… prezentat in fata Curtii Constitutionale a respectivului stat.
Speech of the President of the Republic at the Constitutional Court Proceedings on the Lisbon Treaty
“I am at this hearing, because the Constitutional Court asked me to present my viewpoint on the proposal made by the Senate of the Czech Republic Parliament to have the Lisbon Treaty, modifying the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community as agreed in Lisbon on 17 December 2007, examined in order to assess, whether or not it is compatible with the Czech Republic’s Constitution. [...] The Lisbon Treaty thus violates the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the Czech people.”
JACK GOLDSMITH and ERIC POSNER, Does Europe Believe in International Law?, Wall Street Journal, 25.11.2008 [aici]
Comentariu IELP Blog.
Barry E. Hawk, Article 82 and Section 2: Abuse and Monopolizing Conduct, Issues of Competition Law and Policy, Vol. 2, p. 871, 2008; Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1301690. Available at SSRN
Abstract:
Differing historical contexts, such as the greater role of public companies and state-created monopolies in the EU, differing policy considerations such as the EU’s traditional embrace of fairness, and differing underlying economic and juridical assumptions about, among others, market erosion and the capability of authorities and courts to identify and remedy anticompetitive conduct, all explain the traditionally broader scope of Article 82 compared with Section 2. However, the EU’s increasing acceptance of mainstream economics, welfare analysis and an effects-oriented inquiry, together with the declining influence of the Ordoliberals, should narrow (but not eliminate) the present gap between Section 2 and Article 82.
Dirk Van Gerven, Paul Storm (ed), The European Company, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Contents
Preface Dirk Van Gerven; Part I. The SE in its Sixth Year: Some Early Impressions Paul Storm; Part II. National reports from EU Member States: 1. Bulgaria Raina Dimitrova; 2. Cyprus Alexandros Tsadiras; 3. Czech Republic Jan Zrzavecký and Jan Dědič; 4. France Jean-Marc Desaché; 5. Greece Stefanos Charaktiniotis; 6. Ireland Michael A. Greene and Keavy Ryan; 7. Italy Francesco Gianni; 8. Latvia Dace Silava-Tomsone, Iveta Mikelsone and Jurgita Spigule; 9. Luxembourg Patricia Ferrante and Marc Meyers; 10. Malta Rosanne Bonnici; 11. Portugal Margarida Pereira Barrocas; 12. Romania Carmen Peli and Georgeta Dinu; 13. Slovenia Mateja Ogrič, Jurij Dolžan and Eva Pergarec; 14. Spain Miguel Liria Plañiol; National Reports from EEA Member States: 15. Liechtenstein Andreas Schurti and Alexander Appel; 16. Norway Lars Kristian Sande; Annexes: Annex Ia. Council Regulation (EC) N° 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE); Annex Ib. Public limited-liability companies referred to in Article 2(1) of the Regulation; Annex Ic. Public and private limited-liability companies referred to in Article 2(2) of the Regulation; Annex II. Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European Company with regard to the involvement of employees; Annex III. List of national laws implementing the Regulation and the Directive.
