European Law
欧洲专利法与美国专利法的区别
The European Patent Convention (EPC)欧洲专利公约（EPC）Currently, for ICT-related inventions the two most important areas to obtain patent protection are probably the United States and West-European countries. Twenty European countries are currently member to the European Patent Convention, and it is possible to obtain patent protection in those countries through a single procedure before the European Patent Office.目前，与信息通讯技术相关的两个最重要的领域的发明,其专利的保护一般都是通过进入美国和西欧等国家获取的。
欧洲专利公约当前加入了20个新成员国，并使申请人在向欧洲专利局提交申请之前能够通过某单一程序向所在成员国申请专利保护。
While quite a few aspects of patent law have been harmonized internationally (not in the least due to treaties like the Patent Cooperation Treaty or TRIPS), there still are many important differences between the two systems. This article discusses several of them.虽然，专利法中有相当几个方面的内容已经做了国际化的协调与统一（不完全与《专利合作条约》以及《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》相同），但美欧两个系统间仍旧存在重要的差异，本文就其差异做出以下几点概括。
英国法律PPT
Criminal law(刑法)
• Most of the conteቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱt is descended from the feudal period law, mainly on the basis of jurisprudence, which is the case law(判例法)
所谓判例法（Case Law)，就是基于法院的判决而形成的具有法律效力的判定，这种 判定对以后的判决具有法律规范效力，能够作为法院判案的法律依据
Litigation Law(诉讼法)
• No matter what the lawsuit, litigation procedures are more complicated(繁琐), so far no uniform legal code, the provisions are scattered throughout various laws and precedents
英国皇家军队
The British legal system.
England is is the England the birthplace of the birthplace (发源地） Anglo-American law of the Anglosystem, the system, American law law system has a the law system has a unique historical unique historical tradition and tradition and development development
大宪章起草文本
Currently(目前) implemented in the England, Welsh and Northern Irish legal system of Anglo-American law system, is still represented; the legal system of Scotland has many features of continental law system(大陆法系), which belongs to the hybrid nature of(混合性质) the legal system, but the highest legislative and judicial organs is still the British parliament
欧盟1419-2006法律 关于废除班轮公会反垄断豁免权的文件
I(Acts whose publication is obligatory)COUNCIL REGULATION(EC)No1419/2006of25September2006repealing Regulation(EEC)No4056/86laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles85 and86of the Treaty to maritime transport,and amending Regulation(EC)No1/2003as regards the extension of its scope to include cabotage and international tramp services(Text with EEA relevance)THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,and in particular Article83thereof,Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(1),Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),After consulting the Committee of the Regions, Whereas:(1)Application of the rules on competition in the maritimetransport sector has been subject to the provisions ofRegulation(EEC)No4056/86(3)since1987.Regulation(EEC)No4056/86originally had two functions.Firstly,itcontained procedural provisions for the enforcement ofCommunity competition rules in the maritime transportsector.Secondly,it laid down certain specific substantivecompetition provisions for the maritime sector andnotably a block exemption for liner shippingconferences,allowing them to fix prices and regulatecapacity under certain conditions,the exclusion ofpurely technical agreements from the application ofArticle81(1)of the Treaty and a procedure for dealingwith conflicts of international law.It did not apply tomaritime transport services between ports in one or tothe same Member State(cabotage)and internationaltramp vessel services.(2)Council Regulation(EC)No1/2003of16December2002on the implementation of the rules on competitionlaid down in Articles81and82of the Treaty(4)amended Regulation(EEC)No4056/86to bringmaritime transport under the common competitionenforcement rules applicable to all sectors with effectfrom1May2004,with the exception of cabotage andinternational tramp vessel services.However,the specificsubstantive competition provisions relating to themaritime sector continue to fall within the scope ofRegulation(EEC)No4056/86.(3)The liner shipping conference block exemption providedfor in Regulation(EEC)No4056/86exempts from theprohibition of Article81(1)of the Treaty agreements,decisions and concerted practices of all or part of themembers of one or more liner conferences which fulfilcertain conditions.The justification for the blockexemption in essence assumes that conferences bringstability,ensuring exporters reliable services whichcannot be achieved by less restrictive means.However,a thorough review of the industry carried out by theCommission has demonstrated that liner shipping isnot unique as its cost structure does not differ substan-tially from that of other industries.There is therefore noevidence that the industry needs to be protected fromcompetition.EN28.9.2006Official Journal of the European Union L269/1(1)Opinion of4July2006(not yet published in the Official Journal).(2)Opinion delivered on5July2006(not yet published in the OfficialJournal).(3)OJ L378,31.12.1986,p.4.Regulation as last amended by the2003Act of Accession.(4)OJ L1,4.1.2003,p.1.Regulation as amended by Regulation(EC)No411/2004(OJ L68,6.3.2004,p.1).(4)The first condition for exemption under Article81(3)requires that the restrictive agreement contributes toimproving the production or distribution of goods orto promoting technical or economic progress.Asregards the efficiencies generated by conferences,linerconferences are no longer able to enforce the conferencetariff although they still manage to set charges andsurcharges which are a part of the price of transport.There is also no evidence that the conference systemleads to more stable freight rates or more reliableshipping services than would be the case in a fullycompetitive market.Conference members increasinglyoffer their services via individual service agreementsentered into with individual exporters.In addition,conferences do not manage the carrying capacity thatis available as this is an individual decision taken byeach carrier.Under current market conditions pricestability and the reliability of services are brought aboutby individual service agreements.The alleged causal linkbetween the restrictions(price fixing and supply regu-lation)and the claimed efficiencies(reliable services)therefore appears too tenuous to meet the firstcondition of Article81(3).(5)The second condition for exemption under Article81(3)is that consumers must be compensated for the negativeeffects resulting from the restriction of competition.Inthe case of hard core restrictions,such as horizontal pricefixing which occur when the conference tariff is set andcharges and surcharges are jointly fixed,the negativeeffects are very serious.However no clearly positiveeffects have been identified.Transport users considerthat conferences operate for the benefit of the leastefficient members and call for their abolishment.Conferences no longer fulfil the second condition ofArticle81(3).(6)The third condition for exemption under Article81(3)isthat the conduct must not impose on the undertakingsconcerned restrictions which are not indispensable to theattainment of its objectives.Consortia are cooperativeagreements between liner shipping lines that do notinvolve price fixing and are therefore less restrictivethan conferences.Transport users consider them toprovide adequate,reliable and efficient scheduledmaritime services.In addition the use of individualservice agreements has increased significantly in recentyears.By definition,such individual service agreementsdo not restrict competition and provide benefits toexporters as they make it possible to tailor specialservices.Furthermore,because the price is established inadvance and does not fluctuate for a predeterminedperiod(usually up to one year),service contracts cancontribute to price stability.It has therefore not beenestablished that the restrictions of competitionpermitted under Regulation(EEC)No4056/86(pricefixing and capacity regulation)are indispensable for theprovision of reliable shipping services to transport usersas these can be achieved by less restrictive means.Thethird condition under Article81(3)is therefore notsatisfied.(7)Finally,the fourth condition under Article81(3)requiresthat the conference should remain subject to effectivecompetitive constraints.In current market circumstancesconferences are present in nearly all major trade lanesand they compete with carriers grouped in consortia andwith independent lines.Whilst there may be pricecompetition on the ocean freight rate due to theweakening of the conference system there is hardly anyprice competition with respect to the surcharges andancillary charges.These are set by the conference andthe same level of charges is often applied by non-conference carriers.In addition,carriers participate inconferences and consortia on the same trade,exchangingcommercially sensitive information and cumulating thebenefits of the conference(price fixing and capacity regu-lation)and of the consortia(operational cooperation forthe provision of a joint service)block exemptions.Giventhe increasing number of links between carriers in thesame trade,determining the extent to which conferencesare subject to effective internal and external competitionis a very complex exercise and one that can only be doneon a case by case basis.(8)Liner shipping conferences therefore no longer fulfil thefour cumulative conditions for exemption under Article81(3)of the Treaty and the block exemption in respectof such conferences should therefore be abolished.(9)The exclusion from the prohibition of Article81(1)ofthe Treaty of purely technical agreements and theprocedure for dealing with conflicts of law which mayarise are also redundant.Those provisions shouldtherefore also be deleted.