EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic And Trade Agreement Case Analysis

The developing jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice also made it clear that there existed effectively an autonomous European legal order and that the member States were obliged to acknowledge the primacy of Community law over national law in areas where it

This essay will review the difference types of competences and examine the effectiveness of the European Court of Justice in ensuring that EU institutions do not exceed the bounds of their competence in adopting legislation.

“…judicial and legislative developments *have+ made the *infringement+ procedure [come] of age- from a rarely used, opaque and policy-driven procedure, it has now become a common, fairly transparent and highly technical procedure.” Prete & Smuldres “The coming of age of infringement proceedings” (2010) 47 CMLR 9 Has the infringement procedure finally “come of age”? Critically outline the key features of the Article 258 TFEU procedure and relevant caselaw. Article 258 TFEU (Formerly Art 226 EC) empowers the European Commission to deliver a reasoned opinion to a member state when it considers that the state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties. The action seeks to “fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty” and to “obtain a

This paper will assess the claim that supremacy of EU law is still an evolving and debatable concept. To do this, I have divided this paper into four sections. The first section will discuss the establishment of supremacy in EU law through ECJ case law. The second section will explore the vibrant debate surrounding constitutional pluralism that has arisen since the early 1990s. The third section will examine the debate and impact of the codification of primacy in the early 2000s. The fourth section will examine the extent to which the principle of sovereignty has been accepted in three EU Member States, namely, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Poland.

Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In

Representatives Jim Kolbe and Richard A. Gephardt express contrasting views on whether to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement. Kolbe favors the agreement because it would open new economic opportunities to the US. On the other hand, Gephardt opposes it because it would economically hurt many

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

However again this higher status can be seen as limited as is only assumed from a written obligation. Therefore to asses if supremacy is not the challenge to member state sovereignty that is appears to be, a close analysis of how the CJEU has dealt with the issue of supremacy of EU law in case law is needed, firstly looking at Van Gend en Loos which stated that the ‘EU was a new legal order permanently limiting the sovereign rights of the Member State’. This customs case helped establish the ‘relationships between the European Union and international law…to grantee that the rules of one system are complied with in another legal order ’ showing in practise that if on a national level EU law is breached CJEU will take supremacy and comply with ‘the integrity of the EU legal order’ . Further evaluation of the limits of the supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa V ENEL where ‘Italy had claimed that the EU treaties…had been transposed into the Italian legal order by national legislation, which could therefore be derogated by subsequent national legislation. The court rejected this presumption of the supremacy of national law by insisting on the supremacy of EU law’ . This case holds significance as it ‘is well-known since Costa V ENEL the court has affirmed the supremacy of Community law over national law’ strongly suggesting the continued existence of EU supremacy is not frequently

While the constitution and administration of final appellate courts are not monolithic, the role played in public policy in other states is no less important. States can decide on the appointment, number and terms of service of the judges, jurisdiction and funding for the national court. There are some states, however, that have constitutional ties to an extraterritorial judicial entity which then serves as the court of last resort. Such extraterritorial courts are located outside state borders yet exercise jurisdiction over cases originating in that state. Not all extraterritorial courts are the same. The level of control member states exert on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is widely discussed in the extant literature on the European Union. This control is in

The European Union is concerned primarily with proceedings where the defendants is domiciled in the European Union and the Brussel’s Regulation gave, effects to jurisdiction agreements detailed in documents to which at least one party was domiciled in the EU, even if that party was not the Defendant or where the Defendant submitted to the jurisdiction. The Recast regulation expanded the circumstances in which a non-EU domiciled Defendant can be sued in a Member State if the defendant is an employer whose employee habitually works in a Member State or if the defendant is a trader which

Überseering wanted to transfer its actual centre of administration from the Netherlands10 to Germany11. German jurisdiction was applicable, due to the real seat of Überseering12. But, according to German law, Überseering was denied legal capacity, necessary to sue, as it had not fulfilled the required formation formalities.13 The ECJ 's decision was in agreement with the Centros judgement. MS had to recognize legal capacity of companies which are officially incorporated in another MS. The real seat countries had to adjust significantly after this judgement. While, the ECJ 's decision once again benefits the incorporation states as they no longer have to comply with additional conditions formerly emplaced by real seat states.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is a governing body ensuring law in the European Union (EU) is interpreted and applied in the same manner in every country in the EU, and also ensures countries and EU institutions abide by EU law. The CJEU was founded in Luxembourg in 1952 and can settle legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. The CJEU can also be used by individuals, companies or organizations to take legal action against an EU institution, if they feel that the institution has violated or infringed upon their rights. The Court can give rulings on the cases that are brought before it based on interpreting the law, enforcing the law, annulling EU legal acts, ensuring the EU takes action, or sanctioning EU institutions (“Presentation”).

Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015

The European Union (EU) is not a typical international organization. The mix of intergovernmental and supranational institutions makes the EU a unique, distinctive political, and economic system. As Europe has spiraled from one crisis to the next, difficult discussions haves arisen about how much more power should be delegated to Brussels. Even though the EU advocates for “ever closer union”, through increased integration, states are becoming hesitant to relinquish power to the EU. This is due to the fact that state sovereignty has become threatened; it is being compromised by a combination of the lack of effective democratic institutions and the loss of states have lost control of law-making to legislation power to EU institutions. Euroenthuthiasts argue that state sovereignty is enhanced, not threatened, by reallocating power to EU institutions. However, Eurosceptics dispute that too much control has seceded to the EU making is a threat to state sovereignty. My position aligns with Eurosceptics, for the EU has weakened state sovereignty do to increased centralization of power in EU institutions that lack legitimacy. The European Project has obtained a copious amount of jurisdiction from states and eroded a basic fundamental freedom of the modern state- sovereignty. Since the EU has with goals to deepen and widen integration it’s clear that forfeiting state sovereignty will only intensify. My essay will start with a brief history of the European Union and a short

The European Union (EU) was established in order to prevent the horrors of modern warfare, experienced by most of Europe during the World Wars of the 20th century, from ever ensuing again, by aiming to create an environment of trust with the countries of Europe cooperating in areas such as commerce, research and trade (Adams, 2001). The EU has evolved into an economic, trade, political and monetary alliance between twenty-eight European Member States. While not all Member States are in monetary union (i.e. share the currency of the euro), those that are form the ‘Euro-zone’ (Dinan, 2006). The EU can pass a number of types of legislation, with a regulation, act, or law, being the most powerful. Its ‘tricameral’ (European Union, 2007)