU uniform standard of fundamental rights protection is to replace (or coexist with) national standards. That decision is for the EU political institutions to adopt, since they enjoy the necessary democratic legitimacy to determine the circumstances under which the exercise of a fundamental right is to be limited for reasons of public interest. However, this deference to the EU political branches does not mean that EU legislative decisions are immune from judicial review. On the contrary, cases such as Schwarz and Digital Rights demonstrate that the Court of Justice is firmly committed to examining whether those legislative choices comply with primary EU law, and notably with the Charter. In this regard, when interpreting the provisions of the Charter, the Court of Justice – in dialogue with national courts and, in particular, constitutional courts – operates as the guarantor of the rule of law within the EU, of which fundamental rights are part and parcel. It is thus for those courts to make sure that each and every EU citizen enjoys a sphere of individual liberty which must, as defined by the Charter, remain free from public interferences.
EN
The text comments on the Court of Justice of the European Union judgment of 25 January 2018 in the case C-473/16, F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal. The judgment was delivered within the framework of the preliminary ruling procedure following the request from the Hungarian court - Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság. The judgment commented on places itself within the growing case-law of the CJEU interpreting the secondary EU legislation in asylum policies. The judgment refers to asylum claims related to sexual orientation and gender identity and specifically to controversial methods allowing for the assessment of one's sexual orientation in asylum procedure.
PL
Wzrastający transfer danych osobowych z Unii Europejskiej (UE) do Stanów Zjednoczonych (USA) jest konieczną i integralną częścią transatlantyckich stosunków handlowych między nimi. Dotyczy to w szczególności portali społecznościowych oraz dostawców i użytkowników usług online, w tym usług przetwarzania w chmurze i sklepów internetowych. Unieważnienie tzw. bezpiecznej przystani oraz przyjęcie ogólnego rozporządzenia o ochronie danych (RODO) stwarzają okazję do oceny ochrony prywatności w UE i USA. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiono sytuację prawną, niewygodną dla biznesu i przetwarzających dane oraz zbadano, czy istnieją alternatywne rozwiązania, które mogłyby pomóc w obecnej sytuacji.
EN
The transfer of personal data is a necessary and integral part of transatlantic trade relations between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA) since the increase of large (big) data flow from the EU to the USA. This especially applies to social networks, as well as to providers and users of online services, including cloud computing services and online shops. The Safe Harbor annulmentand and the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) create an opportunity to review the privacy protection within the EU and the US. The present article provides an overview of the legal and uncomfortable situation for businesses and data processors, and examines whether the alternative solutions may offer an escape from the current situation.
EN
The purpose of this article was not only to determine the subjective scope of the new directive on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union, but primarily to reflect on the concept of worker functioning in the EU legislation. For this purpose, the authors reviewed the occurrence of this notion in the acts of the EU legislation significant in this matter, as well as selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On this basis, the authors pointed out a number of worker's features established in the EU law, and then compared them with the premises expressed in the Polish national legislation. Moreover, the authors indicated the threat associated with different understanding of similar premises of the EU and national law.
PL
Celem artykułu jest nie tylko określenie zakresu podmiotowego nowej dyrektywy w sprawie przejrzystych i przewidywalnych warunków pracy w Unii Europejskiej, ale przede wszystkim podjęcie refleksji nad pojęciem pracownika (worker) funkcjonującym w prawodawstwie unijnym. W tym celu autorzy dokonali przeglądu występowania pojęcia pracownika na gruncie kluczowych dla tego zagadnienia aktów prawa unijnego oraz wybranych orzeczeń Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej. Na tej podstawie wskazali szereg cech, jakimi charakteryzuje się pracownik w prawie Unii, a następnie zestawili je z przesłankami występującymi w polskim ustawodawstwie krajowym. Wskazali także na niebezpieczeństwo, jakie wiąże się z odmiennym rozumieniem podobnych przesłanek występującym w prawie unijnym i krajowym.
EN
This paper explores the concept of legal translation as a Third Space through the lens of the ‘multilingual’ Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). In many ways legal translation at that Court fits readily with the characterisation of translation as a Third Space. Due to complex internal production processes the ECJ produces texts which are undoubtedly hybrid in nature, and which exhibit distinctive features on a lexical and textual level marking them out as a product of cross-fertilisation of influences from source and target languages and legal cultures. Even the teleological approach taken towards legal reasoning at the ECJ occupies a space outside the strict confines of the texts involved. Both the processes and the product of the ECJ’s language system appear to bear all the hallmarks of translation as a Third Space. However, translation at the ECJ also challenges the concept of a Third Space. The prevailing definitions of translation as a Third Space fail to effectively conceptualise additional nuances of the specific nature of drafting and the complex nature of translation at the ECJ. This paper uses original empirical data to demonstrate that translation at the ECJ places constraints on the undefined, vague and fluid nature of the Third Space, warping the forces at work within that space. In this regard, rather than an amorphous space, the Third Space is better thought of as a determinate area which is delimited by elements of translation process which constrain it. This adapted framing of the Third Space can consequently be used to better understand and illustrate the dynamics at play in other areas of legal translation where the current concept of the Third Space is equally inadequate for encompassing the specific nature of translation practices which impact on that space-in-between.
EN
Currently, we observe a tendency to digitize all information and creativity, which on the one hand affects their global availability, but on the other hand raises problems related to the protection of intellectual property and the rights of creators. Sharing copyright works over the internet is extremely simple, cost-effective and anonymous. The development of the internet and the importance of the web influenced the widespread, illegal sharing of works through it. These activities took place in the passivity and ineffectiveness of the legislator, which resulted in a “copyright crisis” – copyright no longer meets the challenges of the information society.One of the most contentious issues in the copyright doctrine is the issue of the admissibility of the institution of the exhaustion of copyright to all intangible copies of works, including e-books. The research objective of the presentation is to answer the following research question: does the resale of an e-book constitute a copyright infringement? To answer this question, it is necessary to analyze the differences between the digital and the traditional version of the publication and its market for the publishing market. The answer to this question is crucial in determining the future of access to cultural works. The considerations are based on the judgment of the CJEU C-263/18. The research method used in the work is the case study method and the monographic method.
PL
Obecnie obserwujemy tendencje do digitalizowania wszelkiej informacji i twórczości, co z jednej strony wpływa na ich globalną dostępność, ale z drugiej strony rodzi problemy związane z ochroną własności intelektualnej i praw twórców. Udostępnianie utworów za pośrednictwem internetu jest niezwykle proste, niegenerujące kosztów i anonimowe. Rozwój internetu i znaczenia sieci wpłynął na powszechne, nielegalne udostępnianie dzieł za jego pośrednictwem. Działania te odbywały się przy bierności i braku skuteczności prawodawcy, czego efektem jest „kryzys prawa autorskiego” – prawo autorskie przestało odpowiadać wyzwaniom społeczeństwa informacyjnego.Jedną z najbardziej spornych kwestii w doktrynie prawa autorskiego jest kwestia dopuszczalności instytucji wyczerpania praw autorskich do wszystkich niematerialnych kopii utworów, w tym e-booków. Celem badawczym wystąpienia jest odpowiedź na następujące pytanie badawcze: czy odsprzedaż e-booka stanowi naruszenie praw autorskich? Aby odpowiedzieć na to pytanie, należy przeanalizować różnice pomiędzy cyfrową a tradycyjną wersją publikacji w kontekście wpływu tych różnic na rynek wydawniczy. Odpowiedź na to pytanie ma kluczowe znaczenie w określeniu przyszłości dostępu do dzieł kultury. Podstawą rozważań jest wyrok TSUE C‑263/18. Metodą badawczą wykorzystaną w pracy jest metoda studium przypadku i monograficzna.
EN
The purpose of this article is to examine conflict between the rights of victims of crimes and the rights of defendants under the German and Polish justice system in the context of the case-law of European courts. The analysis covers two possible occurrences of this conflict: 1) in the cognitive sphere, including proving the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and 2) in the decision-making sphere, including initiation of a criminal applying preventive measures, and sentencing. The main thesis of the article is that in the Polish and German criminal process granting the injured parties not only protective rights, but also the status of an active trial party, the risk of this conflict in both of the above-mentioned spheres of the criminal trial is greater than, e.g., in the Anglo-Saxon process where the victim of the crime acts only as a witness. However, the research cited in the article indicates that the extensive codex procedural rights of injured parties as procedural parties (law in books) are not accompanied by their effective use in procedural practice (law in action). Therefore, the protective rights of alleged vulnerable victims, particularly victims of sexual offences, pose a greater threat to the rights of a defendant which constitute the principle of fair trial in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Considerations of this article confirm also the thesis that procedural rights of defendants still have priority over victims’ rights, which of course results from the inclusion of the former in the human rights catalog contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
PL
Celem artykułu jest zbadanie konfliktu między prawami pokrzywdzonych i oskarżonych w niemieckim i polskim systemie wymiaru sprawiedliwości na tle orzecznictwa trybunałów europejskich. Analizą objęto dwie możliwości zaistnienia powyższego konfliktu w procesie karnym: 1) w sferze poznawczej, obejmujące udowadnianie winy bądź niewinności oskarżonego, oraz 2) w sferze decyzyjnej, obejmującej wszczęcie postępowania karnego, stosowanie środków zapobiegawczych i wyrokowanie. Główna teza artykułu głosi, że przyznanie pokrzywdzonemu w polskim i niemieckim systemie wymiaru sprawiedliwości nie tylko praw ochronnych, lecz także statusu aktywnej strony procesowej, rodzi w obu wyżej wskazanych sferach procesu karnego większe ryzyko takiego konfliktu niż np. w systemie anglosaskim, gdzie ofiara przestępstwa występuje tylko jako świadek. Jednakże badania przytoczone w opracowaniu wskazują, że rozbudowanym kodeksowym uprawnieniom proceduralnym pokrzywdzonych jako stron procesowych (law in books) nie towarzyszy ich efektywne wykorzystywanie w praktyce procesowej (law in action). Dlatego też większe niebezpieczeństwo dla praw oskarżonego, składających się na zasadę rzetelnego procesu z art. 6 Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, stwarzają prawa ochronne domniemanych ofiar wrażliwych na pokrzywdzenie, szczególnie ofiar przestępstw seksualnych. Rozważania w niniejszym artykule potwierdzają także tezę, że nadal pierwszeństwo przed prawami ofiar mają prawa procesowe oskarżonych, co oczywiście wynika z wpisania tych ostatnich do katalogu praw człowieka zawartego w Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka.
PL
W glosowanym orzeczeniu Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej (TSUE) po raz pierwszy dokonał tak szerokiej wykładni art. 9 ust. 2 lit. e dyrektywy 2011/95/EU w kontekście niesformalizowanej odmowy służby wojskowej dokonanej przez młodego Syryjczyka, który uciekł z kraju pochodzenia. Autorka analizuje wpływ wyroku TSUE na funkcjonowanie gwarancji prawa do podyktowanej sumieniem odmowy odbycia służby wojskowej w ramach unijnego prawa azylowego. Stawia również dwa kluczowe pytania. Po pierwsze, czy w świetle analizowanego wyroku każdy potencjalny syryjski poborowy, realnie niepopierający rządu (nieoportunista), uchylający się od służby wojskowej, powinien uzyskać ochronę? Po drugie, czy wszyscy syryjscy poborowi wstępujący do armii poddają się in futuro automatycznemu wykluczeniu z ochrony?
EN
In the judgment in question, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for the first time ever carried out such broad interpretation of Article 9 (2) (2) (e) of Directive 2011/95/EU in the context of non-formalized refusal to perform military service by a young Syrian who escaped from his country of origin. The paper analyses the impact of the CJEU judgment on the functioning of the guarantee of the right to conscientious objection to military service within the EU asylum law. It also asks two key questions. First, in the light of the analysed judgment, should any potential Syrian conscript who in reality does not support the government (non-opportunist) and who evades military service be granted protection? Secondly, do all Syrian conscripts who join the army make themselves subject in the future to automatic exclusion from protection?
EN
The text shows impact of the EU law on the internal legal order in question sat the edge of competences of the Members States, as matters of civil status stay beyond the exclusive competences of the EU. The ECJ develops previous case-law concerning relation between the non-discrimination rule and sex-orientation in the labor matters. In the light of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, the CJEU treated the French PACS concluded by a homosexual couple at the same way as a marriage in spite of the fact that the French legislation had highly differentiated both statuses at the moment when the facts of the case took place. The provisions of “the bank collective agreement, […] under which an employee who concludes a civil solidarity pact with a person of the same sex is not allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry” create a direct discrimination in the light of the Art.2(2)(a) of Directive2000/78/EC.
