Results 11 to 20 of about 58 (53)

Inter-Environnement Expanded: Another Brick Out of the Wall of EU Law Supremacy?

European Papers, 2017
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(1), 321-327 | European Forum Insight of 29 March 2017 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. The legal and factual background of the case. - III.
Giulia Gentile
doaj   +1 more source

L'obbligo (flessibile) di rinvio pregiudiziale e i possibili fattori di un suo irrigidimento. Riflessioni in margine alla sentenza Association France Nature Environnement

European Papers, 2017
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2017 2(1), 383-391 | European Forum Insight of 29 March 2017 | (Table of Contents) I. La questione al vaglio della Corte di giustizia. - II.
Federico Pani
doaj   +1 more source

Multilingual Law and Judicial Interpretation in the EU

Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 2009
The purpose of this article is to assess how multilingualism affects judicial interpretation of EU law. In the EU, the European Court of Justice is in the position of having the final say on what EU norms mean.
Tamara Ćapeta
doaj   +1 more source

The right to climate protection and the essentially comparable protection of fundamental rights: Applying Solange in European climate change litigation?

Review of European, Comparative &International Environmental Law, Volume 33, Issue 2, Page 265-275, July 2024.
Abstract In an action for annulment against the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Directive, both the EU General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) found the claim to be inadmissible because the applicants did not satisfy the infamous Plaumann criteria.
Michael Kalis, Anna‐Lena Priebe
wiley   +1 more source

A Matter of Prescriptive Clarity? Analysing How Swedish Judges' Motives for Action Vary in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 62, Issue 2, Page 468-486, March 2024.
Abstract This article explores how national judges' reasoning in the preliminary ruling procedure varies depending on the prescriptive clarity of European Union (EU) legal frameworks. Drawing on the logic of appropriateness and the logic of expected consequences, this article formulates hypotheses regarding judges' motivational patterns.
Karin Leijon
wiley   +1 more source

The Unfolding Story of Judicial Dialogue in the EU: The Coercive and Persuasive Motives Behind the Participation of Belgian Highest Courts in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure

German Law Journal
The story of national judges’ participation in the process of dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) pursuant to Article 267 TFEU is a well-known one.
Urszula Jaremba, Marleen Kappé
doaj   +1 more source

Între eficienţă și uniformitate: mecanismul trimiterilor preliminare, Doctrina Acte Clair și valorile UE Between Efficiency and Uniformity: The Preliminary Ruling Mechanism, Acte Clair Doctrine, and the Values of the EU

Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii "Al.I. Cuza" din Iaşi. Ştiinţe Juridice
This paper aims to highlight the indispensable role of the preliminary ruling mechanism (Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, hereinafter TFEU) in the process of legislative harmonization within the European Union.
Sabina SAFTA-ROMANO
doaj   +1 more source

The 2024 Reform of the EU Judicial System and the Transformation of the Court of Justice into a Constitutional Court

European Papers
(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2025 10(3), 837-862 | Article | (Table of Contents) 1. Introduction. – 2. Approaching constitutionalisation. – 3.
Tanja Hilpold
doaj   +1 more source

De verwijzingsplicht van de hoogste rechters in Nederland en de Cilfit-controverse. Prejudicieel verwijzen of niet? [PDF]

Ars Aequi, 2019
Contains fulltext : 204103.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)
Krommendijk, J., Langer, J.
openaire   +2 more sources

CILFIT in Strasbourg

On 19 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to answer the Estonian Supreme Court’s request for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol 16 (P16). For the first time, it dismissed a request because it did not concern a question of principle concerning the interpretation and application of ECHR rights.
openaire   +2 more sources