Article 275 TFEU

Bernhard Schima

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.415

2019-05-23

Abstract:The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to the common foreign and security policy nor with respect to acts adopted on the basis of those provisions.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Article 22 TEU

Thomas Ramopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.30

2019-05-23

Abstract:Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union shall relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of the Union. Such decisions may concern the relations of the Union with a specific country or region or may be thematic in approach. They shall define their duration, and the means to be made available by the Union and the Member States.The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Treaties.
Article 40 TEU

Thomas Ramopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.50

2019-05-23

Abstract:Article 47 TEU The implementation of the common foreign and security policy shall not affect the application of the procedures and the extent of the powers of the institutions laid down by the Treaties for the exercise of the Union competences referred to in Articles 3 to 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Article 191 TFEU

Sacha Garben

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.307

2019-05-23

Abstract:Article 191(1) TFEU provides the objectives of the EU’s environmental policy. These are the preservation, protection, and improvement of the quality of the environment, the protection of human health, the prudent and rational utilization of natural resources, and, in an external dimension, the promotion of international measures to deal with environmental problems. The specific reference to climate was added by the ToL. Not mentioned in the Environment Title, but separately in Article 13 TFEU, the EU, furthermore, expresses a commitment to animal welfare, ‘since animals are sentient beings’, which one could equally consider an aspect of environmental policy.
Article 26 TEU

Thomas Ramopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.36

2019-05-23

Abstract:The European Council shall identify the Union’s strategic interests, determine the objectives of and define general guidelines for the common foreign and security policy, including for matters with defence implications. It shall adopt the necessary decisions.
Article 15 TEU

Paul-John Loewenthal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.20

2019-05-23

Abstract:The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Article 32 TEU

Thomas Ramopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.42

2019-05-23

Abstract:Article 16 TEU Member States shall consult one another within the European Council and the Council on any matter of foreign and security policy of general interest in order to determine a common approach. Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union’s interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.
Article 38 TEU

Thomas Ramopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.48

2019-05-23

Abstract:Article 25 TEU Without prejudice to Article 240 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a Political and Security Committee shall monitor the international situation in the areas covered by the common foreign and security policy and contribute to the definition of policies by delivering opinions to the Council at the request of the Council or of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or on its own initiative. It shall also monitor the implementation of agreed policies, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative.
Article 3 [Principle of loyalty]

Christian Franklin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845275796-180

2018-01-01

Abstract:The provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) determine the relations of the EFTA States Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein with the EU and its Member States. On the basis of EEA, these three countries are largely integrated into the single market of the EU. The EEA is also discussed as a possible model for the EU and UK relations after the Brexit. Article by article, the new commentary outlines the importance of the EEA for legal practice, including all extensive annexes and protocols. There is also included both the essential secondary law of EEA and cross-links to EU law. Moreover, the commentary involves the current status of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, taking legislation and jurisprudence into account. The commentary focuses on the EEA rules on free movement of goods, movement of persons, services, capital, transport policy and competition law. In addition, the commentary intensively discusses the responsibilities and procedures of both the European Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court and the complementary agreement between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Most helpful The commentary offers a detailed overview on the effects of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein on the status and effects of EEA law in the EU on the specific situation of Switzerland on the international agreements accompanying the EEA, giving a full picture of the legal relations within the EEA on today's legal reality and changed legal environment through the Treaty of Lisbon and other EU agreements. The editors and authors represent the international approach and professional expertise of the commentary. They are international experts in the field of science and practice, especially in dealing with EEA law.
Article 18 [Technical barriers to trade in agricultural products]

