Search

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) more...

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(1), 1-8 | European Forum Highlight of 28 March 2023 | (Abstract) When exactly can an impediment to effective competition be considered "significant" enough, if caused by a horizontal merger that gives rise to unilateral effects absent dominance, and what standard of proof does the Commission have to satisfy? Commission v CK Telecoms represents the first occasion for the European Court of Justice to elaborate on these questions. As the case is still pending, this Article discusses the significance of the latest legal guidance provided by the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott. This Article suggests that the Opinion is a return to well-established principles after the Court's judgment in Impala II, and provides a soundly reasoned critique of the decision of the General Court, directing special attention to the heightened standard of proof and the substantive criteria proposed for distinguishing significant from "insignificant" effects. Moreover, the Opinion contains a restatement of the doctrine of marginal review and thus constitutes an active effort to maintain the legal status quo. more...

This study proposes a post factum analysis (or rather a final conclusion) of the solution ruled in Case C-648 Hidroelectrica, a case that came before the Court of Justice of the European Union1 , as a preliminary question referred to by the Bucharest Tribunal , as a national court2 . The case was of real interest in the context in which the preliminary question concerned the interpretation given by a national authority to a rule of domestic law, and not to a rule of European law. Unfortunately, the solution ruled by the CJEU, predictable as of the time of establishing the oral phase in the case, was no surprise, representing a faithful copy of Hidroelectrica's request and adhered to without any reservation by the European Commission. This study shall be a critical analysis (perhaps too critical in certain places) of the reasoning of the CJEU judgment versus the point of view expressed by the European Commission and the conclusions of the Advocate General of the Court, true defenders of the operator in this case. Last but not least, an important part shall be devoted to the previous practice of the CJEU in terms of the inadmissibility of the preliminary questions and a sudden change thereof, which leaves deep question marks as to the status of the Court, independent otherwise (or at least so it should be). In the final part, before the conclusions, we shall also refer to the applicability of the principle of proportionality, so much invoked in the CJEU Judgment. more...

What was the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Brexit saga? And what will the impact of Brexit be over the future structure and activity of the CJEU? This article deals with this twofold question and explores three different issues. Firstly, we will offer a reflection on the questions and the risks raised by the Wightman case, where the CJEU ruled on the unilateral revocation of the UK notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Art. 50 Treaty of the EU. Secondly, we will analyse the impact of Brexit on the composition of the CJEU and, particularly, the risks for the independence of the Court raised by the advanced termination of the mandate of the British Advocate General. Thirdly, we will provide some insights on the scope of the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the post-Brexit Union, emphasising how the Withdrawal Agreement maintained its jurisdiction during and even beyond the transition period. This article reflects the events that took place up to 6 October 2020. more...

This second and concluding part of a two-part article considers the annulment actions by Advocate General Sharpston of the CJEU seeking to challenge the premature termination of her term of office as a result of a decision of the Member State governments, following withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. While in its case law the Court of Justice has been in the vanguard in ensuring the protection of judicial independence in the courts of the Member States and the right of judges to a review of decisions entailing their dismissal, Ms. Sharpston's proceedings were rejected by both the General Court and on appeal the Court of Justice essentially on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Courts' reasoning is incomplete and unconvincing, and doubts remain as to whether the former Advocate General has been afforded effective judicial protection of her claimed right to finish out her term of office. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...

This article continues to overview some features of Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and analyses the influence of their opinions on the case law of the Court. Their role in developing the Union’s jurisprudence in general as well as shaping directions on how to apply EU law in dealing with new economies are of particular interest. more...

What was the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Brexit saga? And what will the impact of Brexit be over the future structure and activity of the CJEU? This article deals with this twofold question and explores three different issues. Firstly, we will offer a reflection on the questions and the risks raised by the Wightman case, where the CJEU ruled on the unilateral revocation of the UK notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Art. 50 Treaty of the EU. Secondly, we will analyse the impact of Brexit on the composition of the CJEU and, particularly, the risks for the independence of the Court raised by the advanced termination of the mandate of the British Advocate General. Thirdly, we will provide some insights on the scope of the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the post-Brexit Union, emphasising how the Withdrawal Agreement maintained its jurisdiction during and even beyond the transition period. This article reflects the events that took place up to 6 October 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...

Copyright of Law / Teise is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) more...

The current configuration of the right to be digitally forgotten is due to several judgements rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of the Union law regarding the protection of personal data. However this right is not an absolute one, but it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, considering that the General Data Protection Regulation respects the freedoms recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the freedom of expression and information. The right to be delisted on search engines was born precisely at the intersection of these opposing rights and freedoms. In each case both the Advocate general and the Court tipped the balance between the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of expression and information, on the other hand, and every time the Court had, at least in part, a different standpoint on the right to be digitally forgotten. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...