(10)In the light of the above,Regulation(EEC)No4056/86should be repealed in its entirety.ENL269/2Official Journal of the European Union28.9.2006(11)Liner conferences are tolerated in several jurisdictions.In this,as in other sectors,competition law is not applied in the same way worldwide.In light of the global nature of the liner shipping industry,the Commission should take the appropriate steps to advance the removal of the price fixing exemption for liner conferences that exist elsewhere whilst maintaining the exemption for opera-tional cooperation between shipping lines grouped in consortia and alliances,in line with the recommendations of the OECD Secretariat in 2002.(12)Cabotage and international tramp vessel services have been excluded from the rules implementing Articles 81and 82of the Treaty originally laid down in Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86and subsequently in Regulation (EC)No 1/2003.They are currently the only remaining sectors to be excluded from the Community competition implementing rules.The lack of effective enforcement powers for these sectors is an anomaly from a regulatory point of view.(13)The exclusion of tramp vessel services from Regulation (EC)No 1/2003was based on the fact that rates for these services are freely negotiated on a case by case basis in accordance with supply and demand conditions.However,such market conditions are present in other sectors and the substantive provisions of Articles 81and 82already apply to these services.No convincing reason has been brought forward to maintain the current exclusion of these services from the rules implementing Articles 81and 82of the Treaty.Similarly,although cabotage services often have no effect on intra Community trade,this does not mean that they should be excluded from the scope of Regulation (EC)No 1/2003from the outset.(14)As the mechanisms enshrined in Regulation (EC)No 1/2003are appropriate for applying the competitionrules to all sectors,the scope of that Regulation should be amended so as to include cabotage and tramp vessel services.(15)Regulation (EC)No 1/2003should therefore be amended accordingly.(16)Since Member States may need to adjust their interna-tional commitments in the light of the abolition of the conference system,the provisions of Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86relating to the liner conference block exemption should continue to apply to conferences satisfying the requirements of Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86on the date of entry into force of this Regu-lation for a transitional period,HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:Article 1Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86shall be repealed.However,Article 1(3)(b)and (c),Articles 3to 7,Article 8(2)and Article 26of Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86shall continue to apply in respect of liner shipping conferences satisfying the requirements of Regulation (EEC)No 4056/86on 18October 2006,for a transitional period of two years from that date.Article 2Article 32of Regulation (EC)No 1/2003shall be deleted.Article 3This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.Done at Brussels,25September 2006.For the Council The PresidentM.PEKKARINENEN28.9.2006Official Journal of the European Union L 269/3。
欧盟食品法律规定(3篇)
第1篇一、引言食品是人类生活的基本需求，食品安全直接关系到人们的身体健康和生命安全。
为了保障欧盟公民的食品安全，欧盟制定了一系列严格的食品法律规定。
本文将详细介绍欧盟食品法律规定的主要内容，以期为读者提供全面了解。
二、欧盟食品法的基本原则1. 食品安全原则：确保食品不会对消费者造成危害。
2. 公平原则：确保食品生产、加工、销售和消费过程中的公平竞争。
3. 透明度原则：确保食品信息对消费者公开、透明。
4. 预防原则：在食品生产、加工、销售等环节采取预防措施，防止食品安全问题发生。
5. 科学原则：以科学为依据，制定和修订食品法规。
三、欧盟食品法的主要法律文件1. 《欧盟食品法典》（EU Food Law）：是欧盟食品法规的核心文件，涵盖了食品生产、加工、销售、消费等各个环节。
2. 《食品安全法规》（Regulation (EC) No 178/2002）：规定了食品安全的基本原则、食品风险分析和风险评估程序。
3. 《食品卫生法规》（Regulation (EC) No 852/2004）：规定了食品生产、加工、销售和消费过程中的卫生要求。
4. 《食品添加剂法规》（Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008）：规定了食品添加剂的生产、使用和标签要求。
5. 《转基因食品法规》（Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003）：规定了转基因食品的生产、标识和进口要求。
四、欧盟食品法的主要内容1. 食品生产者责任欧盟食品法要求食品生产者对其生产的食品负责，确保食品符合食品安全、卫生和健康标准。
食品生产者应采取以下措施：（1）确保食品原料符合规定标准；（2）对食品进行必要的检验和检测；（3）建立食品安全管理体系；（4）对食品进行追溯，确保在发生食品安全问题时能够迅速采取措施。
2. 食品标签和标识欧盟食品法规定了食品标签和标识的要求，包括：（1）食品名称、成分、净含量、生产日期、保质期等信息；（2）过敏原信息；（3）转基因食品标识；（4）有机食品标识。
2003年罗马条例II的解释备忘录explanary memorundum
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIESBrussels, 22.7.2003COM(2003) 427 final2003/0168 (COD)Proposal for aREGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO NON-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS(“ROME II”)(presented by the Commission)EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM1.INTRODUCTION1.1.ContextBy Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, the Member States set themselves the objective of maintaining and developing the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured and litigants can assert their rights in the courts and before the authorities of all the Member States, enjoying facilities equivalent to those they enjoy in their own country.To establish a genuine European law-enforcement area, the Community, under Articles 61(c) and 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, is to adopt measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. The Tampere European Council on 15 and 16 October 19991 acknowledged the mutual recognition principle as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the Union. It asked the Council and the Commission to adopt, by December 2000, a programme of measures to implement the mutual recognition principle.The joint Commission and Council programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, adopted by the Council on 30 November 2000,2 states that measures relating to harmonisation of conflict-of-law rules, which may sometimes be incorporated in the same instruments as those relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, actually do help facilitate the mutual recognition of judgments. The fact that the courts of the Member States apply the same conflict rules to determine the law applicable to a practical situation reinforces the mutual trust in judicial decisions given in other Member States and is a vital element in attaining the longer-term objective of the free movement of judgments without intermediate review measures.plementarity with instruments of private international law already in forcein the CommunityThis initiative relates to the Community harmonisation of private international law in civil and commercial matters that began late in the 1960s. On 27 September 1968 the six Member States of the European Economic Community concluded a Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the “Brussels Convention”) on the basis of the fourth indent of Article 293 (formerly 220) of the EC Treaty. This was drawn up on the idea, already described in the EC Treaty, that the establishment of a common market implied the possibility of having a judgment given in any Member State recognised and enforced as easily as possible. To facilitate the attainment of that objective, the Brussels Convention begins by setting out rules identifying the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine a cross-border dispute.1Presidency conclusions of 16 October 1999, points 28 to 39.The mere fact that there are rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts does not generate reasonable foreseeability as to the outcome of a case being heard on the merits. The Brussels Convention and the “Brussels I” Regulation that superseded it on 1 March 20013 contain a number of options enabling claimants to prefer this or that court. The risk is that parties will opt for the courts of one Member State rather than another simply because the law applicable in the courts of this state would be more favourable to them.That is why work began on codifying the rules on conflicts of laws in the Community in 1967. The Commission convened two meetings of experts in 1969, at which it was agreed to focus initially on questions having the greatest impact on the operation of the common market the law applicable to tangible and intangible property, contractual and non-contractual obligations and the form of legal documents. On 23 June 1972, the experts presented a first preliminary draft convention on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations. Following the accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, the group was expanded in 1973, and that slowed progress. In March 1978, the decision was taken to confine attention to contractual obligations so that negotiations could be completed within a reasonable time and to commence negotiations later for a second convention on non-contractual obligations.In June 1980 the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the “Rome Convention”) was opened for signature, and it entered into force on 1 April 1991.4 As there was no proper legal basis in the EC Treaty at the time of its signing, the convention takes the traditional form of an international treaty. But as it was seen as the indispensable adjunct to the Brussels Convention, the complementarity being referred to expressly in the Preamble, it is treated in the same way as the instruments adopted on the basis of Article 293 (ex-220) and is an integral part of the Community acquis.Given the substantial difference in scope between the Brussels and Rome Conventions the former covers both contractual and non-contractual obligations whereas the latter covers only contractual obligations the proposed Regulation, commonly known as “Rome II”, will be the natural extension of the unification of the rules of private international law relating to contractual and non-contractual obligations in civil or commercial matters in the Community.1.3.Resumption of work in the 1990s under the Maastricht and AmsterdamTreatiesArticle K.1(6) of the Union Treaty in the Maastricht version classified judicial cooperation in civil matters in the areas of common interest to the Member States of the European Union. In its Resolution of 14 October 1996 laying down the priorities for cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs for the period from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1998,5 the Council stated that, in pursuing the objectives set by the European Council, it intended to concentrate during the