Finn Arnesen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845275796-336

2018-01-01

Abstract:The provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) determine the relations of the EFTA States Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein with the EU and its Member States. On the basis of EEA, these three countries are largely integrated into the single market of the EU. The EEA is also discussed as a possible model for the EU and UK relations after the Brexit. Article by article, the new commentary outlines the importance of the EEA for legal practice, including all extensive annexes and protocols. There is also included both the essential secondary law of EEA and cross-links to EU law. Moreover, the commentary involves the current status of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, taking legislation and jurisprudence into account. The commentary focuses on the EEA rules on free movement of goods, movement of persons, services, capital, transport policy and competition law. In addition, the commentary intensively discusses the responsibilities and procedures of both the European Surveillance Authority and EFTA Court and the complementary agreement between Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Most helpful The commentary offers a detailed overview on the effects of EEA law in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein on the status and effects of EEA law in the EU on the specific situation of Switzerland on the international agreements accompanying the EEA, giving a full picture of the legal relations within the EEA on today's legal reality and changed legal environment through the Treaty of Lisbon and other EU agreements. The editors and authors represent the international approach and professional expertise of the commentary. They are international experts in the field of science and practice, especially in dealing with EEA law.
26. AFSJ: EU Criminal Law

Paul Craig,Gráinne de Búrca

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198856641.003.0026

2020-07-21

Abstract:All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. The Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ) is now found in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The subject matter dealt with by these provisions is important and politically sensitive, as it includes police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, visas, asylum, immigration, and judicial cooperation in civil matters. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the development of the three-pillar structure introduced by the Maastricht Treaty. Section 3 focuses on the rationale for the inclusion of the subject matter that comprises the AFSJ. Section 4 considers the general principles in the Lisbon Treaty that apply to all areas which comprise the AFSJ, including: Treaty objectives, competence, role of the principal EU institutions, judicial role, and an outline of the opt-outs that apply to the UK. The remainder of the chapter looks in more detail at criminal law and procedure. The UK version contains a further section analysing issues concerning the AFSJ and the UK post-Brexit.
“Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto”

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01051-z

2021-03-29

IIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law

Abstract:Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where an undertaking which has allegedly participated in a single and continuous infringement of that provision, the most recent constituent element of which consists in the concerted submission with its competitors of a tender for the award of a public works contract, has won the contract and concluded with the contracting authority a works contract determining the essential characteristics of that contract and, in particular, the overall price to be paid for those works, the performance and payment of the price for which are staggered over time, the infringement period corresponds to the period up to the date of signature of the contract concluded between the undertaking and the contracting authority on the basis of the concerted bid submitted by that undertaking. It is for the national court to ascertain the date on which the essential characteristics of the relevant contract and, in particular, the total price to be paid for the work, have been definitively determined.
The Use of International Treaty Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union

Jed ODERMATT

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cel.2015.5

2015-08-03

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies

Abstract:Abstract The Court of Justice of the European Union has on numerous occasions employed the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to the extent that they represent principles of customary international law, in its judicial reasoning. At first glance, the Court’s use of the Vienna rules demonstrate fidelity towards international law; it can be seen as contributing to the ‘strict observance and the development of international law’. Upon closer examination, however, one finds that the Court applies these rules in a fashion that often deviates from the way in which other courts and bodies have applied the same principles. This article examines how the Court has used international treaty law, arguing that the Court often employs a novel, ‘European’ approach to certain principles. While the Court is free to apply treaty law in a manner it believes to be appropriate, the extent of this divergence risks undermining the integrity and uniform application of the Vienna rules.
The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations

Eleftheria Neframi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/cola2010017

IF: 2.02

2010-04-01

Common Market Law Review

Abstract:The duty of loyalty, or loyal cooperation, (Art. 4(3) TEE, ex Art. 10 EC) governs the interactions between the Union and national legal orders and is linked to fundamental principles, such as effectiveness, primacy and respect of the Member States’ autonomy. In the field of EU external relations, the duty of loyalty may express different facets of the Union interest. As an expression of the obligation to effectively implement common rules, the duty of loyalty permits to understand how a mixed agreement in its entirety has to be considered as a source of European Union law. Besides, the duty of loyalty implies the need to ensure the effectiveness of EU law obligations in the exercise of the Member States’ retained competence. It results from the recent case law of the Court of Justice that Member States have the obligation to eliminate not only established, but also hypothetical incompatibilities between common rules and their prior international commitments (Art. 351(2) TFEU, ex Art. 307(2)EC). Furthermore, the duty of loyalty implies an obligation for the Member States to facilitate the exercise of the Union competence. It is the basis of their obligation to refrain from adopting a unilateral position and, in some cases, to act in the interest of the Union. Finally, the duty of loyalty, through the duty of close cooperation, contributes to the fulfillment of the requirement of unity of the external representation of the European Union and its Member States.

international relations,law
Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in the European Union

Matteo Gnes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0006

2021-08-23

Abstract:This chapter assesses administrative procedure and judicial review in the European Union. The requirement of judicial oversight of administrative action, which results from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States of the EU, is a general principle of EU law, and it is applicable both to proceedings before the Court of justice and before national courts, when EU law is invoked before them. The EU courts carry out a generalized review on any binding acts. Although there are certain differences between acts that may be challenged according to the different remedies provided by EU law, in order to be challengeable, the acts must fulfil several conditions. The most important are: they must be binding and produce legal effects, be definitive and be taken by EU institutions in the exercise of their competencies. Article 263 TFEU provides that the acts of EU institutions may be annulled on grounds of 'lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers'. Acts or failure to act may give rise to the liability of EU institutions.
Europe’s Green Ambition: New Guidelines of the European Commission on the Application of Art. 101 TFEU to Sustainability Agreements – A Critical Account

Jonas von Kalben

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15375/zwer-2022-0408

2022-12-05

Zeitschrift für Wettbewerbsrecht

Abstract:Abstract On 1. March 2022 the European Commission (Commission) published a draft of new Horizontal Guidelines (DHG 2022) that dedicate a separate chapter to provide guidance on the application of Art. 101 TFEU to Sustainability Agreements. A primary objective of the Commission is to facilitate cooperation of undertakings that contributes to the ‘green transition’. The DHG 2022 clarify that competition and sustainability are complementary objectives and – contrary to claims of some commentators – reject more general restrictions of Art. 101(1) TFEU. Nevertheless, the new guidelines provide useful guidance on (soft) safe harbours for certain types of Sustainability Agreements. At the same time, the Commission advocates a broad reading of Art. 101(3) TFEU that would allow to credit a wide range of individual but also collective sustainability benefits. A closer look reveals that the suggested approach is difficult to reconcile with the case law of the European Courts. Moreover, the Commission’s interpretation of the legal exemption raises fundamental questions of the legitimacy of private companies to take normative decisions with far reaching distributive effects.
Is There More to it Than the Fight Against ‘Dirty Money’? Article 95 EC and the Criminal Law

Ester Herlin-Karnell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2008028

2008-06-01

European Business Law Review

Abstract:The fight against dirty money and financial crimes in general is a very high priority for the EU – increasingly often on the top of the agenda – in the integration mission to establish a genuine, crime free, European space. Especially, the EC has frequently addressed the problem of white collar crime, accusing it of undermining the confidence in the market and thereby hampering the smooth running and full effectiveness of it. A considerable crux in this EC ‘tough on crime’ approach has, however, been the lack of a legislative competence, at the supranational level. Nonetheless, recently the landmark ruling of C–176/03, Commission v Council, came partly to the rescue. More specifically, this case set the constitutional snowball rolling, bringing with it a range of dormant/latent EC proposals eagerly suggesting a criminal law competence. This paper provides a critical analysis of current developments in the area of financial crimes by discussing the federal scope of Art 95 EC and Art 5 (1) EC.
The Role of the Social Partners and the ‘Overall protection of temporary agency workers’: The ECJ decision in the TimePartner case and the legal and actual situation in Germany

Daniel Ulber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227837

2024-02-19

European Labour Law Journal

Abstract:This article critically examines the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) decision in the TimePartner case and its implications for labour market integration in the context of temporary agency work. The author supports the ECJ's position on the rule-exception relationship within Directive 2008/104/EC, emphasising equal treatment for temporary agency workers. The analysis explores the alignment between the ECJ's approach and the Directive's goal of creating a non-discriminatory, transparent, and proportionate framework for worker protection. Within the German legal landscape, where there has been reluctance to implement the Directive, complex collective agreements have led to substantial remuneration disparities between regular employees and temporary agency workers. The absence of statutory regulations on overall protection for temporary agency workers, coupled with reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in collective agreements, presents challenges for labour market integration. The article also addresses the assumption of an inherent warranted correctness of collective agreements and its potential implications for EU law enforcement, recognising this may limit the judicial review of collective agreements for compliance with EU Directives, potentially undermining EU law effectiveness. In conclusion, this analysis sheds light on the consequences of the ECJ's TimePartner case decision, particularly in Germany, and suggests the need for more detailed, industry-specific collective agreements to better meet the Directive's requirements.
ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE PROVISIONS

