Sentences with phrase «by member state»

The ECJ decided that because arbitration tribunals set up through investor - state dispute settlement are not part of the EU judicial system, because such tribunals may resolve disputes that relate to the application or interpretation of EU law, and because the awards of the tribunal are not subject to review by member state courts, the decisions of these tribunals are not compatible with EU law.

NOTE: An action for failure to fulfil obligations directed against a Member State which has failed to comply with its obligations under European Union law may be brought by the Commission or by another Member State.

The answer necessarily requires consideration of when, if at all, Chindamo commenced residence and crucially whether or not a person can be said to be resident during a period of mandatory incarceration by a member state.

In relation to the third issue, it was accepted by the claimant that he would have to satisfy two criteria before any breach of the Directive was directly enforceable against the MIB by the claimant: (i) that the Directive was capable of having direct effect in that the provision relied upon was «unconditional and sufficiently precise», the prescribed period for implementation had passed and the Directive had not been correctly implemented by the Member State; and (ii) that even if the Directive was capable of having direct effect, the MIB was an emanation of the state within the meaning of that concept as a matter of Community law.

An infringement of those rules therefore causes a disturbance to the public policy established by the Member State, a lesser or greater disturbance depending on the nature of the act committed, the disturbance caused to public policy normally being reflected in the degree of severity of the penalty laid down by the national legislature to sanction the prohibited conduct.

This Directive shall apply where the sponsor is holding a residence permit issued by a Member State for a period of validity of one year or more who has reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence, if the members of his or her family are third country nationals of whatever status.

The request has been made in proceedings between JZ (Requested Person) and the Prosecutor for the District of Lodz - Poland; the request by JZ concerned the deduction from the total period of the custodial sentence imposed on him in Poland, during which he was made subject, by the Member State which executed the European Arrest Warrant, namely in the UK to the electronic monitoring of his place of residence, in conjunction with a curfew.

By way of derogation from the rule laid down in Article 256 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, jurisdiction shall be reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in Articles 263 and 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union when they are brought by a Member State against:

-- the Council shall act on proposals from the Commission; the Commission shall examine any request made by a Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council;

Moreover, where the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6 (1) of the Treaty on European Union has been determined in accordance with Article 7 (1) of that Treaty, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of this Treaty to the Member State in question.

The reports shall also examine the achievement of a high degree of sustainable convergence by reference to the fulfilment by each Member State of the following criteria:

It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

The local jurisdiction of the court appearing in the list notified by each Member State to the Commission pursuant to Article 68 shall be determined by the internal law of the Member State in which proceedings for recognition or non-recognition are brought.

An application for a declaration of enforceability shall be submitted to the court appearing in the list notified by each Member State to the Commission pursuant to Article 68.

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions in actions brought by a Member State or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

The appeal shall be lodged with the court appearing in the list notified by each Member State to the Commission pursuant to Article 68.

The extent to which one NCA can depart from an MA that has been previouslygranted by another Member State raises rather dry and technical questions ofEuropean law.

[32] In these cases the Court recognises the basis of a position by a Member State that an individual can exercise concealment, and therefore avoid persecution on return to the country of origin (para. 64).

the fact that the requesting Member State is not bound to submit a request for assistance to another Member State does not mean that the rules relating to the request for information and the use of the information obtained by that Member State can be considered to be outside the scope of European Union law.

What distinguishes this situation from other cases of course is that in this case the unilateral action by a Member State consists of complying with EU law.

Similarly, the Court has held that a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC when, without valid justification, it encourages economic operators wishing to market in its territory construction products lawfully manufactured and / or marketed in another Member State to obtain national marks of conformity (see, to that effect, Commission v Belgium, paragraph 69) or when it refuses to recognise the equivalence of approval certificates issued by another Member State (see, to that effect, Case C ‑ 432 / 03 Commission v Portugal [2005] ECR I ‑ 9665, paragraphs 41, 49 and 52).

According to the Court, the fact that Swedish legislation does not prevent this practice, results in an infringement of article 34 TFEU because this «failure by a Member State to adopt adequate measures to prevent barriers to the free movement of goods that have been created, in particular, through the actions of traders but made possible by specific legislation that that State has introduced, is just as likely to obstruct intra-Community trade as is a positive act» (para 74).

This is followed by a reference to Article 1 of the Visa Code, which states that the objective of the Code is to establish the procedures and conditions for issuing visas for intended stays on the territory of the Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180 day period, and to Article 2 (2)(a) and (b) of the Visa Code defining the concept of «visa» as «an authorization issued by a Member State» with a view to «stay on the territory of the Member States for a duration of no more than 90 days in any 180 ‑ day period».

