Search

Innovation plays a crucial role in defining competitive dynamics. Given this fact, one might expect 'innovation' to play a consistent role in antitrust law. The present article conducts a systematic content analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to test this hypothesis. The findings suggest that EU courts treat innovation inconsistently in competition law cases, often assigning different weight to innovation in similar contexts and neglecting central parameters agreed upon in the literature. To address this inconsistency, the article proposes measures to maintain the predictability of competition law analysis while giving innovation a more central role in the definition of relevant markets, evaluation of market power, and assessment of practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of April 2024 and the end of June 2024. Out of a total of 231 judgments decided in this period, 26 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 codifies the conditions for the legal use of a product with a geographical indication (GI) as an ingredient of a processed food product. While these conditions are not innovative, since they were already established in positive law and the case-law of the ECJ (since the Champagner Sorbet Case), the recent Regulation introduces new rules for a mechanism of notification prior to the use of a GI product as an ingredient. This mechanism is will certainly enhance the importance of producers' groups in the management and the protection of geographical indications. However, we argue that the introduction of a contract as an instrument to regulate the technical and visual aspects of the use of the GI introduces the element of bargaining to the management of GIs at the European level. This last element is likely to bring radical change not only to the management but also to the concept of GIs in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of January 2024 and the end of March 2024. Out of a total of 123 judgments decided in this period, 37 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of July 2023 and the end of December 2023. Out of a total of 220 judgments decided in this period, 57 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysing EU, Benelux and German case law, this article examines whether the exhaustion doctrine in trade mark law contributes to a more sustainable economy. It considers that ecological motives seem not to have played a role either in the policy choice against international exhaustion, or in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on legitimate reasons and the repackaging of medication. Although exhaustion could, theoretically, incentivise traders to give new life to goods that were legitimately marketed before, the analysis shows that this is a risky business because of the thin and blurry line between lawful renewal activities and creating a false impression of affiliation. As such, it is unclear to what extent de-branding, re-branding, and co-branding can prevent liability for infringement, although co-branding renewed products is probably often the only way to do so. As an alternative to buy–renew–resell, traders could consider providing renewal services. On closer analysis, however, offering services puts them in an even less favourable position, and this seems hard to justify. In addition to trade mark rights, copyright and/or design rights will often cumulatively apply to mark-bearing products. Although the latter rights are also subject to a principle of exhaustion, the effects of exhaustion can de facto be overruled by the exception for legitimate reasons proper to trade mark law. Moreover, it is argued that repair exceptions in copyright and design legislation have limited effect and that announced legislative reforms are unlikely to change that. The unattractiveness of renewal businesses is further aggravated by the recurrent use of open norms and references to common practices. It is concluded that IP laws often leave it to the discretion of rightholders whether to offer sustainable post-sale solutions. Besides having clearer guidance on what is allowed, this paper suggests that exhaustion case law should take sustainability arguments into account, for instance by considering what would happen to goods if they were not renewed by the trader. To a large extent, the judiciary already has tools at its disposal to incorporate these kinds of elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this contribution is to briefly present the content of the EU–US Data Privacy Framework recently adopted by the European Commission and then to assess whether it meets the expectations expressed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Schrems II judgment and related case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 69 (1) of the Labour Code transposing the provisions of Article 2 (1) of Council Directive 98/59/CE of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies provides that the employer has the obligation to initiate, in due time and with the aim of reaching an agreement, under the conditions provided by law, consultations with the trade union or, as the case may be, with the representatives of the employees. In the absence of union or non-union workers’ representatives within the unit, the Romanian law does not impose on the employer the obligation to carry out the information and individual consultation of the workers affected by the envisaged collective dismissal. The recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union reveals that Directive 98/59/EC does not oppose to such a national regulation which does not provide an obligation for the employer to individually consult the workers affected by an envisaged collective dismissal, when these workers have not designated workers’ representatives, and which does not compel the mentioned workers to make such a designation. According to Directive 98/59/EC, the Member States have, nevertheless, the obligation to adopt all the measures useful for the appointment of representatives of the workers and to ensure that the workers are not in a situation where, for reasons independent of their will, they are prevented from appointing these