CJCE, Comisia/Franta, C-214/07, Hotărârea din 13 noiembrie 2008. [*]
Obiectul actiunii in neîndeplinirea obligaţiilor Comisiei il constituie nerespectarea Deciziei 2004/343/CE a Comisiei din 16 decembrie 2003 privind schema de ajutor pusă în aplicare de Franta în privinta preluării întreprinderilor aflate în dificultate, JO L 108, p. 38. [*]
“În ceea ce priveste întreprinderile beneficiare care si au încetat activitatea, menţionate în corespondenţa referitoare la executarea deciziei, Comisia sustine că, în cazul transferului de active, trebuie să se examineze conditiile financiare ale tranzactiei pentru a se asigura că transferul a fost realizat în conformitate cu conditiile pietei.” (par. 15)
“Potrivit jurisprudentei, elementul de ajutor poate fi considerat, cu această conditie, inclus în prețul de cumpărare, astfel încât cumpărătorul nu poate, în principiu, să fie considerat beneficiar al unui avantaj (Hotărârea din 20 septembrie 2001, Banks, C 390/98, Rec., p. I 6117, punctul 77, si Hotărârea din 29 aprilie 2004, Germania/Comisia, C 277/00, Rec., p. I 3925, punctul 80), beneficiul ajutorului fiind păstrat de către cedent.” (par. 16)
“În orice caz, recuperarea ajutorului nu ar putea fi condiţionată de indicarea valorii ajutorului în actul de transfer al activelor. În caz contrar, ar fi extrem de uşor să fie repus în discuţie efectul util al normelor privind ajutoarele de stat. Ar fi suficient ca părţile la o tranzacţie efectuată la un preţ inferior preţului pieţei să omită să menţioneze în contract transferul ajutorului. Or, verificarea existenţei unui transfer al ajutorului către dobânditor nu ar putea depinde numai de voinţa părţilor la tranzacţie.” (par. 18)
Aceasta [Republica Franceză] susţine că, atât pentru transferurile de active realizate prin cesiuni pe cale contractuală, cât si pentru cele care au intervenit în cadrul unor proceduri de redresare si de lichidare judiciară, autorităţile fiscale nu pot aprecia dacă transferurile în cauză s-au desfăsurat în condiţii normale de piaţă. [par. 35]
Într adevăr, dacă există o piaţă imobiliară, nu ar exista o piaţă a bunurilor industriale de ocazie. Asadar, pentru acestea nu este disponibilă nicio referinţă pentru determinarea unui preţ de piaţă în momentul transferului.[par. 36]
În ceea ce privește cesiunile de active pe cale contractuală realizate de întreprinderile care şi au încetat activitatea, recuperarea ajutoarelor nu ar avea niciun temei juridic în cazurile în care transferul ajutorului către dobânditor nu ar fi fost menţionat în actul de cesiune. [par. 41]
Aprecierea Curţii
În caz de dificultăţi, Comisia si statul membru, în temeiul normei care impune statelor membre şi instituţiilor comunitare obligaţii reciproce de cooperare loială, care rezultă în special din articolul 10 CE, trebuie să colaboreze cu bună credinţă pentru depăşirea acestor dificultăţi, cu respectarea deplină a prevederilor tratatului şi în special a celor privind ajutoarele de stat (a se vedea Hotărârea din 12 mai 2005, Comisia/Grecia, C 415/03, Rec., p. I 3875, punctul 42 şi jurisprudenţa citată). [par. 45]
Condiţia unei imposibilităţi absolute de executare nu este îndeplinită atunci când statul membru pârât se limitează să comunice Comisiei dificultăţi juridice, politice sau practice pe care le prezintă punerea în aplicare a deciziei, fără a întreprinde un veritabil demers pe lângă întreprinderile în cauză pentru recuperarea ajutorului şi fără a propune Comisiei modalităţi alternative de punere în aplicare a deciziei, care să permită depăşirea dificultăţilor (a se vedea în special Hotărârea din 14 decembrie 2006, Comisia/Spania, C 485/03-C 490/03, Rec., p. I 11887, punctul 74 şi jurisprudenţa citată). [par. 46]
În acest caz, elementul de ajutor a fost evaluat la preţul pieţei şi a fost inclus în preţul de cumpărare, astfel încât cumpărătorul nu poate fi considerat beneficiar al unui avantaj în raport cu alţi operatori de pe piaţă (Hotărârea Germania/Comisia, citată anterior, punctul 80). În caz contrar, nu poate fi exclus ca cesionarul să poată, dacă este cazul, să fie obligat la restituirea ajutoarelor în cauză, în condiţiile în care s ar stabili că păstrează beneficiul efectiv al avantajului concurenţial legat de beneficiul respectivelor ajutoare (Hotărârea Germania/Comisia, citată anterior, punctul 86). [par. 58]
Pentru verificarea condiţiilor financiare ale cesiunii, autorităţile naţionale pot lua în considerare, printre altele, forma utilizată pentru cesiune, de exemplu cea a adjudecării publice, considerată că garantează o vânzare în condiţiile pieţei. [par. 59]
De asemenea, acestea pot lua în considerare, printre altele, o eventuală expertiză desfăsurată cu ocazia cesiunii. [par. 60]
În cazul în care activele au fost preluate de mai mulţi dobânditori diferiţi, nimic nu se opune, în principiu, să fie verificată conformitatea condiţiilor financiare ale fiecăreia dintre operaţiuni cu condiţiile pieţei. [par. 61]
În ipoteza unei cesiuni de active pe cale contractuală, recuperarea ajutoarelor de la cesionar nu poate fi subordonată menţionării exprese în act a unui transfer al acestor ajutoare. Aceasta poate fi operată atunci când cesionarul trebuia să aibă cunostinţă despre existenţa ajutoarelor si despre o procedură de control desfăsurată de către Comisie. [par. 62]
Prin neexecutarea în termenul stabilit a Deciziei 2004/343/CE a Comisiei din 16 decembrie 2003 privind schema de ajutor pusă în aplicare de Franţa în privinţa preluării întreprinderilor aflate în dificultate, Republica Franceză nu si a îndeplinit obligaţiile care îi revin în temeiul articolului 5 din decizia menţionată.
