Sentences with phrase «european general court»

Advising on its appeal to the European Court of Justice of the European Commission's car glass cartel decision, together with its appeal to the European General Court in respect of the confidentiality of that decision, as well as defending a series of follow - on damages actions

Having lost the case in the first stage before the European General Court, which ruled that the Commission's work was within the ambit of the original directive, Dyson appealed to the European Court of Justice, which subsequently ruled in its favour, giving it an opportunity to put the case for revised regulations at a hearing in March this year.

Dr. Padilla has submitted written testimony to the European General Court, and the UK Competition Appeals Tribunal in cartel, merger control and abuse of dominance cases.

The European General Court (EGC) rendered a judgement on 23 October 2017 in which it was confirmed that a selective distribution system can be in conformity with EU antitrust rules in case specific requirements are met.

The Swiss Federal Tribunal goes, as did the European General Court in 2005 (EU General Court (formerly Court of the First Instance), 21st September 2005, case T - 315 / 01, Kadi v Council of the EU & Commission of the EC), in that direction, by holding open the door for not carrying out resolutions which violate ius cogens (BGE 2A.783 / 2006, para. 9.2.).

Not exact matches

Lawyers for the European Commission, which oversees the «safe harbour» arrangement, told the Luxembourg - based court that the agreement did not mean that the US «in general ensures an adequate level of protection» for European citizens.

So Xiaomi complained to the General Court of the European Union, which on Tuesday dismissed its appeal.

But the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled last December that the UK's «general and indiscriminate» retention of citizens» data communications was unlawful where it wasn't being scooped up for serious crime cases.

Attorney - General, Dominic Grieve, said that Britain would be acting «tyrannically» and in breach of the rule of law if it defied rulings from the European court of human rights.

«That this House notes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v the United Kingdom in which it held that there had been no substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification for maintaining a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote; acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK; is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically - elected lawmakers; and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand.»

The Attorney General has warned against Britain pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) after the Prime Minister hinted he might consider this in a TV interview.

Dominic Grieve has been relieved of the attorney general's portfolio because he is relaxed about Britain's legal intimacy with the European court of human rights.

As the new attorney general, replacing the sage and emollient Dominic Grieves, Jeremy Wright's appointment may be the one to watch — the Guardian's wary view is here — because his arrival appears to clear a major obstacle to Britain leaving the European court of human rights (ECHR) over its sometimes silly rulings.

Former attorney general says ruling on prisoner voting by European court of human rights offers way out from split

In March, advocate general Yves Bot issued a preliminary judgment limiting patents involving embryonic stem cells, on the basis that they «would be contrary to ethics and public policy» (see «European Court of Justice rejects stem - cell patents»).

The temporary injunction from the General Court of the European Union backs two drug firms on the U.S. side of the pond: AbbVie, headquartered in North Chicago, Illinois, and InterMune in Brisbane, California.

A large majority in the European Parliament voted in favor of the package this morning; and Yves Bot, advocate general of the Court of Justice of the European Union today said that pleas against the proposed system by Spain and Italy should be rejected.

Last month, the advocate - general of the European Court of Justice gave his opinion on a long - running legal debate about a patent filed several years ago in Germany.

An advocate general at the European Court of Justice advised the court that Louboutin's trademark protection on the shade of red used on his soles might be invalid, which could mean that the designer may not be able to stop competitors from offering shoes with red soles in the fuCourt of Justice advised the court that Louboutin's trademark protection on the shade of red used on his soles might be invalid, which could mean that the designer may not be able to stop competitors from offering shoes with red soles in the fucourt that Louboutin's trademark protection on the shade of red used on his soles might be invalid, which could mean that the designer may not be able to stop competitors from offering shoes with red soles in the future.

Volkswagen is dealt a legal blow in March by the General Court of the European Union, which rejects a bid to block Suzuki from calling a performance model the Swift GTi on grounds it would infringe on VW's brand.

First, the General Court noted that «it is possible that the disclosure of the European Union's positions in the negotiations could reveal, indirectly, those of other parties to the negotiations.

In a series of recent judgments, the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union («the General Court») annulled the designation of some of the largest privately held commercial Iranian banks on the EU's sanctions list.

Subsequently, the General Court refuted the argument set out above because it is in fact possible «that the disclosure of European Union positions in international negotiations could damage the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.»

While she notes that the «purpose of the revision of the former fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by the present fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was undoubtedly to strengthen individual legal protection by extending the legal remedies available to natural and legal persons against European Union acts of general application» (para. 33), she nevertheless continues by making three arguments which underline the General Court's interpretation of what regulatory acts general application» (para. 33), she nevertheless continues by making three arguments which underline the General Court's interpretation of what regulatory acts General Court's interpretation of what regulatory acts entail.

In a case decided yesterday by the General Court this tension between secrecy needed for the effective conduct of negotiations and the right of citizens to be informed was readily apparent in determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Veld.

The need to resolve such boundary disputes between national constitutional orders and the European constitutional order has come into sharp relief with the Danish Supreme Court's decision in Dansk Industri not to apply the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of age despite the Court of Justice finding the principle applicable.

In its Judgment of 20 September 2012 in case T ‑ 154 / 10 French Republic vs. European Commission, the General Court of the EU (GC) has established a new test of «bankruptcy - proofness» as an advantage contrary to Article 107 (1) TFEU that may generate a significant shake up in the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service tasks.

On 3 April 2014 the CJEU confirmed the General Court's judgment of 2 March 2012 in the State aid dispute between the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ING Groep NV and the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank NV).

The matter was no less urgent because of the General Court's recent order in Cases T - 192 / 16, T - 193 / 16 and T - 257 / 16 NF, NG and NM v European Council, which established that the deal does not count as measure adopted by one of the institutions of the EU for the purposes of judicial review under the Treaties.

She concludes therefore that «the legal remedies available to individuals against European Union acts of general application do not necessarily always have to consist in a direct remedy before the European Union Courts.»

On July 26, 2017, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued Opinion 1/15 (the Opinion of the Advocate General on this case had been discussed previously in this blog, part I and part II) pursuant to Article 218 (11) TFEU on the draft agreement between Canada and the European Union (EU) dealing with the Transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data from the EU to Canada.

In Europe, lawyers include former officials of the European Court of Justice, the General Court and the European Commission.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. European Parliament opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 17 January 2013, read opinion, on appeal from the General Court read judgment & my post on it

Essentially, the national court asks whether Simmenthal II applies to the ECHR now that article 6 (3) TEU states that «Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law».

On 31 January 2008, Advocate General Mengozzi delivered his opinion on the O2 case, which is the subject of a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)(O2 Holdings Limited & O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited: C - 533 / 06).

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice published an opinion on this topic last month.

We also act for clients in the courts of other countries, including Hong Kong, France and Australia and offshore jurisdictions, and before the General Court and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, the European Court of Human Rights, the World Trade Organisation Dispute Settlement Body, the International Labour Organisation Administrative Tribunal and the United Nations Dispute Tribunal.

But for the past 30 years, we've taken for granted that we can also offer the benefit of all these European instruments and that English judgments will be enforceable across the EU — and as soon as those are stripped back, one may need to consider the balance between the general reputation of English courts and English law and the fact that we may need to say to clients that it may potentially become harder to enforce your debt overseas in the EU.

The US firm's Frankfurt office has been instructed to advise the German stock exchange following its decision to sue the European Commission at the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg.

States condemned by the European Court of Human Rights have the obligation to erase the consequences of the violation for the victim and to take general measures such as amending their legislation or their juridical practices.

The Advocate General's Opinion, which the Court regularly adopts within its judgment as providing an authoritative source on the interpretation of EU law, argued that such protection measures arise from a European perspective, and therefore should not be forced on non-EU States.

In a significant, yet unusual judgment the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld the General Court's decision (T - 140 / 12; Teva Pharma v. EMA) that had affirmed the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) rejection of Teva's generic drug application for Glivec ® (active substance - imatinib), not due to the reference product's own orphan drug exclusivity but in view of orphan drug exclusivity of a similar medicinal product — Tasigna ® (active substance - nilotinib).

The importance of the third point above is demonstrated by the recent decision of the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) which in September 2014 gave judgment in the appeal from the General Court in the dispute between the Groupement des cartes bancaires and the European Commission (Groupement des cartes bancaires v European Commission C - 67 / 13 P (CB)-RRB-.

I will briefly recall the main acts this legal drama within the European legal order (noting though that similar litigation also played out in Switzerland and the US), in which the General Court, the Advocate General and the Court of Justice took turns in presenting us with different conceptions of the relationship between the international and EU legal orders, as well as the right balance between the need to pursue international security and effective protection of fundamental rights.

In this case, which Advocate General Kokott called «of fundamental importance for future trade relations between the European Union and a number of dynamic emerging countries, such as the People's Republic of China» (AG para. 1), the Grand Chamber of the ECJ dismissed the Council's appeal of a General Court judgment in favor of the Chinese company.

Back in January the European Court of Justice ruled that «General and indiscriminate retention» of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, which very much challenges the remit of the UK's so - called snooper's charter, the Investigatory Powers Act.

In correspondence: to the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities — Dear Advocate General; to the Recorder of London — Dear Recorder; to the Common Sergeant of London — Dear Common Sergeant; and to a retired Circuit Judge — Dear Judge.

What is needed, therefore, in such situations, is not a general ban on the use of Protocol no. 16 but straightforward coordinated cooperation between the two European Courts.

2010 Chairman of the CCBE Permanent Delegation to the Court of Justice and General Court of the European Union (liaison committee between all EU lawyers and the ECJ)

Josef Azizi, Former Judge at the General Court of the European Union Andreas Bartosch, Lutz - Abel, Brussels Andrea Biondi, King's College London Rose D'Sa, European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels