The European Court Of Justice Delivered A Judgment On Groupement Des Cartes Bancaires V. European Commission Essay

From the liberal point of view, the FTC and the EC should recognize the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger as an international issue, not a national issue, so that it should restrain autonomy of state, in this case the U.S., preventing from intervention to protect domestic interests. However, in the case of Boeing-Mc Donnell Douglas, both antitrust authorities, specifically the European Commission, acted in a protectionist manner keeping domestic interests. In a study on 290 proposed acquisitions screened by the EC during 1990, it was found that although European merger and acquisition regulators claim to be protecting competition and consumers, in fact, the more harm suffered by European rival firms when the acquire is coming from the outside the EU, the greater the likelihood of European regulatory intervention against the proposed merger or acquisition . The EC’s focus on competitors rather than consumers was revealed by this study.

Member countries’ laws and regulations should permit authorities to suspend, to an appropriate degree, from competition for public contracts or other public advantages, including

The first part of this paper attempts to answer these questions whilst deliberating on the majority and minority judgements of the US Supreme Court in Leegin and the significance of the decision for US federal antitrust law. The second part of this paper compares the US Federal and EU approaches to RPM.

Poland has also restricted the sale of Gioco computer games arguing that they encourage bad behavior which can be bad for the user’s health. In considering this, public health is an obvious ground. However, there must be evidence of a real risk and measure must be proportionate to that risk. The ECJ repeatedly held that the health and life of humans rank among the asset and interest protected by Article 36 TFEU (Steiner, J. Woods, L 2012). “It is for the UK and Poland, within the limits imposed by the treaty, to decide on the degree of protection they which to afford to public health and on the way in which that degree of protection is to be achieved (Steiner, J. Woods, L 2012). While this allocate Member of State considerable discretion, and variance between the levels of protection chosen by the various Member States is permitted, in practice they are limitation on this discretion. So, while discriminatory measures for UK and Poland for which justification may be sought on health ground to ban, test and inspection of imports to ensure that domestic standards are met, thus, in order for the UK and Poland to successes on banning imports of Gioco games they must prove that “Total War” imposed a real health risk which is demonstrated in case Duphar BV (case 238/82). In the case of Commission v UK the ECJ found that a requirement that UHT milk should be marketed

The ECJ has had a major influence on making the constitution of the EU more supranational by setting rules such as the principle of direct effect, which implies obligation for every EU citizen without having to call in national states, and the primacy of EU law over national law. The ECJ has also had significant influence on other areas of EU policy, such as establishing the principle of mutual recognition of standards in all member states. In other words, the national courts have been incorporated into the administration of EU justice, making the ECJ the most influential judicial body in Europe.

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law has been established over the course of more than five decades. It is a principle that was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1964, and it has continued to have a rich history in the jurisprudence of the ECJ and national constitutional courts. As the ECJ and national courts attempt to define their respective realms of influence, a bright debate has sparked regarding constitutional pluralism. Moreover, the recent codification of primacy in the Constitutional Treaty has led to a new debate on the scope of the supremacy of EU law.

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

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

This question concerns non-fiscal barriers to the free movement of goods in the European Union. Issues concerning Articles 34,35 or 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are raised and Brian’s potential claim is against France as the Member State who has enacted measures which may restrict imports and exports, thereby violating the Treaty.

One of the fundamental objectives of the EU was to ensure that the law is interpreted in a consistent manner within the national courts of the Member States, expectedly this has caused complications on the issue of supremacy between the EU and the national law, the Member States presumed that they were allowed to exercise national sovereignty internally. Fundamentally, the Treaties are binding on all other Member States. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers have enacted laws, hence the European Court has the authority to make the final judicial decisions. Therefore, in order to understand the conflict between the EU and the national law, we must first understand the concept of supremacy by defining what it is and how do national courts perceive it. The statement suggests that the issue of supremacy between the EU and the national law is ineffective unless a conflict arises. This essay will discuss progressively the operation of EU and national laws along with historical developments and criticisms, to examine as to what extent the statement is valid.

Critically analyse with reference to the function, personnel and procedures of these two EU courts.

Most European Union law(hereinafter referred as EU law) textbooks showcase that the evolution of direct effect principle gave rise to various debatable issues. It is blatant that directive appears to be a double-edged sword by protecting fundamental rights guaranteed by the Union law, taken jointly, ensuring the uniform application of Union law across the Member States. Nevertheless, David appreciated that this issue became highly contentious due to the inconsistent judicial approach adopted by Court of Justice (hereinafter referred as CJEU) , consequently resulted in belittling Member States’ supremacy.

In the aftermath of the 1957 Treaty , the European Economic Community (EEC) was established and customs barriers between the member states have been abolished. Member States throughout the Community, can “promote a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between them”. Therefore, in order for a common market to be established between Member States, the Community enacted some legislative provisions which aimed to a true harmonization of laws; incorporate different legal systems under a basic legal framework. The main issue arising is whether these legal provisions in accordance with the case law, ensured the free movement of goods within this market.

One of the main objectives of the European Union (EU) is the establishment of the internal market, which shall consist of “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. The internal market is based upon a customs union achieved through the abolition of the imposition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect and the prohibition of discriminatory taxes on intra-EU imports. The internal market is enhanced by the provisions on free movement of workers, freedom of establishment, free movement of services, and free movement of capital. Whereas Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide for the establishment of an EU common external tariff and the elimination of customs duties, Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (with exceptions under Article 36) go further, and prohibit quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. Taken together, Articles 28 to 32 and 34 to 36 serve to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU and to facilitate the operation of the internal market.

With the effect of the Single European Act on 1st July 1987, the emergence of European Union (EU) as a common market has essentially been created. The benefits of this act are substantial to European firms, economies, and workers. It eliminates conflicting national regulations and trade barriers, as well as offering firms opportunity to sell their goods to all other EU members (Griffin & Pustay 2005).