MMO 2024

Dr Alina Tryfonidou , Associate Professor in EU Law, University of Reading Last month, the High Court of England and Wales decided to make a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lounes . The case – which is currently stayed awaiting the ECJ judgment on the reference – involves a couple comprised of a dual-British and Spanish national and a third-country national, who have been living together in the UK since 2013 and where they now seek to rely on the EU free movement rights of the former in order to claim family reunification rights for the latter. The question that is central to the resolution of the case is whether a Member State can provide in its legislation that from the moment that a national of a Member State acquires also the nationality of the Member State to which (s)he moved in exercise of EU free movement rights, (s)he ceases to be a beneficiary of EU free movement rights and of the secondary rights attached to them, such as family reuni...

Hannes Lenk, PhD Candidate at the University of Gothenburg The relationship of arbitral tribunals with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been the subject of a long-lasting juridical struggle. The current position is as simple and pragmatic as it is controversial. Commercial arbitration tribunals are not considered to be a ‘court and tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of the Article 267 TFEU and, thus, unable to refer questions to the CJEU on matters of interpretation of EU law.  At the same time, it is an open secret that questions of EU law do arise during arbitration proceedings, and there is an inherent risk that tribunals get it wrong—at least sometimes. In commercial arbitration these shortcomings might be addressed through the indirect involvement of domestic courts and the CJEU at the recognition and enforcement stage of arbitral awards. A similar possibility might not exist in investment arbitration and for some time now the q...

Giovanni Zaccaroni, Ph.D (University of Bologna), Junior lawyer FratiniVergano   Introduction: Language differentiation in the EU There is no need to create language differentiation in Brussels as there was in the ancient Babel. There are already 24 official languages, according to Regulation n. 1/1958 , and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the rights of EU citizens to address the EU Institutions in their own languages. The working languages mostly used within the Institutions are three: English, French and German; however, from a legal standpoint, all the documents concerning the Institutions need to be translated in all the official languages of the EU. This was still manageable until the great enlargement of 2004, but after that it has become increasingly difficult for the Institutions to communicate in the plethora of different languages. This creates quite a complex linguistic regime which could sound odd to a person who is not confident with E...

Athanassios Takis: PhD, Special Adviser to General Secretariat of Greek government The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 1 March 2016 in the case of Arlewin v. Sweden concerns the (mis)application of EU Regulation 44/2001 (which determines which Member State’s courts have jurisdiction over civil and commercial cases) on behalf of the Swedish courts and illuminates the limits of the ‘ acte clair ’ doctrine (the principle that final national courts do not always have to send questions about EU law to the CJEU). The Arlewin judgment The facts of the Arlewin case, which gave the ECHR the chance to decide on an issue concerning the application of EU law have as follows: The applicant, Raja Arlewin, is a Swedish national, a self-employed businessman, who attempted to bring private prosecution proceedings and a claim for damages for gross defamation against X. X is a Swedish national, the Chief Executive Officer of a television company and anchor-man of ...

Steve Peers The EU and Turkey have now reached an agreement on refugee issues, which has aroused considerable legal and political controversy. To examine the arguments about the deal, I present here the main text with my legal assessment of each point annotated. This builds upon my  comments  (together with Emanuela Roman) first of all in general on the relevant points last month, and then secondly on the  leaked draft text  of the final deal earlier this week (I have reused here some of the latter analysis where relevant). The agreement should be read alongside the EU summit conclusions , as well as the Commission  communication  on the deal. It incorporates the March 7 EU/Turkey statement  which addressed the same issues in less detail. The text of the deal is underlined below. The sections in bold have been added during negotiations, and the sections in strike-out have been removed. I have already discussed the legal status of the ...