A Fourth in the Court: Why Are There Advocates General in the Court of Justice?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 529-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Why Questions ◽  
Internal Justification

AbstractWhy are there Advocates General in the Court of Justice of the European Union? A standard answer to this question is likely to be either a simple textual reference (because the Treaty provides for them); or an appeal to authority (because the original framers of the Treaties put them there, inspired by the French legal system); or a rather pragmatic appeal to their on-going utility (because they assist the Court and they do a great job); or any combination of these three. All of these explanations are valid. This contribution, however, attempts to go a little deeper in discerning what may be the ideological justification for Advocates General in the Court of Justice. It does so by carrying out a historical and comparative study concerning their origins and systemic justification from the vantage point of a national lawyer coming from a Member State that does not know any type of a ‘fourth in the court’.The first part of the contribution explains which factors have considerably eroded the position of Advocates General in the course of the last decade and why questions concerning their role and its justification became topical. Second, the commonly invoked reference to the French inspiration for introducing Advocates General is critically examined. It is suggested that justifications once provided with respect to the office of commissaire du gouvernement in the Conseil d’État can hardly be used on the European level with respect to Advocates General. Third, possibilities of internal justification of the role of Advocates General are examined: are Advocates General providing any unique assistance to the Court of Justice, which could not be provided for in different ways? With a negative answer to the latter question, the last part of the argument offers a simple yet solid overreaching justification as to why there should be Advocates General in the Court of Justice.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

INTRODUCTION: HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Banta ◽  
Wija Oortwijn
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level

Health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important in the European Union as an aid to decision making. As agencies and programs have been established, there is increasing attention to coordination of HTA at the European level, especially considering the growing role of the European Union in public health in Europe. This series of papers describes and analyzes the situation with regard to HTA in the 15 members of the European Union, plus Switzerland. The final paper draws some conclusions, especially concerning the future involvement of the European Commission in HTA.

Article 260 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice

Article 228 EC If the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the State shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court.

A Permanent Constitutional Assembly

2020 ◽  
pp. 197-214
Author(s):  
Markus Patberg
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Dual Role ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Institutional Solution ◽  
The Eu

This chapter presents an institutional proposal for how citizens could be enabled—in the dual role of European and national citizens—to exercise constituent power in the EU. To explain in abstract terms what an institutional solution would have to involve, it draws on the notion of a sluice system, according to which the particular value of representative bodies consists in their capacity to provide both transmission and filter functions for democratic processes. On this basis, the chapter critically discusses the proposal that the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) should transform itself into an inter-parliamentary constitutional assembly. As this model allows constituted powers to continue to operate as the EU’s de facto constituent powers, it cannot be expected to deliver the functions of a sluice system. The chapter goes on to argue that a more convincing solution would be to turn the Convention of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union into a permanent constitutional assembly composed of two chambers, one elected by EU citizens and the other by member state citizens. The chapter outlines the desirable features of such an assembly and defends the model against a number of possible objections.

From a Protectorate to a Member State of the European Union

2022 ◽  
pp. 278-296
Author(s):  
Liliana Reis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Independent State ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Academic Debate

The European Union was present in Kosovo even before the declaration of its independence. However, it was after 2008 and at the request of the Kosovar authorities to EU that Kosovo inaugurated a period of close ties with the organization, through the rule of law mission it launched for the country and through various programs of the European Commission, including the European Partnership Action Plan (EPAP) for Kosovo, Mechanism of the Stabilization and Association Process, and the Instrument of Pre-Accession (IPA). This chapter seeks to examine the evolution of European presence on Kosovo by analysing EULEX mission and other European instruments and the achievements by newly former states in achieving the Copenhagen criteria, contributing to the academic debate on the role of European Union aid in the new Western Balkans states for their emancipation and possible access to the organization. It also evaluates the mutualisation of responsibilities and maintenance of the European status quo in Kosovo, fostering a protectorate in an independent state.

Article 43 CFR

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Martin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Role

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

8. European Actions

2020 ◽  
pp. 180-208
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Strict Sense ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Actions ◽  
The Eu

This chapter describes the direct enforcement of European law in the European Courts. The judicial competences of the European Courts are enumerated in the section of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) dealing with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter discusses four classes of judicial actions. The first class is typically labelled an ‘enforcement action’ in the strict sense of the term. This action is set out in Articles 258 and 259 TFEU and concerns the failure of a Member State to act in accordance with European law. The three remaining actions ‘enforce’ the European Treaties against the EU itself. These actions can be brought for a failure to act, for judicial review, and for damages.

8. Enforcing EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-239
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Similar Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document