Relevant bibliographies by topics / Article 11 TFEU

Contents

  1. Journal articles
  2. Dissertations / Theses
  3. Books
  4. Book chapters

Academic literature on the topic 'Article 11 TFEU'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 8 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Article 11 TFEU.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Article 11 TFEU"

1

Buchanan, Camilla. "The Conferral of Power to the Commission Put to the Test." European Journal of Risk Regulation 5, no. 2 (2014): 267–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1867299x0000372x.

Full text
Abstract:
Case C-427/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council (not yet reported)- Article 290 TFEU- Article 291(2) TFEU- Article 80(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, OJ 2012 L 167/11.The EU legislature has discretion when it decides to confer a delegated power on the Commission pursuant to Article 290(1) TFEU or an implementing power pursuant to Article 291(2) TFEU. Consequently, judicial reviewis limited tomanifest errors of assessment (official headnote)2.The Commission appears to have more liberty under Article 290 TFEU than Article 291(2) TFEU, however this may be misleading. The difference between adding “further details” (implementing act) and supplementing or amending non-essential elements to a basic act (delegated act) is difficult to gauge. Furthermore, the control foreseen to be exercised by the Member States and the Parliament and Councilmay not function as planned (author's headnote).
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Ferge, Zsigmond. "Debate of the legal interpretation of definitions of medical devices and medicinal products for human use." Orvosi Hetilap 155, no. 11 (2014): 429–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/oh.2014.29803.

Full text
Abstract:
On 3 October 2013 the European Court of Justice made a decision regarding the interpretation of definitions of medical devices (Directive 93/42/EC) and medicinal product for human use (Directive 2001/83/EC), based on the Article 267 TFEU preliminary ruling. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(11), 429–433.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Butler, Graham. "Pinpointing the Appropriate Legal Basis for External Action." European Journal of Risk Regulation 6, no. 2 (2015): 323–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1867299x00004645.

Full text
Abstract:
Case C-658/11, European Parliament v Council of the European Union [2014] (not yet reported)CFSP acts can be challenged before the Courtwhen the arguments relate to procedural points outside of the CFSP articles in Title V TEU. The Court can annul Council CFSP acts when the proper notification procedures to the Parliament stemming from Article 218 TFEU have not been followed. The effects of CFSP acts can remain in place, even after the Court annuls them, until such a time when the act has been replaced.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Ferge, Zsigmond. "Comments to the interpretation of the term “medical devices”." Orvosi Hetilap 154, no. 10 (2013): 391–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/oh.2013.29559.

Full text
Abstract:
The Court of Justice of the European Union made a decision on medical devices as non-medicinal products for intended use in interpreting the concept of free movement of goods, such as operating principles concerning the subject matter of the interpretation of Directive 93/42/ EEC – in preliminary ruling according to article 267 of TFEU – on 22 November 2012. With its decision, given assigned explained the concept of the scope of medical devices. The decision of the Court is binding not only for the national court initiating a request for the preliminary ruling, but also for all courts of the Member States. Official reference: Dated judgement 22 November 2012 of the Court of Justice of the European Union to C-219/ Case no. 11 – in preliminary ruling according to article 267 of TFEU. Interpreted provisions: Directive 2007/47/EC of The Europen Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 as amended by the Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices 1st (2) a) first, second and third indent. Orv. Hetil., 2013, 154, 391–393.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Marco Colino, Sandra. "What Role for EU Competition Law in Regulated Industries? Reflections on the Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 Orange Polska v European Commission (Case T-486/11)." Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 9, no. 14 (2016): 265–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.7172/1689-9024.yars.2016.9.14.13.

Full text
Abstract:
On 17th December 2015, the General Court of the European Union (GC) confirmed a fine of over EUR 127 million imposed by the European Commission (hereinafter the Commission) on the Polish telecommunications company Orange Polska (hereinafter OP), formerly known as Telekomunikacja Polska. According to the fining decision, issued in 2011 (hereinafter the Commission decision), OP abused its dominant position by refusing access to its wholesale broadband services to new entrants, acting in contravention of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Szyszczak, E. "Article 263(4) TFEU and the Impossibility of Challenging Recovery Decisions in State Aid ∙ Ferracci v EC and Montessori v EC ∙ T-219/13 and T-220/13 ∙ Annotation by Erika Szyszczak." European State Aid Law Quarterly 15, no. 4 (2016): 637–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.21552/estal/2016/4/11.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Moskal, Anna. "Mechanizm współpozwania w świetle przystąpienia Unii Europejskiej do Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności." Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne 24 (September 24, 2018): 63–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.19195/1733-5779.24.5.

