Ten Years of Judicial Cooperation. Occasional Paper 4/2014

This paper intends to illustrate the respective roles and functions of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the one hand, and the Maltese national courts on the other. It will then define the scope and role of the judicial cooperation between the CJEU and the national courts, highlighting the procedure relating to the preliminary rulings. The paper will then briefly describe the cases brought before the CJEU involving Malta, including those concerning requests for preliminary rulings originating from Malta, and the direct actions by the European Commission before the Court of Justice, as well as those before the General Court. After a description of the rationale behind the publication of the book Malta u l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea (Malta and the Court of Justice of the European Union), and following the conference in which it was presented, the main points that emerged from the conference will serve as a backdrop to some statistical analysis pertaining to the Maltese cases, as well as some reflections on the current situation of the judicial cooperation obtained after ten years. It will propose that, besides a mere statistical analysis of the raw figures that emerge, one must rather address his attention to the spirit of EU membership, and reflect on whether Malta’s legal system has actually absorbed and understood the full meaning of the EU membership, ten years after it took place.

The Standard of Proof in EC Merger Control-Conclusions from the Sony BMG Saga. IES WORKING PAPER 4/2008

One of the most important developments in EC competition policy during 2006 was the Court of First Instance’s (CFI) Impala v. Commission judgment annulling the European Commission’s approval of the merger between the music units of Sony and Bertelsmann. It harshly criticized the Commission’s Decision because it found that the evidence relied on was not capable of substantiating the conclusion. This was the first time that a merger decision was annulled for not meeting the requisite legal standard for authorizing the merger. Consequently, the CFI raised fundamental questions about the standard of proof incumbent on the Commission in its merger review procedures. On July 10, 2008, the European Court of Justice overturned Impala, yet it did not resolve the fundamental question underlying the judicial review of the Sony BMG Decision; does the Commission have the necessary resources and expertise to meet the Community Court’s standard of proof? This paper addresses the wider implications of the Sony BMG saga for the Commission’s future handling of complex merger investigations. It argues that the Commission may have set itself an impossible precedent in the second approval of the merger. While the Commission has made a substantial attempt to meet the high standard of proof imposed by the Community Courts, it is doubtful that it will be able to jump the fence again in a similar fashion under normal procedural circumstances.

European Union Leadership and Enlargement in 2014. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 14 No. 14, July 2014

On July 15, 2014 the European Parliament confirmed the new European Commission President. An absolute majority was needed for this purpose, and the 422 votes “For” cleared the 376-vote threshold in the legislative body of 751 members. A Grand Coalition has been formed among the three largest political parties: the European People’s Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliances of Socialists Democrats (S&D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). Considering policy decisions going forward, the European Union (EU) faces the pressing question: Will there be more, less, or similar power from the EU? There are a greater number voices from across the political spectrum contributing to the democratic plurality. European leaders may regain trust by acknowledging that future governance will not be “business as usual” as the reform agenda gets underway. 2014 has been an exciting and important year in European politics. “This time is different” was the motto for the European Parliament’s election campaign. This essay analyzes recent EU political trends with the new Commission leadership and the Parliamentary elections results. The Parliamentary elections, held in late May, and the new European Commission, planned to be in place in the autumn, influence the leadership direction of the 28-member bloc. Additionally, this year on July 1 Croatia celebrated the first anniversary of joining the EU in 2013. Leading the way for candidate countries, Croatia embraces the democratic politics and capitalist market economics embodied by the EU. The greater number of seats held by newer political parties in the European Parliament demonstrates increasing plurality in the EU democracy. The Parliamentary elections have taken place every 5 years since 1979. In this eighth legislative session, the EPP and the S&D remain the largest parties represented, with 221 and 191 seats respectively. As the EU has evolved, a greater number of voices influence politics. The ongoing point of contention on a host of policies is national sovereignty in relation to pooled sovereignty in the EU. The European Parliament is important for democracy in EU governance since it is the direct link from the national citizens to their elected leaders at the supranational level. The representatives of the European Commission are appointed by the national governments of Member States, and their heads of government are the representatives to the European Council. These three political institutions – the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Council – together with other important institutions, including the European Court of Justice Luxembourg, form the EU. The new European Commission President is Jean-Claude Juncker, former Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Luxembourg (1995-2013). After being nominated by the European Council on June 27, his candidacy was voted on by the European Parliament on July 15, according to the guidelines of the Lisbon Treaty. The leadership for the President of the European Commission has been an important issue, considering Britain’s deliberations on whether or not to stay in the EU in the face of a future national referendum. Voting on June 27, among the European Council on the nomination of Commission President-Designate Juncker, was 26 in favor and 2 opposed. Only Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, joined David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom (UK), with a negative vote (Spiegel and Parker 2014). The UK had not been supportive, being concerned that Juncker embraces the policies of a federalist, prioritizing an ever-closer union above the interests of individual Member States. Historically, since joining the predecessor institution of the European Economic Community in 1973, the UK has had a relatively independent attitude about participation in the EU.

Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Common Pleas, and other courts : from Michaelmas term, 48 Geo. III. 1807, to [Hilary term, 59 Geo. III. 1819] both inclusive. With tables of the cases and principal matters /

Includes index.

Minutes of the court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck, 1652-16[60] /

The records of the court for the period betweeen Dec. 30, 1660 and Sept. 3/13, 1668 (during which the province of New Netherland passed from Dutch to British control, and Beverwyck became Albany) are missing. For minutes of the court beginning Sept. 3/13, 1668, cf. Albany. Court of Albany, colony of Rensselaerswyck and Schaenhechtede.

The Law reports of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting. Courts of Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty, and on appeal therefrom in the Court of Appeal; ecclesiastical courts, and on appeal therefrom in the Privy Council.

Editor: 1891- A.P. Stone; 1895-1936, Frederick Pollock; 1936-1939, A.F. Topham; 1940, R.E.L. Vaughan Williams; 1941, Ralph Sutton.

Why does tax have to be so taxing? The Court revisits the Franked Investment Income litigation

Examines the European Court of Justice ruling in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Inland Revenue Commissioners (C-35/11) on whether the differential tax treatment of domestic and foreign-sourced dividends in the UK was compatible with the freedom of establishment and free movement of capital principles. Outlines its guidance on how to assess this compatibility. Considers the ruling's implications for the UK tax system, the relationship between tax sovereignty and the internal market and the third-country dimension of the free movement of capital principle.

Cross-border Movement of Patients in the EU: A Re-Appraisal

The national welfare state, so it seems, has come under attack by European integration. This article focuses on one facet of the welfare state, that is, health care and on one specific dimension, that is, cross-border movement of patients. The institution which has played a pivotal role in the development of the framework regulating the migration of patients is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The Court’s activity in this sensitive area has not remained without critics. This was even more so since the Court invoked Treaty (primary) law which not only has made it difficult to overturn case law but also has left the legislator with very little room for manoeuvre in relation to any future (secondary) EU law. What is therefore of special interest in terms of legitimacy is the legal reasoning by which the Court has made its contribution to the development of this framework. This article is a re-appraisal of the legal development in this field.

Personal Data and Encryption in the European General Data Protection Regulation

Encryption of personal data is widely regarded as a privacy preserving technology which could potentially play a key role for the compliance of innovative IT technology within the European data protection law framework. Therefore, in this paper, we examine the new EU General Data Protection Regulation’s relevant provisions regarding encryption – such as those for anonymisation and pseudonymisation – and assess whether encryption can serve as an anonymisation technique, which can lead to the non-applicability of the GDPR. However, the provisions of the GDPR regarding the material scope of the Regulation still leave space for legal uncertainty when determining whether a data subject is identifiable or not. Therefore, we inter alia assess the Opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the dispute concerning whether a dynamic IP address can be considered as personal data, which may put an end to the dispute whether an absolute or a relative approach has to be used for the assessment of the identifiability of data subjects. Furthermore, we outline the issue of whether the anonymisation process itself constitutes a further processing of personal data which needs to have a legal basis in the GDPR. Finally, we give an overview of relevant encryption techniques and examine their impact upon the GDPR’s material scope.

Europeanization beyond the EU: The case of Georgia.

320 p.

Statistics as a basis for discrimination in the insurance business

The European Court of Justice has held that as from 21 December 2012 insurers may no longer charge men and women differently on the basis of scientific evidence that is statistically linked to their sex, effectively prohibiting the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services throughout the European Union. This ruling marks a sharp turn away from the traditional view that insurers should be allowed to apply just about any risk assessment criterion, so long as it is sustained by the findings of actuarial science. The naïveté behind the assumption that insurers’ recourse to statistical data and probabilistic analysis, given their scientific nature, would suffice to keep them out of harm’s way was exposed. In this article I look at the flaws of this assumption and question whether this judicial decision, whilst constituting a most welcome landmark in the pursuit of equality between men and women, has nonetheless gone too far by saying too little on the million dollar question of what separates admissible criteria of differentiation from inadmissible forms of discrimination.

