Recent Case Law

Now more than ever, it appears that both societal and political factors are supporting and stimulating student mobility in all its shapes and forms, most notably through various initiatives on the European level. The Bologna Process, the European Qualifications Framework and the Lisbon Recognition Convention are all examples of this commitment undertaken by the Member States of the EU as well as other European nations. However, upon taking a closer look at the practical reality, we see that many obstacles remain to exist. As EU law currently stands after the Forster and Morgan and Bucher judgments, mobile students do not have a right to maintenance grants, neither from their host state or their home state. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has – albeit reluctantly – allowed an exception to the principle of equal treatment on grounds of nationality with regards to access to higher education in the Bressol case. Although the recent, somewhat more restrictive attitude of the European Court can be defended and perhaps even welcomed, it does illustrate the need for a discussion and potential action on the European level by the political institutions. This contribution includes a discussion of the recent ECJ case law on student mobility and some reflections on the desirability, feasibility and potential form and content of such future action.

The objective of this article is to present the most significant recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) related to the competition law. Firstly, focus is given to some recent CJEU case law in the antitrust area, i.e. the judgments dealing with the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). A special attention is paid to the most recent CJEU case law analyzing the distinction between the object and effect of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. Secondly, some significant State aid cases are dealt with, i.e. the cases related to the application of Article 107 TFEU. Although the CJEU case law has not recently undergone major changes in the competition law field, the article reflects the main trends towards the current jurisprudence and what challenges may be expected in the future.

Recent case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has declared practices involving the pushback of individuals, including those seeking asylum, to be illegal. This is a significant and positive development. This article examines the approaches taken in key cases before these two courts, comparing and reflecting on how they have framed pushbacks as a violation of fundamental rights and the procedural obligations that States have under international and European law. While both courts have ruled these practices to be in breach of applicable laws, their framing of the violations has differed. The ECtHR has focused on the fundamental rights that are threatened when individuals are pushed back across borders. In contrast, the CJEU has previously concentrated on the violations of procedural rules that occur during the forcible return of individuals. However, in the recent case of MA, the CJEU acknowledged that the breach of procedural rules inherent in pushbacks undermines access to effective protection, resulting in a denial of access to asylum. This situation constitutes a breach of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This important development indicates a convergence in the approaches of the two courts, both condemning pushbacks as violations of individual rights and highlighting the necessity of the right to enter as an integral part of the effective right to asylum.

This case list offers a guide to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law pertaining to migration. While the case list does not cite every ECtHR decision related to migration, it offers a comprehensive overview of important instances of case law indicative of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on migration. These are, for example, Grand Chamber decisions, or cases cited by the Court in its more recent case law. In addition to including key cases cited in the preceding chapters of this book, this list also includes cases identified in thematic case law guides of the ECHR and recent jurisprudence in the area of migration, notified by the ECHR in monthly updates. The cases are organised in thematic blocks, which in turn appear in the order in which they pertain to the different temporal stages of migration, from entering the destination country to the right to remain and the cultural and religious rights of long-term migrants.

A recent court case decided by the District Court in The Hague regarding a captive insurance company involved in reinsurance activities seems to follow the current general approach of the Dutch tax authorities on captives. This article considers this decision in light of existing Dutch case law and the UK Dixons case. There is a striking difference in the approaches taken by the District Court in The Hague and the UK Special Commissioners concerning the Dixons case. Where the decision in the Dixons case focuses on the appropriateness of the transfer pricing method, the District Court in The Hague reclassifies the transactions under review. This article discusses these different approaches to captives. The issue will in particular be considered in the context of the OECD Guidelines.

