Application of EU Law at ECJ

Until very recently all wholesale energy trades in the Romanian market were conducted on the centralized markets operated by OPCOM SA (“OPCOM”). This meant that bilateral agreements concluded outside the centralized Romanian market were banned, with the exception of small electricity producers. With the new changes of the Romanian legislation, as of 19 May 2020, producers of electricity are allowed to conclude bilateral agreements outside the centralized markets, “at negotiated prices and with the observance of the competition rules, in order to trade the electricity from the new production capacities put into operation after 1 June 2020.” Nevertheless, even after such change, the CJEU is faced with a case concerning a restrictive interpretation of the Romanian legislation which turned to be against Article 35 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).

This case note analyzes the opinion of Advocate General (“AG”) Campos SánchezBordona and the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on Case C-648/18 between Autoritatea Naţională de Reglementare în Domeniul Energiei (“ANRE”) and Societatea de Producere a Energiei Electrice în Hidrocentrale Hidroelectrica SA (“Hidroelectrica”). Section 2 briefly establishes the factual background and the legal issue. Section 3 and 4 describe the AG opinion and the decision of the CJEU respectively. Section 4 entails some comments and briefly discusses the role of the CJEU regarding the admissibility, focusing more on the indistinctly applicable measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions (“MEQR”) on exports, and transparency and ensuring supply as justifying grounds.

In response to the continuous disputes araised between the Federal German Constitutional Court,
the Bundesverfassungsgericht, it is important to question whether the binding authority of the Court
of Justice of the European Union, based on the principles of supremacy and primacy of EU law,
should remain absolute over the saying of national constitutional courts. This essay analyses that
giving the decisions of national constitutional courts precedence over the rulings of the Court of
Justice of the European Union, provokes instability and a lack of cohesion in the Union, because
Member States could decide to engage with the aspects of EU law that benefit them the most while
refusing to apply others because of the authority of their highest constitutional courts. Therefore in
this battle between national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union,
granting EU law primacy and supremacy, and the consequent absolute binding authority to the
European Court of Justice, is needed in order to make the Court stronger to serve to its will,
ensuring fairness, equality, stability, and cohesion in the Union.

W książce przedstawiono zasadę proporcjonalności jako instrument umożliwiający kontrolę politycznie umocowanych działań władzy, które w nomenklaturze prawnej określa się mianem „władzy dyskrecjonalnej” lub „swobodnego uznania”. Oznaczało to konieczność zbadania doktrynalnych podstaw oraz instytucjonalnego rozwoju sądowej kontroli działań organów władzy, zwłaszcza tych, które pozostawały w sferze swobodnego uznania. Przedmiotem analizy były treści doktrynalne oraz prawo we Francji, Niemczech, Austrii i Anglii oraz w Polsce od XIX w., do czasów obecnych. Pozwoliło to, obok prezentacji samego zagadnienia kontroli kompetencji dyskrecjonalnych i zasady proporcjonalności w podstawowych europejskich kulturach prawnych, ukazać również rozwój nowoczesnej teorii politycznej i szeroko pojmowanego prawa publicznego ze wskazaniem na charakterystyczne dla tych procesów prawidłowości.
****************************************************************************************
The principle of proportionality is presented as a means which makes the judicial review of discretionary powers possible. For this reason, the book starts with an analysis of the very concept of discretionary powers in itself, its philosophical origins and legal consequences, as well as the development of the judicial review of action by the state on its different levels (first administrative, then legislative) in various European countries. The legal systems of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Austria are examined from the 19th century to the present day, and the Polish legal system since 1918. This is the context in which the emergence of the principle of proportionality in German law is described, as well as its development and subsequent reception throughout the whole of Europe. Particular attention is devoted to the principle of proportionality in EU law and within the system of the European Convention of Human Rights. An investigation is carried out of the crucial role of case law under the ECHR for the pan-European reception of proportionality. This is followed by an examination of the way in which the German and French legal methods for the judicial review of discretionary powers have shaped the identity of the proportionality principle within EU law.The adoption of the principle of proportionality at the turn of the 20th and 21st century is described in detail in relation to the legal systems of France, Austria, the United Kingdom and Poland. Particular attention is devoted to the fact that the principle was first adopted on the level of constitutional law and only later in administrative law, with a certain exception for the United Kingdom?, due to the absence of a regular constitutional review. It is also pointed out that the judicial means of reviewing discretionary powers (including the principle of proportionality) are very powerful instruments for the strengthening of one political centre against another. This aspect is analysed in the context of administrative – parliamentary relations in 19th-century Europe and in the relations between national legislatures and EU transnational administration in the late 20th and early 21st century.