O direito de exoneração do acionista minoritário

This study specifically addresses the situation of minority shareholders after the transfer of control in an listed company. The various underlying interests and reasons that shareholders have for investing in a company can demonstrate shareholders’ reasoning for taking radically different positions on issues relating to the transfer of control of the referred company. This study analyses the current legal system in Portugal and in the European Union in order to assess whether, in the event of a takeover bid of a listed company where there is a transfer of control, minority shareholders have the same appraisal rights as other shareholders to sell their shares and leave the company. The study then examines the European Court of Justice decision on whether a general principle of equal treatment of minority shareholders exists upon a transfer of control (Audiolux) and the Portuguese Securities Market Commission decision regarding the delisting of Brisa - Autoestradas de Portugal, S.A. based on the principle of investor protection. The study concludes that although the principle of equality amongst shareholders has made progress in the European legal system e.g. it is laid down in Directive 2004/25/EC of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids and the Portuguese Securities Market Code, there is also a need for further improvement, which can be accomplished by allowing minority shareholders to exercise an appraisal right in similar unregulated situations.

O direito de exoneração do acionista minoritário

This study specifically addresses the situation of minority shareholders after the transfer of control in an listed company. The various underlying interests and reasons that shareholders have for investing in a company can demonstrate shareholders’ reasoning for taking radically different positions on issues relating to the transfer of control of the referred company. This study analyses the current legal system in Portugal and in the European Union in order to assess whether, in the event of a takeover bid of a listed company where there is a transfer of control, minority shareholders have the same appraisal rights as other shareholders to sell their shares and leave the company. The study then examines the European Court of Justice decision on whether a general principle of equal treatment of minority shareholders exists upon a transfer of control (Audiolux) and the Portuguese Securities Market Commission decision regarding the delisting of Brisa - Autoestradas de Portugal, S.A. based on the principle of investor protection. The study concludes that although the principle of equality amongst shareholders has made progress in the European legal system e.g. it is laid down in Directive 2004/25/EC of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids and the Portuguese Securities Market Code, there is also a need for further improvement, which can be accomplished by allowing minority shareholders to exercise an appraisal right in similar unregulated situations.

A criação de um Tribunal Internacional Tributário como forma de superar limitações do Procedimento Amigável previsto no artigo 25.º da Convenção Modelo da OCDE

Dissertação de mestrado em Direito Tributário e Fiscal

Juridical double taxation by cross border transactions: the Block Case (C-67/08)

Treaty Establishing the European Community, operative until December 1st 2009, had already established in its article 2 the mission of the up until then European Community and actual European Union is to promote an harmonious, equilibrated and sustainable development of the economic activities of the whole Community. This Mission must be achieved by establishing a Common Market, an Economic and Monetary Union and the realization of Common Policies. One of the instruments to obtain these objectives is the use of free circulation of people, services and capitals inside the Common and Interior Market of the European Union. The European Union is characterized by the confirmation of the total movement of capitals, services and individuals and legal peoples’ freedom; freedom that was already predicated by the Maastricht Treaty, through the suppression of whatever obstacles which are in the way of the objectives before exposed. The old TEC in its Title III, now Title IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, covered the free circulation of people, services and capitals. Consequently, the inclusion of this mechanism inside one of the regulating texts of the European Union indicates the importance this freedom supposes for the European Union objectives’ development. Once stood up the relevance of the free movement of people, services and capitals, we must mention that in this paper we are going to centre our study in one of these freedoms of movement: the free movement of capital. In order to analyze in detail the free movement of capital within the European framework, we are going to depart from the analysis of the existent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The use of jurisprudence is basic to know how Community legislation is interpreted. For this reason, we are going to develop this work through judgements dictated by the European Union Court. This way we can observe how Member States’ regulating laws and the European Common Law affect the free movement of capital. The starting point of this paper will be the Judgement C-67/08 European Court of Justice of February 12th 2009, known as Block case. So, following the argumentation the Luxemburg Court did about the mentioned case, we are going to develop how free movement of capital could be affected by the current disparity of Member States’ legislation. This disparity can produce double taxation cases due to the lack of tax harmonized legislation within the interior market and the lack of treaties to avoid double taxation within the European Union. Developing this idea we are going to see how double taxation, at least indirectly, can infringe free movement of capital.