representatives. The study highlights that the national legislation that regulates the appointment of the workers’ representatives does not guarantee the full effect of the Directive 98/59/EC, on the one hand, because it places the initiative of appointing the representatives exclusively on the workers, who are the vulnerable part of the employment relationship, and, on the other hand, because mandatory, permanent forms of workers’ representation are not established at unit level, as it is the case in other European legal systems. De lege ferenda, it is proposed either to impose on the employer the legal obligation to inform the workers about the need to appoint their representatives, giving them a reasonable term in this regard, depending on the circumstances, or to regulate a mandatory form of representation of workers within the unit, which should allow the unitary support of the interests of all workers affected by the collective dismissal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Crónica Tributaria is the property of Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Ministerio de Hacienda y Funcion Publica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

National identity, referred to in Article 4(2) TEU, has been interpreted in different ways by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by different constitutional jurisdictions in some member States. This paper examines the evolution of the regulation of constitutional identity in the Union's treaties and in the case law of the Court of Luxembourg and certain constitutional courts, and proposes, in the light of the analysis carried out, some hypotheses as to which bodies should be responsible for invoking national identity, in which cases and with what effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) adopts restrictive measures – or sanctions – as part of its counterterrorism strategy. These measures restrict the fundamental rights of the natural or legal persons they target and can be challenged in front of the General Court or the European Court of Justice (the CJEU). Drawing from both legal scholarship and security studies, this article refines an analytical framework that enables an original analysis of the case law of the CJEU: we focus on ‘proximity’, an element so far neglected in the analysis of counter-terrorism sanctions. Proximity is the variable measuring the distance between the addressee of a measure from the actual commission of a terrorist act. Such a variable provides the analytical framework through which to test the hypotheses and findings proposed in the last decade by previous studies. Such findings are mostly confirmed by our interdisciplinary analysis, but nuanced. While it is true that sanctions lead to a process of othering and stigmatization, the Court has introduced some meaningful procedural safeguards that contribute to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals, especially in the case of family members of suspected terrorists. Not dissimilarly from what was noted about judicial protection in other sanctions regimes, however, tensions remain in how to ensure effective substantive, as opposed to merely procedural, protection to sanctions addressees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article identifies and assesses the different ways in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has eroded its own general limits of the direct effect of EU directives. The article argues that while these different ways of erosion extend the admissibility of the direct effect of EU directives, they do so at the cost of significantly weakening legal certainty of the persons concerned, making these erosions highly questionable. The article highlights and criticises the most questionable form of such erosion, that emanating from the Mangold and Kücükdeveci line of case law of the CJEU. The article concludes that an adequate response to these questionable erosions should not be the acceptance of a general admissibility of the horizontal direct effect of EU directives. Rather, the response should be based on various efforts to reduce the occurrence of situations of improper transposition of EU directives - the main trigger for the direct effect of EU directives. These efforts should be accompanied by a comprehensive review of the Mangold and Kücükdeveci line of case law and a further clarification by the CJEU of the limits of the (in)admissibility of the direct effect of EU directives, which would considerably increase legal certainty for the persons concerned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Margin squeezing is an abuse of dominant position, which is not directly mentioned in Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European General Court that have recognised this practice as anti-competitive, initially treating it as anti-competitive refusal to supply. Given the many similarities between these practices, there are questions as to whether margin squeeze should be considered an separate manifestation of an abuse of dominant position. The aim of the article is to analyse the position of the European Commission in this regard and juxtapose it with the views contained in relevant judicial decisions, judgements, and rulings, as well as to compare it with the regulations adopted in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article deals with selected issues of judicial protection that arise in the context of the sanctions adopted by the EU against Russia and Belarus after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. As most cases challenging the sanctions are pending, this Article draws lessons from the previous case law on EU restrictive measures. It explores what aspects of the sanctions escape judicial review, then profiles of external (or formal) legality of the sanctions, of internal (or substantive) legality, and concludes by assessing the overall role of the Court in EU foreign affairs. The discussion shows that the case law in this area of EU administrative law converges to a great extent with other areas of EU competence, but tensions remain in how the Court may impose substantial constraints to executive discretion