En el momento actual, la intensidad del impacto del derecho de la Unión en la determinación del estatuto jurídico de todas las personas que se encuentran físicamente en el territorio de la Unión -o de sus Estados miembros 1 -es notable. Junto a la existencia de la ciudadanía de la Unión europea se desarrolla en estos momentos una incipiente política de extranjería europea a través de la reinaugurada política común de * Recibido: 6/6/2011. Aceptado: 14/6/2011.! 1 La referencia -generalizada en documentos políticos e institucionales-al territorio de la Unión , o al territorio de la Comunidad , sigue siendo jurídicamente incorrecto. Sobre esta cuestión, Del Valle Gálvez, A., Inmigración, extranjería y fronteras en la Unión Europea: cinco problemas conceptuales en Forner Delaygua, J. J. (Ed.), Fronteras exteriores de la UE e inmigración a España: Relaciones internacionales y derecho. Cuadernos 33 de la Escuela Diplomática, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2007, pp. 43-80, p. 50. A este respecto, resulta significativa la precisión ofrecida por el Artículo 77 del Tratado sobre el Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea -inexistente hasta el momento-que pretende aferrarse a una concepción clásica de territorio estatal al señalar que el presente artículo no afectará a la competencia de los Estados miembros respecto de la delimitación geográfica de sus fronteras, de conformidad con el Derecho internacional . Sin embargo, progresivamente emerge una concepción independiente de la Unión, que ha desembocado en el empleo en los Tratados del término alternativo espacio , de forma que, al igual que la ciudadanía de la Unión se ha erigido en categoría jurídica independiente entre la ciudadanía y la extranjería, el territorio de la Unión emerge como una tercera categoría que se diferencia del territorio nacional y del territorio extranjero. Las consecuencias jurídicas de este desarrollo permanecen, no obstante, inciertas. Véase, Bast, J., Transnationale Verwaltung des Europäischen Migrationsraums , Der Staat, 46 1, pp. 1-32, p. 4. Sin duda, el asunto Ruiz Zambrano constituye un paso al frente en esta dirección. El TJUE se refiere expresamente al territorio de la Unión en el punto 44 de su Sentencia. ! RGDE 24 (2011) Iustel ! 2 inmigración 2 . En el marco de este contexto, surgen dos tensiones que son

La distinction du fait et du droit est une problématique centrale dans l'organisation des voies de droit. Elle exerce en effet, au-delà d'une variété de formes et de significations, une influence décisive sur l'office du juge ainsi que sur la fonction des autorités soumises à son contrôle. Pour appréhender pleinement la portée qu'elle revêt dans l'équilibre des pouvoirs établi par la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, il est nécessaire de se défaire de toute préconception de la distinction du fait et du droit (notamment au regard des pratiques observées en droit interne), afin de comprendre comment le juge de l'Union européenne exerce un pouvoir de détermination à son égard, que ce soit dans le contrôle de validité des actes juridiques ou dans les voies de recours dirigées contre des actes juridictionnels. Dans cette opération, elle reste toutefois soucieuse d'assurer l'acceptabilité de ses décisions, et prend donc en considération certaines contraintes juridiques qui se présentent à elle dans son office. Autorité normatrice et ordonnatrice, la Cour de justice en tant qu'interprète authentique utilise en réalité la distinction du fait et du droit comme un instrument de répartition des compétences entre les différents acteurs concernés par la réalisation du droit de l'Union européenne. Elle définit ainsi, à travers la détermination de la distinction du fait et du droit dans chacune de ses manifestations, l'habilitation que leur confère le système juridique. En ce sens, elle apparaît comme la juridiction suprême de cet espace normatif.

