Examination of the advancement and huge of the judgements in instances of Van Gend en Loos and Costa v Enel
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie deer Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62 was a milestone instance of the European court of equity which built up that procurements of the 'Arrangement Establishing the European Economic Community' were fit for making lawful rights which could be upheld by both regular and lawful persons before the courts of the Community's part expresses This is presently called the guideline of direct impact. The case is recognized similar to a standout amongst the most critical, and conceivably the most celebrated advancement of European Union Law.
The case emerged from the renaming of a concoction, by the Benelux nations, into a traditions class involving higher traditions charges. Preparatory inquiries were asked by the Dutch Tariefcommissie in a debate between Van Gend En Loos and the Dutch Tax Authority. The European Court of Justice held that this broke a procurement of the arrangement obliging part states to continuously lessen traditions obligations in
…show more content…
In Costa V Enel [1964] ECR 585 the European Court of Justice held that in circumstances where there is a contention between the laws of part states and European Union law, European Union law wins, in light of the fact that "a resulting one-sided demonstration contradictory with the idea of the Community can't
As instructed in the outline for this assignment, I have read and analysed the case of R. v. Keegstra. I have understood the allegations placed and the defence of the same. Also, I have answered the questions provided explaining the rights at stake, the procedure that court adopted to reach to a final decision and that whether or not it was able to reach a balance between the individual and the group rights.
Simmonds C., ‘Paramountcy and the ECHR: a conflict resolved? [2012] Cambridge Law Journal Vol. 71 Issue 3, 498-201
an Act of Parliament, a court ruling or an EU law in comparison to the
Prof. Jeffrey A. Brauch, The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the rule of law, Vol.11, Columbia Journal of European Law (2004-2005)
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
The European Union (EU), since the initial foundation in 1952 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and throughout periods of development, has been considered one of the most advanced forms of regional integration. It, based on numerous treaties and resolutions, has strived to promote values such as peace, cooperation or democracy, and in 2012 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” (Nobel Media AB, 2012). Despite its struggle for promoting democracy, the EU itself has long experienced scholarly criticisms that it suffers the democratic deficit, from which its democratic legitimacy is undermined by observable problems in political accountability and participation. As the importance of legitimacy in a democratically representative institution is hardly debatable, the criticism of whether and why the EU lacks democracy has been given a considerable gravity in academia.
The EU is a union of sovereign European states who share sovereignty based on treaty. The union also possesses competences in policy sectors with exclusive jurisdiction in the area of Economic and Monetary Union while others are shared with Member States (MS), the other powers belong to MS as derived from the conferral of powers art 5(2) TEU, 2(1) TFEU art.3 & 4 TFEU additionally other powers have been offered by the decisions of the European Court for direct effect on citizens
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
"50 Years of EU Gender Equalitylaw." EUROPA. N.p., 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 09 Mar. 2014.
Európska justičná sieť v občianskych a obchodných veciach, (2004). Právny poriadok - Slovensko. [online] Available at: [Accessed 25.12.2013].
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
The European Court of Justice held that Van Gend en Loos could recover the money it paid under the tariff. Article 12 was capable of creating personal rights for Van Gend en Loos, even though this was not expressly stated. The Netherlands could not impose a higher tariff than that in force on 1 January 1958 (when the Treaty came into force). An increase in the tariff could arise either through an increase in the rate or through the reclassification of a product into a higher-rated category, and that both were illegal under Article 12. The question of the proper tariff for urea-formaldehyde was remitted to the national
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.
Schwartz, Bernard. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases. New York: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.