Comparative analysis of constructive solutions for thermal insulation by using computer applications in building rehabilitation in Mediterranean climate. The Spanish case

The new Spanish legislation in Energy Saving, similar to European regulation, provides new technical requirements to adequate technical solutions used in integral rehabilitation of existing buildings. The aim of this paper is to present, analyze and discuss the main thermal insulation constructive solutions best suited to a Mediterranean climate, and conclude on their suitability under the legislation in Energy Saving. The proposed methodology is based on the most usual constructive solutions in integral rehabilitation of buildings by analyzing their outstanding design features, by studying its construction details and then by applying the software provided by the Spanish legislation of energy efficiency in buildings. The results of the study evaluate and classify several solutions for façade rehabilitation according to energy efficiency criteria and their suitability for this type of weather, verifying the necessity of using software applications in energy saving for the proper design of constructive solutions in building rehabilitation.

Structural Analysis with ANSYS on Stone Constructions in the Historical Spanish Heritage

According to the importance of rehabilitation and recovery of Architectural Heritage in the live of people, this paper is aimed to strengthen the traditional methods of stone vaults calculation taking advantage of the technological characteristics of the powerful program ANSYS Workbench. As an example of this, it could find out the possible pathologies that could arise during the construction history of the building. To limit this research, the upper vault of the main chapel of the Santiago parish church in Orihuela -Alicante- is selected as a reference which is a Jeronimo Quijano´s important building work in the XVI century in the Renaissance. Moreover, it is an innovative stone masonry vault that consists of 8 double intercrossed arches with each other and braced by severies. During the seventeenth century there was a lantern in the central cap and it is unknown why it was removed. Its construction could justify the original constructive solution with intercrossed arches that freed the center to create a more enlightened and comfortable presbytery. By similarity with other Quijano’s works, it is considered a small lantern drilling the central spherical cap. It is proposed to carry out a comparative study of it with different architectural solutions from the same period and based on several common parameters such as: a vault of square plant with spherical surround, intercrossed arches, a possible lantern, the dimension of the permitted space, similar states of loads and compact limestone masonry. The three solutions are mainly differentiated by their size and the type of lantern and its comparison lets us know which one is the most resistant and stable. The other two building works maintain some connection with the Quijano's professional scope. It has selected the particular case of the Communion chapel of the Basilica in Elche (a large prismatic lantern with a large cylindrical drum that starts from the own arches and an upper hemispherical dome), for its conservation, its proximity to Orihuela and its implementation during the century XVIII. Finally, a significant Dome Spanish Renaissance complete the selection: a cross vault of the Benavides Chapel of the Saint Francisco Convent in Baeza - Jaén-, designed by Andres of Vandelvira in the sixteenth century (a large hemispherical dome that starts from the own arcs). To simplify the calculation and standardize the work that have to be contrasted, all of them were considered with some similar characteristics: 30 cm constant thickness, the intercrossed arches were specifically analyzed and had identical loads, Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. Regarding the calculation solutions, in general terms, the compressive stresses predominate, influencing on it the joint collaboration of the filling material on the vault, the vault itself, the thick side walls, the buttresses and the top cover weight . In addition, the three solutions are suitable, being the Orihuela one the safest and the Baeza one the riskiest for its large dimensions. Thus, the idea of intercrossed arches with suitable thickness would allow carry out the heaviest lantern and this would confirm it as a Renaissance architectural typology built in stone.

Plea in the case of Hamilton v. Saunders, 1763

Plea in response to the plaintiff's declaration. Signed: (Charles) Pinckney, defendant's attorney, and John Rutledge (plaintiff's attorney?). Note on verso: Filed 4th May 1763.

Motion for change of venue in the case of the Inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay Colony v. Charles Paxton, October 1761

A motion that the case not be tried in Suffolk County, on the grounds that the judges and jurors were residents of the colony. Pratt was attorney to Paxton, an attorney and commissioner of customs, who had incurred a debt to the Colony.

