Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The CJEU is the chief judicial authority of the EU and oversees the uniform application and interpretation of European Union law, in co-operation with the national judiciary of the member states. [4] The CJEU also resolves legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions, and may take action against EU institutions on behalf of ...
Leading cases on competition law include Consten & Grundig v Commission and United Brands v Commission. Case C-185/95: Baustahlgewebe v. Commission. In 1989 the European Commission had adopted a determination that 14 producers of welded steel mesh had engaged in unlawful restrictions of competition. [11]
The court first ruled on the direct effect of primary legislation in a case that, though technical and tedious, raised a fundamental principle of Union law. In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963), a Dutch transport firm brought a complaint against Dutch customs for increasing the duty on a product imported from ...
International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which it was held that there is a positive right to strike, but the exercise of that right could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49 (ex Article 43 TEC).
Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) (1976) Case 43/75 is a foundational European Union law case, concerning direct effect and the European Social Charter in the European Union.It held that the EU:
Coman and Others v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări and Ministerul Afacerilor Interne is a 2018 case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that affirmed residency rights in EU countries (that do not recognise same-sex unions), to the spouse of an EU citizen who is exercising their right to freedom of movement and if the marriage was legally performed in an EU member state.
Date of delivery Reference Type of case Wording of conclusion 1971-06-08: Case 78/70 (Deutsche Grammophon) PR: 1. It is in conflict with the provisions prescribing the free movement of products within the common market for a manufacturer of sound recordings to exercise the exclusive right to distribute the protected articles, conferred upon him by the legislation of a member state, in such a ...
However, in this case, though the VGH was wrong, it was not sufficiently serious to warrant liability, so Prof Köbler lost. However, liability would arise only ‘in the exceptional case where the court has manifestly infringed the applicable law’. A deliberate refusal to follow EU law would result in liability.