Full text
Abstract:
The co-respondent mechanism in the view of accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human RightsFor the past seventy years there have been discussions and activities on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The ratio of the Union’s accession to the Convention is a need to harmonize the European system of protection of individual rights. There are numerous problems and obstacles to achieve this goal created by the specific, supra-national character of the Union sui generis. It requires the introduction of unique mechanisms and procedures that would allow an international organization such as the EU to become a party to the Convention. One such procedure is provided in art. 3 of the draft agreement, the co-respondent mechanism of the European Union and the Member State in proceedings under the European Court of Human Rights. The purpose of the article is to present the allegations of the Court of Justice, assess their validity and indicate possible future solutions regarding the co-respondent mechanism. After analyzing the European Commission’s request for an opinion on the compliance of the draft agreement with community law, the CJEU considered the draft as incompatible with EU law and listed ten issues that prevented the Union from joining the Convention in the proposed form. Among them, as many as three points refer to the corresponding mechanism and concern in particular the decision on the validity of the conclusions of the Union or a Member State by the Strasbourg Court, accepting joint liability and deciding on the division of responsibility between the Union and the Member State. In the article dogmatic method was used in order to analyze three aforementioned points. Due to the provision of art. 218 par. 11 p. 2 TFEU, the Commission is bound by the opinion of the Court of Justice, and that the presented draft agreement cannot constitute an international agreement allowing for the accession of the Union to the Convention in the proposed form.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Łazowski, Adam, and Ramses A. Wessel. "When Caveats Turn into Locks:Opinion 2/13on Accession of the European Union to the ECHR." German Law Journal 16, no. 1 (2015): 179–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200019477.

Full text
Abstract:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice) decided to strike again. On 18 December 2014, for the second time in history, the Court rejected the European Union's (EU) accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Although the judges do not seem to negate the idea as a matter of principle, they made the renegotiation of the Draft Accession Treaty very difficult, to say the least. The message sent by the Court of Justice to the Member States may have surprised some, but for many it was a rather expected development. The Court of Justice has always been a fierce defender and promoter of the autonomy of EU law. For that purpose, the procedure based on Article 218 (11) TFEU has been, among the others, the Court's greatest weapon. Over the years a clear pattern has emerged: Whenever there is a threat to the autonomy and to the Court's exclusive jurisdiction, the judges will not shy away from taking bold decisions going against the will of the Member States. For obvious reasons, theraison d'êtrebehind the Court's decision is kept secret behind the doors of the deliberation rooms at Kirchberg in Luxembourg. Still, it cannot be denied thatOpinion 2/13shows that the Court of Justice will not give up its resistance to the ECHR accession so easily. In 1996, in Opinion 2/94, the Court held that the European Community, as the law stood then, had no competence to accede to ECHR. Now that Article 6(2) TEU provides for an obligation to accede, subject to conditions laid down in Protocol No 8 to the Founding Treaties, the Court has opted for strict interpretation of the latter, which, ultimately turns the caveats laid down therein into locks. It is clear that these caveats turned into locks are something that the judges will hold on to in the future and, by the same token, they will happily pursue interpretation that is very different from what the Member States intended when negotiating the Treaty of Lisbon and the Draft Accession Agreement.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Łacny, Justyna. "The Rule of Law Conditionality Under Regulation No 2092/2020—Is it all About the Money?" Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 13, no. 1 (2021): 79–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40803-021-00154-6.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractSome say that the Union is built by moving from crisis to crisis. Crises in the last decade which affected the Union and its citizens concerned, inter alia, public finance (the financial crisis, 2008), migration (2014), public health (the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020) and the rule of law crisis (2018). This paper focus on the latter. It has been noted that some Member States have been happy to receive the benefits of EU membership, specifically the financial ones, while their commitment to European values, including the rule of law (Article 2 TEU), has been lacking. Since many instruments applied by EU institutions to improve this situation have proved rather insufficient, halting transfers of EU funds to these recalcitrant Member States has been touted as the way that might solve this crisis. Accordingly, a draft regulation was put on the table that authorised the EU institutions to suspend EU funds if a Member State is found to be in breach of the rule of law. This draft aimed to make the transfer of EU funds to the Member States conditional upon their continuous respect for the rule of law (and therefore became known as ‘the rule of law conditionality’). This paper comments on this draft as first proposed by the Commission in 2018 (Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union budget in the event of generalized gaps in the rule of law in the Member States [COM (2018) 324 final).], amended in 2019 by the European Parliament [European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the Union's budget in case of generalised deficiencies as regards the rule of law in the Member States (COM(2018)0324–C8-0178/2018–2018/0136(COD)); https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/seance_pleniere/textes_adoptes/provisoire/2019/04-04/0349/P8_TA-PROV(2019)0349_EN.pdf. A draft version of these provisions was presented in von Bogdandy and Łacny (Suspension of EU funds for breaching the rule of law - µ a dose of tough love needed? European Policy Analysis 2020, No 2, p. 1–15, https://sieps.se/en/publications/2020/suspension-of-eu-funds/, 2020).], and finally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council as Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget [Hungary and Poland voted against it and it is expected that its validity will be challenged before the CJEU via an action for annulment (Article 263 TFEU).] (henceforth called ‘Regulation 2020/2092′). This Regulation, containing 29 recitals in the preamble and 10 articles, entered into force on 1 January 2021 (Article 10 Regulation 2020/2092.). In the conclusions of the European Council meeting in December 2020 it was however accepted that it will be applied only in relation to budgetary commitments starting under the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021–2027, including Next Generation EU [Conclusions of the European Council meeting, 10 and 11 December 2020, para I (2) (k) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/47296/1011-12-20-euco-conclusions-en.pdf.]. This paper provides the legal characteristics of rule of law conditionality established under Regulation 2020/2092 and aims to determine whether financial incentives can restore compliance with the rule of law in Member States. Or in other words, is it all about the money?
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Oktay Huseynova, Gunel. "AIR PASSENGERS’ RIGHTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION." SCIENTIFIC WORK 65, no. 04 (2021): 184–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.36719/2663-4619/65/184-187.