above period on certain priority areas, which included the “launching of discussions on the necessity and possibility of drawing up ... a convention on the law applicable to extra-contractual obligations”.3Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1, replacing the Brussels Convention of 1968, of which a consolidated version was published in OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 1. But the Brussels Convention remains in force for relations between Denmark and the other Member States.4The consolidated text of the Convention as amended by the various Conventions of Accession, and the declarations and protocols annexed to it, is published in OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 34.In February 1998 the Commission sent the Member States a questionnaire on a draft convention on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The Austrian Presidency held four working meetings to examine the replies to the questionnaire. It was established that all the Member States supported the principle of an instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. At the same time the Commission financed a G ROTIUS project6 presented by the European Private International Law Group (G EDIP) to examine the feasibility of a European Convention on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, which culminated in a draft text.7 The Council' s ad hoc “Rome II” Working Party continued to meet throughout 1999 under the German and Finnish Presidencies, examining the draft texts presented by the Austrian Presidency and by Gedip.An initial consensus emerged on a number of conflict rules, which this proposal for a Regulation duly reflects.The Amsterdam Treaty, which entered into force on 1 May 1999, having moved cooperation in civil matters into the Community context, the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 3 December 1998 adopted the Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice.8 It recalls that principles such as certainty in the law and equal access to justice require among other things “clear designation of the applicable law” and states in paragraph 40 that “The following measures should be taken within two years after the entry into force of the Treaty: … b) drawing up a legal instrument on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)”.On 3 May 2002, the Commission launched consultations with interested circles on an initial preliminary draft proposal for a “Rome II” Regulation prepared by the Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs. The consultations prompted a very wide response, and the Commission received 80 or so written contributions from the Member States, academics, representatives of industry and consumers’ associations.9 The written consultation procedure was followed by a public hearing in Brussels on 7 January 2003. This proposal duly reflects the comments received.2.PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCILREGULATION2.1.General purpose - to improve the foreseeability of solutions regarding theapplicable lawThe purpose of this proposal for a regulation is to standardise the Member States' rules of conflict of laws regarding non-contractual obligations and thus extend the harmonisation of private international law in relation to civil and commercial obligations which is already well advanced in the Community with the “Brussels I” Regulation and the Rome Convention of 1980.6Project No GR/97/051.7Accessible at http://www.drt.ucl.ac.be/gedip/gedip_documents.html.8OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p. 1.9The contributions received by the Commission can be consulted at:http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/rome_ii/news_summary_rome2_en.htThe harmonisation of conflict rules, which must be distinguished from the harmonisation of substantive law, seeks to harmonise the rules whereby the law applicable to an obligation is determined. This technique is particularly suitable for settling cross-border disputes, as, by stating with reasonable certainty the law applicable to the obligation in question irrespective of the forum, it can help to develop a European area of justice. Instead of having to study often widely differing conflict rules of all the Member States' courts that might have jurisdiction in a case, this proposal allows the parties to confine themselves to studying a single set of conflict rules, thus reducing the cost of litigation and boosting the foreseeability of solutions and certainty as to the law.These general observations are particularly apt in the case of non-contractual obligations, the importance of which for the internal market is clear from sectoral instruments, in force or in preparation, governing this or that specific aspect (product liability or environmental liability, for example). The approximation of the substantive law of obligations is no more than embryonic. Despite common principles, there are still major divergences between Member States, in particular as regards the following questions: the boundary between strict liability and fault-based liability; compensation for indirect damage and third-party damage; compensation for non-material damage, including third-party damage; compensation in excess of actual damage sustained (punitive and exemplary damages); the liability of minors; and limitation periods. During the consultations undertaken by the Commission, several representatives of industry stated that these divergences made it difficult to exercise fundamental freedoms in the internal market. They realised that harmonisation of the substantive law was not a short-term prospect and stressed the importance of the rules of conflict of laws to improve the foreseeability of solutions.A comparative law analysis of the rules of conflict of laws reveals that the present situation does not meet economic operators' need for foreseeability and that the differences are markedly wider than was the case for contracts before the harmonisation achieved by the Rome Convention. Admittedly, the Member States virtually all give pride of place to the lex loci delicti commissi, whereby torts/delicts are governed by the law of the place where the act was committed. The application of this rule is problematic, however, in the case of what are known as “complex” torts/delicts, where the harmful event and the place where the loss is sustained are spread over several countries.10 There are variations between national laws as regards the practical impact of the lex loci delicti commissi rule in the case of cross-border non-contractual obligations. While certain Member States still take the traditional solution of applying the law of the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred, recent developments more commonly tend to support the law of the country where the damage is sustained. But to understand the law in force in a Member State, it is not enough to ascertain whether the harmful event or the damage sustained is the dominant factor. The basic rule needs to be combined with other criteria. A growing number of Member States allow a claimant to opt for the law that is most favourable to him. Others leave it to the courts to determine the country with which the situation is most closely connected, either as a basic rule or exceptionally where the basic rule turns out to be inappropriate in the individual case. Generally speaking most Member States use a sometimes complex combination of the different solutions. Apart from the diversity of solutions, their legibility is not improved by the fact that only some of the Member States have codified their conflict-of-laws rules; in the others, solutions emerge gradually from the decisions of the courts and often remain uncertain, particularly as regards special torts/delicts.10See the decision of the Court of Justice in the following notes as regards the account to be taken of thisThere is no doubt that replacing more than fifteen national systems of conflict rules11 by a single set of uniform rules would represent considerable progress for economic operators and the general public in terms of certainty as to the law.The next need is to analyse the conflict rules in the context of the rules governing the international jurisdiction of the courts. Apart from the basic jurisdiction of the courts for the place of the defendant' s habitual residence, provided for by Article 2 of the “Brussels I”Regulation, Article 5(3) provides for a special head of jurisdiction in relation to torts/delicts and quasi-delict in the form of “the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred...”