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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  amicus curiae
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Effectiveness and legitimacy of Amicus Curiae submission before WTO judiciary organs.

100%
Konomi R., Gjipali D., Perola N.
Academicus. International Scientific Journal
|
2023
|
vol. 14
|
issue 28
110-120
EN
‘Amicus curiae’ is a latin term that means a ‘friend of the court’. In essence, this term encapsulates “[a] person who is not a party to a lawsuit but who petitions the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because that person has a strong interest in the subject matter’’. This presents a non-party with the opportunity to submit its views regarding the outcome of a particular dispute regarding a broad range of issues (e.g. the appraisal of the merits in light of contemporary developments, the submission of factual elements etc.). These submissions have been present also during the predecessor of the current institutionalized WTO, namely the GATT system, albeit never being considered by those panels. However, there was gradual a shift in the panels’ position regarding the engagement with amicus curiae submissions. In this regard, the first amicus curiae submission in the US - Gasoline case was rejected by the WTO panel of that case. It was only the US - Shrimp case that paved the way for amicus curiae to find their way into the WTO adjudicative system. This was followed by a great polarization regarding the legitimacy of engaging with submission of non-state actors in an inherently inter-governmental system. This paper, therefore, sustains that the amicus curiae submissions facilitate effectiveness if exercised within the constraints of legitimacy (as conceptualized within the ambit of the WTO), by framing the analysis through doctrinal discussions as well as empirical evidence that is derived from other research that is appropriately referenced.
2
Content available remote

Problémy spojené s aplikací mezinárodního práva na vnitrostátní úrovni

89%
Zukal M.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2021
|
vol. 160
|
issue 5
334-349
EN
The article describes the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic in ensuring correct application of the international law by administrative bodies and courts of the Czech Republic. The duty for all administrative bodies and courts to apply the international law results from article 1 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. However, it may sometimes happen, due to lack of knowledge of the international law, that these bodies or courts either omit to apply the international law, or they apply it incorrectly, which may result in breach of international obligation by the Czech Republic. It is then duty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to remedy the situation. The Ministry is in different position depending on whether the breach of international obligation results from the conduct of an administrative body or of a court. In case of administrative bodies, the Ministry acts in its superordinate capacity (resulting from the principle of subordination within public administration) and it can use its power to co-ordinate the conduct of administrative bodies (either directly, or – more often – through other competent ministries). The position of the Ministry is more complex in cases, where the breach of obligation results from activity of courts, since these are independent of executive branch and, therefore, the Ministry cannot co-ordinate their conduct as in case of administrative bodies. The Ministry is left with limited measures that can be taken: 1) refusal to carry out the service of process through diplomatic channels, 2) sending an amicus curiae brief explaining applicable international law and 3) sending motion to the court inviting it to act ex officio, where possible.
CS
Článek popisuje roli Ministerstva zahraničních věcí při zajišťování řádné aplikace mezinárodního práva orgány veřejné správy a soudy. Povinnost aplikovat mezinárodní právo plyne všem správním orgánům i soudům z čl. 1 odst. 2 Ústavy. Čas od času se nicméně stává, kvůli nedostatečné znalosti mezinárodního práva, že správní orgány a soudy buďto mezinárodní právo aplikovat opomenou, nebo jej aplikují nesprávně, což může vyústit v porušení mezinárodněprávních závazků České republiky. Je pak úkolem Ministerstva zahraničních věcí pokusit se situaci napravit. Ministerstvo je v různém postavení v závislosti na tom, zda porušení mezinárodněprávního závazku je důsledkem činnosti správního orgánu, nebo důsledkem činnosti soudu. V případě správních orgánů ministerstvo jedná z pozice nadřízenosti (což plyne z výstavby soustavy orgánů veřejné správy na principu subordinace) a může využít svou pravomoc koordinovat činnost orgánů veřejné správy (buďto přímo, nebo – častěji – prostřednictvím jiných příslušných ministerstev). Pozice ministerstva je komplikovanější v případě, kdy je porušení mezinárodněprávního závazku výsledkem činnosti soudu, a to s ohledem na nezávislost soudů, pročež ministerstvo nemůže jejich činnost koordinovat jako v případě správních orgánů. Ministerstvu pak zbývají omezené možnosti k pokusu o nápravu: 1) odmítnutí zprostředkovat doručení diplomatickou cestou, 2) zaslání amicus curiae brief s vysvětlením aplikovatelného mezinárodního práva a 3) podnět k jednání soudu ex officio tam, kde je to možné.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Public enforcement versus private enforcement – decyzja zobowiązująca a powództwo odszkodowawcze. Glosa do wyroku TS z 23 listopada 2017 r. w sprawie C-547/16 Gasorba SL, Josefa Rico Gil, Antonio Ferrándiz González przeciwko Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos SA

88%
Dobosz K.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2018
|
vol. 7
|
issue 2
76-89
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Interaction of Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law before and after the EU Directive – a Hungarian perspective

63%
Toth T.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2016
|
vol. 9(14)
43-68
EN
The paper explores the changes the EU Directive on harmonizing certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions will bring about in Hungary, with a special focus placed on damages liability rules, the interaction of public and private enforcement of these rules, and the importance of class actions. Amendments of the Competition Act introduced in 2005 and 2009 had created new rules to promote the idea of private enforcement even before the Directive was adopted. Some of these rules remain unique even now, notably the legal presumption of a 10% price increase for cartel cases. However, subsequent cases decided by Hungarian courts did not reflect the sophistication of existing substantive and procedural rules. There has only ever been one judgment awarding damages, while most stand-alone cases involved minor competition law issues relating to contractual disputes. The paper looks at the most important substantial rules of tort law (damage, causality, joint and several liability), the co-operation of competition authorities and civil courts, as well as at (the lack of) class action procedures from the perspective of the interaction of public and private enforcement of competition law.
FR
Le document analyse les changements apportés par la directive européenne relative aux certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages et intérêts en droit national pour les infractions aux dispositions du droit de la concurrence en Hongrie, en particulier concernant les règles sur la responsabilité civile en matière de dommages, l’interaction de l’application publique et privée du droit de la concurrence et l'importance des recours collectifs. Les modifications à loi de la concurrence introduites en 2005 et 2009 ont créé de nouvelles règles pour promouvoir l'idée d'une application privée du droit de la concurrence même avant que la directive a été adoptée. Certaines de ces dispositions sont toujours uniques, notamment la présomption légale d'une augmentation de prix de 10% par les ententes. Néanmoins, les jugements ultérieurs rendus par les tribunaux ne reflétaient pas les règles de fond et de procédures sophistiquées. Il n’y avait juste le jugement qui a accordé des dommages et intérêts, alors que la plupart des actions autonomes (« stand-alone actions ») portaient sur des problèmes secondaires du droit de la concurrence liés aux conflits contractuels. L’article examine des règles les plus importantes du droit de la responsabilité civile (le dommage, la causalité, la responsabilité solidaire), la coopération entre les autorités de la concurrence et les tribunaux civils, ainsi que l’absence de mécanisme de recours collectifs et de la perspective de l’application publique et privée du droit de la concurrence.
first rewind previous Page / 1 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.