Review of European Administrative Law最新文献_第9页

Case Note: CJEU (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 19 December 2018, C-219/17, Silvio Berlusconi and Finanziaria d'investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d'Italia and Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS) 案例说明:CJEU(大商会)，2018年12月19日判决，C-219/17, Silvio Berlusconi和投资金融投资Fininvest SpA (Fininvest)诉意大利银行和保险监督研究所(IVASS)

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091330

P. Dermine, M. Eliantonio

{"title":"Case Note: CJEU (Grand Chamber), Judgment of 19 December 2018, C-219/17, Silvio Berlusconi and Finanziaria d'investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) v Banca d'Italia and Istituto per la Vigilanza Sulle Assicurazioni (IVASS)","authors":"P. Dermine, M. Eliantonio","doi":"10.7590/187479819x15840066091330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819x15840066091330","url":null,"abstract":"The topic of shared administration, or composite procedures, is one which has not only attracted considerable scholarly attention in the last years, but also come increasingly often to the attention of the Court of Justice. While the existence of composite procedures (definable as decision-making processes involving multiple jurisdictions participating at different moments and with different intensities) is not a new phenomenon and has virtually existed since the beginning of the project of European integration, it is in the last years that several interesting questions have been brought to the attention of the Court of Justice, with the aim of clarifying, in particular, the judicial implications of this system of administrative governance. Indeed, whereas the system of decision-making for the implementation of EU law is increasingly shared and composite in nature, the system of judicial protection has remained in principle anchored to a model based on domestic jurisdiction, whereby the court competent to review a certain administrative act or action is the court","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123879093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Effective Judicial Protection in EU Law: an Evolving Principle of a Constitutional Nature 欧盟法律中有效的司法保护:一个不断演变的宪制性原则

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091240

M. Bonelli

引用次数: 3

Case Note: Anything New under the Sun? An Exercise in Defence of the Reasoning of the CJEU in the ASJP Case 案例说明:太阳底下有什么新鲜事吗?在ASJP案中为欧洲法院的推理辩护的实践

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091321

Serena Menzione

引用次数: 0

The Principle of Effectiveness: under Strain? 有效性原则:在压力下?

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091268

M. Eliantonio, E. Muir

引用次数: 0

The Horizontal Effects of Charter Rights Given Expression to in EU Legislation, from Mangold to Bauer 欧盟立法中特许权的横向效应——从曼戈尔德到鲍尔

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091312

E. Muir

引用次数: 5

The interplay between EU legislation and effectiveness, effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy in EU public procurement law 欧盟公共采购法中欧盟立法与有效性、有效司法保护与有效救济权的相互关系

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091259

R. Caranta

引用次数: 0

The Impact of Legislative Harmonisation on Effective Judicial Protection in Europe's Area of Criminal Justice 立法协调对欧洲刑事司法领域有效司法保护的影响

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15840066091277

V. Mitsilegas

{"title":"The Impact of Legislative Harmonisation on Effective Judicial Protection in Europe's Area of Criminal Justice","authors":"V. Mitsilegas","doi":"10.7590/187479819x15840066091277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819x15840066091277","url":null,"abstract":"By focusing on the adoption of EU minimum standards in the field of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, this article will assess the relationship between secondary law harmonisation, and the principles of effectiveness of EU law and of effective judicial protection in Europe's\u0000 area of criminal justice. This article will begin by exploring the third pillar legacy on harmonisation, by focusing on what the EU has not done (i.e.to legislate on a horizontal instrument on defence rights) and what the EU has done (i.e.to legislate specifically on judgments in absentia\u0000 with the specific purpose of clarifying, and in some instances limiting, the grounds for refusal in a number of EU mutual recognition measures). The analysis will then examine the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and will evaluate critically the impact of EU harmonisation\u0000 measures on defence rights on effective judicial protection. The analysis will focus on the relationship between EU law and national law, as well as on the relationship between EU law and the Charter and ECHR. Great emphasis will be placed on the strengthening of enforcement avenues offered\u0000 by the normalisation of EU criminal law after Lisbon. These avenues have the potential to ensure that, even minimum, harmonisation measures in the field of defence rights can have a real impact on enhancing effective judicial protection and achieving the effectiveness of EU legislation on\u0000 the ground.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123699647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Grand Chamber's Take on Composite Procedures under the Single Supervisory Mechanism 大分庭对单一监督机制下的复合程序的看法

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-09-13 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15656877527269

Simona Demková

引用次数: 1

'Jurisdiction of Statutory Bodies to Disapply National law, or Nothing': Procedural Primacy taking over Procedural Autonomy in the CJEU's Judgment Minister for Justice and Equality and Commissioner of the Garda Síochána “法定机构的管辖权是废除国内法，还是什么都没有”:在欧洲法院的判决中，程序至上取代了程序自治，司法和平等部长和加尔达专员Síochána

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-09-13 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15656877527250

Nicole Lazzerini

引用次数: 0

Judicial review of revocation decisions in the context of European banking supervision 欧洲银行监管背景下撤销决定的司法审查

Review of European Administrative Law Pub Date : 2019-09-13 DOI: 10.7590/187479819x15656877527241

B. Budinská

{"title":"Judicial review of revocation decisions in the context of European banking supervision","authors":"B. Budinská","doi":"10.7590/187479819x15656877527241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479819x15656877527241","url":null,"abstract":"The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a system centralising banking supervision in Europe, is comprised of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national competent authorities (NCAs). The paper focuses on a new phenomenon occurring within the SSM, the so-called Top-Down revocations\u0000 which might require the Court of Justice (Court), while reviewing a decision of the ECB, to also incidentally review a decision of an NCA. The paper first shows that such an incidental review creates a tension between, on the one hand, the principle of legality, thus the Court's obligation\u0000 to review EU acts and, on the other hand, the principle of EU law autonomy which prohibits situations where EU law depends in its interpretation, validity or application on national law. Second, the paper analyses Court's case law on 'derivative illegality' and argues that the Court's approach\u0000 adopted there can be carefully applied to Top-Down revocations. Finally, it argues that the Court can review such revocation decisions in three situations: (1) when the review of the revocation decision suffices to determine the unlawfulness of the national measure; and when the lawfulness\u0000 of the national act can be assessed in the light of (2) EU procedural law; and (3) EU substantive law.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124082374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0