. The Court of Justice has always held that where the place where the harmful act occurred and the place where the loss is sustained are not the same, the defendant can be sued, at the claimant’s choice, in the courts either of the place where the harmful act occurred or of the place where the loss is sustained.12 Admittedly, the Court acknowledged that each of the two places could constitute a meaningful connecting factor for jurisdiction purposes, since each could be of significance in terms of evidence and organisation of the proceedings, but it is also true that the number of forums available to the claimant generates a risk of forum-shopping.This proposal for a Regulation would allow parties to determine the rule applicable to a given legal relationship in advance, and with reasonable certainty, especially as the proposed uniform rules will receive a uniform interpretation from the Court of Justice. This initiative would accordingly help to boost certainty in the law and promote the proper functioning of the internal market. It is also in the Commission's programme of measures to facilitate the extra-judicial settlement of disputes, since the fact that the parties have a clear vision of their situation makes it all the easier to come to an amicable agreement.2.2.Legal basisSince the Amsterdam Treaty came into force, conflict rules have been governed by Article 61(c) of the EC Treaty. Under Article 67 of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Nice Treaty that entered into force on 1 February 2003, the Regulation will be adopted by the codecision procedure laid down by Article 251 of the EC Treaty.Article 65(b) provides: “Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, to be taken ... in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include: promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning the conflict of laws ...”The Community legislature has the power to put flesh on the bones of this Article and the discretion to determine whether a measure is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market. The Council exercised this power when adopting the Vienna action plan of 3 December 199813 on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice, point 40(c) of which calls expressly for a “Rome II”instrument.11There are more than fifteen national systems because the United Kingdom does not have a unitary system.12Case 21/76 Mines de Potasse d' Alsace [1976] ECR 1735 (judgment given on 30.11.1976).Harmonisation of the conflict rules helps to promote equal treatment between economic operators and individuals involved in cross-border litigation in the internal market. It is the necessary adjunct to the harmonisation already achieved by the “Brussels I” Regulation as regards the rules governing the international jurisdiction of the courts and the mutual recognition of judgments. Given that there are more than fifteen different systems of conflict rules, two firms in distinct Member States, A and B, bringing the same dispute between them and a third firm in country C before their respective courts would have different conflict rules applied to them, which could provoke a distortion of competition. Such a distortion could also incite operators to go forum-shopping.But the harmonisation of the conflict rules also facilitates the implementation of the principle of the mutual recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The mutual recognition programme14 calls for the reduction and ultimately the abolition of intermediate measures for recognition of a judgment given in another Member State. But the removal of all intermediate measures calls for a degree of mutual trust between Member States which is not conceivable if their courts do not all apply the same conflict rule in the same situation.Title IV of the EC Treaty, which covers the matters to which this proposal for a Regulation applies, does not apply to Denmark by virtue of the Protocol concerning it. Nor does it apply to the United Kingdom or Ireland, unless those countries exercise their option of joining the initiative (opt-in clause) on the conditions set out in the Protocol annexed to the Treaty. At the Council meeting (Justice and Home Affairs) on 12 March 1999, these two Member States announced their intention of being fully associated with Community activities in relation to judicial cooperation in civil matters. They were also fully associated with the work of the ad hoc Council working party before the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force.2.3.Justification for proposal in terms of proportionality and subsidiarity principlesThe technique of harmonising conflict-of-laws rules fully respects the subsidiarity and proportionality principles since it enhances certainty in the law without demanding harmonisation of the substantive rules of domestic law.As for the choice of instrument, point 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality provides that “Other things being equal, directives should be preferred to regulations and framework directives to detailed measures.” But for the purposes of this proposal a Regulation is the most appropriate instrument. It lays down uniform rules for the applicable law. These rules are detailed, precise and unconditional and require no measures by the Member States for their transposal into national law. They are therefore self-executing. The nature of these rules is the direct result of the objective set for them, which is to enhance certainty in the law and the foreseeability of the solutions adopted as regards the law applicable to a given legal relationship. If the Member States had room for manoeuvre in transposing these rules, uncertainty would be reintroduced into the law, and that is precisely what the harmonisation is supposed to abolish. The Regulation is therefore the instrument that must be chosen to guarantee uniform application in the Member States.3.INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONSArticle 1 - Material scopeLike the Brussels Convention and the “Brussels I” Regulation, the proposed Regulation covers civil and commercial obligations. This is an autonomous concept of Community law that has been interpreted by the Court of Justice. The reference to this makes it clear that the “Brussels I” Regulation, the Rome Convention and the Regulation proposed here constitute a coherent set of instruments covering the general field of private international law in matters of civil and commercial obligations.The scope of the Regulation covers all non-contractual obligations except those in matters listed in paragraph 2. Non-contractual obligations are in two major categories, those that arise out of a tort or delict and those that do not. The first category comprises obligations relating to tort or delict, and the second comprises obligations relating to what in some jurisdictions is termed “quasi-delict“ or “quasi-contract“, including in particular unjust enrichment and agency without authority or negotiorum gestio. The latter category is governed by section 2. But the demarcation line between contractual obligations and obligations based on tort or delict is not identical in all the Member States, and there may be doubts as to which instrument the Rome Convention or the proposed Regulation should be applied in a given dispute, for example in the event of pre-contractual liability, of culpa in contrahendo or of actions by creditors to have certain transactions by their debtors declared void as prejudicial to their interests. The Court of Justice, in actions under Articles 5(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention, has already had occasion to rule that tort/delict cases are residual in relation to contract cases, which must be defined in strict terms.15 It will no doubt refine its analysis when interpreting the proposed Regulation.The proposed Regulation would apply to all situations involving a conflict of laws, i.e. situations in which there are one or more elements that are alien to the domestic social life of a country that entail applying several systems of law. Under Article 1(2), the following are excluded from the scope of the proposed Regulation:a)non-contractual obligations arising out of family or similar relationships: familyobligations do not in general arise from a tort or delict. But such obligations can occasionally appear in the family context, as is the case of an action for compensation for damage caused by late payment of a maintenance obligation. Some commentators have suggested including these obligations within the scope of the Regulation on the grounds that they are governed by the exception clause in Article 3(3), which expressly refers to the mechanism of the “secondary connection” that places them under the same law as the underlying family relationship. Since there are so far no harmonised conflict-of-laws rules in the Community as regards family law, it has been found preferable to exclude non-contractual obligations arising out of such relationships from the scope of the proposed Regulation.b)Non-contractual obligations arising in connection with matrimonial property regimesand successions: these are excluded for similar reasons to those given at point a).15Case 34/82 Martin Peters [1983] ECR I-987 (judgment given on 22 March 1983); Case C-26/91 Jacob Handte [1992] ECR I-3697 (judgment given on 17 June 1992); Case C-334/00 Fonderie Officinec)Non-contractual obligations arising out of bills of exchange, cheques and promissorynotes and other negotiable instruments to the extent that the obligations under such other negotiable instruments arise out of their negotiable character; this point is taken over from Article 1(2)(c) of the Rome Convention. It is incorporated here for the same reasons as are given in the Giuliano-Lagarde Report,16 namely that the Regulation is not the proper instrument for such obligations, that the Geneva Conventions of 7 June 1930 and 19 March 1931 regulate much of this matter and that these obligations are not dealt with uniformly in the Member States.d)The personal legal liability of officers and members as such for the debts of acompany or firm or other body corporate or unincorporate, and the personal legal liability of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents: this question cannot be separated from the law governing companies or firms or other bodies corporate or unincorporate that is applicable to the company or firm or other body corporate or unincorporate in connection with whose management the question of liability arises.e)Non-contractual obligations among the settlers, trustees and beneficiaries of a trust:trusts are a sui generis institution and should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation as previously from the Rome Convention.f)non-contractual obligations arising out of nuclear damage: this exclusion is explainedby the importance of the economic and State interests at stake and the Member States' contribution to measures to compensate for nuclear damage in the international scheme of nuclear liability established by the Paris Convention of29 July 1960 and the Additional Convention of Brussels of 31 January 1963, theVienna Convention of 21 May 1963, the Convention on Supplementary Compensation of 12 September 1997 and the Protocol of 21 September 1988. These being exceptions, the exclusions will have to be interpreted strictly.The proposed Regulation does not take over the exclusion in Article 1(2)(h) of the Rome Convention, which