Second, neither will the ECtHR invite a Member State to intervene as co-respondent if there exists a relevant reservation by that Member State, nor will a Member State request to intervene in such a case.

The notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50 (2) TEU can similarly be understood as a «bridge» from the internal constitutional order that activates the EU procedural law outlined in the rest of Article 50.

This is already excluded if there is a relevant reservation by that Member State.

While it is no perfect solution either (and there probably is none), the Advocate General's solution of doing exactly the same thing the other way round — offering the action for damages as consolation for the party that has previously benefitted from an erroneous transformation of EU law by the Member State and now pays the price because of horizontal direct effect excluding the application of a norm of national law they had relied on — has at least a somewhat more equilibrated approach towards sharing the burden of advantages and disadvantages.

If, for instance, no enforcement had been undertaken by a Member State, medical practitioners could have continued prescribing Avastin for eye disease treatments, and substitute Lucentis.

Putting these objectives into practice, Article 28 of the Directive requires in its first paragraph that before taking an expulsion decision based on «public policy or public security», factors to be taken into account by a Member State are the period of residence, age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of links with the country of origin of the EU citizen.

By contrast, for the purposes of showing that, before or at the same time as conferring the advantage, the Member State took that decision as a shareholder, it is not enough to rely on economic evaluations made after the advantage was conferred, on a retrospective finding that the investment made by the Member State concerned was actually profitable, or on subsequent justifications of the course of action actually chosen -LRB-...).»

In such an event, the Court of Justice would be free to decide for such a conclusion regardless of whether it found that EU citizenship is or is not automatically extinguished by Member State withdrawal.

and did not factually recognize an operating license granted on the basis of EU legislation by another Member State.

However, if the Member State has been able to provide the Commission with the requisite evidence, «it is for the Commission to carry out a global assessment, taking into account — in addition to the evidence provided by that Member State — all other relevant evidence enabling it to determine whether the Member State took the measure in question in its capacity as shareholder or as a public authority.

The Commission shall only use its powers to request information «as a measure of last resort» if the information sought (i) is not publicly available or available from other channels at the Commission's disposal; and (ii) has not been provided by a Member State, company or citizen.

The Court found this to be the case, because Regulation 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services regulated air transport services provided between a third country and a Member State by an undertaking holding an operating license granted by another Member State on the basis of that Regulation (paras 39 and 53).

The type of data and information sharable under this agreements is clearly delineated by the provision, whose paragraph (3) further specifies that any information provided in the context of EUROSUR by FRONTEX or by a Member State which is not party to the agreement shall not be shared with UK or Ireland without the prior approval of FRONTEX or of that Member State.

That would exclude any signature or ratification by the Member State.

They will continue to argue their case, because the energy union strategy can still be amended by member state governments.

It's important to note that the commission proposal will be discussed by member state governments at meetings in March, April and June.

A total of 88 % of allowances to be auctioned by each Member State is distributed on the basis of the Member State's share of historic emissions under the EU ETS.

It would then have to be signed off by member state governments and the European Parliament.

Given that it is a trade deal she will clearly be negotiating, it won't be decided by majority, but by each member state.

But Mr Murphy warned: «Attempting to reopen negotiations on a Treaty ratified by every member state would put the Tories into the extraordinary position of repudiating an international treaty, reopening and renegotiating Britain's terms of EU membership.»

The fourth EU money laundering directive, about to be rubber - stamped after political agreement was reached in December, will call on banks to carry out due diligence on MPs, judges, peers, council chiefs, diplomats and anyone else «who are or have been entrusted by the member state with prominent public functions».

Sure, there is lobbying within and by each member state — but their individual stance has to come together in a single position.

Any resolution endorsed by member states is unlikely to include targets limiting the use of antibiotics on a per capita basis, the kind of recommendation experts have urged be taken.

The budget would be funded by taxes currently raised by member states and would «be able to raise money in common, invest and absorb economic shocks», Le Point quoted Macron as saying.

While there was nothing illegal about those deals, new EU rules, which are scheduled to be adopted by member states by 2020, would outlaw the precise tax structure Blackstone used, said Reuven Avi - Yonah, a tax professor at the University of Michigan who reviewed the Blackstone documents.

These guidelines have been agreed upon by all member states of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

In spite of its critical importance as the cornerstone of child health and survival, aggressive and inappropriate marketing of breast - milk substitutes, and other food products that compete with breastfeeding, continues to mislead parents and undermine efforts by Member States to protect and support children's rights to health and ensure sound objective information.