Comisia se bucura: State aid: Commission welcomes Court ruling on recovery of illegal aid, 13.11.2008.
Ecuatia pare simpla, insa nu este. Si, desigur, exista si precedente jurisprudentiale. Numai ca acum a fost in cauza aceasta ramura de drept, denumita “drept international privat”; sa se confirme ceea ce afirma unii ca aceasta ramura este pe cale de a se transforma intr-o “ramurica”?
Asadar,
“Dreptul de liberă circulație și de ședere pe teritoriul statelor membre – Dreptul internațional privat în materia numelui de familie − Stabilirea legii aplicabile exclusiv prin raportare la cetățenie − Copil minor care s‑a născut și locuiește într‑un stat membru și are cetățenia unui alt stat membru – Nerecunoașterea în statul membru al cărui resortisant este a numelui dobândit în statul membru în care s‑a născut și locuiește”
C‑353/06, Stefan Grunkin
Sau Bidar bis? Vom vedea.
Libera circulație a persoanelor – Student, resortisant al unui stat membru, care se deplasează într-un alt stat membru pentru a urma un curs de formare – Alocație de întreținere pentru persoane aflate la studii – Cetățenia Uniunii – Articolul 12 CE – Securitate juridică
C‑158/07, Jacqueline Förster împotriva Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep
RO.
Michel Struys, Jeremy Robinson, EC Merger Decisions Digest. The Complete Guide to EC Merger Regulations Decisions, Kluwer Law International, 2008 [*]
Description
With company mergers an ever-present feature of daily business life in Europe and the wider world, it is essential that practitioners’ legal, corporate and financial become familiar not only with the regulatory law governing merger activity but also with the growing body of case law embodied in the decisions of the European Commission. EC Merger Decisions Digest is the resource that all business people and their advisers will use for this knowledge and information. There is no better tool for rapid and efficient analysis of prospective mergers.
Written by two outstanding practitioners specialising in EU competition law and EU regulatory matters, the Digest is a regularly updated looseleaf that provides not only every decision in concise summary/analysis format of the European Comission under the EC Merger Regulation, but a clear and easy-to-read presentation of the economic principles underlying the market definitions upheld by the Commission. It includes such useful features as the following:
standardised summaries of every decision of the European Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, grouped together in some 30 chapters according to the main economic sector concerned;
an easy-to-read, very brief and straightforward summary of the key procedural and substantive points of each decision;
an interest rating for each case from least interesting to most interesting;
an invaluable summary of product and geographic market definitions upheld and left open by the Commission by product sector;
a straightforward summary of the basic economic principles underlying how markets are defined; and
a user guide to obtain maximum and speediest benefit from the work.
The text is in English, even if the language of the original decision is not.
Practitioners and advisers from the diverse sectors of corporate and competition law, investment banking or private equity will quickly find information relating to the product and geographic market definitions upheld by the Commission, and readily understand the principles underlying the Commission¿s findings. Users will rapidly find the most important decisions in each sector, obtain the key facts, and identify the reasons underlying each decision. Each summary contains full reference citations to the original text of the decision.
