Reflectarea jurisprudenței Curții de Justiție a Uniunii Europene privind clauzele abuzive în materia executării silite în dreptul român, în special în ceea ce privește regimul contestației la executare

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2021) ◽  
pp. 208-224
Author(s):  
Mirela STANCU ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Unfair Terms

"Although the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union is commonly reflected in the practice of the national courts, unfortunately, more than ten years after Romania's accession to the European Union, there are still some syncopations at the legislative level. There are an example in that sense some of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution (contestatia la executare). Indeed, on closer examination, it appears that these provisions do not fully comply with the requirements which, according to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, must be respected by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers. The present article aims at such an examination of the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure regarding the contestation against the forced execution from the perspective of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of unfair terms. Thus, after having identified from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice the requirements that must be met by national legislation in order to stop the application of unfair terms in contracts concluded by a professional with consumers, the provisions of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure relating to the contestation against the forced execution, the stay of execution and the time limit for the contestation will be examined from the perspective of the said jurisprudence. Finally, and without claiming to be exhaustive, in this article, the author also puts forward a possible interpretation of the national provisions examined from the point of view of the case law of the Court of Justice."

scholarly journals The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 24-36
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Subject

Abstract The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

scholarly journals Quantification of Harm and the Damages Directive: Implementation in CEE Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 111-131
Author(s):  
Valentinas Mikelėnas ◽  
Rasa Zaščiurinskaitė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Full Compensation

Quantification of harm is regarded as one of the most significant obstacles for the full compensation of harm and development of private enforcement within the European Union, including CEE Member States. Consequently, the Damages Directive establishes general rules and requirements for the quantification of harm, such as a rebuttable presumption of harm in case of cartels, the power of national courts to estimate harm as well as others, which closely interact with the principle of full compensation emphasized by the case-law of the European Union and directly established in the Damages Directive. The main focus of this paper is the effectiveness of the rules on the quantification of harm in general, and how these rules will contribute to the development of private antitrust enforcement in CEE Member States. Therefore, one of the issues to be discussed in the paper is the analysis of how, and to what extent specific rules and requirements for the quantification of harm have been transposed into the national legislation of CEE Member States. As certain CEE national jurisdictions have had certain rules for the quantification of harm already before the implementation of the Damages Directive, the paper analyses how effective these rules have been, and how much they have contributed to the development of private antitrust enforcement of those CEE national jurisdictions. Previous experience of those CEE Member States in applying specific rules for the quantification of harm is important, in order to assess the possible impact of the newly introduced rules on the quantification of harm and on private antitrust enforcement in general in other CEE Member States. The rules for the quantification of harm will not enhance private antitrust enforcement on their own, however, their effective application by national courts together with other rules under the Damages Directive should contribute to a quicker development of private enforcement in CEE Members States.

scholarly journals Expulsion or Imprisonment? Criminal Law Sanctions for Breaching an Entry Ban in the Light of Crimmigration Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Jim Waasdorp ◽  
Aniel Pahladsingh
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Illegal Migration ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Illegal Migrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

At EU-level, the use of substantive criminal law as a response to illegal migration is materialised by both the EU legislator and the Member States individually. EU involvement in criminalizing illegal migration takes place in a twofold manner: directly, through harmonization of national legislations, and indirectly, through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). An example of the latter is the case law of the CJEU regarding criminal law sanctions for breaching an entry ban. In 2008 the EU adopted the Return Directive. This directive aims at establishing common standards and procedures to be applied in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. To actually effectuate their return, the Return Directive provides for several instruments, inter alia, entry bans. In this article, we will analyse six judgments of the CJEU in the light of crimmigration law and make a distinction between the Member Statesʼ power to classify a breach of an entry ban as an offence and to lay down criminal law sanctions in national legislation, and their power to impose such sanctions.Key notes: Return Directive, entry ban, illegal migrant, criminal law sanctions, crimmigration, expulsion  

‘External’ Case Law as a Source of Inspiration for the Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-53
Author(s):  
Allan Rosas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Reverse Situation ◽  
Justice Judgments