Notice of trial in the case of Jonathan Fish [et al.] v. William Betts, 12 April 1774

Document addressed to Thomas Hicks (attorney for the defendant) informing him that Scott (attorney for the plaintiff) intends to bring the case to trial "at the next Supreme Court of Judicature to be held for the Province of New York." Signed by Scott.

Lawyer's case book containing notes of cases adjudged and determined in the courts of Delaware, 1793-1796

Lawyer's case book containing notes on cases before the Delaware Supreme Court and Delaware Court of Common Pleas. Contains information on the cases and judgements.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.

Safeguarding the EDTIB: the Case for Supervising non-EU FDI in the Defence Sector. Security Policy Brief No. 41, December 2012

It is time for the EU member states to start collectively supervising non-EU FDI in Europe’s defence industries and infrastructures. This should be a prudent element of the nascent EDTIB and a way to maintain European security by encouraging greater coordination between the national supervisory frameworks.

The Case Law of the ECJ concerning the Free Provision of Services : 2000 - 2005. Research Papers in Law, 2/2006

Introduction. The present overview covers the period starting from 2000 until the end of 2005.1 This is the follow-up to our overview covering the 1995-1999 period.2 The first striking feature of the present contribution is that it has to deal with almost 3,5 times as many cases as the previous one. Hence, the ECJ has gone from deciding 40 cases in the five year period between 1995- 1999 to deciding over 140 cases based on Art 49 between 2000-2005. This confirms, beyond any doubt, the tendency already observed in our previous overview, that a “third generation” case law on services is being developed at a very rapid pace by the ECJ. This third generation case law is based on the idea that Article 49 EC is not limited to striking down discriminatory measures but extends to the elimination of all hindrances to the free provision of services. This idea was first expressed in the Tourist Guide cases, the Greek and Dutch TV cases and most importantly in the Säger case.3 It has been confirmed ever since. As was to be expected, this broad brush approach of the Court’s has led to an ever-increasing amount of litigation reaching Luxemburg. It is clear that, if indicators were used to weight the importance of the Court’s case law during the relevant period, services would score much higher than goods, both from a quantitative and from a qualitative perspective.4 Hence, contrary to the previous overview, this one cannot deal in detail with any of the judgments delivered during the reference period. The aim of the present contribution is restricted to presenting the basic trends of the Court’s case law in the field of services Therefore, the analysis follows a fundamentally horizontal approach, fleetingly considering the facts of individual cases, with a view to identifying the conceptual premises of the Court’s approach to the free movement of services. Nonetheless, the substantial solutions adopted by the Court in some key topics, such as concession contracts, healthcare services, posted workers and gambling, are also presented as case studies. In this regard, the analysis is organized in four sections. First we explore the (ever expanding) scope of the freedom to provide services (Section 2), then we go on to identify the nature of the violations and of justifications thereto (Section 3), before carrying out some case studies to concretely illustrate the above (Section 4). Then, for the sake of completeness, we try to deduce the general principles running through the totality of the relevant case law (Section 5). Inevitably, some concluding remarks follow (Section 6).5

With or without you...judging politically in the field of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Research Papers in Law, 3/2007

