|
|
| Diskusijos |
teksto dydis:
A
A
A
A
A
|
|
|
EU Court of Justice - some questions
*Už diskusijų dalyvių išsakytą nuomonę neatsakome
|
phoenix
|
2002.11.07 13:50
|
Since there is no more suitable forum than International Public Law, I'll ask this question here.
2 questions:
1) What does it mean "ECR" - a bulletin or somewhat else? This acronym is used by the Court when citing the case-law. For instance, Case C-210/96 Gut and Tusky [1998] ECR I-4657. As far as I have seen, there are ECR, ECR I, ECR II.
2) The Court is divided into the Court itself and the Court of the First Instance. Do judgments of both court instances or only of the former one constitute precedents? As fas as I noticed, both court instances refer in their judgments to the judgments of both the Court and the Court of the first Instance.
|
|
|
1. phoenix
|
2002.11.08 12:27
|
I have already found the answer to the question. Therefore, I report for all the interested the following:
a) ECR - "Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance".
b) Why, then, ECR? - I don't know exactly, but on some page there was the wording "European Court reports".
c) On the above-mentioned page there was as well this:
'Part / Section I, Court of Justice
Part/ Section II, Court of First Instance'
d) So, probably:
ECR I means 'Part / Section I, Court of Justice'
ECR II means 'Part/ Section II, Court of First Instance'
e) By the same logic ECR (not ECR I or ECR II) meant simply "European Court reports", since initially there was only one court (the court of the First Instance was established in 80's, in so far as I remember).
|
|
|
2. phoenix
|
2002.11.08 15:22
|
|
The second question is still open.
|
|
3. donatasv  2. phoenix
|
2002.11.18 17:02
|
|
I think Court of First Instance has "smaller" cases, that does not go to the Court of Justice. Court of First Instance was created to take a part of Court's of Justice work, so judgments of both court instances should constitute precedents. But it is only my opinion.
|
|
|
4. phoenix 3. donatasv
|
2002.12.06 19:43
|
it is really an interesting question.
1) The Court of the First Instance in its judgments OFTEN makes references to its earlier judgments.
2) The Court of Justice, in so far as I remember, SOMETIMES makes references to judgments of the Court of the First Instance;
3) In most, if not all, categories of cases judments of the Court of the First Instance may be appealed against to the Court of Justice. So, the Court of the First Instance is not a final instance.
So, may be it would be correct to think that judgments of the Court of the First Instance enjoy the power of limited precedent, namely, the Court of Justice and the parties to the proceeding may refer to judgments of the Court of the First Instance when there is no judgment of the Court of Justice regarding the same ratio decidendi.
|
|
|
Jūsų komentaras/atsakymas
|
DĖMESIO: Jūs galite rašyti žinutę ir neprisiregistravęs sistemoje. Jei nesate užsiregistravęs ir norite tai padaryti nemokamai - spauskite čia.
|
|
|
PASTABOS:
1. Neįžeidinėkite diskusijų dalyvių;
2. Neįžeidinėkite teisininkų bei teisinės sistemos.
3. Nekurstykite rasinės ar tautinės diskriminacijos.
4. Mes tikimės, kad diskusijose dalyvauja išsilavinę ir kultūringi žmonės.
5. Reklaminiai skelbimai bus šalinami be įspėjimo.
|
|
|
|
