| 1. |
- Groussot, Xavier, et al.
(author)
-
Are there general principles of community law affecting private law?
- 2008
-
In: General principles of EC law in a process of development.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The purpose of conference of the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies in Stockholm on March 22 and 23 was to detect and evaluate general principles of European community law. The conference was a follow up to the 1999 Malmö conference on the subject and the question was if there had been any new development. In 1999 general principles of Community law was discussed from the perspective of human rights and administrative law. This time the purpose was broadened and included consequences of the enlargement of the Union and if general principles were emerging, which could impact the sphere of private law. The discussion on general principles has primarily been driven by lawyers specialized in Constitutional and European law. The fact that this time “less experienced” (in the field!) private law lawyers and lawyers from new Member States participated, added new dimensions, perspectives and questions: What is a general principle, how does it develop and what impact does it have. This article argues that the question of general principles is not just a question of detecting important principles of Community law, but that the development signifies an ongoing convergence of interpretation of the law, which will harmonize understanding between civil and common law countries. First of all, the article will define the general principles in private law. Secondly, it will analyze the impact of the general principles on private law within the European Court of Justice (ECJ) case-law.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Groussot, Xavier, et al.
(author)
-
The Obligation of Transparency
- 2019
-
In: Discretion in EU Public Procurement Law.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Groussot, Xavier, et al.
(author)
-
Old and new human rights in Europe : The scope of EU rights versus that of ECHR rights
- 2014
-
In: Shaping Rights in the ECHR : The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights - The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights. - 9781107043220 - 9781107337923 ; , s. 232-258
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- What impact will the entry of a legally binding Charter of EU Fundamental Rights have on the scope of protection of the fundamental rights of the EU citizen? How will these ‘new’ rights impact on the ‘old’ human rights in Europe? This chapter address these questions by evaluating the Strasbourg and Luxembourg legal orders. It will do so by first considering the material and personal scope of the Charter in comparison with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). A wider scope of protection may give individuals greater opportunities to rely on fundamental arguments in litigation, and may even provide the Strasbourg Court with a source of inspiration in extending the scope of ECHR rights, but carries with it dangers, both to the ECHR as a “constitutional instrument of the European public order”
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Gill-Pedro, Eduardo, et al.
(author)
-
The Duty of Mutual Trust in EU Law and the Duty to Secure Human Rights : Can the EU's Accession to the ECHR Ease the Tension?
- 2017
-
In: Nordic Journal of Human Rights. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1891-8131 .- 1891-814X. ; 35:3, s. 258-274
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The principle of mutual trust has been a central pillar of the European integration project, first as a tool for market integration, and as the European Economic Community became the European Union, as a mechanism for a more wide ranging integration of the legal orders of the member states. The EU now has legislation in place which imposes obligations on member states to trust each other's civil and criminal justice systems, immigration and asylum law, and family law. But these obligations of trust imposed by EU law may conflict with obligations that member states have to secure the rights under the ECHR. Accession by the EU to the ECHR was supposed to resolve this conflict, but in its Opinion 2/13, the Court of Justice appeared to have dealt a fatal blow to this solution. This article explains the tension between the EU principle of mutual trust and the duty to secure ECHR rights. The article examines the most recent case law of the CJEU and the ECtHR in order to assess whether a resolution of this tension has been found, and whether the EU's accession to the ECHR will be possible.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Petursson, Gunnar Thor, et al.
(author)
-
Harmonization through adjudication New trends and challenges
- 2024
-
In: Balancing Unity and Diversity in EU Legislation. - 9781035302956 - 9781035302949 ; , s. 42-60
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This chapter studies the evolution of the classic legislative concepts developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its free movement jurisprudence. The idea is to discuss the key decisions mentioned by Piet Jan Slot in his article (‘Harmonisation’) published in 1996 in European Law Review and analyse these decisions in a new light and a new context. In a nutshell, the chapter will constitute a horizontal study focusing mainly on the evolution of legislative concepts such as mutual recognition, minimum harmonization and total harmonization in a horizontal study. Are the old concepts still applicable in the same way? Are there new concepts appearing in the CJEU case law? Furthermore, the focus will be on the development of derogations and the impact of proceduralization. Should there be new concepts developed by the CJEU? How are unity and diversity balanced in the recent case law? Another aim of the chapter will be to discuss this evolution of legislative concepts in light of the federal idea and federalist theories. Notably, the chapter will particularly look at the theories of vertical federalism and process federalism. This is of particular interest since the theory of process federalism has, for instance, only started to grow in the 1990s, i.e., at more or less the same time of Slot’s article. Yet the Lisbon Treaty arguably provides a more viable ground than the Maastricht Treaty for the development of claims based on process federalism.
|
|