With the Digest, practitioners and business people can be confident of uncovering every potential pitfall and considered every advantage possible in the circumstances of any deal, right up to the last minute of the process. With its regular updates, economic sector focus, and uncompromising practical orientation toward M&A practice, EC Merger Decisions Digest is the only product of its kind in any format. It would be hard to name an item in a European company law library that will get more use, day in and day out, for years to come.
Price includes (all supplements which will be published in 2005) Please note when ordering this publication, you will automatically be registered to receive all future updates and supplements. As of January 2006 an invoice will accompany the new updates.
Table of Contents
General Section
Table of Contents.Foreword
How to Use this Guide
Index of Decisions
Jurisdictional Rules
Chemicals
Construction
Defence
Education
Energy
Farming and Land Management
Financial Services
Food, Beverage and Tobacco
Hotels and Leisure
Industrial Goods
Insurance
Intermediary Goods
Internet
IT and Telecoms Hardware/Software
Media and Printing
Minerals and Metals
Packaging
Pharmaceutical Products
Professional and Health Services
Post and Telecoms
Property
Retail Manufacturing
Textiles and Leather
Transport Manufacture
Transport Services
Waste Management
Water
Wholesale and Retail Trade
Wood and Wood Products
Peter Van den Bossche, NGO Involvement in the WTO: A Comparative Perspective, Journal of International Economic Law 2008 11(4):717-749 [*]
This article examines the nature and the extent of the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the activities of the World Trade Organization (WTO). First, it looks at the arguments for and against NGO involvement in WTO activities. Next, the article discusses the legal basis for the involvement of NGOs in WTO activities and the various forms of involvement provided for. It compares the position of NGOs in the WTO with their position in other international organizations, in particular, the United Nations. Subsequently, the article explores the practice of WTO engagement with NGOs. Finally, it examines and compares the rules and procedures of the WTO and the United Nations for the selection of the NGOs with which to engage. This article concludes that a more open and engaged dialogue with civil society will make the WTO a more transparent and responsive organization, enjoying greater support among the general public in developed as well as developing country Members. Justified concerns about the legitimacy, accountability, and politics of NGOs could be eliminated, or at least mitigated, by introducing a system of accreditation in the WTO. While NGO involvement in the WTO definitely has its limits, the involvement of NGOs in other international organizations, in particular, the United Nations, suggests that these limits have not been reached as yet.
CEDO extinde garantiile conferite de art. 6 din Conventie in privinta persoanelor juridice.
Bine, veti spune, dar nici nu a intrat tratatul respectiv in vigoare si…? Da, de ce nu?
Le riforme istituzionali nell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona: un equilibrio precario (*)
CREDOF Centre de recherche sur les droits fondamentaux – Université Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense [Grup de discutii, organizat de Sylvia PREUSS-LAUSSINOTTE]
Actualités droits-libertés du 14 novembre 2008 par Nicolas HERVIEU
LIBERTE SYNDICALE ET DROIT DE NEGOCIATION COLLECTIVE (Art. 11 CEDH)La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, en formation de Grande Chambre, a rendu le 12 novembre 2008 (Demir et Baykara c. Turquie, requête n° 34503/97) un important arrêt qui confirme solennellement et à l’unanimité la solution de la formation de Chambre saisie initialement (21 novembre 2006, deuxième section). Cet arrêt peut être désigné comme un “arrêt test”, destiné à rappeler, en la rationalisant, la méthode d’utilisation très active par la Cour des sources internationales non CEDH – et ce, tant pour l’avenir de sa propre jurisprudence qu’à l’intention des juges internes ; “arrêt test” aussi en ce qu’elle précise son approche, jusque-là éparpillée, du droit syndical. La Cour offre ainsi un nouvel et remarquable exemple de son interprétation dynamique et évolutive de la Convention.