in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates age discrimination within the European Union. The challenge posed by this legislation is to define the "how and why" of the age protection and to balance equality with economic interests. The Gordian knot is here represented by Article 6 of the Directive, which allows Member States to justify age discrimination when a legitimate aim is provided, and the means chosen to achieve that aim are proportionate and necessary. The implementation of Article 6 by Member States led to contrasting interpretations that define age equality both as a social priority and an obstacle to the economic growth. Member States have therefore referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to seek a harmonious interpretation of age protection, but the judgments of the Court eventually reveal how the conflict between equality and economic interests is far from being solved. This article discusses these jurisprudential developments and demonstrates how the principle of proportionality applied by the Court is influenced by market-based tendencies that dissolve that "Aristotelian" idea of equality. Consequently, cases are holistically compared on a cross-case level to contribute to a normative theory able to combine age justifications with the common principles and values that underlie European legislations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1989, the Court of Justice of the European Union has recognised a privilege against self-incrimination for undertakings subject to public enforcement procedures on the basis of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. That privilege forms part of the fundamental rights of the defence. Over time, the privilege has been read into Article 6 ECHR and has gained ground in other domains of EU law as well. Against that background, the question arises as to whether the CJEU's original case law in the field of EU competition law needs to be updated. This paper revisits that case law by comparing it with developments in the context of the ECHR and in other domains of EU law. It argues that, in light of those developments, a case law update may indeed prove necessary. However, such an update alone would not sufficiently address the practical difficulties currently surrounding the application of the privilege in practice. For that, more coordinated legislative action would be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the adjudicative methods of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) through the concept of ideology. In part one, I discuss Tamara Ćapeta's application of Duncan Kennedy's conception of ideology to the ECJ. I argue it has two shortcomings, both stemming from its account of ideology: treating ideology as pertaining primarily to individual beliefs rather than institutional practices, and not treating the denial of ideology itself as an instance of ideology. In part two, I present my alternative account of ideology which is more structural and functional than Kennedy's and focuses on uncovering mystification and de-contestation in the case law of the ECJ. In the last part, I argue that at least three features of the Court's work can be identified as ideological through analysing the conflict between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights: the methodology of breach/justification, the language of 'fundamentality' and 'balancing', and the practice of collegiality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of FinanzRundschau is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of April 2023 and the end of June 2023. Out of a total of 155 judgments decided in this period, 55 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a turn to fundamental rights in environmental and climate cases before national and international courts in recent years. We know very little whether there has been such a turn in relation to European Union (EU) law before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU occupies an increasingly relevant position in this nexus between environmental law and human rights because of strong and effective EU enforcement mechanisms, the abundance of specific EU secondary environmental law, the growing role of fundamental rights since 2009 and the self-standing provision on the environment in Article 37 of the Charter. An analysis of the case law, nonetheless, shows that Charter rights that can be used as 'swords' in the interest of environmental protection have so far played only a limited role. After explaining the absence of a rights turn, we argue that such a turn is warranted before the CJEU as well, also from a legal perspective. This article examines two potential avenues. The CJEU can derive positive obligations from relevant Charter provisions, including Articles 2 (right to life) and 7 (right to respect for private life and the home) of the Charter, or it can rely more extensively on Article 37 as a tool for interpreting primary and secondary EU law in an environmentally friendly way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing tendency for the EU Member States to introduce conditions relating to the right to social benefits that are mostly disadvantageous to third-country nationals. These conditions are at risk of conflicting with provisions on the right to equal treatment with the nationals of the host country, as set down in a number of EU migration directives. This is all the more the case now that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recently given a broad interpretation of these provisions. Consequently, the Member States are to take these provisions as well as the CJEU's case law into account when seeking to limit access to social benefits for third-country nationals. This article examines the content and meaning of these provisions and the relevant case law of the CJEU. It concludes that it is apparent from this case law that the main objective of the right to equal treatment in these directives is to promote the integration of said third-country nationals into the host country and, therefore, the Member States may not make this right dependent on a prior sufficient level of integration in that host