Ajos (Dansk Industri) –A challenge to the primacy of EU law?

Martina Benackova – 3rd year LLB student at UCL

In the Ajos case[1], 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[2].

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.[3]

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[4].

Continue reading

2017 Call for Papers

Dear All,

the KSLR EU Law Blog hereby invites you to submit blogposts in any field of EU law.

We are looking for papers between 1000 and 1500 words focusing on EU law related issues such as the implications of the UK referendum, possible reforms of the EU constitutional framework ad the role of the EU as a global actor.

We also invite submissions on:

  • Coverage of EU law-related events
  • Reviews of recently published EU law-related books as well as
  • Recent developments of EU case law.

Please submit abstracts or articles to giulia.gentile@kcl.ac.uk and giorgia.sangiuolo@kcl.ac.uk.

The deadline for the submission is the 1st of June 2017.

Please refer to our style guidelines.

We look forward to hearing from you!

Giulia Gentile                   Giorgia Sangiuolo

Konstanstina Perifanou    Angel Kaloyanov

 

The EU’s Investment Court System. A possible solution to conflicts of interest in Investment Arbitration.

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.[1]

Continue reading

Europe.think.again – Call for Ideas

Dear All,

The KSLR EU Law Blog is pleased to share with you a EU-related project managed by “Foraus Global”, a Swiss think tank on foreign policy.

In view of the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community on 25 March 2017, Foraus Global is publishing a short collection of ideas to reform European cooperation.

For more information, please visit the following page: europe.think.again project.

If you are interested in participating or you have further questions, please contact Laura Knopfel (laura.knopfel@kcl.ac.uk). 

We look forward to hearing from you!

The KSLR EU Law Blog editorial team

 

Refusal to refer for a preliminary ruling and a right to a fair trial: Strasbourg court’s position

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.[1] 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.

Continue reading