Background: This research critically analyses the jurisdictional challenges and their implications for the proper administration of justice in the case of Mariana vs. BHP Group [2022] EWCA Civ 951. The legal route taken by the High Court of Appeal is examined, considering both the proceedings in the UK (pre-Brexit) and a third state (Brazil). This text examines the impact of the European legal framework on EU member states and evaluates the approach of UK towards Article 34 of the Brussels Regulation. The analysis examines whether pursuing damages based in civil or commercial liability suffered by victims domiciled in a Third State through European jurisdiction is appropriate. Methods: The study employs a case law analysis, supported by doctrinal legal research methodology, to systematically examine the balance of the principle of forum non conveniens and the consistent application of the Brussels Regulation in the Mariana Case. This is a critical review of the UK High Court's decision to overturn Judge Turner's ruling. The review emphasizes the adherence to historical national precedents, European Union Law, and the European Court of Justice's previous rulings against the United Kingdom's strike-out legal technique. The article explores the complexities of administering justice, focusing on the interplay between case management discretion, the principle of proportionality, and the court's responsibility to ensure a fair trial. It analyses the impact of factors such as the court's structure, case complexity, and the time required for resolution within this framework, while also considering the court's duty to administer justice effectively. . Results and Conclusions: The study's findings enhance comprehension of jurisdiction challenges in transnational litigations within the European Legal System and their implications for the proper administration of justice. The article recommends a balanced approach that upholds the substantial rights of claimants while aligning national practices with EU civil liability standards, promoting judicial harmony in transnational civil and commercial liability cases in the European Union.

Company Valuation: A Comparison of Economic and Legal Perspectives

This article examines the concept of reasonable suspicion as a legal requirement for legitimizing military police stops under Brazilian law, considering statutory provisions, legal doctrine, and recent case law from higher courts. Based on the constitutional role of the Military Police in preserving public order and performing preventive policing, the study analyzes the limits and scope of personal searches authorized by Article 244 of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for objective and contextual justification of police interventions. The research adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and descriptive approach, grounded in bibliographic and documentary analysis, including decisions from the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice. The findings indicate that reasonable suspicion must be understood as a technical and professional judgment derived from objective, observable, and verifiable elements, rather than from subjective intuition or discriminatory criteria. It is concluded that the proper application of this legal standard strengthens the legitimacy of police action, ensures the protection of fundamental rights, and provides greater legal certainty for public security agents, in accordance with the principles of the Democratic Rule of Law.

This chapter focuses on some central precepts of substantive review. The discussion begins with the meaning accorded to the concepts of law, fact, and discretion in EU law. This is followed by examination of the test for review for questions of law. The focus then shifts to review of fact and discretion. The test for review and the meaning accorded to it in the early case law is explicated. This is followed by an examination of the more recent jurisprudence, and it is shown that the EU courts have used the tests for review more intensively than hitherto, although there may be some modification of this in some recent case law. The final two sections of the chapter contain broader reflections on the standard of review emerging from the case law in relation to fact and discretion, respectively.

While interim measures have been available to parties in international arbitration for decades, recent years have witnessed an explosion in the number of requests submitted and decided. In the context of investment-treaty arbitration, this boom in interim measures decisions has brought a great diversity of substance, making a comprehensive look at the current state of interim measures both timely and necessary. This article is divided into four remaining sections, designed to appeal to practitioners, parties, and decision-makers alike. The second and third sections look to assist in the proper drafting of an interim measures request and order, by identifying and discussing current developments in the key institutional rules and legal standards. We start by addressing developments in the legal standards underpinning interim measures, which arise from institutional rules and case-law developments and involve some or all of the following factors: (1) urgency in the sense that the risk of harm or prejudice is imminent; (2) a threat of substantial or irreparable harm to rights or property capable of being protected by the tribunal; (3) prima facie jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the request; (4) prima facie establishment of a valid claim on the merits; and (5) the extent to which interim measures would burden the other party. Although the decision whether to grant interim measures is necessarily fact-specific, making a clear synthesis of the case law not always possible, a few threads have emerged in the recent case law, particularly regarding irreparable harm and urgency. Recent developments with respect to these two elements – which arguably contain the most ascertainable legal standards among the five – warrant practitioners’ attention, including the importance of changed circumstances for urgency, and the impact of the form of relief requested ( i.e. , non-monetary or monetary damages) on proving irreparable harm. The third section therefore …

Objective: This paper explores the legal and ethical frameworks that inform nursing practice and health care cultures. Using methodologies informed by critical race and feminist jurisprudence (also called ‘outsider scholarship’), images of nursing and the positive and negative effects of these images and their legal, moral and ethical impact on nursing practice, are explored. This exploration assists in exposing some of the power structures and assumptions which govern contemporary nursing practice and standards of care and which impact on factors such as workforce retention. Legality, morality and reality ‑ the role of the nurse in maintaining standards of care. Setting: Applies to all settings in which nurses’ practise. Subjects: Nurses, other health care professionals and patients. Primary argument: Examples from case law are used to illustrate the relationship between image and power and how these affect legal and moral frameworks and the realities of the workplace for nurses. This is done by examining the law, as a form of insider (whereby the world is described in terms of pre‑existing power structures) and outsider story‑telling (whereby stories are challenged to reflect experiences). Five dominant and recurrent images of nursing emerge from case law analysis. These have implications for: the way in which nurses respond to critical situations which involve the adoption of a moral stance; nurses’ legal and ethical status, and; the environment in which nurses’ practise. Conclusion: Each of the images of nurses described in this paper is still present in both recent case law and workplace practice. These images have deleterious effects, most particularly contributing to feelings of powerlessness in the workplace and affecting nurses’ ability to be ‘heard’ when patient safety is at stake. While some images give the nurse a degree of moral (and clinical) responsibility, there is no promise of power. Both the inability to influence patient care and an unmet need to feel valued and appreciated contribute to nursing workforce attrition. A complex mix of solutions needs to be implemented to achieve improved workplaces, patient outcomes and retention rates. The promotion of a safety and quality agenda; promoting strategies for self care; well developed clinical career paths; implementing clinical supervision, and introducing Magnet organisation reform, are among the important solutions for addressing these issues.

The chapter analyses the case law of the CJEU on national security and essential interests of member states security. It answers the following questions: what do the national security and essential security interests clauses in EU law actually mean, what is their content? What role do they play? What is the extent of discretion of the member states when applying those clauses? What are the requirements concerning an effective review of measures undertaken to protect security? The analysis leads to the conclusion that recent case law could be seen as the beginning of differentiation or stratification between clauses of public and national security. This case law is, however, contradicted to some extent by the interpretation of the ‘public security’ clause by the Court. Instead of demoting the public security to less crucial threats to ‘make room’ above for national security, the Court seems to continue to attribute to it fundamental importance (notably a threat to the survival of the population, as well as the risk of a serious disturbance to foreign relations or the peaceful coexistence of nations). Also, as concerns the role of the national security clause, the difference between national and public clauses seems to be only quantitative, not qualitative. For the Court, the national security clause does not seem to be about the question of delimitation of competencies between the EU and the member states.

After successive waves of EU enlargement, and pursuant to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Court of Justice finds itself on the brink of a new era. Both the institution itself and the broader setting within which it operates have become more heterogeneous than ever before. The issues now arriving on its docket are also often of great complexity, covering an unprecedented number of fields. The aims of this volume are to study the impact of these developments, examine the legitimacy of the Court’s output in this novel context and provide an appraisal of its overall performance. In doing so, specific attention is paid to its most recent case law on four topics: the general principles of EU law, external relations, the internal market and Union citizenship. Featuring contributions by Maurice Adams, Henri de Waele, Johan Meeusen and Gert Straetmans, Koen Lenaerts, Ján Mazák and Martin

The Law of Compulsory Purchase helps the reader to understand the law relating to compulsory purchase and compensation with quick to find clear statements of the law and practice on all points arising in relation to compulsory purchase and compensation. The book includes the detailed analysis necessary to grapple with tricky points encountered in practice, and cross-references to legislation and key case law and guidance. This fifth edition of the book is updated to include: - recent case law from the courts and the tribunal - the major changes in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 - the new MHCLG guidance and the tribunal’s new practice directions - proposals for further reforms from the Government and the Law Commission, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill

In this article, the author, in light of the 60th anniversary of European Taxation, reflects on 60 years of State aid case law. In particular, he highlights the two ECJ decisions of 16 March 2021 in Commission v. Poland and Commission v. Hungary, wherein the ECJ determined that the Polish and Hungarian taxes at issue, which apply a progressive tax rate on turnover, do not contradict the EU State aid rules.