Whilst the other contributions to this book focus on the extent to which the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is taken into account in EU neighbouring countries, notably by the national courts of these countries, this chapter deals with the reverse situation; that is, the extent to which the CJEU pays attention to the case law of both international courts and national courts of third countries. This is done mainly by looking at explicit references to such extraneous sources to be found in CJEU judgments and orders. The main focus is on the case law of the Court of Justice, but some information is also provided concerning the case law of the General Court. In the context of references to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law contained in Court of Justice judgments, some examples are also given of references to CJEU judgments which can be found in the case law of the Human Rights Court.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE EU'S COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY

2017 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

AbstractThe EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU's and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU's constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court's jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

scholarly journals Contractele clickwrap ⸺ terenul propice al clauzelor abuzive. O analiză de caz

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-193
Author(s):  
Christian-Dorel Grosu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice

On the occasion of creating a new email account, of buying a good through the use of platforms such as eMag or elefant.ro a person signs contracts whose clauses are many times abusive; clauses which, if faced with, seem to render the consumer stripped of legal means of protection. The most widely encountered clauses such as the above are the choice-of-law clauses and the forum selection clauses. Rushing to the consumer’s aid is the national legislation (Law 193/2000), as well as the European one and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

scholarly journals Litispendencia internacional y actuaciones previas al proceso [consideraciones a propósito de la STJUE de 4 de mayo de 2017 (hanseyachts) y de la STJUE de 20 de diciembre de 2017 (schlömp)] = International lis pendens and preliminary measures [some reflections in light of the ECJ Judgments in the hanseyachts and schlömp cases]

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 581
Author(s):  
Fernando Gascón Inchausti
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
European Regulations

Resumen: La aplicación de las reglas sobre litispendencia internacional de las normas procesales civiles europeas se funda, de ordinario, en la prevalencia del proceso incoado en primer término. El presente trabajo aborda, a la luz de dos recientes resoluciones del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (en los asuntos HanseYachts y Schlömp) hasta qué punto puede entenderse que generan litispendencia, a estos efectos, determinadas actuaciones previas al proceso, en especial cuando su formulación es obligatoria desde un punto de vista legal (como puede suceder con una conciliación previa) o puede resultar necesaria desde un punto de vista estratégico (como puede ser el caso de medidas de aseguramiento o anticipación probatoria o de medidas cautelares).Palabras clave: Reglamento Bruselas I bis, Litispendencia internacional ,Comienzo del proceso, Actuaciones preprocesales, Medidas de aseguramiento y anticipación probatoria, Conciliación.Abstract: The application of the provisions on international lis pendens established in the European regulations on civil procedure is based, ordinarily, on the prevalence of the proceeding initiated in the first place. The present work addresses, in light of two recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in the HanseYachts and Schlömp cases) to what extent it can be understood that lis pendens, for these purposes, is produced by certain preliminary measures, prior to legal proceedings, especially when making use of them is mandatory from a legal point of view (as it can happen with a previous conciliation) or it may be necessary from a strategic point of view (this may be the case of measures to preserve or establish evidence of facts, as well as protective measures).Keywords: Brussels I Regulation (recast), International lis pendens, Commencement of proceedings, Preliminary measures, Measures to preserve or establish evidence of facts , Conciliation.

Possession of significant quantity of narcotic drugs – problem overview in the context of the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union dated 11 June 2020 C-634/18

2021 ◽  
Vol 2(24) ◽  
pp. 341-356
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Tkaczyk-Rymanowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Drug Addiction ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Case Basis ◽  
Narcotic Drugs

In the judgment of 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union took the position that it is not contradictory to the community regulations for courts to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not in a specific case the quantity of drugs possessed by the offender is significant and therefore the penalty should be made more severe. The interpretation of the concept of a ‘significant quantity’ of drugs may be left for the national courts to decide on a case-by-case basis on condition that this interpretation is reasonably foreseeable. This article presents an opinion in the discussion of the problems generated by the concept of significant quantities of narcotic drugs in the Polish criminal law, as specified in article 62(2) of the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction of 29 July 2005. Most of all, however, the doubts that the judgment of the Court of Justice may raise in the context of the Polish legal order and recognised (and very diverse) case-law.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-254
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is a former member state of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, i.e. the treaties; secondary legislation, including regulations and directives; and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts, or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that member states are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage. The Withdrawal Act 2018 includes the key provisions for EU law in the UK post-Brexit.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is currently a Member State of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council; the Council of the European Union; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, ie the treaties, secondary legislation, including regulations and directives, and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that Member States are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document