Suchergebnisse

From the point of the EU law, the CJEU has the exclusive competence to interpret the EU legal norms and decide upon validity of the legal acts adopted by the EU institutions because it is the most effective method to ensure the unilateral interpretation of the EU law and to prevent its fragmentation. Thus, it can be presumed that all disputes between the Member States regarding the EU law must be solved by the CJEU. The paper aims at finding the answer to the question whether international courts under the international law must refuse their jurisdiction in cases where disputes of the Member States relate with the EU law. With the view of this aim, arguments arising from the international law (for instance, prohibition of intervening into affairs of another legal system, prohibition of abuse of laws), on the basis of which an international court should decline its jurisdiction, and applicability of such arguments to the situation discussed is assessed and an independent approach is formulated. ; Tarptautinės teisės ir Europos Sąjungos teisės koreliacija neišvengiama ir tai sukelia aktualių teorinio bei praktinio pobūdžio problemų. Viena iš jų – Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo ir tarptautinių teismų jurisdikcijos atskyrimo problema. Pastaruoju metu šis klausimas tampa ypač aktualus ir tai susiję su vis ryškesniu Europos Sąjungos vaidmeniu tarptautinėje arenoje. ES yra prisijungusi prie daugelio tarptautinių sutarčių, dalis jų numato atskiras ginčų sprendimo institucijas, kurioms suteikta kompetencija spęsti ginčus, kylančius dėl tokių susitarimų aiškinimo ir taikymo. Tačiau pagal ES teisę išimtiniai įgaliojimai aiškinti ES teisės normas suteikti ESTT. Teismas yra nustatęs ir savo išimtinius įgaliojimus aiškinti tas mišrių sutarčių nuostatas, dėl kurių Sąjunga turi kompetenciją. Taigi galėtume teigti, kad valstybės narės visus tarpusavio ginčus, kylančius iš ES teisės, įskaitant ir mišrios sutarties nuostatas, dėl kurių Sąjunga turi kompetenciją, privalo spręsti ESTT. Todėl jų kreipimasis į kitą tarptautinį teismą (arbitražą) pažeistų išimtinius ESTT įgaliojimus pagal Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo (toliau tekste – SESV) 344 straipsnį, o tai galėtų inspiruoti Europos Komisiją pradėti ginčo sprendimo procedūrą ESTT pagal SESV 258 straipsnį Išimtinių įgaliojimų aiškinti ES teisės normas bei spręsti dėl ES institucijų priimtų teisės aktų galiojimo suteikimas ESTT yra efektyviausias būdas užtikrinti vienodą ES teisės aiškinimą ir užkirsti kelią ES teisės fragmentacijai. Vis dėlto šie išimtiniai ESTT įgaliojimai paremti argumentais, išplaukiančiais iš ES teisinės sistemos sui generis pobūdžio. Tuo tarpu šioje publikacijoje siekiama pažvelgti į ESTT ir tarptautinių teismų jurisdikcijos atskyrimo klausimą ne tik iš ES teisės, bet ir iš tarptautinės teisės pozicijų. Todėl siekėme atsakyti į klausimą, ar tarptautiniai teismai pagal tarptautinę teisę privalo paneigti savo jurisdikciją tuo atveju, jei ginčas tarp valstybių narių siejasi su ES teise. Šiuo tikslu analizavome tam tikrus tarptautinių teismų sprendimus, kurie iliustruoja jų požiūrį į ESTT išimtinius įgaliojimus aiškinti ES teisės normas. Nors, kaip rodo teismų praktika, jie yra linkę paneigti savo jurisdikciją tuo atveju, jei mano, kad ginčas priskirtinas kito teismo išimtinei jurisdikcijai, tačiau nepateikia aiškių tokios pozicijos teisinių argumentų. Todėl publikacijoje analizavome iš tarptautinės teisės kylančius argumentus (pavyzdžiui, draudimo kištis į svetimos teisinės sistemos reikalus, draudimo piktnaudžiauti teise), kuriais remdamasis tarptautinis teismas privalėtų paneigti savo jurisdikciją, bei formuluodami savarankišką požiūrį vertinome tokių argumentų tinkamumą aptariamai situacijai.

There is a number of important aspects due to which the interpretation of the definition of a 'worker' is relevant and problematic. Neither primary EU law that sets out the basic provision of free movement of workers, nor secondary legislation that was passed to implement Article 45, propose the definition of a 'worker'. The interpretation of the definition of a 'worker' is important, as it determines the width of the application of the principle of free movement of workers that is fundamental to the EU. The Court of Justice of the EU determines three elements of the definition of a 'worker': (1) employment performance; (2) relationship of subordination; (3) remuneration. The content of these elements is not sufficiently elaborated and clear. The interpretation of the first element is the most problematic. Therefore, in this publication, the author analyzes the specification of 'effective and genuine' activities and deals with the problem of rehabilitation or reintegration activities of persons employed under special programs and of those who perform preparatory services. Through a disclosure of the contents of the second element, the author analyzes the question of the differentiation of employed and self-employed persons and the issue of the attribution of a company's management personnel to the field of the application of Artcle 45. What regards the third element (remuneration), the author makes an attempt to determine whether the rate of pay, especially when it is below the state's standard of living, may be crucial for the recognition of an employee's status.

There is a number of important aspects due to which the interpretation of the definition of a 'worker' is relevant and problematic. Neither primary EU law that sets out the basic provision of free movement of workers, nor secondary legislation that was passed to implement Article 45, propose the definition of a 'worker'. The interpretation of the definition of a 'worker' is important, as it determines the width of the application of the principle of free movement of workers that is fundamental to the EU. The Court of Justice of the EU determines three elements of the definition of a 'worker': (1) employment performance; (2) relationship of subordination; (3) remuneration. The content of these elements is not sufficiently elaborated and clear. The interpretation of the first element is the most problematic. Therefore, in this publication, the author analyzes the specification of 'effective and genuine' activities and deals with the problem of rehabilitation or reintegration activities of persons employed under special programs and of those who perform preparatory services. Through a disclosure of the contents of the second element, the author analyzes the question of the differentiation of employed and self-employed persons and the issue of the attribution of a company's management personnel to the field of the application of Artcle 45. What regards the third element (remuneration), the author makes an attempt to determine whether the rate of pay, especially when it is below the state's standard of living, may be crucial for the recognition of an employee's status.

On December 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union adopted one of the most controversial decisions in recent decades—the famous Opinion 2/13 that precluded the European Union from acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. This article engages in the analysis of the co-respondent mechanism—one of the most significant features of the Draft Agreement for the accession of the European Union to the Convention. The co-respondent mechanism was intentionally designed to preserve the specific characteristics of the European Union law by precluding the European Court of Human Rights from solving the complex questions of the internal competence division of the European Union. However, notwithstanding that the European Commission and most of the Member States had not seen any significant threats caused by the mechanism, the Luxembourg court rejected the mechanism due to the European Union's motives for the protection of autonomy. This article analyzes and assesses the objections presented by the Court.

ABSTRACT
This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution's express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.