This work aims to explore the significance of EU fundamental values and the legal mechanisms envisaged by Treaties for their defence.
Alleged systemic breaches of latest years have seriously endangered the legal edifice of the European Union. Presumption of adherence to EU values, to which the Member States are committed, is nowadays at risk. Therefore measures are required to restore legality and safeguard Rule of Law at European Level.
Against this background,  it is our purpose to study the case of Poland. First, we will reconstruct the jurisprudential root of values entrenched in Article 2 of TEU while underscoring the "juridification task " of ECJ. In a later stage, we will present the set of instruments at the disposal of European institutions when confronted with the rule of law crisis.  Ultimately we will describe the challenges set by Polish Authorities to the rule of law.

The EU’s single market has been described by the European Commission as one of the EU’s greatest achievements in stimulating competition and trade and promoting economic growth for European businesses and consumers alike. By its own admission, however, the EC has acknowledged its shortcomings as rules are not known or implemented and success is hindered by various trade barriers  and value systems which must adapt to an evolving market that extends beyond mere economic goals. But, establishing a fair internal market requires a commitment toward a common regulatory framework to implement rules and recognise mutual standards to prevent any one entity from gaining competitive advantage by eliminating guidelines. To enable the single market to function properly requires standards in EU and national regulation to remove market failures, and as the internal market of the EU combines negative and positive integration, further policy intervention will be needed to overcome these challenges both at EU and national levels. The question as to whether a supranational entity will survive in the face of sovereignty of Member States will be the focus of this paper. In critically assessing the effectiveness of the single market in the ‘balancing act’ and harmonisation between total freedom of movement for goods, people, services within the supranational EU entity and sovereignty of its independent Member States, we examine the alignment and vision in the context of the Lisbon Treaty, its rules, exceptions and derogations and existing ECJ jurisprudence.

[EN] The nature of the European Union has always been a topic for much discussion and debate, especially between those who advocate its place in international or constitutional law. We always try to define one entity by comparing it to another, so the difficulty of defining lies in finding if that entity can be assimilated with a preexisting one or if it is, more or less, original or, how jurists prefer, " sui generis ". Albeit the European Union has its own " Sonderweg " , we cannot ignore the resemblances it has with national constitutional law. Through this article, we do not wish to support the idea that the European Union will transform into a Super state or Federation, but focus on the present situation of this dynamic organization by highlighting some, although not all, of the similarities between the law established by the Treaties and national constitutional law, and emphasizing some of its flaws.

[RO] Natura Uniunii Europene a fost întotdeauna un subiect de multe discuţii şi dezbateri, mai ales între cei care susţin locul său în dreptul internaţional sau constituţional. Noi încercăm întotdeauna să definim o entitate prin compararea sa cu alta, astfel încât dificultatea de a o defini, constă în a găsi cazul în care entitatea poate fi asimilată cu una preexistentă sau dacă este, mai mult sau mai puţin, originală sau, cum preferă juriştii să fie numită, " sui generis ". Deşi

CRESPO NAVA-RRO, E., «La jurisprudencia del TJCE en materia de ciudadanía de la Unión: una interpretación generosa basada en la remisión al derecho nacional y en el principio de no discriminación por razón de la nacionalidad», Revista de Derecho , núm. 37, Madrid, septiembre/diciembre , págs. 933-950 ¿HACIA UNA NUEVA RELACIÓN ENTRE LA NACIONALIDAD ESTATAL...? SARA IGLESIAS SÁNCHEZ Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo ISSN 1138-4026, núm. 37, Madrid, septiembre/diciembre (2010), págs. 933-950 ¿HACIA UNA NUEVA RELACIÓN ENTRE LA NACIONALIDAD ESTATAL...? SARA IGLESIAS SÁNCHEZ

La Sra. Sylwia Spurek y otros Miembros del Parlamento europeo, en una pregunta dirigida a la Comisión el 14 de julio de 2021, solicitaron cuál era la reacción de la Comisión ante una sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional polaco que negaba la primaciá del Derecho de la Unión Europea.

Lord Mance, prominent British judge, considers CJEU as “a central achievement of the European Union, a court with unparalleled transnational power”. This paper will explore the pros and cons of such powers and provide the insights of how such peculiar institution functions for the benefits of the European Union.