Full text
Abstract:
During the age of mass tourism, legislation is necessary to cover the rights and obligations of both passengers and airlines. Air passengers’ rights are enshrined in specific laws that support travelers and provide for protection and compensation when people face flight disruptions. These rules may differ depending on the region. The main problem in this field is that many people are unaware that the law is on their side and even passenger rights exist. Experience shows that 85% of air passengers are unaware of their rights. The legal basis of the European Union air passengers’ rights is Articles 91 and 100 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establish common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. Key words: passenger rights, flight delay; flight cancellation; overbooked flight; missed connecting flight; airline strike; delayed, lost, or damaged baggage.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Article 11 TFEU"

1

Lundgren, Lars. "A Competitive Environment? : Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and the European Green Deal." Thesis, Uppsala universitet, Juridiska institutionen, 2021. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-444285.

Full text
Abstract:
Europe is facing a climate and environmental crisis. To respond to this, the European Commission has launched several programmes, which aim to increase sustainability and environmental protection. This aim has been condensed into the policy document that is the European Green Deal. The European Green Deal sets out the aim of making the Union’s economy climate neutral, while improving environmental protection and protecting biodiversity. To this end, several different sectors of the economy need to be overhauled.  In EU Law, a key policy area is to protect free competition. Article 101 TFEU sets out that agreements between undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited. Similarly, Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuse by an undertaking of a dominant position.  This thesis explores what happens when competition law thus intersects with the environmental policy of the Union. The thesis identifies two main situations  of interaction. Undertakings can invoke environmental protection to justify a restriction of competition. The Union may also rely on its antitrust provisions to enforce sustainability by holding unsustainable practices as restrictive agreements or abuses of dominant behaviour, respectively, and thus prohibited by the antitrust provisions.  Generally, the thesis concludes that there is not enough information on how the Commission and the CJEU will approach arguments relating to sustainability in its antitrust assessment. The Commission’s consumer welfare standard appears to limit environmental integration to points where a certain factor results affects the environment or sustainability on the one hand, and consumer welfare on the other. The lack of information, moreover, is in itself an issue as undertakings may abstain from environmental action if they believe they will come under scrutiny due to violations of the antitrust provisions. Therefore, a key conclusion in the thesis is that the Commission and the CJEU should set out clear guidelines for environmental action by undertakings, in relation to the antitrust provisions. Similarly, the Commission appears to be cautious to use antitrust as a tool against unsustainable practices. The Commission has, however, recently decided to open an investigation into agreements which limit sustainability, which shows that the picture may be changing.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Nowag, Julian. "Competition law, state aid law and free-movement law : the case of the environmental integration obligation." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2014. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b14c7740-cac8-4084-acf8-86ff9c053e6c.