concerns rules of evidence and procedure. It is clear from Article 11 that, subject to the exceptions mentioned, these rules are matters for the lex fori.They would be out of place in a list of non-contractual obligations excluded from the scope of this Regulation.Article 2 – Universal applicationUnder Article 2, this is a universal Regulation, meaning that the uniform conflict rules can designate the law of a Member State of the European Union or of a third country.This is a firmly-rooted principle of the law concerning conflict of laws and already exists in the Rome Convention, the conventions concluded in the Hague Conference and the domestic law of the Member States.Given the complementarily between “Brussels I” and the proposed Regulation, the universal nature of the latter is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market as avoiding distortions of competition between Community litigants. If the “Brussels I” Regulation distinguishes a priori between situations in which the defendant is habitually resident in theterritory of a Member State and those in which he is habitually resident in a third country,17 it still governs both purely “intra-Community” situations and situations involving a “foreign”element. For the rules of recognition and enforcement, first of all, all judgments given by a court in a Member State that are within the scope of the “Brussels I” Regulation qualify for the simplified recognition and enforcement scheme; the law under which the judgment was given the law of a Member State or of a third country therefore has very little impact. As for the rules of jurisdiction, the “Brussels I” Regulation also applies where the defendant is habitually resident outside Community territory: this is the case where the dispute is within an exclusive jurisdiction rule,18 where the jurisdiction of the court proceeds from a jurisdiction clause,19 where the defendant enters an appearance20 and where the lis pendens rule applies;21 in general, Article 4(2) specifies that where the defendant is habitually resident in a third country, the claimant, if habitually resident in a Member States, may rely on exorbitant rules of the law of the country where he is habitually resident, irrespective of his nationality. It follows from all these provisions that the “Brussels I” Regulation applies both to “intra-Community” situations and to situations involving an “extra-Community” element.What must be sought, therefore, is equal treatment for Community litigants, even in situations that are not purely “intra-Community”. If there continue to be more than fifteen different systems of conflict rules, two firms in distinct Member States, A and B, bringing the same dispute between them and a third firm in country C before their respective courts, would have different conflict rules applied to them, which could provoke a distortion of competition as in purely intra-Community situations.Moreover, the separation between “intra-Community” and “extra-Community” disputes is by now artificial. How, for instance, are we to describe a dispute that initially concerns only a national of a Member State and a national of a third country but subsequently develops into a dispute concerning several Member States, for instance where the Community party joins an insurer established in another Member State or the debt in issue is assigned. Given the extent to which economic relations in the internal market are now intertwined, all disputes potentially have an intra-Community nature.And on purely practical grounds, evidence presented to the Commission by the legal professions – both bench and bar – in the course of the written consultation emphasised that private international law in general and the conflict rules in particular are perceived as highly complex. This complexity would be even greater if this measure had the effect of doubling the sources of conflict rules and if practitioners now had to deal not only with Community uniform rules but also with distinct national rules in situations not connected as required with Community territory. The universal nature of the proposed Regulation accordingly meets the concern for certainty in the law and the Union' s commitment in favour of transparent legislation.17Article 2(1).18Article 22.19Article 23.20Article 24.。
德国脱欧法律规定(3篇)
第1篇一、引言随着英国脱欧的持续推进，欧盟内部的政治、经济和社会格局发生了深刻变化。
德国作为欧盟的核心成员国之一，其脱欧法律规定显得尤为重要。
本文将从德国脱欧的法律规定、脱欧的影响以及应对措施等方面进行探讨。
二、德国脱欧法律规定1. 德国宪法德国宪法（Basic Law）是德国的最高法律，规定了德国的国家制度、政治体制、公民权利和义务等基本内容。
根据德国宪法第23条，德国可以加入国际组织，也可以退出国际组织。
因此，德国脱欧的法律依据在于宪法。
2. 欧盟条约欧盟条约是欧盟的法律基础，规定了欧盟的宗旨、机构、决策程序等。
根据欧盟条约第50条，任何成员国都有权退出欧盟。
德国脱欧的法律依据也在于欧盟条约。
3. 德国国内法律德国国内法律包括议会法律、政府条例等。
在德国脱欧过程中，国内法律也需要进行调整，以适应脱欧后的新形势。
以下列举几个与德国脱欧相关的国内法律：（1）欧洲联盟法（EU-Abkommensgesetz）：该法律规定了德国与欧盟之间的法律关系，包括德国加入欧盟的批准程序、欧盟法律的适用等。
（2）欧洲联盟协定法（EU-Vertragsgesetz）：该法律规定了德国与欧盟之间的协定，如《里斯本条约》等。
（3）欧洲联盟预算法（EU-Haushaltsvertragsgesetz）：该法律规定了德国在欧洲联盟预算中的权利和义务。
4. 脱欧程序德国脱欧程序包括以下几个阶段：（1）提出脱欧意向：德国政府向欧盟委员会提出脱欧意向。
（2）启动谈判：欧盟委员会与德国政府启动脱欧谈判。
（3）达成脱欧协议：双方就脱欧协议达成一致，包括政治、经济、社会等方面。
（4）批准脱欧协议：德国议会和欧盟议会批准脱欧协议。
（5）退出欧盟：德国正式退出欧盟。
三、德国脱欧的影响1. 经济影响德国作为欧盟的核心成员国，其脱欧将对欧盟乃至全球经济产生重大影响。
一方面，德国脱欧可能导致欧盟内部市场分裂，影响欧盟经济增长；另一方面，德国脱欧可能导致欧盟与英国之间的贸易摩擦加剧，影响全球经济。
埃克塞特大学(Exeter)
埃克塞特大学（Exeter）英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）成立于1855年，作为罗素集团重要的一员和红砖大学代表学校，其科研实力一直名列前茅。
在最近一次RAE评估中，英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）90%以上项目达到国际高级水准。
在2014Times排名中，英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）位列第八位。
英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）优势专业主要有：英语、历史、工程、经济、商科、会计和金融、生物、计算机、数学、法律等。
英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）热门专业主要有：考古学、教育学、地质学、艺术与影视、数学、基础工程、历史学、商科、化学、环境科学、材料科学、计算机科学、社会学、经济学、英语语言学、法律学、心理学、地理学。
英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）中国学生录取要求：✧本科申请者需完成A-LEVEL或者本科预科的学习方可进入本科一年级就读，或者在国内完成大一学业，且成绩优秀。
✧研究生GPA：3.3（均分80-85分）英国埃克赛特大学（Exeter）专业设置✧MSc Accounting and Finance✧MSc Finance and Investment✧MSc Finance and Management✧MSc Financial Analysis and Fund Management✧MSc Financial Mathematics✧MSc Marketing and Financial Services✧MSc Financial Economics✧MSc Money and Banking✧MSc Economics✧MSc Economics and Econometrics✧MSc Economics and Experimental Economics✧MSc Financial Economics✧MSc International Management with specialisms in Entrepreneurship and Innovation andMarketing✧MSc International Tourism Management✧MSc Marketing✧MSc International Supply Chain Management✧MSc IT Management for Business✧MSc Human Resource Management✧One Planet MBA✧MSc Applied Ecology✧MSc Conservation and Biodiversity✧MSc Conservation Science and Policy✧MSc Evolutionary and Behavioural Ecology✧MSc Biotechnology and Enterprise✧MSc Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture✧MSc Conservation Science and Policy✧MRes Critical Human Geographies✧MRes Environment, Energy and Resilience✧MSc Sustainable Development✧MSc Sustainable Development (Climate Change and Environment) ✧MSc Animal Behaviour✧MSc Psychological Research Methods✧MSc Social and Organisational Psychology✧MSc Paediatric Exercise and Health✧MSc Sport and Health Sciences✧MSc IT Management for Business✧MSc/PgDip Applied Geotechnics✧MSc Mining Geology✧MSc Advanced Civil and Environmental Engineering✧MSc Advanced Materials Engineering✧MSc Advanced Mechanical Engineering✧MSc Engineering and Management✧MSc International Supply Chain Management✧MSc Water Management✧MSc Advanced Mathematics✧MSc Computational Finance✧MSc Financial Mathematics✧MSc Minerals Engineering✧MSc/PgDip Applied Geotechnics✧MSc/PgDip Mining Engineering✧MSc/PgDip Surveying and Land/Environmental Management✧Education PGCE✧Education✧Arab and Islamic Studies✧LLM European Law✧LLM International Commercial Law✧LLM International and Comparative Public Law✧LLM International Human Rights Law✧LLM Master of Laws✧MA European Politics✧MA History of Political Thought✧MA International Relations✧MA Politics and International Relations of the Middle East ✧MA Social and Political Philosophy✧Master of Public Administration✧MA Anthrozoology✧MA Philosophy and Sociology of Science✧Archaeology MA✧Biblical Studies MA✧Bioarchaeology MSc✧Classics and Ancient History MA✧Creative Writing MA✧Economic and Social History MRes✧English Literary Studies MA✧Ethics, Religion and Society MA✧Experimental Archaeology MA✧History MA✧International Film Business MA✧Medieval Studies MA✧Theatre Practice MA✧Theatre Practice: Staging Shakespeare MFA✧Theology MA✧Translation MA✧MSc Environment and Human Health文章来源：英帆国际。
欧盟税制概况
2010年2月重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版)第27卷第1期Feb .2010Journal of Chongqing Technol ogy and Business University (Social Sciences Editi on )Vol 127 NO.1doi:12.3969/j .issn .167220598.2010.01.011欧盟税制概况翁武耀(博洛尼亚大学欧洲税收高等研究院,意大利40141)[摘要]在处理欧盟税法具体细节问题之前,需要对欧盟制度、机构及相关程序有基本的了解。
从欧盟的发展入手,在介绍欧盟自有财源之后,对共同体条约确立的基本原则及相关制度进行论述,涉及欧盟机构设置及其权限、共同体的立法形式及司法体制,最后论述欧洲间接税和直接税的发展进程、最新发展状况及发展趋势。
[关键词]欧盟;自有财源;基本自由;税收协调;税收协作;税收趋同[中图分类号]F811.2 [文献标志码]A [文章编号]1672-0598(2010)01-0062-10 欧洲联盟(简称欧盟)(The Eur opean Uni on (EU )),是根据1992年签署的《欧洲联盟条约》(也称《马斯特里赫特条约》)①(The Treaty ofMaas 2tricht )所建立的国际组织。
欧盟的历史可追溯至1952年建立的欧洲煤钢共同体,当时只有六个成员国(分别是:法国、意大利、西德、荷兰、比利时、卢森堡)。
1957年,六国在罗马签署《罗马条约》(The Treaties of Rome ),并在1958年根据《罗马条约》成立了欧洲经济共同体和欧洲原子能共同体,1967年统合在根据《布鲁塞尔条约》(The Treaty of B russels )成立的欧洲共同体之下,1993年又统合在欧洲联盟之下,欧盟已经渐渐地从贸易实体转变成经济和政治联盟。
同时,欧共体和后来的欧盟在1971年至2007年期间进行了六次扩大,成员国由最初的6个增至27个。
欧盟法院官网检索方法