Dans cette affaire se trouvait en cause un syndicat de fonctionnaire qui intenta une action devant les juridictions turques afin qu’une commune respecte les termes d’une convention collective. Cependant, au cours de la procédure, la Cour de cassation a réfuté l’existence même de ce syndicat en relevant qu’à l’époque de sa création, le droit turc ne conférait pas aux fonctionnaires le droit de se syndiquer, ni celui de mener des négociations collectives. Saisie d’une requête arguant d’une violation de l’article 11 (Liberté de réunion et d’association), la Cour a tranché successivement les deux importants enjeux soulevés par cette affaire tout en apportant d’intéressantes précisions quant au débat sur ses méthodes d’interprétation.
1°/ – Le recours aux sources non CEDH : une application de la méthode évolutive de la Cour
La Grande Chambre a d’abord été contrainte de répondre, solennellement et dans un style qui se veut pédagogique, à la contestation de ses méthodes d’interprétation. L’Etat partie, dans la lignée des critiques suscitées par l’arrêt de Chambre, a directement mis en cause l’utilisation par la Cour d’instruments internationaux et européens, notamment la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, mais tout particulièrement (§ 53) l’article 6 de la Charte sociale européenne révisée – droit de négociation collective -, article que la Turquie n’a pas ratifié.
La Cour a rappelé que par sa fonction de « mécanisme de défense des droits de l’homme » (§ 66) et son « caractère “vivant” » (§ 68), la Convention peut faire l’objet d’une interprétation évolutive. Surtout, la juridiction strasbourgeoise affirme même qu’elle « n’a jamais considéré les dispositions de la Convention comme l’unique cadre de référence dans l’interprétation des droits et libertés qu’elle contient » (§ 67) et que lorsqu’« elle définit le sens des termes et des notions figurant dans le texte de la Convention, [elle] peut et doit tenir compte des éléments de droit international autres que la Convention, des interprétations faites de ces éléments par les organes compétents et de la pratique des Etats européens reflétant leurs valeurs communes » (§ 85). Cette réaffirmation très nette de la méthode d’interprétation consensuelle s’accompagne de différentes précisions quant à la méthode de reconnaissance d’une telle « communauté de vue dans les sociétés moderne » (§ 86). Les juges européens estiment notamment qu’il n’est pas nécessaire que l’Etat défendeur à l’instance ait ratifié le traité international qui servira à l’identification de cette « communauté de vue » (§ 78 et 86).
La Cour applique ensuite très largement cette méthode pour justifier l’extension voire la consécration même de droits et libertés protégés par la Convention.
2°/ – Champ d’application de la liberté syndicale
La Cour réaffirme, sans que cela soit surprenant, que son champ d’application s’étend aux « membres de l’administration de l’Etat » (§ 107). Elle souligne toutefois ce point en s’appuyant sur de multiples instruments internationaux et régionaux (notamment le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, la Convention n° 87 de l’Organisation Internationale du Travail, la Charte des Droits Fondamentaux de l’Union Européenne – § 99 à 106). Ainsi, la Cour peut aisément estimer que le refus total de la Turquie – au moment des faits – de reconnaître aux membres de la fonction publique le droit de fonder des syndicats constitue une violation de l’article 11 (§ 126).
3°/ – Le droit de mener des négociations collectives
Le principal apport de cet arrêt réside dans la reconnaissance par la Cour de ce que « le droit de mener des négociations collectives avec l’employeur est, en principe, devenu l’un des éléments essentiels » (§ 154) de la liberté syndicale sans lequel celle-ci serait vidée de sa substance. La Grande Chambre entérine ici la position de la Chambre dans la même affaire et justifie assez longuement un tel revirement de jurisprudence. Alors que la Cour avait refusé continuellement d’inclure ce droit dans la liste des éléments protégés par l’article 11, la juridiction strasbourgeoise estime ici que cette liste « a vocation à évoluer en fonction des développements caractérisant le monde du travail » (§ 146). A l’aune, une nouvelle fois, des instruments et de la pratique internationale, européenne et nationale (§ 147 à 152), la Cour décèle une telle évolution permettant de consacrer ce droit de mener des négociations collectives, sous réserve toutefois « que les Etats demeurent libres d’organiser leur système de manière à reconnaître, le cas échéant, un statut spécial aux syndicats représentatifs » (§ 154). De façon similaire à la question de la liberté syndicale, les juges strasbourgeois relèvent que le refus total de l’Etat défendeur de reconnaître ce droit aux fonctionnaires n’est justifié par aucun besoin social impérieux (§ 164), ni par « des circonstances particulières » (§ 168) liées à leur qualité de membre de la fonction publique.
