Sentences with phrase «advocate general pointed»

58 First, as the Advocate General pointed out at point 65 of her Opinion and as is apparent from the legislative history of the directive, the exemptions and derogations provided for in Article 9 of the directive apply not only to media undertakings but also to every person engaged in journalism.

Indeed, as the Advocate General pointed out, «in constitutional terms, the importance of the present cases can hardly be overestimated».

For example, the Advocate General pointed out in his Opinion that there are two elements to the nature of parody: a structural one (which concerns the distinction between a mere copy and a separate original creation) and a functional one (which concerns the purpose of the parody, its effect and content).

This means, as the Advocate General pointed out, that whether or not a product is intended for specifically military purposes depends on an objective test and is not dependent on use by the military, but by the characteristics of the product.

Not exact matches

It's a sentiment that Sen. Michael Lee (R - New Hanover) agreed with, but he also encouraged education leaders to not only point out what's not working, but offer alternative solutions that he can advocate for in the General Assembly.

The case's procedural history is very complex (the Advocate General referred to it as either Kafkaesque or tilting windmills like Don Quixote, depending on your point of view), so after only a brief factual discussion I will focus on the two major constitutional issues that the Court had to deal with:

Beyond its undoubtedly grave consequences for the airport of Zurich and all other affected stakeholders, the case was also particularly interesting from the point of view of Swiss - EU relations in general: As Advocate General Jääskinen pointed out in his Opinion delivered on 13 September 2012, this is the first time Switzerland initiated an action for annulment before the EU judgeneral: As Advocate General Jääskinen pointed out in his Opinion delivered on 13 September 2012, this is the first time Switzerland initiated an action for annulment before the EU judGeneral Jääskinen pointed out in his Opinion delivered on 13 September 2012, this is the first time Switzerland initiated an action for annulment before the EU judiciary.

The CJEU does not elaborate further on this point, but the Advocate General Sharpston, in her opinion, argued that it should not be «open to the courts in a second Member State to short - circuit the process (and the procedural guarantees offered to the defendant by the national law of the first Member State) by deciding to use what may (or may not) be «new» facts and / or evidence to try that defendant» (§ 59).

Blanket retention was not the only important point on which the Court and the Advocate General departed.

In her opinion in the case C - 566 / 10 P Commission / Italy Advocate General Kokott made an interesting point which inspired a new category of posts here at the blog: Luxemburgerli — that is, the lighter side of EU law.

As the Advocate - General points out in his opinion, the German measure may be an appropriate, albeit restrictive, transposition of Article 7 (3)(c) of Directive 2004/38, but its automatic consequences for entitlement to social assistance seem at odds with the requirements formulated in Brey.

Advocate General Mengozzi cut through this debate by pointing out that the CAD was always intended to harmonise the law relating to comparative advertising across all EU states.

Advocate General Bot pointed out that the wording of that Article makes it sufficiently clear that this should be the exception and not standard practice (§ 65), as is currently the case in Hungary, and that Article 4 (4) of the Framework Decision can not thus be used as a justification for the Hungarian practice.

91 -LRB-...) as is apparent from point 110 of the Advocate General's Opinion, there is no requirement that an award criterion relates to an intrinsic characteristic of a product, that is to say something which forms part of the material substance thereof.

It follows from the matters addressed in paragraphs 41 to 45 above that, as the Advocate General states in point 55 of his Opinion, infringement of Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC may be established irrespective of whether any abuse actually exists.

Despite her criticism of a number of points in the draft agreement, the Advocate General suggested that the Court ought to avoid pronouncing the draft agreement incompatible with the Treaties, but instead hold that it was compatible if certain amendments were undertaken following the Court's opinion (AG view, para 279).

As Advocate General Bot pointed out, this would be inconsistent with the rules regarding the transport of animals into the EU, according to which transit companies must meet EU animal welfare standards only once they enter EU territory (AG's opinion, para. 82).

As Laurens has pointed out in his post on the Advocate General's opinion, the Court has accepted such horizontal effect for the other Treaty freedoms, but not yet for the case of the free movement of goods.

The Advocate General had been more explicit on this point, while the Court keeps it rather short.

This adoption of Strasbourg reasoning makes these European decisions an integral part of the core of international human rights norms connected to sexual identity claims, and this is why Advocate General Sharpston's Opinion on this point failed to engage with the development of international human rights law in sexual identity claims.

As the Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe pointed out (here), the ECJ was in essence asked to «determine whether there is a general principle of EU law that the authorities of the Member States are required to respect the independence of the national judges and, more particularly — in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — to maintain their remuneration at a constant level that is sufficient for them to be able to perform their duties freely.General Saugmandsgaard Øe pointed out (here), the ECJ was in essence asked to «determine whether there is a general principle of EU law that the authorities of the Member States are required to respect the independence of the national judges and, more particularly — in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — to maintain their remuneration at a constant level that is sufficient for them to be able to perform their duties freely.general principle of EU law that the authorities of the Member States are required to respect the independence of the national judges and, more particularly — in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — to maintain their remuneration at a constant level that is sufficient for them to be able to perform their duties freely.»

With this approach, a less restrictive reading of the Association Agreement and its Protocol could have been reached, while the case at hand still could have been easily dismissed (as the Advocate General also does in the second part of his opinion, pointing towards the ancillary character of the passive freedom to receive services in the concrete circumstances of the case, paras 78 - 79).

The Advocate General starts by pointing to the situation in EU law, where — despite the important effects on the movement across borders of natural persons for this purpose — the passive freedom to provide services is part of the EU fundamental freedom (paras 50 - 51).

As the Advocate General observes in point 44 of his Opinion, it is the relationship of dependency between the Union citizen who is a minor and the third country national who is refused a right of residence that is liable to jeopardise the effectiveness of Union citizenship, since it is that dependency that would lead to the Union citizen being obliged, in fact, to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but also that of the European Union as a whole, as a consequence of such a refusal (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraphs 43 and 45, and Dereci and Others, paragraphs 65 to 67).

73 It is true, as the Advocate General states in point 74 of his Opinion, that, unlike most of the other language versions, the German version of Article 7 (1)(b) of Directive 2004/38 does not appear to refer to any such «system».

It is worth considering some critical points that emerge prima facie from the opinion of the Advocate General.

The advocate general dismissed these arguments, pointing out that the minimum holiday entitlement was a fundamental social right, and it would be impossible to ensure a comparable level of protection across the EU if member states were allowed to stipulate circumstances in which it could be lost because a worker was ill.

As Markkinapörssi and Satamedia state in their observations and as the Advocate General noted at point 82 of her Opinion, every undertaking will seek to generate a profit from its activities.