Terms and Conditions of useThe texts and information contained in the Court of Justice’s internet site are available free of charge for the purposes of public information.NB: Use of research results for statistical purposes is not advised due to the rules for dissemination: for such purposes, users are requested to consult the Annual Report of the Court of Justice of the European Union.The texts of the judgments, orders, Opinions, notices and other documents present on the site are subject to amendment. The final version of those texts is published in the Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the General Court, the European Court Reports - Staff Cases (ECR-SC) or the Official Journal of the European Union, which are the only authentic versions and take precedence in the event that there is a difference with the electronic version.The texts available on this site may be reproduced provided the source is acknowledged as well as the fact that they are not authentic and are free of charge.Readers should be aware that certain parts of such information and texts might be protected under intellectual property law, in particular by copyright.Links to the pages on this site are permitted provided that:∙the browser window does not contain any information other than that of the page of the present site to which the link is made and its address;∙none of the information provided on this site is modified.IntroductionThe InfoCuria database contains all the publicly available information concerning the cases brought before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal.InfoCuria gives access, primarily, to the documents of the Institution (principally the judgments, Opinions, orders and notices to the Official Journal of the European Union), by means of a text search or a data search.Those data concern, in particular, the dates of certain stages of the proceedings, the subject-matter of the case, the type of proceedings, the legal acts of the European Union cited in the case-law, the nationality of the parties, etc. The availability of those data may vary according to the type of proceedings and the stage (progress) of the case.List of resultsUse this menu to choose display options and sorting options different from those offered by default. Display preferences:∙the option ‘Automatic’gives a default display of the tab ‘List of results by case’, unless the criteria ‘Documents’ or ‘Text’ were used for the search, in which case the tab ‘List ofdocuments’ will display (on ly those documents meeting the search criteria will be shown);∙the option ‘List of cases’ forces display of the tab ‘List of results by case’, whatever search criteria were used;∙the option ‘List of documents’ forces display of the corresponding tab, whate ver search criteria were used.Sorting preferences:∙the option ‘Case number in descending order’ sorts the results by default by court (first Court of Justice cases, second General Court cases and third Civil Service Tribunal cases)and, within one court, by case number in descending order (the first results shown are themost recent cases);∙the option ‘Case number in ascending order’ sorts the results by default by court (Court of Justice, General Court, Civil Service Tribunal) and, within one court, by case number inascending order (the first results shown are the oldest cases);∙the option ‘Date in descending order’ sorts the results:o in the tab ‘List of results by case’, by court (Court of Justice, General Court, Civil Service Tribunal), then by date on which the case was closed, pending casesappearing first, followed by the cases with the most recent date of closure;o in the tab ‘List of documents’ by date of publication of the documents, the most recent appearing first, irrespective of the court;∙the option ‘Date in ascending order’ sorts the results:o in the tab ‘List of results by case’, by court (Court of Justice, General Court, Civil Service Tribunal), then by date on which the case was closed, the cases with the most distant date of closure appearing first, followed by pending cases;o in the tab ‘List of documents’ by date of publication of the documents, the oldest appearing first, irrespective of the court.Availability of informationIf information is not provided, this may be due to the fact that:∙it is not relevant to the case (for example: the source of a question referred for a preliminary ruling in an action for annulment);∙it is not yet available at this stage of the procedure (for example: the publication reference for the Official Journal of the European Union before publication);∙it is not yet publicly available at this stage of the procedure (for example: the name of the Judge Rapporteur in pending cases).Case StatusUse this criterion to limit the search by reference to case status.Select ‘All cases’The search will cover:∙cases pending (on-going cases, stayed cases and cases in the process of being discontinued or withdrawn);∙cases closed.Select ‘Cases closed’The search will cover:∙cases closed only.Select ‘Cases pending’The search will cover:∙cases pending only (on-going cases, stayed cases and cases in the process of being discontinued or withdrawn).CourtUse this criterion to limit the search by reference to the court: ∙Court of Justice;∙General Court;∙Civil Service Tribunal.DocumentsUse this criterion to search by type of document.By default, the search will cover all of the documents present in the database. However, the search can be limited by reference to the type of document sought and its date of publication.Select the type of document from the list accessed via the button.The following may be selected:∙Documents published in the European Court ReportsThese are judgments, orders, Advocates General's Opinions and positions of the Courts of the European Union and published or to be published in the European Court Reports or the European Court Reports - Staff Cases (ECR-SC).The text of judgments and decisions is available on the day of delivery, that of opinions of the Court on the day when they are given and that of Advocates General's Opinions andpositions on the day of their delivery by the Advocate General. Orders are not made public until ten days after they have been notified to the parties.Summaries of decisions are also available. These are not binding on the Courts of theEuropean Union and may in no way be regarded as an official interpretation of the decisions to which they refer.Finally,information on decisions of which the full text is not published in the EuropeanCourt Reports.Documents published in the European Court Reports are available in all the officiallanguages of the European Union on the day of their delivery.∙Documents not published in the European Court ReportsThese are Judgments, orders and decisions (review procedures) delivered or made since 1 May 2004 and not published in the European Court Reports.For orders, use the drop-down menu to select a specific type of order.The full text of documents not published in the European Court Reports is available, butonly in the language of the case and the language of deliberation. For some of thosedecisions, information is published in the European Court Reports (see above).∙Notices published in the OJThese are notices relating to cases brought and cases closed (adjudged or removed from the register) published in the Official Journal of the European Union since 1 January 2002.The text of notices published in the OJ is available in all official languages upon dispatch to the Publications Office of the European Union.One or more types of document may be selected from this list.It is also possible to limit the search:∙to a particular period. Enter the start and end dates in the fields ‘from’ and ‘to’ in the format shown.Example: from 01/05/2004 to 31/12/2004.∙to predetermined periods. By clicking on the relevant button, the dates corresponding to that period are automatically entered in the fields, i.e.:o last 8 days: the search covers documents dating from the last 8 days;o last month: the search covers documents dating from the past month;o last year: the search covers documents dating from the past year;o last 5 years: the search covers documents dating from the past 5 years.∙to a specific date. Enter the date required in the field ‘date’ in the format shown.Example: 15/12/2005.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection. Using the ‘Documents’ search criterion will activate, by default, in the window showing the list of results, the ‘List of documents’ tab, giving direct acce ss to the documents in question. However, it is still possible to switch to ‘List of results by case’ showing the cases in which at least onedocument is covered by the search.ECLIThis field enables searches of the decisions of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal by their ECLI (European Case-Law Identifier).For those decisions, the ECLI is composed of the following five sections, in the following order:a)The abbreviation ‘ECLI’;b)The code ‘EU’;c)The abbreviation corresp onding to the Court: ‘C’, ‘T’ or ‘F’;d)The year of the decision, which must be entered in four figures;e)An order number, attributed sequentially by year and by Court.The sections of an ECLI are separated by a colon (‘:’).Example: The ECLI identifier ECLI:EU:C:2012:23 corresponds to the judgment in Case C-392/10 Suiker Unie.Case numberUse this field to search for a case by its number in the Register.Examples:∙C-408/01 (408th case entered in the Register in 2001 before the Court of Justice);∙T-201/04 (201st case entered in the Register in 2004 before the Court of First Instance);∙F-16/05 (16th case entered in the Register in 2005 before the Civil Service Tribunal).The case (upper case/ lower case) makes no difference:•c-408/01 = C-408/01•t-201/04 = T-201/04•f-16/05 = F-16/05It is also possible to search using a part of the number.Examples:∙122/07 (will find Case No 122 of 2007 before the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal)∙122 (will find Case No 122 of any year before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal)∙/07 (will find all cases brought in 2007 before the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal)Account is not taken of the suffixe s identifying certain types of proceedings (such as “AJ” for legal aid, “DEP” for costs, “OP” for application to set aside, “P” for appeal, “PPU” for urgent preliminary ruling procedure, “R” for application for interim measures, “REC” for rectification of a judgment, “REV” for revision of a judgment, “RX” for review, “SA” for garnishee order, “TO” for third-party proceedings, etc.).Names of partiesUse this field to search with the usual name of the case. This is the simplified form of the names of the parties to the action in question.Case (upper case/lower case) and accents