The ECJ ruled that points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from fleshbearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as ‘mechanically separated meat’ within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Therefore, such a product cannot be classified as a ‘meat preparation’ within the meaning of that point 1.15.

This special issue addresses the question of EU law as Global Governance law and the constitutional and regulatory divisions between EU law and Global Governance law. There is an increasing tendency for the Court of Justice to adopt a sui generis approach to International law but also to protect the autonomy of the EU legal order where it has global and regulatory effects. Moreover, the Court increasingly avoids analysis of externalities arising from the extra-territorial application of EU law. The boundaries between EU law, International law and Global Governance law seem increasingly porous and difficult to decipher. The papers focus in particular (but not exclusively) on the broader impact of the recent European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) decision of the Grand Chamber of Court of Justice (C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change). There, the Court of Justice rejected claims that the application of the EU-ETS scheme to the aviation sector, specifically US airlines, was unlawful under EU and International law. The Court of Justice, however, pronounced upon the legality of EU rules after a particularly protracted transatlantic battle, with the US House of Representatives legislating to prohibit the application of EU law at one point. The papers consider the impact of the decision and its wider implications for the EU as a Global Governance actor

Le 18 octobre 2011, la Cour de Justice de l’Union Européenne (CJUE) a rendu un arrêt important en matière de protection de l’embryon humain : l’arrêt Brüstle/Greenpeace eV,  C-34/10. En effet, dans cet arrêt, les juges de Luxembourg n’ont pas hésité, au nom du respect dû à la dignité humaine, à définir objectivement la notion d’embryon humain et à exclure de la brevetabilité tout procédé qui, en utilisant le prélèvement de cellules souches obtenues à partir d’un embryon humain, entraînerait la destruction de l’embryon.

Since the disclosure in 2009 of the Larosière Report, legislative acts disciplining financial markets have established a set of rules called to form the foundations of a sanctioning administrative law to be enforced by the Member States. Furthermore, the ECtHR and the ECJ, are contributing to apply here the guarantees of the Rome Convention and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This study, in addition to giving account of such legislation and case-law, aims to outline the broad principles of this new law, whose purpose is levelling the 'playing field' amongst NCAs and fostering supervisory convergence without creating new institutions. Should this 'experiment' be successful, and a new way of 'cooperative federalism' could emerge at a global level in the Union. Otherwise, further centralisation-which is neither possible nor desirable at this stage-should be expected in future years, with a sort of single supervisory mechanism in securities markets.

In its recent judgment of 17 September 2020, the ECJ held that:
“A public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as provided in Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations”.
Some years ago, in 2004, on a very similar case, judged under the Brussels Convention, the ECJ had held that:
“Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be relied on by a public body which seeks, in an action for recovery, reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated against the maintenance debtor”.
This comment agrees with the new judgment and only discusses the way the ECJ try to justify the change of jurisprudence. Furthermore, it points out the need of clarifying the notion of “action for recovery” covered by the scope of the Regulation 4/2009.

Cauza C-644/19, Universitatea "Lucian Blaga" Sibiu și alții, hotărârea din 8 octombrie 2020 [site CURIA] I. Trimiterea preliminară a instanței naționale-textul trimiterii preliminare [site CURIA] I.1. Instanța natională-Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia I.2. Stadiul procesual-recurs I.3. Inițiativa trimiterii-reclamanta II. Întrebările preliminare publicate în JO Articolul 1, articolul 2 alineatul (2) litera (b) și articolul 3 din Directiva 2000/78 1 [și] clauza 4 din Acordul-cadru cu privire la munca pe perioadă determinată, încheiat între CES[,] UNICE [și] CEEP, pus în aplicare prin Directiva 1999/70/CE a Consiliului din 28 iunie 1999 2 , trebuie interpretate în sensul că o măsură precum cea din litigiul principal, care permite angajatorului să prevadă că persoanele care au împlinit vârsta de 65 ani pot fi menținute în funcție ca titulari cu respectarea drepturilor deținute anterior de pensionare, doar dacă au calitatea de conducător de doctorat, dezavantajând celelalte persoane, aflate în aceeași situație, care ar avea această vocație în condițiile în care ar exista posturi vacante și ar îndeplini cerințele privind performanța profesională, iar persoanelor care nu au calitatea de conducători de doctorat să le impună pentru aceeași activitate universitară contracte de muncă cu perioadă determinată, încheiate succesiv, cu sistem de salarizare în regim "plata cu ora", inferior celui acordat cadrului universitar titular, constituie discriminare în sensul acestor dispoziții? Aplicarea prioritară a dreptului Uniunii (principiul supremației dreptului european) se poate interpreta în sensul că permite instanței naționale să înlăture aplicarea unei decizii definitive a judecătorului național în care s-a stabilit că în situația de fapt expusă s-a respectat Directiva 2000/78/CE și nu există discriminare?

