Suchergebnisse

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals' health and safety, inter alia.

The CJEU has become a gatekeeper. Ever since Opinion 1/91, the CJEU has been imposing barriers to the recognition of decisions by foreign jurisdictions. Its recent Achmea decision is the natural consequence of case law so far. This attitude would not be problematic by itself since, through this attitude, the European Union would still be liable at the international plane, even if it did not implement its international obligations (liability- over property rules). This is not the end of the story. The CJEU accepts the, in principle, relevance of decisions by some international jurisdictions. However, the CJEU has repeatedly failed to establish clear criteria to identify ex ante the circumstances under which this will be the case. As things stand, recognition of foreign judgments is more of a line in the sand, than a dictum set in stone. This attitude is hardly reconcilable with the quintessential elements of a Rechtsstaat.