country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive) has been interpreted by several judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), but there are some discrepancies in national court judgments. Greek case law, collating the private with the public use, is an example. This paper introduces the reader to the meaning of private use as framed by Art. 5(2)(b) of the Directive and approaches the legal issues from the angle of case law of CJEU in comparison to Greek national law and Greek national case law. This opinion seeks to highlight the slight divergence of national Greek case law from the case law of CJEU despite the fact that the Greek legal system has incorporated the InfoSoc Directive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union actively practices the implementation of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is due to the need to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and the legal order of the EU, compliance with its founding treaties. With this in mind, the article aims to define and analyse the extraterritorial case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the prism of different jurisdictional models. Regulatory provisions, modern case law, and doctrinal views on the discussed problem were considered, in particular, legal means of resolving jurisdictional conflicts in the EU were analysed in detail, the evolution of the practice of applying jurisdictional models by the CJEU was discussed, attention was focused on the territorial expansion of the EU law. The article also discloses the issue of non-recognition of such extraterritorial effect of legal norms on the part of third countries, as well as measures to prevent and resolve disputes arising on this ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the issue of whether EU State aid granted for the purposes of promoting culture and heritage conservation is subject to the prohibition of Article 107(1) TFEU and its derogations. Specifically, the article outlines the problem of "economic activity", and hence being an "undertaking" insofar as regards bodies operating in the field of culture and heritage conservation (e.g. museums). It covers the European Commission's approach thereto, together with its decisions made in the field of State aid, as well as the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (particularly examining the impact of the MOTOE decision for the topic at issue). The article offers a critical assessment of the Commission's approach, positing that it is not in line with Article 107(1) TFEU as it is currently interpreted by the Court, and is at odds with the Commission's own 2016 Notice on the notion of State aid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lan Harremanak - Revista Relaciones Laborales is the property of Lan Harremanak and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of January 2023 and the end of March 2023. Out of a total of 265 judgments decided in this period, 57 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The preliminary reference procedure is today the 'infringement procedure of the European citizen'. Although it was initially designed as a mechanism for judicial cooperation, the procedure soon became an instrument for supranational judicial review of national legislation. Such a discrepancy between the intended role of the preliminary reference procedure and its actual use in practice has important consequences that are yet to be fully explored in the literature. Indeed, how can the Court of Justice appropriately review national legislation through a procedure designed for interpreting EU law? Is the procedure governing the preliminary reference mechanism suitable to perform such a role? In this paper, we focus on one issue in particular: the way in which the Court of Justice gains information regarding the legal and factual background of the case. The Court has long recognised that appropriate knowledge of the factual and legal context of the referred case is a necessary prerequisite to performing its scrutiny and that, in accordance with the judicial cooperation model, such information is provided by the national judge. The Article critically examines the rules of procedures and the case law to show that the national judge certainly plays a key role, but other actors contribute to shaping the Court's knowledge too. After an analysis of each actor's role, the Article concludes that the procedure offers few guarantees as to the effective participation of individual parties to the advantage of other actors in the proceedings, increasing the risk of having partial or unbalanced information regarding the legal and factual background of the cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to highlight the importance of the CJEU's referral with preliminary questions, but also to sound an alarm about the laxity with which some national courts allow such requests. We also wish to point out that more and more national courts tend to send requests for preliminary questions to the CJEU which actually appear to be asking for guidance from the Court on the national dispute and not for clarification or interpretation of the Treaties or European law. In order to achieve the objectives of this approach, using the comparative and logical method, we shall analyse the specific legislation, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as the practice of national courts. The starting point for the analysis shall be the provisions of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, through which we shall analyse the conditions for the admissibility of a reference for a preliminary ruling. We shall also highlight the importance of the role of the national court in analysing the usefulness of the referral to the CJEU, in relation to the subject matter of the dispute, as there is no obligation per se to refer. We have proposed this scientific approach as an observation of the superficiality with which national courts are increasingly granting requests for referral to the CJEU, without a rigorous analysis of both the express conditions of Article 267 TFEU and the usefulness of a possible response from the Court in the specific case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides an overview of the most relevant cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning contract law. The present issue covers the period between the beginning of July 2022 and the end of December 2022. Out of a total of 265 judgments decided in this period, 57 had a contract law dimension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cybersecurity is not easily defined. The 2019 EU Cybersecurity Act defines it as the activities necessary to protect network and information systems, the users of such systems, and other persons affected by cyber threats.1 Enduringly, cybersecurity was associated with national security, without consideration of what 'secure' Internet means for individual users. In reality, cybersecurity policy focused by and large on systems rather than users, i.e., people. However, as a policy area concerned with online behavior regulation, its definition and implementation inevitably has profound implications for human rights, especially in regard to data protection and freedom of expression. Unsurprisingly, cybersecurity has become a new human rights battleground.2 The EU Cybersecurity Act and subsequent legislation represent a normative shift in our conception of data ownership, putting ownership and control of personal information in the hands of the user rather than the service provider. Luckily, there have been positive legislative shifts regarding data protection in the context of the EU cybersecurity policy at EU level. But are they (or will they be) adopted by European courts? To answer, this paper peers into the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU as well as of the European Court of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU restrictive measures, often referred to as 'sanctions', have become an increasingly used instrument of EU autonomous foreign policy. For some restrictive measures, however, the EU cannot act alone. In order to adopt them, the Council must rely on information transmitted by third states' authorities and decisions taken by them at domestic level. This has been the case, in particular, of EU restrictive measures adopted in connection with misappropriations of state funds. The Council's use of such evidence has been somewhat controversial and has led to numerous legal debates before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). To what extent was the Council free to rely on the evidence provided by these third states' authorities? How to ensure that the fundamental rights of the targeted persons and entities were complied with in the process? Faced with these questions in its particularly abundant case law, the CJEU has progressively raised the threshold of validity for these sanctions. It has done so up to a point at which, in the authors' opinion, the sanctions can no longer reach such threshold in practice. This article addresses the evolutions and implications of the CJEU case law on a legal aspect that is of crucial importance for the EU's sanctions practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its competence to interpret the EU’s primary law was particularly in focus during and after the financial crisis, when it decided on the validity of the Union’s recovery instruments in the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse selected decisions of the CJEU (the Pringle, Gauweiler and Weiss cases), starting from the presentation of the socio-political context in which they were created. After the legal analysis of the CJEU’s argumentation in the selected decisions, the paper will present their impact on the development of the public finance law of the Union. Particular attention will be paid to the interpretative methods used by the CJEU. The aforementioned reflects in the structure of the paper. After the introduction, the second section comprises specific features of interpretation methods in the CJEU case law. The following section will focus on the socio-political context that preceded the selected CJEU decisions. The fourth section presents an analysis of the selected CJEU decisions and reviews the interpretation methods. The fifth section highlights the implications of the CJEU jurisprudence on the legal order of the Union, followed by concluding considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper investigates the existing case law on reverse-payment settlements from a comparative perspective, focusing on the US and EU panoramas. In this respect, we will illustrate the emergence of patent-related proxies in the anticompetitive assessment, which contaminate the antitrust benchmarks in a problematic way, with the effect of hampering patent law and policy. Primarily we will delve into seminal decisions in the EU framework. In this regard we will observe how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) shifted from a quick-look approach towards a case-by-case antitrust analysis of patent settlements, progressively neglecting, but not eliminating, patent-related presumptions. Then we will look at the fragmented US case law scenario. We will explore the various benchmarks deployed to challenge these agreements, highlighting the differences and similarities with the EU approaches. It will be concluded that a strong IP-law-based perspective about these agreements has arisen in both legal systems. This perspective orientates the anticompetitive assessment through quasi-absolute presumptions, hindering the consistency of competition law remedies and misrecognising the cruciality of patent law and policy. Therefore, we will try to outline that the intermingling of criteria adopted to scrutinise reverse-payment settlements and similar over-exclusionary strategies is pernicious under both antitrust and patent law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article traces the evolution of the goals of public procurement procedures in European Union law. It examines EU secondary legislation along with its interpretation in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from the 1970s onwards. Firstly, the article presents the EU law from the 1970s to the 1990s, when the coordination of public procurement procedures in the EU focused almost exclusively on economic objectives, such as opening up procurement to competition and ensuring the free movement of goods and the provision of services. Secondly, it examines the shift observed in the 2004 directives and relevant CJEU case law which started viewing procurement procedures as a tool for pursuing non-economic goals, such as social objectives, though this was only moderately reflected in EU law at the time. The final part of the article discusses the provisions of the current 2014 directives. The conclusions highlight a gradual shift in EU public procurement goals, evolving from purely economic objectives to include other goals, such as social objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers case law from the courts of England and Wales on the balance between copyright and freedom of expression and how this has developed over the last 50 years or so. Although there has been no fundamental change in the approach of the English courts to this issue, the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union have led to an acceptance that decisions in cases involving conflicts between copyright and freedom of expression need to be grounded in the European human rights framework. Like the CJEU, the English courts have generally preferred to treat human rights considerations as influencing the interpretation and application of the internal mechanisms in copyright law rather than as supplying an external corrective mechanism. In that sense progress has been made towards the constitutionalisation of copyright law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Invention and wide-spread use of the internet pose particular challenges for Private International Law. Ubiquitous nature of content placed online, the fact that internet-users are able to create the content themselves and the absence of any meaningful geographic connection between transactions conducted online and a territory of any given country are factors which are, on the one hand, increasing the number of cases with cross-border implications while, as the same time, rendering the use of traditional rules of jurisdiction and choice of law increasingly difficult. This is particularly the case with cross-border infringements of personality rights via the internet. The paper discusses the issue of jurisdiction for this particular category of internet-torts. Based on the analysis of the case law created by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the practice of courts in certain national jurisdictions, the author concludes that a reasonable and purposeful interpretation of the notion “place of damage” as a criterion of special jurisdiction for torts used in Article 53(1) of the Serbian Private International Law Code, entails that for the acceptance of jurisdiction by Serbian courts it is not enough that the relevant content is accessible from the territory of Serbia. It is also necessary that a victim’s habitual residence or main place of business is in Serbia. Such interpretation allows Serbian courts to accept jurisdiction in circumstances in which there is a real and meaningful connection of a dispute with Serbia, provides the plaintiff with efficient legal protection of his rights and guarantees the defendant a reasonable opportunity to foresee a competent forum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article concerns recent developments in the field of liability claims for infringements of EU competition law. After overviewing topical matters, this contribution focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the continuing relevance of its case law to several basic questions that arise in damages cases. The evolving interpretation of primary law, and what is required to ensure its full effectiveness, still occupies a central position in the private enforcement of EU competition law. Moreover, principles such as effectiveness and equivalence constrain the discretion of Member States to lay out and apply supplementary remedial and procedural rules. The foregoing implies that, despite the apparent legislative harmonisation of damages claims in the EU, litigants and national courts should follow developments in the case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the recent legal developments surrounding the privileges and immunities under EU law that governors andformer governors of national central banks enjoy. It does so by highlighting the applicable EU primary law and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As is evidenced, privileges and immunities under EU law are of a @nctional nature in light of the fact that such governors must exercise their powers independently, in order to guarantee sound decision-making as regards both monetary policy, and other banking and financial supervision tasks that are conferred upon them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During a time of distrust towards some Member States, the position of fundamental rights when executing a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been strengthened. The article considers whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is now 'taking rights seriously' as regards the EAW. To this end, it employs a theoretical and contextual approach that supports a comprehensive analysis of case‐law. First, the article borrows from a theory of rights as trumps and observes that rights are no longer treated as norms with no special force that are in the way of cooperation interests. Second, the article offers a contextual exegesis of this trajectory, by mapping drivers of distrust and evaluating their impact on the position of rights. Through contextualisation, it is argued that distrust, although limited by its circumstances, has offered a compelling opportunity for the ECJ to take rights seriously, paving the way forward for future case‐law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia Iuridica Toruniensia is the property of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Faculty of Law & Administration and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Româna de Dreptul Muncii is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Româna de Dreptul Muncii is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)