A preliminary assessment of the case, focusing on the differences between the ECJ judgement and the Advocate General's Conclusions (already discussed in "Il variegato contenzioso sulle concessioni demaniali marittime"), the paper also tries to make out which compensations or other safeguards for current users of the public goods in question are still viable in ECJ terms

Since December 18, 2014, when the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its notorious Opinion 2/13, the conclusions of the Court have been a subject of numerous analyzes and debates—often sharp in their criticism. Now that the content of the Opinion seems fairly elucidated, the scholarly attention should turn towards searching for practical solutions to the CJEU's demands. This Article aims to provide a list of possible solutions to each requirement of the Opinion and assessing their pros and cons. Instead of concentrating on the obstacles posed by the Court, it is incumbent to address the problems with innovative legal thinking and save the project of the EU acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This paper analyzes the spanish contribution for 30 years reforms of the European Union and its right. The European project as part of the spanish national Project. Contribution to european reform process: harmony of national general interest and europeans. The crisis of trust. Another treaty reform ?. The spanish law without european union? Spain, a partner defaulting

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a very powerful court compared to other international courts and even national courts of last resort. Observers almost unanimously agree that it is the preliminary references procedure that made the ECJ the powerful court it is today. In this paper, we analyze the determinants that lead national courts to use the procedure. We add to previous studies by constructing a comprehensive panel dataset (1982–2008), including more potentially relevant explanatory variables and by testing for the robustness of previous results. In addition to confirming the relevance of variables previously found significant, we identify a number of additional determinants, including the relevance of agriculture to a country, corporate tax rate, familiarity with EU law, and tenure of democracy.

Behind the term "the Taricco saga" lie two ECJ cases on VAT fraud. In this article, the author analyses these two decisions under the framework of the principles of effectiveness of EU law and primacy and direct effect. The author outlines the important challenge faced by the ECJ because of a possible conflict between the general principles at stake and the impact of ineffective VAT collection on the European Union's financial interests. These cases also show the disputes that can arise in the area of EU tax law with respect to the adequate level of protection of fundamental rights and principles within the framework of EU multi-level constitutionalism.

Trabajo depositado en el archivo institucional E-Prints Complutense http://eprints.ucm.es En el Asunto eDateAdvertising el TJ propone una lectura del artículo 5.3 RBI que podría conducir a un forum actoris injustificado; no en vano, en la reforma del Reglamento Bruselas I se ha introducido una mención expresa a la conveniencia de aplicar este precepto de forma contenida, a fin de evitar demandas en foros poco previsibles y razonables.

This paper reveals the legal problem of jurisdiction the Court of First Instance (CFI) faced in
Kadi I​. There, the CFI judged it had no authority to review the legality of a EU Regulation
that transposed a UN Security Council resolution, due to the nature of that resolution being
jus cogens ​(‘understood as a body of higher rules of public international law binding on all
subjects of international law, including bodies of the United Nations [which includes EU
Member States], and from which no derogation is possible’).1 Next, this paper outlines how
the Court of Justice (‘the Court’) in ​Kadi II ​overruled and reversed the CFI’s first judgement,
by explaining two arguments of the Court that authorised reviewability. Those two
arguments are (1) the interpretation of Art 307 EC and (2) how reviewing the lawfulness of
internal EU measures does not affect the lawfulness of the international UN measures.
Finally, after establishing how the Court grounded EU jurisdiction on a case involving the
dispute of an international UN measure, this paper concludes with the Court’s review and
judgement.

This paper comments the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 February 2017 (In Case C 499/15). It raises the alternatives that are discussed by doctrine and Praxis about the classical issue of modification or variation of the measures taken by a judge in parental responsibility and maintenance matters. The author agrees with the TJ as to the solution granted in matters of international jurisdiction. That is that the courts of the Member State which made a decision that has become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer have jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, to the extent that the habitual residence of the child is in another Member State. It is the courts of the Member State of (current) habitual residence that have jurisdiction to decide on that application.

SUMMARY
Motivation

2. Methodology
Multilevel constitutionalism as theoretical perspective and EU law prevalence

3. Prevalence of EU law and autonomy of National Law

4. Procedural Autonomy of National Law in relation to Consumer Protection Status

5. EU Consumer Procedural Status

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Gran Sala) de 9 de noviembre de 2010.
Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG contra "Österreich"-Zeitungsverlag GmbH.
Petición de decisión prejudicial: Oberster Gerichtshof - Austria.
Directiva 2005/29/CE - Prácticas comerciales desleales - Normativa nacional que establece una prohibición por principio de las prácticas comerciales que supeditan la oferta de primas a los consumidores a la adquisición de bienes o la contratación de servicios.
Asunto C-540/08: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=79165&pageIndex=0&doclang=ES&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1707072

Pewność prawa jest bardzo szerokim zagadnieniem, które może być analizowane na wielu płaszczyznach. Stanowi ona przedmiot badań teorii i filozofii prawa w ujęciu teoretycznym, porównawczym, ponadnarodowym i praktycznym, jest to żywotny problem prawny takich gałęzi prawa, jak prawo administracyjne, w tym podatkowe, konstytucyjne, karne, cywilne. Tymczasem w tym opracowaniu prezentowana optyka zasady pewności prawa ma charakter ponadnarodowy i unijny, przez pryzmat dwóch zasad – kluczowych tak dla porządku prawnego w UE, jak i dla sytuacji obywateli państw członkowskich.
Po pierwsze, jest to zasada autonomiczności jednostki, wypracowana i utrwalona przez dekady w orzecznictwie europejskim oraz gwarantowana przez skuteczną ochronę praw podmiotów prywatnych wpisaną do prawa UE najwyższej rangi. Podejście to ma wymiar indywidualny, kiedy pewność prawa jest wykorzystywana do ochrony prywatnych interesów obywateli, które już powstały lub mają powstać w przyszłości, poprzez zasady takie, jak powaga rzeczy osądzonej czy ochrona uprawnionych oczekiwań.
Po drugie, jest to obowiązek państw członkowskich do zapewnienia pełnej skuteczności prawa UE (effet utile), realizowany głównie przez gwarancje formalnoprawne zawarte w gwarancjach wynikających z zasady legalności aktów prawa UE oraz z zasady niedziałania prawa wstecz.
Takie ujęcie pozwala jednocześnie na zestawienie obu wartości, którym służy prawo UE oraz na ich wzajemne skonfrontowanie. Docelowo takie zestawienie służyć ma połączeniu teorii prawa UE z rekomendacjami dla praktyki w postępowaniach przed polskimi organami stosującymi prawo UE, tj. w postępowaniach administracyjnych i sądowych. Są to zresztą problemy, które wpisują się w jeden z najnowszych i najbardziej doniosłych prawnie nurtów orzeczniczych TSUE, z decydującymi reperkusjami w orzecznictwie sądów krajowych, w tym na temat wzruszalności ostatecznych decyzji administracyjnych i prawomocnych orzeczeń sądowych. Kwestie te stanowią też jeden z najważniejszych problemów związanych z zasadami równoważenia interesu publicznego i prywatnego, a tym samym zapewnienia równowagi pomiędzy trwałością a elastycznością prawa.
Biorąc to pod uwagę, przedstawione opracowanie ma na celu zbadanie relacji i ustalenie równowagi pomiędzy stabilnością i przewidywalnością prawa dla jednostek wyrażoną przez autonomiczność jednostek i ich prawo o charakterze podstawowym do skutecznej ochrony prawnej a systemowym rozwojem środowiska prawnego w UE, realizowanym poprzez budowanie Unii prawa, z wynikającym stąd zobowiązaniem dla państw członkowskich do zapewnienia pełnej skuteczności normom prawa UE. Wynikiem przeprowadzonych badań jest całościowy ogląd – systematyzacja i uzupełnienie – koncepcji zasady pewności prawa w ujęciu unijnym oraz postulaty dotyczące jej poszanowania w toku stosowania prawa UE w Polsce, co może przynieść wymierne korzyści instytucjom krajowym oraz obywatelom, bo zasada pewności prawa jest jednym z najbardziej skutecznych zabezpieczeń przed arbitralnością władzy, w tym o charakterze ponadnarodowym.

Idioma: español
Títulos paralelos: The Judgment of the ECJ 'Oriol Junqueras Vies': Immunities granted to the (elected) members of the European Parliament

- Resumen (Español): El TJUE declaró que «el artículo 9 del Protocolo (n.º 7) sobre los privilegios y las inmunidades de la Unión Europea debe interpretarse en el sentido de que:-goza de inmunidad en virtud del párrafo segundo de dicho artículo una persona que ha sido oficialmente proclamada electa al Parlamento Europeo cuando se encontraba en situación de prisión provisional en un proceso penal por delitos graves, pero que no ha sido autorizada a cumplir ciertos requisitos previstos por el Derecho interno tras la proclamación ni a desplazarse al Parlamento Europeo para participar en su primera sesión;-esta inmunidad implica el levantamiento de la medida de prisión provisional impuesta, al objeto de permitir al interesado desplazarse al Parlamento Europeo y cumplir allí las formalidades requeridas. Si el tribunal nacional competente estima, no obstante, que debe mantenerse la medida de prisión provisional tras la adquisición por el interesado de la condición de miembro del Parlamento Europeo, ha de solicitar a la mayor brevedad al Parlamento Europeo que suspenda dicha inmunidad, conforme al artículo 9, párrafo tercero, del mismo Protocolo.»

- English: The ECJ ruled that the article 9 of the Protocol (No. 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union must be interpreted as:-a person who has been officially proclaimed elected to the European Parliament when he was in provisional detention in a criminal proceeding for serious crimes, but who has not been authorized to meet certain requirements provided for at national level, enjoys immunity under the second paragraph of that article after the proclamation or to move to the European Parliament to participate in its first session;

[...]

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/luis_gonzalez_vaque/280/

La CGUE ha confermato che, sia un poster di carta, sia il trasferimento su tela contenente l'immagine di un'opera artistica protetta sono copie dell'opera. L'articolo 4 (1) della Direttiva 2001/29/CE riconosce il diritto esclusivo degli autori, relativamente alla vendita dell'originale o copie delle loro opere, di autorizzare o vietare qualsiasi forma di distribuzione al pubblico, attraverso la vendita o altri modi di diffusione.
Questo diritto di "distribuzione" non si esaurisce nel caso della vendita dell'originale o di copie del prodotto artistico, a meno che, la prima vendita o il primo trasferimento di proprietà dell'opera all'interno della UE sia effettuato dal titolare del diritto ovvero con il suo consenso.
La CGUE ha osservato che il legislatore ha voluto consentire agli autori il controllo della prima immissione sul mercato UE di ogni tipo di "supporto tangibile" che incorpora la creazione intellettuale. La Corte ha quindi concluso che il consenso del titolare del diritto d'autore non copre la distribuzione di un supporto che incorpora la sua opera, ove tale supporto venga modificato - successivamente alla sua prima immissione sul mercato - in modo tale da costituire una nuova riproduzione della medesima opera. In tal caso, il diritto di distribuzione si esaurisce esclusivamente dopo la prima vendita o trasferimento di proprietà del nuovo supporto con il consenso del titolare del diritto.