Outre le développement de l’étendue et de la portée de la liberté syndicale au sens de l’article 11, cet arrêt révèle plus généralement un certain volontarisme de la Cour au sujet de certains droits économiques et sociaux. Elle affirme ainsi très nettement son intention de s’appuyer sur un ensemble d’instruments et de pratiques extérieures au système conventionnel pour constater – ou construire – « l’existence d’un consensus des Etats contractants pour faire avancer les droits économiques et sociaux » (§ 84). Si la finalité de sa démarche doit, à notre sens, être aprouvée, il est possible que la méthode utilisée pour y parvenir pourrait susciter un vif débat.
Demir et Baykara c. Turquie (requête n° 34503/97) du 12 novembre 2008
A se vedea si postarea de aici.
Human Rights Watch propune un set de reguli referitor la drepturile omului in Rusia. Aici.
Un memorandum UE-Rusia a fost propus. Textul este aici.
Marco Bronckers [Univ. Leiden], From ‘Direct Effect’ to ‘Muted Dialogue’. Recent Developments in the European Courts’ Case Law on the WTO and Beyond, Journal of International Economic Law 2008 11(4):885-898 [*]
Recent case law suggests that the European courts are rethinking their position in respect of international law. On the one hand, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is extending its case law on the WTO, denying ‘direct effect’ to all of its provisions, to other major international treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In another recent judgment, the ECJ firmly said that it will not allow international agreements to jeopardize Europe’s constitutional principles. These judgments might suggest that the ECJ is becoming more cautious, even skeptical toward international law. On the other hand, the WTO case law also illustrates that the ECJ has found more subtle ways than direct effect to give domestic law effect to international agreements. Examples are treaty-consistent interpretation, judicial dialogue with international tribunals, and transformation of international law into European legal principles. In this way, the ECJ is able to show respect to international law, which is indeed a core European value. At the same time, the ECJ maintains the power to act as a gatekeeper and resist those international legal norms that are considered inimical to the European legal order. On the whole the author welcomes this case law, albeit with some critical notes.
Eddy Wymeersch, Comparative Study of the Company Types in Selected EU States, (October 16, 2008). Financial Law Institute Working Paper Series – WP 2008-10. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
The purpose of this paper consists of giving an overview of the way company laws in some European states have been dealing with the dividing line between closely held companies limited by shares, and those that have gone public or widely distributed shares. It analyses whether a case can be made for regrouping the rules relating to “public” companies in a single body of law, a discussion that is going on in Germany.
Si in Uniunea Europeana se republica.
JOUE a lucrat şi sâmbătă, 8 noiembrie 2008, când a fost publicată Directiva 2008/95/CE a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului din 22 octombrie 2008 de apropiere a legislaţiilor statelor membre cu privire la mărci (versiune codificată).
Daca unii se intreaba despre (im)posibilitatea existentei unei insolvente internationale, altii discuta despre hotararile judecatoresti.
O problema care, la scara mica ramane si in Uniunea Europeana, cu tot Regulamentul nr. 1346/2000, nu a raspuns cerinţelor. Încă, şi pentru mult timp. Sau până când vaveni CJCE cu niste hotărâri interesante. Ceva lumina s-a făcut şi în Laval, deşi nu era decât un bec într-o cămăruţă. A servictorilor. Să vedeţi întreg Palatul conştiinţei europene în lumină!
In orice caz, articolul e interesant.
