Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 874 items for :

  • All: "Exclusive Jurisdiction" x

Nikolaos Lavranos

The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 5 : 479–493, 2006 © 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. PROTECTING ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION: THE MOX PLANT -JUDGMENT OF THE ECJ N IKOLAOS L AVRANOS * Abstract In the judgment in Case C-459/03, Commission v Ireland, the

Arron N. Honniball

consider one limitation to extra-territorial port state jurisdiction that has been raised in jurisprudence and the academic literature, i.e., the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state on the high seas and, subject to losc Article 56, the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state in the Exclusive

Gisèle Uwera

autonomy of the eu legal order by ensuring consistency and uniformity in the interpretation and application of eu law. Consequently, the Court has repeatedly affirmed its exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and apply eu law in several advisory opinions and cases (3.2). For this reason, the Court

Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi

foundations include EU fundamental rights, 32 the internal allocation of powers within the EU 33 and the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the CJEU by the EU treaties. 34 Many of the EU’s core values were set out in opinions of the CJEU delivered under Article 218(11) TFEU. This provision provides Member

Yasuhiro Shigeta

elds of nature conservation and hazardous waste management, on certain conditions and within certain limits. Th is study also shows that the ECJ’s acknowledgment of its exclusive jurisdiction on the marine environment as seen in the 2006 MOX Plant case has contradictory eff ect on its substan- tively

Series:

Nilüfer Oral

1 Introduction Freedom of navigation on the high seas and the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state are well-accepted norms of customary international law, codified in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas 1 and later in the 1982 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea ( unclos ). 2

Tobias Lock

(3) does not entail a reference to the ECtHR’s case law so that the ECJ will not be bound by that case law. After an accession of the EU to the ECHR, it is likely that both courts will assert that they have exclusive jurisdiction over the ECHR in inter-state cases, which creates a jurisdictional confl

Paul Gragl

interpretation of Union law, particularly in the light of Opinion 1/91, will encroach upon the ECJ’s exclusive jurisdiction over EU law under Article 19 paragraph 1 TEU and therewith upon the EU’s legal autonomy. The second issue is whether concrete judgments by the ECtHR, holding that Union legislation

Adam Hofri-Winogradow

its population exclusive jurisdiction over com- munity members’ matters of marriage and divorce. What is less well known is that Israel’s con- stitutional discourse, too, fi ts a pattern common in Muslim-majority jurisdictions, in espousing a double commitment to both a religion—in Israel’s case

Marco Roscini

provision was not conceived to cover future and hypothetical cases. Furthermore, by adopting resolutions 1422 and 1487 and by including the paragraphs on the exclusive jurisdiction of the contributing state in ∗ Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster (mroscini@iol.it). This article represents an