In the Ajos case, the Supreme Court of Denmark (SCDK) referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) two questions relating to the compatibility of paragraph 2a(3) of the Danish Salaried Employees Act with Directive 2000/78/EC, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
Despite the clear instructions received from the ECJ, the SCDK refused to set aside the conflicting provision of national law, giving precedence to national law over EU law instead.
This paper shortly summarises the facts of the case and the reasoning of the SCDK, discussing them in the framework of the Treaty principles of supremacy of EU law and loyal cooperation. It then maintains that the decision of the SCDK in Ajos is an illustration of judicial disobedience of a national Court vis-à-vis the ECJ, which threatens the doctrine of the primacy of EU law as established by the European Court in the landmark decision Costa v ENEL.
Elisabeth Talbourdet – King’s College London Dickson Poon School of Law Alumnus (‘16)
The future of the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) is uncertain at best. Although it may never come to an existence, one of the most important novelties introduced by the TTIP, and which seems destined to stay, is its new Investor-State dispute resolution mechanism, the ‘Investment Court System’ (ICS). Indeed, even if not included in the TTIP, the idea of an ICS is present in other investment treaties, such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.
Agne Limante (MA, PhD) is a Research Fellow at the Law Institute of Lithuania.
The duty of last instance national courts to submit preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is analysed by academics almost exclusively in the light of the Luxembourg Court’s case law. However, the case law of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) also appears to be relevant in this context. In several instances the ECtHR was asked whether non-referral of preliminary questions to the CJEU constituted a breach of Article 6 ECHR, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. This post aims at providing some reference in this regard. First, it briefly describes the rules governing the preliminary reference procedure. Then, it analyses the ECtHR’s judgements relevant to this subject. Some conclusions will follow.
Ioanna Hadjiyianni and Amanda Spalding, PhD Candidates, Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London
On the 23th of June 2016 the UK public voted to leave the European Union. Neither Whitehall nor the Leave campaign appear to have been prepared for such a result and the many legal and political issues it raises. In this post we will attempt to give an overview of some of the most significant legal questions raised by Brexit and how they might be resolved.
What happens now?
The current state of affairs is that the New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union negotiated by Cameron and reached at the European Council in February 2016 will not apply and no longer exists. The overwhelming question now is whether the result of the EU referendum has legally binding effect and would thus trigger the withdrawal procedure under EU law. The only acceptable procedure for withdrawal from the EU is provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) as the UK cannot unilaterally withdraw by suspending the European Communities Act 1972 consistently with international law and EU law requirements.
Antonino Cento is an LLB student of the University of Tours (France)/University of Bristol and Editor of the French student-led law journal Le Petit Juriste.
The International Organisation for Migration has said that over a million migrants and refugees have reached Europe in 2015. The legal instrument envisaged for examining asylum claims within the European Union has proven shamefully inadequate to the task. Continue reading →