make no difference: commission =CommissionNB! the institutions of the European Union are identified by their abbreviated names (Commission, Council, Europol, etc.).The following may be used to refine the search:∙Special characters:o Asterisk* is a joker character which replaces from nought to an infinite number of characters and can be used at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a word.Example: Alpha* will find cases involving the parties Alpha, Alpharma, Alphasteel, etc.o Underscore_ is a joker character which replaces a single obligatory character and can be used at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a word.Example: Post_ will find cases in which the name of a party contains this stem plus onecharacter (Posta, Poste).o To search for an exact phrase, use inverted commas ".Example:“Trade union”∙Logical operators (Boolean operators):o AND (represented by the space between two words).Example: Commission Council Parliament will find cases in which the Commission, theCouncil and the Parliament are all parties.o OR (represented by a comma between two words).Example: Poland, Cyprus will find all documents involving Poland, or Cyprus, or both.o EXCEPT (represented by an exclamation mark before the excluded word).Example: !Commission will find cases in which the Commission is not a party to theaction.Logical operators and/or special characters may be combined.Text searchThis field allows you to search the full text of e the ‘Documents’ field to choose different types of document (by default, all types of document).The following may be used to refine the search:∙Special characters:o Asterisk* is a joker character which replaces from nought to an infinite number of characters and can be used at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a word.Example: admiss* will find documents containing the words admissible, admissibility,inadmissible, inadmissibility.o Underscore_ is a joker character which replaces a single obligatory character and can be used at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of a word.Example: Post_ will find documents containing that stem plus one character (Posta, Poste).o To search for an exact phrase, use inverted commas ".Example:“Trade union”∙Logical operators (Boolean operators):o AND (represented by the space between two words).Example: butter cheese will find documents containing both of those wordso OR (represented by a comma between two words).Example: butter, cheese will find documents containing the word butter, or the wordcheese,or both.o EXCEPT (represented by an exclamation mark before the excluded word).Example: butter !cheese will find documents containing the word butter but not thosecontaining the word cheese.Logical operators and/or special characters may be combined.Example: ‘wild bird*’conservation will find documents containing both the exact expression wild bird(s) (singular or plural) and the word conservation.Any differences between the results from text searches in the different language versions on the site are due to the fact that documents not published in the European Court Reports are available only in some languages.A text search will activate, by default, in the window sh owing the list of results, the ‘List of documents’ tab, giving direct access to the documents in question. However, it is still possible toswitch to the ‘List of results by case’ showing the cases in which at least one document is covered by the search.Period or dateThis criterion makes it possible to search according to:∙date of delivery of the judgment or adoption of the order;∙date of delivery of the Opinion;∙date of the hearing;∙date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings;∙all types of date at the same time(date of delivery of the judgment or adoption of the order OR date of delivery of the Opinion OR date of the hearing OR date of the lodging of theapplication initiating proceedings).By default, the search covers the date of delivery of the judgment or the adoption of the order. To alter that selection, use the drop down menu.The following types of search are possible:∙for a specific period. To do this, enter the dates for the beginning and end of the period in the ‘from’ and ‘to’ fields in the format indicated.Example: from 01/05/2004 to 31/12/2004∙for set periods. By clicking on the desired button, the corresponding dates automatically appear in the fields, so that:o last 8 days;o last month;o last year;o last 5 years.∙for a specific date. To do this, enter the desired date in the ‘on’ field in the format indicated.Example: on 15/12/2005Subject-matterUse this criterion to search by subject.The subjects correspond to the legal bases (articles of the Treaties) covered by the application or request and, after delivery, by the judgment, the order, the decision (review proceedings) or the opinion of the Court of Justice.Select the subject from the list accessible via the button.One or more subjects may be selected from this list. Subjects may be selected: ∙by navigating in the classification structure;∙via the field ‘Search for a subject’ (which does not take account of either special characters or logical operators (Boolean operators) and gives all occurrences of precisely the characters entered, whether in upper or lower case or accented).After entering the term, click the button to begin the search.For example: etat will give the subjects Aides accordées par les États, Monopoles d’État à caractère commercial, États de pénurie, États d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique(ACP) and États africains et malgaches associés.NB! Where a subject concerns a number of Treaties, including the ECSC and/or EAEC Treaties (for example: ‘institutional provisions’), the search results include cases related to all those Treaties. However, subjects which relate exclusively to the ECSC and EAEC Treaties have been grouped under the terms ‘ECSC matters’ and ‘EAEC matters’.NB! If several subjects are selected, they are, by default, separated by the logical operator OR. To separate them by the logical operator AND, choose the option ‘All of the chosen values’ at the bottom of the window.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.Procedure and resultUse this criterion to search by type of action or procedure and the result of the action or procedure.NB! The analysis of results may cover the outcome of different kinds of action and the same decision may produce several different results. It is therefore not advised to use this analysis for statistical purposes.Select the procedure and/or the result from the list accessed via the button.One or more types of procedure may be selected from this list.One or more types of procedure may be combined with one or more types of result.If only types of result are selected, the search will cover all procedures with the chosen results. NB! If more than one type of procedure or result is selected, they are by default separated by the logical ope rator OR. To separate them by the logical operator AND, choose the option ‘All of the chosen values’ at the bottom of the window.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.References to case-law or legislationUse this criterion to search by acts (or operative parts of acts) of European Union law cited in: ∙the grounds of the judgment or order∙the operative part of the judgment or order∙the Advocate General’s O pinionThere is a drop-down list of5 common types of citation:∙for Treaties, specify the treaty in question from the proposed list and any subdivisions (article, paragraph, subparagraph or letter).∙for Regulations, specify the order number, the year and any subdivisions (annex, article, paragraph, subparagraph or letter), or choose a specific regulation from the proposed list;∙for Directives, specify the order number, the year and any subdivisions (annex, article, paragraph, subparagraph or letter);∙for Decisions, specify the order number, the year and any subdivisions (annex, article, paragraph, subparagraph or letter);∙for Case-law, specify the court in question (Court of Justice, General Court or Civil Service Tribunal), the order number and the year, and the type of document (judgment, Opinion,order, garnishee order, third-party proceedings, opinion of the Court of Justice ordeliberation);NB! The above help will allow you to make a search on only one reference at a time and in a limited list.For a more specific or wider search, select the category ‘Other’ and enter the CELEX number(s) in the search field.Examples:∙21994A1223(01) will find documents that cite the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986-1994) - Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO);∙41980A0934 will find documents that cite the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980.Any subdivision of the act or provision must be entered at the end of the CELEX number after a hyphen “-”. The letters used to refer to the subdivisions are:A for article ;C for recital in the preamble to an act;L for subparagraph or for letter;N for annexe;P for paragraph;PT for point;R for rule;T for indent.Exa mple: 31977L0388-A13LBLDPT5gives access to documents citing Article 13B(d)(5) of Directive 77/388/EEC.N.B. For a rticles numbered 1 to 9,use two characters (A01, A02, ..., A09).The search in the operative part may be restricted by using codes identifying the effect of the operative part in question on the act or provision cited:∙reference for a preliminary rulingI the cited provision is interpreted;G the cited provision is validated;N the cited provision is invalidated;∙action for annulment:A the cited provision is annulled;F the cited provision is validated;M the cited provision is amended (fine reduced, annulment ‘in so far as…’ etc.);∙appeal and review:A the cited judgment or order is set aside;F the cited judgment or order is upheld;M the cited judgment or order is amended.∙indirect i nvocation(objection of illegality) (Art. 277 TFEU, Art. 241 EC, Art. 184 EEC, Art.156 EAEC, Art. 36 § 3 ECSC) :W the validity of the cited provision is confirmed;B the validity of the cited provision is not confirmed;∙others :S operation of the cited provision is suspended;R the cited judgment is revised;P the cited judgment is interpreted ;∙documents concerned by the document analysed (whatever the result) :T agreement on which an opinion of the Court of Justice is sought (Art. 218 § 11 TFEU, Art. 300 § 6 EC, Art. 228 EEC);Z provision concerned by an action for failure to fulfil obligations;X provision in respect of immediate enforcement is applied for (A rt. 83 EAEC).To refine the research, CELEX numbers may be combined with logical operators (Boolean operators):∙AND (represented by a space between two CELEX numbers).Exa mple : 31967L0548 32004L0073will find documents citing both Directive 67/548/EEC and Directive 2004/73/EC.∙OR (represented by a comma between two CELEX numbers).Exa mple : 11957E086, 11992E086, 11997E082, 12002E082, 12006E082, 12008E102will find documents citing the articles of the Treaty establishing the European Community in its successive versions relating to the abuse of a dominant position.∙EXCEPT (represented by an exclamation mark before the CELEX number to be excluded).To find out more about CELEX numbers: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/tools/faq.htm#1.12Systematic classification schemeUse this criterion to search using the classification scheme of the Digest of case-law, which is a systematic collection of the summaries of judgments and orders published in the European Court Reports and the European Court Reports - Staff Cases (ECR-SC).Each paragraph of a summary gives rise to one or more classification codes corresponding to the field concerned.Select the classification code from the lists accessed via the button.As a result of changes made following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the classification scheme has been completely reworked. Two lists are thus available:∙The systematic classification scheme after the Treaty of Lisbon (this is used for case-law since 2010) and∙The systematic classification scheme before the Treaty of Lisbon (this is used for case-law from 1954 to 2009)In those lists, the classification codes are presented in a tree diagram structure: when you click on a code, everything relating to it will appear and may be selected.Example: to access the code G-03.03 European arrest warrant click on G-European Union, then G-03 Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.One or more classification codes may be selected.NB! If more than one code is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR.Click on the ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ buttons at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.By default, when a code is selected in one of the two classification schemes, the search will also cover the corresponding codes in the other classification scheme. That option can be deactivated by deselecting the ‘Include earlier/new scheme’ box at the bottom of the search form.Formation of the CourtUse this criterion to search by formation of the Court.NB! Information regarding the formation of the Court is available only after the case is closed.Select the formation of the Court from the list accessed via the button.One or more formations of the Court may be selected from that list.NB! If more than one formation of the Court is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.Judge RapporteurUse this criterion to search by Judge Rapporteur.NB! Information regarding the Judge Rapporteur is available only after the case is closed.Select the name of the Judge Rapporteur from the list accessed via the button.It is possible to select one or more than one Judge Rapporteur from that list.NB! If the names of more than one Judge Rapporteur is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.Advocate GeneralUse this criterion to search by Advocate General.NB! Information regarding the Advocate General is available only after the case is closed.Select the name of the Advocate General from the list accessed via the button.It is possible to select one or more than one Advocate General from that list.NB! If the names of more than one Advocate General is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR.Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.Source of a question referred for a preliminary rulingUse this criterion to search by country of origin of a question referred for a preliminary ruling.Select the country from the list accessed via the button.One or more countries may be selected from that list.NB! If more than one country is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR. Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the bottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.Authentic languageUse this criterion to search by:∙language of the case;∙l anguage of the Advocate General’s Opinion.Select the language from the list accessed via the button.One or more languages may be selected from that list.NB! If more than one language is selected, they will be separated by the logical operator OR. Click on ‘Enter’ or ‘Cancel’ at the b ottom of the window to validate or abandon the selection.。
欧洲人权法律 英文版
The reform of the European court of human rights
LOGO
The Convention prohibits in particular
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
slavery and forced labour death penalty arbitrary and unlawful detention discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and
LOGO
whose image is known worldwide. From here,
the Court monitors respect rightsthe human 1959 The European court of human for , established in rights of 800 million Europeans in the 47
In December 1977, Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights lawsuit to sue the However, the Courtthe British Government had United Kingdom, another five means of implementation, and the beating of prisoners, even violated the "freedom from torture and ifinhuman treatment, freedom provisions, some non-tortured, still constitutes a "freedom from torture and inhumancourt case was into the people without the treatment, freedom" in violation The court held that although the British prison. of the Convention. Government to the imprisonment of those who, in violation of the Convention rights, but in this case can be considered the violation is a violation to have a legitimate reason.
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
1 European Law Case Facts An English company is importing some toys, which are produced and marketed legally in Germany. When the toys arrive in the UK, they are stopped in Hull for several days to be inspected. This includes a fee at the port for parking. Then the toys would be no more produced and marketed legally in Germany but in India. The main issues are to apply the relevant laws to importations of goods to a country and to give some recommendations for the English company.
England-Germany Since 1957 Germany has been one of the European Union founders. A few years later, in 1973, theUnited Kingdom joined successfully the European Union. Indeed the UE is a free trade area, custom union and also common market.For those European members, they have to respect thesupremacy principle meaning that the European law is superior to each national law.
1) Inspection In this case, the principle of mutual recognition will be applied. Indeed, in intra-EU trade,the principle of mutual recognition (EC Europa, 2008) is one of the key to facilitate the market access in some Member States. This highlights the fact that “a product lawfully marketed in one Member State should be allowed to be marketed in any other state, even if the product does not have the full technical requirements. The only exception possible to this principle is when a country refuses the marketing of a good, because of health, environment or public reasons.” Here, the toys were made and marketed legally in Germany, so they do not represent any kind of health danger for the consumer because they have been checked and approved by the EC Toy Safety Directive.1 Since 1988, there has been a harmonization concerning the toy safety, (Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988). As there is no health
1http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/harmonised-standards/toys/index_en.h
tm 2
danger concerning these toys, the UK has to accept these goods. The ship will be inspected in Hull (Hull &Goole, 2013)2 to see if there are no illegal products and automatically the merchandise should be delivered in the UK. The easiest and clearest solution would be to put inspections by for the EU law as mandatory, to avoid any conflicts.
2) Port fees According to Article 30 TFEU, customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited (Eur Lex Europa, 2013)3. The fact of having port fees is considered as a charge and could involve consequently certain discrimination, compared to the local products. The Article 36 TFEU (Eur Lex Europa, 2013) highlights this affirmation, “The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of publicmorality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States”. As it was said in the first part of the question, the imported toys have already been successfully checked in Hull thus it proved that they don’t represent any of the danger protected by the Article 36 TFEU. That is why the company has been asked to pay some fees because of an abusive control which can be viewed as a restriction measure on toys imported. The company being in its right can complain in the CJEU.
England-India
Facts
India entered WTO in 1995, India is part of BRIC, which are the countries considered as “emerging powers”. Thus, a lot of goods are imported and exported every day from this country. UK is one member of EU and EU entered WTO in 1994.4 The issue will be treated through the WTO and the GATT..
2 http://www.hullandgoolepha.gov.uk/ship_inspection.phtml
3http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/free-movement-non-harmonised-secto
rs/mutual-recognition/index_en.htm#h2-1 4 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm