|
Direct Effect
In the law of the European Union, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which not only the courts but also the public administration (on national, regional or local level) of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce. Direct effect is not explicitly stated in any of the EU Treaties. The principle of direct effect was first established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in '' Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen''.(Case 26/62); 963ECR 1; 970CMLR 1 Direct effect has subsequently been loosened in its application to treaty articles and the ECJ has expanded the principle, holding that it is capable of applying to virtually all of the possible forms of EU legislation, the most important of which are regulations, and in certain circumstances to directives. The ECJ first articulated the doctrine of direct effect in the case of '' Van Gend en Lo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
European Union Law
European Union law is a system of Supranational union, supranational Law, laws operating within the 27 member states of the European Union (EU). It has grown over time since the 1952 founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, to promote peace, social justice, a social market economy with full employment, and environmental protection. The Treaties of the European Union agreed to by member states form its constitutional structure. EU law is interpreted by, and EU case law is created by, the judicial branch, known collectively as the Court of Justice of the European Union. Legal Act of the European Union, Legal Acts of the EU are created by a variety of European Union legislative procedure, EU legislative procedures involving the popularly elected European Parliament, the Council of the European Union (which represents member governments), the European Commission (a cabinet which is elected jointly by the Council and Parliament) and sometimes the European Council (composed o ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
European Union Decision
In European Union law, a decision is a legal instrument which is binding upon those individuals to which it is addressed.Per Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 249 TEC). They are one of three kinds of legal instruments which may be effected under EU law which can have legally binding effects on individuals. Decisions may be addressed to member states or individuals. The Council of the European Union can delegate power to make decisions to the European Commission. The legislative procedure for the adoption of a decision varies depending on its subject matter. The ordinary legislative procedure (formerly known as the Codecision procedure) requires the agreement of and allows amendments by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The Assent procedure requires the agreement of both Parliament and Council, but the Parliament can only agree or disagree to the text as a whole - it cannot propose amendments. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Self-executing Right
Self-executing rights in international human rights law are formulated in such a way that one can deduce that it was the purpose to create international laws that citizens can invoke directly in their national courts. Self-executing rights, or directly applicable rights, are rights that from the viewpoint of international law do not require transformation into national law. The rights are binding as such and judges can apply the international law as if it were national law. From the viewpoint of national law, it may be required that all international law be incorporated into national law before becoming valid. This depends on the national legal tradition. To decide whether or not a rule is self-executing, one must only look at the rule in question, and national traditions do not count. A rule that says that states should guarantee freedom of expression to its citizens is self-executing. A rule that states should take all the necessary measures to create enough employment Employme ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Incidental Effect
Incidental effect is a concept in European Union law that allows the use of indirect effect of EU directives in private legal actions. While an individual cannot be sued for failure to comply with an EU directive, the state's failure to comply can be an incidental factor in a suit against an individual, where it will not impose legal obligations upon them. The concept was defined by the European Court of Justice in Case C-194/94 ''CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel Sprl''. CIA had attempted to market a burglar alarm in Belgium that was not compatible with Belgian technical specifications. However, the Belgian government had failed to report these specifications to the EU, as required by a directive in 1983. The court ruled that this constituted a substantial degradation of the effectiveness of the directive, which was intended to lower barriers to trade, and that the Belgian government's breach of the directive made the Belgian law inapplicable to indivi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Pubblico Ministero V Ratti
''Pubblico'' was an Italian daily newspaper briefly published in Italy between September and December 2012. History ''Pubblico'' was first published on 18 September 2012. The founders were Luca Telese who was also its editor and a group of fellow journalists. The paper was a full-colour left-wing publication. The graphics and logo of the paper were similar to French paper Libération (), popularly known as ''Libé'' (), is a daily newspaper in France, founded in Paris by Jean-Paul Sartre and Serge July in 1973 in the wake of the protest movements of May 1968 in France, May 1968. Initially positioned on the far left of Fr .... ''Pubblico''s slogan was "Not funded by public money". Following the launch the publication failed to reach to break-even of an average of 9600 copies sold, and the publisher went immediately in financial difficulties. After a failed attempt to recapitalize the publisher company in order to save it, ''Pubblico'' ceased the publication on 31 Decemb ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Francovich V Italy