From the Introduction. The study of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law of the regarding the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) is fascinating in many ways.1 First, almost the totality of the relevant case law is extremely recent, thereby marking the first ‘foundational’ steps in this field of law. This is the result of the fact that the AFSJ was set up by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and only entered into force in May 1999.2 Second, as the AFSJ is a new field of EU competence, it sets afresh all the fundamental questions – both political and legal – triggered by European integration, namely in terms of: a) distribution of powers between the Union and its member states, b) attribution of competences between the various EU Institutions, c) direct effect and supremacy of EU rules, d) scope of competence of the ECJ, and e) measure of the protection given to fundamental rights. The above questions beg for answers which should take into account both the extremely sensible fields of law upon which the AFSJ is anchored, and the EU’s highly inconvenient three-pillar institutional framework.3 Third, and as a consequence of the above, the vast majority of the ECJ’s judgments relating to the AFSJ are a) delivered by the Full Court or, at least, the Grand Chamber, b) with the intervention of great many member states and c) often obscure in content. This is due to the fact that the Court is called upon to set the foundational rules in a new field of EU law, often trying to accommodate divergent considerations, not all of which are strictly legal.4 Fourth, the case law of the Court relating to the AFSJ, touches upon a vast variety of topics which are not necessarily related to one another. This is why it is essential to limit the scope of this study. The content of, and steering for, the AFSJ were given by the Tampere European Council, in October 1999. According to the Tampere Conclusions, the AFSJ should consist of four key elements: a) a common immigration and asylum policy, b) judicial cooperation in both civil and penal matters, c) action against criminality and d) external action of the EU in all the above fields. Moreover, the AFSJ is to a large extent based on the Schengen acquis. The latter has been ‘communautarised’5 by the Treaty of Amsterdam and further ‘ventilated’ between the first and third pillars by decisions 1999/435 and 1999/436.6 Judicial cooperation in civil matters, mainly by means of international conventions (such as the Rome Convention of 1981 on the law applicable to contractual obligations) and regulations (such as (EC) 44/20017 and (EC) 1348/20008) also form part of the AFSJ. However, the relevant case law of the ECJ will not be examined in the present contribution.9 Similarly, the judgments of the Court delivered in the course of Article 226 EC proceedings against member states, will be omitted.10 Even after setting aside the above case law and notwithstanding the fact that the AFSJ only dates as far back as May 1999, the judgments of the ECJ are numerous. A simple (if not simplistic) categorisation may be between, on the one hand, judgments which concern the institutional setting of the AFSJ (para. 2) and, on the other, judgments which are related to some substantive AFSJ policy (para. 3).

The AstraZeneca Case. Research Papers in Law, 4/2007

Introduction. On June 2005, after a five year investigation, the Commission imposed a 60 millions euros fine on AstraZeneca (hereinafter AZ) for having abused its dominant position in several Member States in the market for proton-pump inhibitors (PPI)2. It was alleged that AZ misused the patent system and procedures for marketing pharmaceuticals to block or delay the entry of generic competitors and parallel traders to its ulcer drug Losec3. This decision is a seminal one. The political and legal importance of the CFI judgment that will review the case (and the ECJ appeal that is likely to follow) cannot be understated. On the one hand the incentive to innovate and to undertake R&D is at stake, on the other, the uncertain boundaries between competition and intellectual property law should once again be explored. In contrast to the US, where many cases concerning the abuse of regulatory and governmental procedures have already been dealt with competition authorities and courts, it is the first time in Europe that such conduct is subject to scrutiny through an anti-trust lens. Moreover, following the appeal brought by AZ against the Commission decision, the CFI will be confronted for the first time with an abuse of a dominant position in the pharmaceutical sector, which explains why this judgment is eagerly anticipated4.

The importance of International Developments in the case-law of the European Court of Justice: Kadi and the autonomy of the EC legal order. Research Papers in Law, 1/2009

From the Introduction. In the USA, the debate is still ongoing as to whether and to what extent the Supreme Court could or should refer to foreign precedent, in particular in relation to constitutional matters such as the death penalty.1 In the EU, in particular the recent Kadi case of 20082 has triggered much controversy,3 thereby highlighting the opposite angle to a similar discussion. The focus of attention in Europe is namely to what extent the European Court of Justice (hereafter “ECJ”) could lawfully and rightfully refuse to plainly ‘surrender’ or to subordinate the EC legal system to UN law and obligations when dealing with human rights issues. This question becomes all the more pertinent in view of the fact that in the past the ECJ has been rather receptive and constructive in forging interconnectivity between the EC legal order and international law developments. A bench mark in that respect was undoubtedly the Racke case of 1998,4 where the ECJ spelled out the necessity for the EC to respect international law with direct reference to a ruling of the International Court of Justice. This judgment which was rendered 10 years earlier than Kadi equally concerned EC/EU economic sanctions taken in implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions. A major question is therefore whether it is at all possible, and if so to determine how, to reconcile those apparently conflicting judgments.