Full text
Abstract:
This thesis investigates competition law, State aid law and free-movement law in their interaction with Article 11 TFEU’s obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into all activities and policies of the Union. The Article is formulated in broad and sweeping terms which makes integrating environmental protection requirements complex and context-dependent. The challenge of integrating environmental considerations is further increased as such integration in competition, State aid and free- movement law is different from other areas of EU action. The three areas are the core provisions protecting the internal market by prohibiting certain actions of the Member States and undertakings. Unlike in other areas, the EU is therefore not in the position to develop or design the actions but has to scrutinise the measure according to pre-established parameters. To address this challenge, a novel functional approach to environmental integration is developed. The approach should facilitate a better understanding of environmental integration and in particular its application to competition law, State aid and free-movement law. An important element of this thesis equally the comparison between the three areas of law. It sheds light on conceptual issues that are not only relevant to the integration of environmental protection. The comparison advances the understanding in relation to questions such as how restrictions are defined and how the respective balancing tests are applied. The contribution of this research is therefore twofold. One the one hand, it compares how the different tests in competition, State aid and free-movement law operate, thereby offering opportunities for cross-fertilisation. On the other hand, this comparison and the improvements suggested as a result help to conceptualise environmental integration thereby paving the way for a more transparent and consistent integration of environmental protection in competition, State aid and free-movement law.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "Article 11 TFEU"

1

Sjåfjell, Beate, and Anja Wiesbrock. The greening of European business under EU law: Taking article 11 TFEU seriously. Routledge, 2015.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Book chapters on the topic "Article 11 TFEU"

1

Klamert, Marcus. "Article 11 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.83.

Full text
Abstract:
Article 6 EC Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union’s policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 326 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.483.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Erlbacher, Friedrich. "Article 222 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.354.

Full text
Abstract:
Article 222 TFEU as a general solidarity clause was introduced by the ToL. Relevant provisions were contained in Articles I-43 and III-329 of the ConstT (not entered into force). Article 222 TFEU can be seen as one of the political responses to different terrorist attacks, such as those in New York on 11 September 2001 or in Madrid on 11 March 2004, but also of natural disasters such as in particular the floods in Central Europe in 2002. The location of Article 222 TFEU in Part V TFEU (external action by the EU), despite the fact that the events dealt with in that provision occur on the territory of the MS and not externally, underlines that the sources of these threats are, at least in part, seen to be seated outside the Union.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 330 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.487.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b, and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC All members of the Council may participate in its deliberations, but only members of the Council representing the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the vote.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 327 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.484.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC any enhanced cooperation shall respect the competences, rights and obligations of those Member States which do not participate in it. Those Member States shall not impede its implementation by the participating Member States.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 331 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.488.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC Any Member State which wishes to participate in enhanced cooperation in progress in one of the areas referred to in Article 329(1) shall notify its intention to the Council and the Commission.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 334 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.491.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b, and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC The Council and the Commission shall ensure the consistency of activities undertaken in the context of enhanced cooperation and the consistency of such activities with the policies of the Union, and shall cooperate to that end.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 332 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.489.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b, and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC Expenditure resulting from implementation of enhanced cooperation, other than administrative costs entailed for the institutions, shall be borne by the participating Member States, unless all members of the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, decide otherwise.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Martin, Denis. "Article 24 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.97.

Full text
Abstract:
Article 21 EC The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for a citizens’ initiative within the meaning of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Kellerbauer, Manuel. "Article 333 TFEU." In The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.490.

Full text
Abstract:
Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b, and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a EC Where a provision of the Treaties which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 330, may adopt a decision stipulating that it will act by a qualified majority.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography