8

resultado(s)

Palabra(s)
Tipo de publicación
Ámbito político
Autor
Palabra clave
Fecha

In Pursuit of an International Investment Court. Recently Negotiated Investment Chapters in EU Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements in Comparative Perspective

04-07-2017

The study compares the revised and signed text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EUVFTA) and the EU Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) in respect of important procedural aspects relating to investor State dispute settlement. The findings are juxtaposed to the procedural rules governing the preliminary reference procedure and direct action (action for annulment) before the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as the individual ...

The study compares the revised and signed text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EUVFTA) and the EU Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) in respect of important procedural aspects relating to investor State dispute settlement. The findings are juxtaposed to the procedural rules governing the preliminary reference procedure and direct action (action for annulment) before the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as the individual application before the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so, it provides a tool and manual to evaluate the EU’s todays and future progress in reforming the international investment law regime. By outlining key features of the procedural frameworks governing two international courts, some ‘tried and tested’ concepts as source of inspiration for the possible design of a ‘multilateral investment court’ might be found.

Autor externo

Prof. Dr. Steffen HINDELANG, LL.M., Department of Law, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany and Ass. iur. Teoman M. HAGEMEYER, Dipl. iur. oec., Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Law, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany

The Training of Judges and Legal Practitioners - Ensuring the Full Application of EU Law

31-03-2017

The workshop, organised by the Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs upon request by the Committees on Legal Affairs and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, provides an opportunity to discuss about the training of judges and of other legal professionals in EU law and in the law of other Member States. The European Commission, in its 2011 Communication on "Building trust in EU-wide justice", set the objective of enabling half of the ...

The workshop, organised by the Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs upon request by the Committees on Legal Affairs and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, provides an opportunity to discuss about the training of judges and of other legal professionals in EU law and in the law of other Member States. The European Commission, in its 2011 Communication on "Building trust in EU-wide justice", set the objective of enabling half of the legal practitioners in the EU to participate in European judicial training activities by 2020. The workshop will be an forum to discuss to what extent this objective is being attained, as well as to understand the existing challenges and good practices that have been developed in the training of several categories of legal professionals.

Autor externo

Tatiana TERMACIC, Eva PASTRANA, EJTN, Pier Giovanni TRAVERSA, Sieglinde GAMSJÄGER, Roberta RIBEIRO OERTEL, Peter I.B. GOLDSCHMIDT

Civil-Law Expert Reports in the EU: National Rules and Practices

29-05-2015

Upon request by the JURI Committee, this in-depth analysis compares national rules and practices governing expert reports in the civil law area. All EU Member States expect experts to be competent, independent and impartial. The method of recruitment and rights and obligations of experts still vary. The lack of public registers is an obstacle to their appointment. Only judges can authorise an expert report and generally define the mission, but it is not the case everywhere that they are given the ...

Upon request by the JURI Committee, this in-depth analysis compares national rules and practices governing expert reports in the civil law area. All EU Member States expect experts to be competent, independent and impartial. The method of recruitment and rights and obligations of experts still vary. The lack of public registers is an obstacle to their appointment. Only judges can authorise an expert report and generally define the mission, but it is not the case everywhere that they are given the powers to oversee how the process is carried out. It is not universally the case that EU Member States require experts to respect the adversarial principle, and they do not require expert reports to be structured in any particular way.

Autor externo

Alain NUEE

Proceedings of the Workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Learning and Accessing EU Law: Some Best Practices" (Session I)

15-11-2013

Proceedings of the workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Learning and Accessing EU Law: Some Best Practices" (Session I), held on 28 November 2013 in Brussels.

Proceedings of the workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Learning and Accessing EU Law: Some Best Practices" (Session I), held on 28 November 2013 in Brussels.

Autor externo

Reinier VAN ZUTPHEN, Rosa JANSEN, Herman VAN HARTEN, Valerio ONIDA, Fernando DE ROSA TORNER, Xavier RONSIN, Edith VAN DEN BROECK, Wojciech POSTULSKI, Rainer HORNUNG, Katalin KISZELY, Wolfgang HEUSEL, John COUGHLAN, Jean-Philippe RAGEADE, Jeremy COOPER, Jonathan GOLDSMITH, Sieglinde GAMSJÄGER, Alonso HERNÁNDEZ-PINZÓN GARCIA and Amélie LECLERCQ

Proceedings of the Workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Improving Mutual Trust" (Session II)

15-11-2013

Proceedingsof the Workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Improving Mutual Trust" (Session II), held on 28 November 2013 in Brussels.

