Case T-541/93, Connaughton v. Council, [1997] ECR II-549; Case T-554/93, Saint and Murray v. Council and Commission, [1997] ECR II-563; Case T-20/94, Hartmann v. Council and Commission, [1997] ECR II-

Cardwell, Michael

doi:10.54648/181290

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Commission cannot therefore be compelled to conduct an investigation. 31 It is, however, obliged ' to examine carefully the factual and legal aspects of which it is notifi ed by the complainant ' 32 in order to decide whether they indicated behaviour likely to distort competition, and the ECJ verifi es whether this had been done. Where the Commission decides to conduct an investigation it has to investigate with the degree of care that enables it to assess the factual and legal considerations submitted by the complainant.…”

Section: A Specifi C Provisions: Article 41(1): the General Clausementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ECJ ' s conclusion could, however, be rationalised using the Strasbourg case law to the effect that determinations of civil rights and obligations by administrative authorities that are not independent can be accepted, provided that there is adequate appeal or judicial review to a tribunal or court that does conform to Article 6(1). The CFI has in effect adopted this reasoning, 68 as has Advocate General Sharpston. 69 The Union administration and legislature have responded to the concerns voiced claimants.…”

Section: 34mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Commission chose not to stick to the legal letter of this judgment, and permitted access, except where, for example, information covered by professional secrecy was involved. The CFI in Hercules 74 gave legal force to this administrative practice. The Commission is obliged to make available all documents obtained in the investigation, save where they involve business secrets of other undertakings, confi dential information, or internal Commission documents.…”

Section: 37mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ECJ held that the Community was only liable for those acts of its servants which, by virtue of an 41.72 41.73 41. 74…”

Section: Eu Servantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Commission v Council [ 1996 ] ECR I -881 ,[29];Case C -84/94 United Kingdom v Council [ 1996 ] ECR I -5755 ,[74],[79].103 Case 24/62 Commission v Germany (n 94);Case T -5/93 Tremblay v Commission [ 1995 ] ECR II -185 .104 See cases (n 94).105 Case 5/71 Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Sch ö ppenstedt (n 17)[11].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Article 41 – The Right to Good Administration

Craig¹

2022

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article 41The Right to Good Administration 1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. 2. This right includes:(a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; (b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; (c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. 3. Every person has the right to have the Union make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States. 4. Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties andmust have an answer in the same language.Part I -Commentary on the Articles of the EU Charter

show abstract

Section: A Specifi C Provisions: Article 41(1): the General Clausementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 34mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 37mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ECJ held that the Community was only liable for those acts of its servants which, by virtue of an 41.72 41.73 41. 74…”

Section: Eu Servantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Article 41 – The Right to Good Administration

Craig¹

2022

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Delegated and Implementing Acts

Craig¹

2018

Oxford Principles of European Union Law: The European Union Legal Order: Volume I

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lisbon Treaty created the dichotomy between delegated and implementing acts in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, having taken over the core assumptions in this regard from the Constitutional Treaty. The chapter begins by considering the core assumptions underlying the Lisbon model and the rationale for the division between the two species of secondary acts. The subsequent analysis then addresses the tensions and strains in the application of this divide in the years since the Lisbon Treaty was ratified.

show abstract

The Sins of the Fathers: Targeted Sanctions against Family Members of Primary Targets

Moiseienko

2024

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Targeted sanctions, such as asset freezes and travel bans, are an increasingly popular response to a wide array of wrongdoing. This article considers an especially problematic aspect of contemporary sanctions law and practice that has received little attention so far, namely the imposition of sanctions on the family members of the primary target. In charting out a coherent and principled approach to such sanctions, the article makes three distinct contributions. First, it offers a comprehensive survey of law, policy and practice related to family‐member sanctions across the US, UK, EU and Australia. Secondly, it identifies the limits that international human rights law places on such sanctions, which effectively preclude automatic family‐member sanctions. Thirdly and finally, it proposes a ‘profit‐based’ sanctions model as an alternative to ‘activity‐based’ and ‘status‐based’ sanctions, as well as outlining its implications for the design of family‐member sanctions.

show abstract

Case T-541/93, Connaughton v. Council, [1997] ECR II-549; Case T-554/93, Saint and Murray v. Council and Commission, [1997] ECR II-563; Case T-20/94, Hartmann v. Council and Commission, [1997] ECR II-

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Article 41 – The Right to Good Administration

Article 41 – The Right to Good Administration

Delegated and Implementing Acts

The Sins of the Fathers: Targeted Sanctions against Family Members of Primary Targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About