EN
The article deals with the procedural consequences of a prosecutor’s decision closing criminal proceedings in the light of the application of the ne bis in idem prohibition. The analysis of the problem is carried out within two thematic areas designated by the scope of the ne bis in idem prohibition, namely in national conditions and within the framework of cooperation with the Member States of the EU. It is assumed that final prosecutor’s decisions on the termination of criminal proceedings create conditions for the ne bis in idem prohibition, when there is an attempt to re-initiate criminal proceedings against the same person for the same act. This tendency is not only characteristic of the Polish system, but is also visible in the criminal-law legislation of other EU Member States, and meets with cautious approval in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As part of the penal cooperation of EU Member States for the interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, the CJEU’s case law, in which the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions is primarily used, is of the utmost importance. The connection between the application of the rule ne bis in idem and the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions in the framework of criminal cooperation between EU Member States results from the fundamental role that this principle fulfills with regulations adopted in the Treaty on the functioning of the EU (Section: Area of Freedom, Security and Justice). The article shows that the concept of classifying the principle ne bis in idem in the Polish criminal procedural system as a negative procedural condition defined in Article 17 para. 1 item 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the optimal solution, assuming that the res iudicata effect is reserved exclusively for the assessment of court judgments. The importance of the issue of the identity of the act as one of the criteria for the application of the ne bis in idem prohibition is also duly emphasized, given the thesis, which is referred to especially in the jurisprudence of the CJEU, that in such situations it is necessary to determine whether the act to which the final judgment relates is the same as the factual basis for the investigation or inquiry in which the decision to discontinue the proceedings is to be issued without assessing the adopted legal classification of the act or the legal interest of the State.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy procesowych skutków prawomocnych decyzji prokuratora o zakończeniu postępowania karnego w konfrontacji z stosowaniem zakazu ne bis in idem. Analiza problemu przeprowadzona została w obrębie dwóch płaszczyzn tematycznych wyznaczonych zakresem obowiązywania zakazu ne bis in idem, tzn. w warunkach krajowych i w ramach współpracy z państwami członkowskimi Unii Europejskiej. W rozważaniach przyjęto, że prawomocne decyzje prokuratorskie o zakończeniu postępowania karnego stwarzają warunki do stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, gdy pojawia się próba ponownego wszczęcia postępowania karnego wobec tej samej osoby o ten sam czyn. Tendencja ta nie jest charakterystyczna wyłącznie dla systemu polskiego, ale widoczna jest także w ustawodawstwie karnoprocesowym innych państw członkowskich UE, budzi aprobatę w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej, ale ostrożną. W ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE dla wykładni art. 54 Konwencji wykonawczej do układu z Schengen pierwszoplanowe znaczenie ma orzecznictwo TSUE, w którym przede wszystkim wykorzystywana jest zasada wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych. Związek stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem z zasadą wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych w ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE wynika z fundamentalnej roli, jaką zasada ta pełni wobec regulacji przyjętych w Traktacie o funkcjonowaniu UE (Dział: Przestrzeń wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości). W artykule wykazano, że w przyjęta w polskim systemie karnoprocesowym koncepcja klasyfikowania zakazu ne bis in idem jako ujemnej przesłanki procesowej określonej w art. 17 § 1 pkt 7 Kodeksu postępowania karnego jest rozwiązaniem optymalnym przy założeniu, że skutek res iuducata systemowo zastrzeżony jest wyłącznie dla oceny orzeczeń sądowych. Zwrócono też w odpowiednim zakresie uwagę na znaczenie kwestii tożsamości czynu jako jednego z kryteriów stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, aprobując powielaną, zwłaszcza w orzecznictwie TSUE, tezę, że w zaistniałej sytuacji niezbędne jest ustalenie, czy czyn, którego dotyczy prawomocne orzeczenie, jest tożsamy z podstawą faktyczną śledztwa lub dochodzenia, w którym postanowienie o umorzeniu postępowania ma zostać wydane z pominięciem oceny przyjętej kwalifikacji prawnej czynu lub interesu prawnego państwa.
EN
In the two recent years the Court of Justice of the EU delivered a number of important judgments pertaining to legal instruments within the framework of the so-called Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters. The law of international civil procedure thus remains one of the most vividly developing spheres of the European integration. The importance of the above-mentioned ECJ preliminary rulings judgments is primordial for the Polish and European lawyers, all the more so as the Brussels Ibis ('Recast') Regulation No. 1215/2012 is set to apply as from January 2015, which naturally gives rise to the question of validity of the previous case law on the original Regulation No. 44/2001 under its amended and reviewed version. The two-part article is the detailed and profound study of the ECJ's acquis within the framework of the basic legal instruments underpinning the EU Common Judicial Area, including all the 'Brussels' Regulations, the Small Claims Regulation No. 861/2007, the Insolvency Regulation No. 1346/2000, etc. The authors pay much attention to the mechanisms of cooperation between Member States and the Union, trying not only to look into the technical matters raised by the respective cases before the Court of Justice but also highlighting the importance of some underlying constitutional and international aspects.