Proceedingsof the Workshop on "The Training of Legal Practitioners: Teaching EU Law and Judgecraft - Improving Mutual Trust" (Session II), held on 28 November 2013 in Brussels.

Autor externo

John PHILLIPS, Gracieuse LACOSTE and Guido NEPPI MODONA

Amendment of the Statute of the Court of Justice

29-06-2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has proposed amendments to its Statute to cope with a significant increase in its case-load. The increasing numbers of cases awaiting judgment stem from enlargement and the development of EU competences. Despite the Court successfully taking procedural steps to reduce the time taken to deal with cases, further changes are needed to avoid infringement of the principle of timely justice.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has proposed amendments to its Statute to cope with a significant increase in its case-load. The increasing numbers of cases awaiting judgment stem from enlargement and the development of EU competences. Despite the Court successfully taking procedural steps to reduce the time taken to deal with cases, further changes are needed to avoid infringement of the principle of timely justice.

Lessons Learned from Implementation of the Mediation Directive the Judges’ Point of View

15-04-2011

Differences in application of Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters have brought to light varied loopholes from Member State to Member State. The main obstacles holding back the development of legal mediation are essentially to be found in the practical organisation of mediation and, to a lesser extent, in the overuse of the notion of public policy. This development has also suffered, particularly at cross-border level, from mismatches in the accreditation ...

Differences in application of Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters have brought to light varied loopholes from Member State to Member State. The main obstacles holding back the development of legal mediation are essentially to be found in the practical organisation of mediation and, to a lesser extent, in the overuse of the notion of public policy. This development has also suffered, particularly at cross-border level, from mismatches in the accreditation of the training of mediators. Debate has also raged over whether mediation should be made mandatory or whether financial incentives (such as obliging parties who refuse to enter into mediation to pay the cost of proceedings) should be introduced to encourage the use thereof.

Autor externo

Ivan VEROUGSTRAETE (Cour de justice Benelux et Cour de cassation de Belgique)

Maintenance Obligations and What Training for Judges to Deal with Cross Border Issues (especially Focused on the Relationship Between the Community Draft Instruments and the Works Done in the Framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law)

03-09-2007

The Proposal for a Regulation on maintenance obligations (PRMO) and the Preliminary Draft Hague Convention and Protocol on family maintenance (PDC and PDP) have a different scope, both substantive and personal. Limited interference between the PRMO and the PDC may occur in respect of jurisdiction rules since the latter does not provide rules of direct jurisdiction. The indirect rules of jurisdiction of the PDC will have an impact at the phase of recognition and enforcement of a decision given in ...

The Proposal for a Regulation on maintenance obligations (PRMO) and the Preliminary Draft Hague Convention and Protocol on family maintenance (PDC and PDP) have a different scope, both substantive and personal. Limited interference between the PRMO and the PDC may occur in respect of jurisdiction rules since the latter does not provide rules of direct jurisdiction. The indirect rules of jurisdiction of the PDC will have an impact at the phase of recognition and enforcement of a decision given in a Member State. As concerns the designation of the applicable law, both instruments allow a limited party autonomy and aim at the protection of the maintenance creditor, that usually is the weaker party. Nevertheless, due account is taken of the interest of the debtor. Should the Community and its Member States decide to become parties to the PDP, difficulties may arise in this field in case of inconsistencies between the two sets of rules since both will apply erga omnes. In respect to recognition and the enforcement of judgments some interference between the two systems is possible in particular cases notwithstanding Article 49. It appears that the EC and the Member States will share the external competence to enter into the Hague instruments.

Autor externo

Stefania Bariatti, Ilaria Viarengo and Lidia Sandrini (Université de Milan, Italie)

Próximos actos

25-01-2021
Public Hearing on "Gender aspects of precarious work"
Audiencia -
FEMM
26-01-2021
Public hearing on Co-management of EU fisheries at local level
Audiencia -
PECH
26-01-2021
The impact of Brexit on the level playing field in the area of taxation
Audiencia -
FISC

Socios