Nel 2010 l’Apple ha ottenuto dall’Ufficio brevetti e marchi degli Stati Uniti la registrazione di un marchio tridimensionale consistente nella rappresentazione, con disegno multicolore, dei propri “flagship stores” per servizi di vendita al dettaglio dei propri prodotti nonché per le dimostrazioni ad essi correlati. Successivamente, ha proceduto all’estensione internazionale di tale marchio. Tale estensione è stata accettata in taluni Stati e rifiutata in altri. Il 24 gennaio 2013, l’estensione al territorio tedesco di tale marchio tridimensionale internazionale è stata negata dal DPMA, con la motivazione che la rappresentazione degli spazi destinati alla vendita dei prodotti di un’impresa altro non sarebbe che la rappresentazione di un aspetto essenziale dell’attività di tale impresa. Lo spazio di vendita rappresentato nella fattispecie non si distinguerebbe, infatti, a sufficienza dai negozi di altri fornitori di prodotti elettronici. La Apple ha proposto ricorso avverso tale decisione di diniego dinanzi al Bundespatentgericht. Tale tribunale, ritenendo che la controversia sottoposta sollevi questioni fondamentali in materia di diritto dei marchi, ha deciso di sospendere il giudizio e di sottoporlo alla Corte di giustizia.

The ECJ has always been outspoken about the essence of the EC as a Rule of Law Community. The notion of the Rule of Law entered the texts of the Treaty and arguably plays a crucial role in the Community legal order, serving as one of the fundamentals of 'integration through law'. Yet, the analysis of numerous studies of the Rule of Law in Community context reveals that the understanding on the Rule of Law as a Community legal construct, as opposed to a notion borrowed from the legal systems of the Member States, is not receiving enough attention. Confusion persists between the Rule of Law as understood in the national contexts of the Member States and the Community concept, which presumably should be governed by EC law alone. This paper aims to bridge the gap between the obvious importance of the Community Rule of Law in the EC legal order and the country-specific vision, ascribed to the Rule of Law in each Member State, which results in a vague and even contradictory understanding of Community Rule of Law in different Member States, threatening to undermine the effectiveness and uniform application of Community Law throughout the entire territory of the Community. A substantive vision of Community Rule of Law is offered as a possible tool to be employed to this effect.

The paper analyzes certain intra-European institutitional dynamics underpinning the formulation of EU migration policies, and explain which key issues remain unaddressed in the Commission's Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum dealing with 2011. The paper then proceeds to sketch a picture of the the current state of the EU’s border and migration system and the challenges it faces through such developments as the Frontex Agency, EUROSUR, the Arab Spring and ECtHR and ECJ verdicts.

- Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE de 30 de enero de 2020, asunto C-524/18: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG  -

El art. 10 3 del Reglamento n.º 1924/2006 relativo a las declaraciones nutricionales y de propiedades saludables en los alimentos debe interpretarse en el sentido de que el requisito que establece de que toda referencia a beneficios generales y no específicos de un nutriente o alimento deba ir acompañada de una declaración incluida en las listas contempladas en los arts. 13 o 14 de dicho Reglamento no se satisface cuando el envase de un complemento alimenticio contiene, en su cara frontal, una referencia a los beneficios generales y no específicos para la salud de un nutriente o alimento, mientras que la declaración de beneficios saludables específica destinada a acompañarla solo aparece en la cara posterior de ese envase y no hay una remisión explícita, como un asterisco, entre ambas.Dicho artículo debe interpretarse también en el sentido de que las referencias a los beneficios generales y no específicos de un nutriente o un alimento para la buena salud general o el bienestar relativo a la salud deben fundamentarse en pruebas científicas con arreglo a los artículos 5.1(a) y 6.1 del citado Reglamento. Bastará al efecto con que tales referencias vayan acompañadas de declaraciones de propiedades saludables específicas incluidas en las listas contempladas en los artículos 13 o 14 de la misma normativa.

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/luis_gonzalez_vaque/282/

De bescherming van werknemers bij collectief ontslag is sterk toegenomen. Richtlijn 98/59/EG is de opvolger van Richtlijnen 75/129/EEG en 92/56/EEG. De groep werknemers die wordt meegeteld om te kunnen spreken van een collectief ontslag is uitgebreid (door voor de berekening van het aantal ontslagen niet alleen de ontslagen in strikte zin mee te tellen) en de verplichtingen met betrekking tot de informatieverstrekking naar werknemersvertegenwoordigingen zijn toegenomen. In de onderhavige zaak (HvJ 11 november 2015, zaak C-422/14) wordt de kwestie welke werknemers in de procedure moeten worden meegeteld nader gespecificeerd. Het Hof van Justitie draagt met deze uitspraak bij aan de ontwikkeling dat de regeling van het collectief ontslag op een steeds groter aantal werknemers betrekking heeft.