Michal S. Gal, Free Movement of Judgments: Increasing Deterrence of International Cartels Though Jurisdictional Reliance, (October 29, 2008). NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-44. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
This article challenges the conventional wisdom that not much can be done under the existing atomistic system of antitrust enforcement to solve the problem of sub-optimal deterrence of international cartels. Low deterrence results from the fact that international cartels are generally prosecuted by only a fraction of the jurisdictions harmed by them and that monetary sanctions in those jurisdictions are generally based on harm to their domestic markets only. To solve this problem, this article proposes a novel legal tool which enables countries to adopt and rely upon foreign findings of international hard-core cartels, provided that the foreign decisions meet criteria that ensure that such reliance is reasonable and fair. As elaborated, this free movement of judgments holds potential to overcome the main obstacles to efficient deterrence and to significantly increase both domestic as well as global welfare. Its costs can also be largely overcome by designing appropriate solutions. The political implications are also not prohibitive. As shown, jurisdictions already rely on foreign judgments that do not significantly differ from the decisions at hand.
The European Union: Back to the Future? New Developments and Challenges after Lisbon (octombrie a.c.).
Lucrarile aici.
Who’s Afraid of Polygamy? Exploring the Boundaries of Family, Equality and Custom in South Africa
Aici.
South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution has been widely admired and constantly referenced by international scholars, and especially international human rights scholars, for its comprehensive embrace of gender equality. But the commitment to gender equality has been tested by other liberatory discourses, including African nationalism and cultural and religious autonomy. This Article examines the evolution of South African legislation and constitutional jurisprudence in the face of competing imperatives, for example, between equality, legal pluralism, customary law/religious law, and the recognition of polygamy. In particular, it focuses on the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, a statute that purports to regulate customary marriages, including the establishment of such marriages, as well as their termination. The Article evaluates the influence of this statute, if any, on gender equality, and whether its purported protection of women in polygamous marriages in fact results in such protection.
1. e vorba despre recurs, pentru ca vorbim aici de atacarea unei hotarari a TPI…
2. hotararea are interes nu numai din perspectiva art. 95 CE, dar si din perspectiva procedurala…
HOTĂRÂREA CURȚII (Camera a doua)
6 noiembrie 2008(*)
„Recurs – Articolul 95 alineatul (5) CE – Directiva 98/69/CE – Măsuri care trebuie adoptate împotriva poluării aerului prin emisiile provenind de la autovehicule – Dispoziție de drept intern derogatorie care anticipează reducerea valorii limită comunitare a emisiilor de pulberi în suspensie produse de anumite autovehicule noi cu motor Diesel – Refuz din partea Comisiei – Specificitate a problemei – Obligație de diligență și obligație de motivare”
În cauza C‑405/07 P
Textul aici
Un articol documentet pe euractiv.com
Geert A. Zonnekeyn, The ECJ’S Petrotub Judgment: Towards a Revival of the ‘Nakajima Doctrine’?(November 1, 2008), Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
The judgment of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in Petrotub represents a good opportunity to readdress some of the questions surrounding the enforceability of WTO law in the European Community (“EC”) legal order. In Petrotub, the ECJ confirmed a key opening in its case law through which private parties can invoke WTO law to test the legality of Community acts. Pursuant to this line of case law, better known as the Nakajima doctrine, WTO law can serve as a ground for review in cases where the EC intends to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of the WTO. The ECJ, first in Portugal v. Council and later in OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft, and the Court of First Instance (“CFI”), in some of the banana judgments, had advocated a narrow interpretation of the Nakajima doctrine. The judgment of the ECJ in Petrotub confirms that the Nakajima line of case law has not been abandoned.
Am cules de pe blogul “Open Europe” doua informatii interesante despre planurile privind tratatul respectiv.
Un posibil al doilea referendum in Irlanda. (*) sau integrarea acestui tratat in viitorul Tratat de aderare a Croatiei la UE (*).
Dora Kostakopoulou, The Evolution of European Union Citizenship, European Political Science, Aug 2008, Vol. 7, Iss. 3.
Abstract
In the 1990s most scholars saw European citizenship as a purely decorative and symbolic institution which added little new to the ‘pre-Maastricht’ regime of free movement rights. In addition, many felt the need to defend the primacy of national citizenship by highlighting the derivative nature and weak content of European citizenship. Accordingly, its transformative potential remained at the margins of the debate. Despite such assessments, European Union citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive (Dir 2004/38).