''Francovich v Italy'' (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or "the rule in ''Francovich''" in European Union law.UK LegislationEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Schedule 1 accessed 8 July 2018 Facts Under the Insolvency Protection Directive 80/987/EC, EU Member States were expected to enact provisions in their national law to provide for a minimum level of insurance for employees who had wages unpaid if their employers went insolvent. Mr Francovich, who had worked in Vicenza for CDN Elettronica SnC, was owed 6 million Lira, and Mrs Bonifaci and 33 of her colleagues were owed 253 million Lira together after their company, Gaia Confezioni Srl, had gone bankrupt. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Von Colson V Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
''Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen'' (1984Case 14/83is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law. Facts Sabine Von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann were German social workers who applied to work in men's prisons run by the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Both were rejected on the basis they were women. Von Colson and Kamann appealed the decision at the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Tribunal). Under European Communities law, the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC) required member states to give effect to principle of equal treatment and obliged them to provide a legal remedy. The claimants argued that they had a directly effective right to demand that the court order the employer to appoint her. Instead of this or compensation, they were awarded only "reliance losses" as a remedy, equivalent to the travel costs incurred by going to the interview (7.20 DM). Judgment Lack of precision in the directive prevented it from ha ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Foster V British Gas Plc
''Foster v British Gas plc'' (1990C-188/89is a leading EU law concerning the definition of the "state", for the purpose of determining which organisations in the private or public sector can be regarded as an organ of the state. The ECJ held a state is any manifestation or organisation under control of a central government. In a previous case, '' Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions'', 964AC 763 (HL Lord Reid held a state is synonymous with an 'organised community', and according to Lord Devlin it meant 'the organs of government of a national community'. Facts Mrs Foster was required to retire from her job at British Gas when she was 60 years old, while men could continue until they were 65. British Gas was a nationalised industry at the time (before being privatised under the Gas Act 1986), and she and four other women claimed this was unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex, contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive (then 76/207/EEC, and now recast in 2006/54/EC). Be ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Carl Otto Lenz
Carl Otto Lenz (born 5 June 1930) is a German lawyer, member of the German Bundestag (1965–1984) for the CDU and Advocate General at the European Court of Justice (1984–1997). Biography Born in Berlin, Carl Otto Lenz is the son of the lawyer Otto Lenz (Secretary of the Federal Chancellery 1951–1953, member of the German Bundestag 1953–1957) and Marie Liese Pohl. In 1948, he graduated from high school in Munich. From 1949 to 1953, he studied law and political science at the Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich, the Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg, the University of Geneva (Switzerland) and the University of Bonn. In Freiburg, he was a member of the Catholic Student Fraternity KDSt.V. Arminia Freiburg im Breisgau im CV. Lenz later studied at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, the College of Administrative Sciences Speyer and Harvard University in Cambridge (Massachusetts). From 1961, he taught at the University of Bonn. In 1959, he became Secretary ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Marshall V Southampton Health Authority
''Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority '' (1986Case 152/84is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law. Facts Helen Marshall, a senior dietitian, claimed that her dismissal on grounds of being old violated the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. She was an employee of an Area Health Authority (or "AHA"), a body established by the UK government under the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by the Health Services Act 1980. Marshall was dismissed after 14 years on 31 March 1980, approximately four weeks after attaining the age of 62, despite her expressing a willingness to continue in employment until the age of 65 (4 February 1983). The sole reason for her dismissal was that she had passed 'the retirement age'; the AHA's policy was to make women compulsorily retire at 60, but men at 65. Section 27 (1) and 28 (1) of the Social Security Act 1975 provided state pensions were to be gran ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Van Duyn V Home Office
''Van Duyn v Home Office'' (1974) C-41/74 was a case of the European Court of Justice concerning the free movement of workers between member states. Facts Van Duyn, a Dutch national, claimed the British Government, through the Home Secretary, infringed TFEU article 45(3) (then TEEC art 48(3)) by denying her an entry permit to work at the Church of Scientology. The Free Movement of Workers Directive 64/221/EC article 3(1) also set out that a public policy provision had to be 'based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned'. The UK had not done anything to expressly implement this element of the Directive. The government had believed Scientology to be harmful to mental health, and discouraged it but did not make it illegal. She sued, citing the Treaty of Rome and Community law, arguing that the Directive should apply to bind the UK. She was not being refused because of 'personal conduct'. Pennycuick VC referred the case to the European Court of Justice. The ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