EN
Over the past two years the Court of Justice of the EU has delivered several important judgments on legal instruments forming the framework of the so-called judicial cooperation in civil matters. Therefore, international civil procedure law remains one of the most vigorous areas of European integration. The two-part article contains a detailed and comprehensive study of the ECJ’s acquis within the framework of basic legal instruments underpinning the EU Common Judicial Area, including all “Brussels” Regulations, the Insolvency Regulation (No 1346/2000), the Succession Regulation (No 650/2012), the Small Claims Regulation (No 861/2007), etc. The authors pay close attention to the mechanisms of cooperation between Member States and the Union; they are endeavouring not only to analyse the technical matters raised by the respective cases pending before the Court of Justice, but also to highlight the importance of some underlying constitutional and international aspects.
EN
The article analyzes the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU regarding widely understood pop-culture icons. The cases concerning such goods have been present before the cjeu for few years and pertain to products like Coca-Cola, LEGO and Rubic’s cube. The article aims to answer the question if the pop-culture, despite of its ephemerality, can be efficiently protected. The presented case-law has been analyzed in the light of the European Union law in the context of the omnipresent mass culture.
PL
Artykuł analizuje orzecznictwo Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej dotyczące szeroko rozumianych ikon popkultury. Takie sprawy pojawiają się od kilku lat na wokandzie TSUE i dotyczą m.in. takich produktów, jak Coca-Cola, LEGO czy kostka Rubika. Artykuł stawia sobie za cel odpowiedź na pytanie, czy popkultura ze względu na swoją efemeryczność zasługuje na ochronę prawną i czy owa ochrona jest realna. Prezentowane orzeczenia są analizowane w świetle prawa Unii Europejskiej na szerokim tle wszechobecnej kultury masowej.
EN
Over the past two years the Court of Justice of the EU has delivered several important judgments on legal instruments forming the framework of the so-called judicial cooperation in civil matters. Therefore, international civil procedure law remains one of the most vigorous areas of European integration. The two-part article contains a detailed and comprehensive study of the ECJ’s acquis within the framework of basic legal instruments underpinning the EU Common Judicial Area, including all “Brussels” Regulations, the Insolvency Regulation (No 1346/2000), the Succession Regulation (No 650/2012), the Small Claims Regulation (No 861/2007), etc. The authors pay close attention to the mechanisms of cooperation between Member States and the Union; they are endeavouring not only to analyse the technical matters raised by the respective cases pending before the Court of Justice, but also to highlight the importance of some underlying constitutional and international aspects.
EN
In the two recent years the Court of Justice of the EU delivered a number of important judgments pertaining to legal instruments within the framework of the so-called Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters. The two-part article is the detailed and profound study of the ECJ's acquis within the framework of the basic legal instruments underpinning the EU Common Judicial Area, including all the 'Brussels' Regulations (Regulation No. 44/2001 and Regulation No. 1215/2012, the Small Claims Regulation No. 861/2007, the Insolvency Regulation No. 1346/2000, etc. The authors pay much attention to the mechanisms of cooperation between Member States and the Union, trying not only to look into the technical matters raised by the respective cases before the Court of Justice but also highlighting the importance of some underlying constitutional and international aspects.
EN
Over the past two years the Court of Justice of the EU has delivered several important judgments on legal instruments forming the framework of the so-called judicial cooperation in civil matters. Therefore, international civil procedure law remains one of the most vigorous areas of the European integration. The two-part article contains a detailed and comprehensive study of the ECJ’s acquis within the framework of basic legal instruments underpinning the EU Common Judicial Area, including all “Brussels” Regulations, the Insolvency Regulation (No 1346/2000), the Succession Regulation (No 650/2012), the Small Claims Regulation (No 861/2007), etc. The authors pay close attention to the mechanisms of cooperation between Member States and the Union; they try not only to analyse the technical matters raised by the respective cases pending before the Court of Justice, but also to highlight the importance of some underlying constitutional and international aspects.
first rewind previous Page / 2 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.