Chiara Fumagalli,Massimo Motta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhae003

2024-03-19

Journal of Competition Law & Economics

Abstract:Abstract The European Commission (EC) has recently announced its intention to issue Guidelines on exclusionary abuses. In this paper, we explain how economics can and should be used to inform a sound and effects-based approach in the enforcement of Article 102 TFEU. In particular, the EC should be guided only by a consumer welfare standard; exclusive dealing and exclusivity rebates should be subject to a (rebuttable) presumption of harm; price–cost tests are meaningful only for predation and other practices that do not reference rivals; essentiality of the input should not be a requirement for vertical foreclosure cases of any type, but such cases should be limited only to dominant firms that satisfy certain criteria.

economics,law
Transnational constitutionalism – conflicts‐law constitutionalism – economic constitutionalism: the exemplary case of the European Union

CHRISTIAN JOERGES

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12438

IF: 1.3

2023-09-09

Journal of Law and Society

Abstract:Transnational constitutionalism is both a sociological given and a legal challenge. We observe the emergence of ever more legally framed transnational arrangements with ever more power and impact. Do such arrangements deserve to be called legitimate rule in Habermasian terms? Is it at all conceivable that the proprium of law can be defended against the rise of its informal competitors? This article opts for a third way that listens to neither the siren songs on law beyond the state nor to the defences of nation‐state constitutionalism as the monopolist of legitimate rule. The proposed alternative suggests that transnational legal ordering of the European Union should build on its reconceptualization as a 'three‐dimensional conflicts law' with a democracy‐enhancing potential. This reconceptualization operationalizes the 'united in diversity' motto of the Draft Constitutional Treaty of 2004, preserves the essential accomplishments of Europe's constitutional democracies, provides for co‐operative problem solving of transnational regulatory tasks, and retains supervisory powers over national and transnational arrangements of private governance.

sociology,law
Impact of ECJ Case Law on the Harmonization of Inheritance and Gift Taxation in the European Union

P. Linseis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59403/1734rpz

2024-04-09

Abstract:The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal and economic effects of ECJ case law on inheritance and gift taxation. The results show that ECJ case law has had a significant influence on the development of inheritance and gift tax legislation in the European Union in terms of reducing discrimination between purely national and cross-border cases. One problem, however, is that the economic effects of the decisions are ambivalent, which leads one to question the efficacy of the Court in contributing to the establishment of an internal market.

Article 275 TFEU

Article 22 TEU

Article 40 TEU

Article 191 TFEU

Article 26 TEU

Article 15 TEU

Article 32 TEU

Article 38 TEU

Article 3 [Principle of loyalty]

Article 18 [Technical barriers to trade in agricultural products]

26. AFSJ: EU Criminal Law

“Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto”

The Use of International Treaty Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Duty of Loyalty: Rethinking its Scope through its Application in the Field of EU External Relations

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in the European Union

Europe’s Green Ambition: New Guidelines of the European Commission on the Application of Art. 101 TFEU to Sustainability Agreements – A Critical Account

Is There More to it Than the Fight Against ‘Dirty Money’? Article 95 EC and the Criminal Law

The Role of the Social Partners and the ‘Overall protection of temporary agency workers’: The ECJ decision in the TimePartner case and the legal and actual situation in Germany

ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE PROVISIONS

Transnational constitutionalism – conflicts‐law constitutionalism – economic constitutionalism: the exemplary case of the European Union

Impact of ECJ Case Law on the Harmonization of Inheritance and Gift Taxation in the European Union