欧盟法中的商标权权利穷竭原则

欧盟的货物自由流动原则与商标权的地域保护存在内在冲突。为了解决冲突 ,欧洲法院通过诸多判例在欧共体条约第 30条和欧共体商标指令第 7条法律框架下导入、发展、完善了商标权权利穷竭原则。欧洲法院在货物自由流动原则和权利穷竭原则下分别开设了两个例外 ,对原则和例外的解释旨在寻求商标所有权人合法权益与欧共体共同市场内的自由流动这一基本利益的平衡。贯穿在法院判决思路中的是对商标的完整性与主要功能的呵护和对欧洲一体化的极力推进。     

The History of Common Market Law Review 1963–1993

The transnational organisation of an academic discipline of European law has been a key component in the history of European law. A constitutive element is explored in this article, namely, the journal Common Market Law Review (CML Rev.). General existing claims of a strong connection between the Community institutions and academia in the transnational, academic discipline of European law are substantiated, and it is documented how CML Rev. legitimised the jurisprudence of the ECJ, differentiated European law from international law and countered national criticism as the academic lighthouse of the discipline in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s, other forces drove the academic field forward, and CML Rev. lost its position as the avant‐garde in the discipline, but the journal developed a critical stance and rejected the most radical claims of the ECJ on the ultimate authority as part of a development towards professional maturity in the same period.     

The Constitutional Relevance of Citizenship and Free Movement in an Enlarged Union

Abstract The concept of citizenship is analysed on three seemingly contradictory levels: its integration by the recent case law of the European Court of Justice into the existing free movement acquis, its restriction in the accession treaties with new Member States concerning free movement of workers, and its redefinition by new Member States themselves. The result is a somewhat blurred picture: While the European Court of Justices uses citizenship to fill gaps left by primary and secondary law mostly with regard to non‐discrimination, the accession treaties have allowed a ‘re‐nationalisation’ of free movement, against the promises of equality inherent in the citizenship concept, which also includes nationals from new Member countries. The concept of citizenship itself in new Member countries, as the examples of Latvia and Estonia on the one hand, and Hungary on the other demonstrate, is very much related to the (somewhat sad) lessons of the past and therefore highly politicised; it has not been shaped with regard to free movement in the EU. The author suggests a gradual ‘communitarisation’ of citizenship itself even though the EU seems to miss competence in this area, for example, by paying greater attention to residence as basis for Community rights.     

The National Judiciary—Sword of European Court of Justice Rulings: The Example of the Kohll/Decker Jurisprudence

The role of the national judiciary in enforcing EC law, and particularly European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings, has been largely neglected by empirical legal and political science research. Existing research has categorised the role of the national judiciary as either shielding national legislation from the ECJ or as serving as a ‘sword’ to foster integration and to force change on reluctant governments. This article sides with the second assumption and attempts to empirically assess it using the example of the patient mobility jurisprudence by the ECJ, the so‐called Kohll/Decker jurisprudence. The three case studies on France, the UK and Germany show that national courts played an important role in overcoming the resistance against this jurisprudence: via a multiplication of national court cases that contradicted domestic legislation they forced the legislator to end judicial uncertainty.     

EU constitutionalisation revisited: Redressing a central assumption in European studies

The constitutionalisation of the European Union has since the early 1990s become a truism in European studies. This article revisits the constitutionalisation theory drawing on the insights from emerging historical research and new strands of political science research. We find that the conventional constitutional narrative is less convincing when confronted with the new evidence from historical and political science research. New historical research show that Member State governments, administrations and courts have generally been rather reluctant to embrace the constitutional project of the ECJ. Furthermore, at the level of European politics, the ECJ and its case law have far from judicialized European decision‐making to the extent often claimed. Concluding, we reject the notion that the ECJ has successfully constitutionalised the EU, emphasising instead the inherent tensions in the process, which continue to complicate the efficiency of European law.     

Italian Courts,the ECJ and Transfers of Undertakings: A Multi-Speed Dialogue?

The paper seeks to analyse certain paradigmatic cases of dialogue—or, indeed, non-dialogue—between national judges and the ECJ, though within the (still possibly emblematic) limits of a focus on the law on the transfer of undertakings. The analysis is less concerned with portraying the detailed impact of the ECJ's decisions on the domestic legal order, and is focused more upon the 'modality' of the dialogue to date carried out between Italian and European judges. The logic, which guides this dialogue (or, the lack of its evolution), furnishes us with a better understanding of the production, circulation and impact of ECJ jurisprudence. This dialogue seems to be characterised, by non-uniform, or multi-speed, developments. On the one hand, Article 177 references have been concentrated around the theme of undertakings in critical difficulties or subject to a creditors' arrangement procedure. In this area, the Italian courts have engaged in explicit dialogue with the ECJ and have made the greatest effort to read—not without some technical-juridical struggle—the national norm in the light of the provisions of the Acquired Rights Directive and its interpretation by the ECJ. By contrast, however, with regard to other specific issues (in particular, those concerning subcontracting) it is apparent that not only were the Italian courts (and the Corte di Cassazione in particular) loathe to enter into direct dialogue with the ECJ, but also that the ECJ's jurisprudence, built up through dialogue with other national courts, was not even consulted in an effort to guarantee an interpretation of national norms, in conformity with Community law.     

Free Movement of Third Country Nationals in the European Union? Main Features,Deficiencies and Challenges of the new Mobility Rights in the Area of Freedom,Security and Justice

The adoption of European Community (EC) Directives in the field of legal migration has been accompanied by the introduction of intra-community mobility rights. This new kind of right is characterised by specific features with regard to free movement rights enjoyed by European Union (EU) citizens. Besides, existing mobility rights for third country nationals (TCNs) raise some important problems with regard to their legal configuration and to their relationship with other fields of Community law. After having addressed these issues, it will be argued that the current regulation of mobility rights for TCNs does not fulfil the requirements of systematic coherence, and does no meet the need to grant a level of free movement that encompasses the evolution of harmonisation in the field of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.     

Motive Unmasked: The European Court of Justice, the Free Movement of Goods, and the Search for Legitimacy

Abstract: In exempting from scrutiny under Article 30 EC certain measures constituting 'selling arrangements', the author examines whether the European Court of Justice in Keck and Mithouard and its progeny sought more than mere clarification of its jurisprudence on the free movement of goods. To wit, he claims that the Court was motivated by a sense of waning faith in its institutional legitimacy, initiating in Keck an attempt to more vigorously police the Community-Member State jurisdictional divide in favour of Member State prerogatives, banishing the Community judicial and legislative branches from the realm of 'selling arrangements'. After critical assessment of this hypothesis and of the Court's success, a final section queries whether the ECJ has adopted similar strategies in the Competition law and services realms.     

Between Procedural Impermeability and Constitutional Openness: The Italian Constitutional Court and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice

On 15 April 2008, the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) raised for the first time a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This decision (see judgment No 102/2008 and order No 103/2008) represented a turning point in the ICC's case‐law, and calls for a careful assessment of the motives backing such revirement as well as of the legal reasoning that the Italian judges used to wrap it up without repudiating their previous case‐law. In addition to this preliminary analysis, the aim of this essay is to explore two themes: i) the developments of the ICC's case‐law as regards the role of Community Law and the ECJ, and ii) the appraisal of the interplay between the ICC and the ECJ in the light of the notion of ‘interpretive competition’.     

Judicial Interpretation or Judicial Activism? The Legacy of Rationalism in the Studies of the European Court of Justice

During the last two decades, law as a factor in European integration has attracted great scientific interest. Numerous studies and theoretical analyses have been published that have undertaken the task of examining and explaining the role of law in the progress of integration. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in particular, as Europe's judiciary body, draws much attention in this context. However, the inflexible, mechanistic and universalistic notion of rationality that these works employ leads to serious misinterpretations and unjustified criticism regarding the role the ECJ takes in the course of integration. Within the frameworks of contemporary approaches, the Court is perceived as just one more political player among other actors and institutions, able to shape the EU in the pursuit of its own rational interests. By outlining the theoretical concept of context rationality, this article shows that the logics of law and judicial lawmaking are based on a non‐trivial and non‐political rationality and cannot be understood appropriately without paying attention to the context of European law.     

Principles of European Private or Civil Law?

The aim of this piece is to draw the attention of the debate on principles in European private law to an institutional question. As the question of who detects these principles is crucial to understand the values and intentions behind the provisions on principles, I turn to the significance of the authority question of who detects principles of European Private law with regard to the two players ECJ and the academic circle ‘Joint Network on European law'. After analysing the role of these players I will ask whether private law principles (which are principles derived from the analysis of contractual relationships by academics) or principles of civil law (derived from conflict solution by judges) govern the principles debate in European Private law. I will argue for a pluralistic understanding of European Private law, where neither academia nor the ECJ enjoy a monopoly on the detection of principles in European Private law. Instead, they form a symbiotic relationship in several respects. Understood in this way, the DCFR's role as a toolbox for the legislator is supplemented with its maybe even stronger significance as a toolbox for judges.     

What Does Free Movement Mean in Theory and Practice in an Enlarged EU?

Abstract The purpose of this article is to review the main challenges to the principle of free movement of persons in theory and practice in an enlarged European Union. The right to move freely represents one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market as well as an essential political element of the package of rights linked to the very status of EU citizenship. The scope ratione personae and the current state of the principle of free movement of persons is assessed by looking at the most recent case law of the Court of Justice and the recently adopted Directive on the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. But what are the hidden and visible obstacles to free movement of persons in Europe? How can these barriers be overcome to make free movement and residence rights more inclusive? This article addresses these issues along with the following questions: Who are the beneficiaries of the free movement of persons in an enlarged Europe? What is the impact of the recent legal developments in the freedom of movement dimension, such as the European Court of Justice case law and the new Directive? And to what extent are pro‐security policies such as the Schengen Information System II and an enhanced interoperability between European databases fully compatible with the freedom of movement paradigm?     

The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law

In this article the author assesses the proportionality principle in EU law from a legal theoretical and constitutional perspective with the aim of discovering the function of the principle. Having first discussed the implications of the proportionality principle being a general principle of law, and what function it has—namely to secure legitimacy for judicial decisions—the author suggests that there are several ways in which the principle can be interpreted. There is, nevertheless, a limit to this interpretation determined by the proposed function of the principle. In the third part of the article, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) interpretation of the principle is assessed. The assessment clearly shows that the ECJ is interpreting the principle in different distinguishable ways. The question could, however, be raised as to whether the ECJ in some areas is interpreting the principle in a way that undermines the very function of it.     

Policy deviations,uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice

The implementation of European Union directives into national law is at the discretion of member states. We analyze incentives for member states to deviate from these directives when the European Commission may sue a defecting member state and rulings at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) are uncertain. We find that higher uncertainty about the preferences of the ECJ increases policy deviation, irrespective of whether a case is taken to court or not. If decisions of member states to deviate are interdependent, the incidence of filed cases decreases while for those policies reaching the ECJ deviations increase.     

The European Court of Justice and the Rhetoric of Affirmative Action

The recent Marschall decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a principle giving precedence to women for promotions in the workplace seems promising for the future of affirmative action. At first glance, this decision seems to indicate that the ECJ has taken a different path, moving away from its earlier Kalanke decision which had jeopardised further development of affirmative action in the European Union. On a closer examination, both Kalanke’s sweeping ban of preferential treatment based on gender and Marschall’s new interpretation appear as discursive replies to the same dilemma: should the Court deny the normative objective of equality contained in EC law to generate meaning, thus turning equality into a mere formal principle and rendering judicial review trivial? Or should it embrace a substantive reading of the fundamental principle of equality between men and women, thus substituting the Court judgment for that of the legislature, and subverting the limits of the ECJ’s powers? The aim of this article is to analyse the ECJ’s rhetorical response to the complexities contained in affirmative action judicial review.     

Can Tax Authorities Scrutinise the Ideas of Foreign Charities? The ECJ's Persche Judgment and Lessons from US Tax Law

The European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) recent Persche judgment poses important questions about the relationship between taxation of gifts and charitable purposes in the light of EC law requirements. This article argues that by applying its established case‐law to the matter of donors to foreign recipient bodies, the ECJ takes a position on the social role of both charities and tax deduction. Moreover, the position of the ECJ clearly paves the way for tax authorities to check the objectives and the values pursued by recipient bodies seeking tax‐preferred status, a situation that recalls a similar power recognised under specific circumstances of the US Internal Revenue Services. Arguably, the ECJ case‐law has more profound consequences on charitable action, since it seems that the power accorded to tax authorities of the Member States to check the purposes of charitable organisations leads to a cosmopolitan apprehension of charitable action while it pushes charities to enhance transparency in their activities.     

A European Constitution for Citizens: Reflections on the Rethinking of Union and Community Law

Whilst the European Union or Community is not a state and does not possess a political constitution in the sense of a series of irrevocable norms existing prior to and above Community or Union law, the evolution of the European legal system might nonetheless be regarded as a fundamental constitutional process. In this light, primary and secondary European law, together with the jurisprudence of the ECJ, might be said to be subjectivising certain specifically European principles thus contributing to the legal creation of sometimes novel rights for European Citizens. In a legal process similar to that seen within 19th Century Germany, European law is seeking a compensate for an incomplete political constitution through the development of a – second best – European Charter for Citizens.     

Principle of Proportionality as Principle of Economic Efficiency

The principle of proportionality is at the cornerstone of EU law, and precisely of the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the law and economics literature, the general principles of law are commonly opposed to legal rules in terms of efficiency. On the one hand, the legal formalistic approach consists of apprehending the law as principled, whereby principles of law do not and should not encompass an efficiency rationale and should be self‐sufficient. On the other hand, the legal nihilism denying the existence or relevance of the general principles of law favours legal rules that are said to incorporate an efficiency rationale. I intend to analyse the efficiency rationale of probably the most important general principles of EU law—the proportionality principle. In this paper, I shall assert that not only does the EU proportionality principle encapsulate an efficiency rationale, but most importantly, it has been interpreted by the ECJ as such—hence, I propose the representation of the principle of proportionality as a principle of economic efficiency. After having introduced the principle of proportionality (1), I shall decipher the proportionality principle both from a law and economics perspective, and from a comparative perspective (2). Then, I shall delve into the jurisprudence of the ECJ so that the judicial reasoning of the Court as this reasoning proves the relevance of the proposed representation (3). Finally, I conclude in light of the findings of this paper (4).     

Levels of Generality in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice

The level of generality or of abstraction used to describe a precedent, a right, or the legislative intent behind a statutory provision or constituent purpose behind a constitutional provision can have a decisive impact on the outcome of a case. Characterising it in narrow terms has the effect of reducing the scope of decision of a judgment; conversely, a broader characterisation provides more leeway for a judge in a case to encompass its facts within the precedent, right or purpose in issue. The issue raised by the level of generality problem is the extent to which courts have a discretion or freedom of manoeuvre as to the level of generality they decide upon, and thus whether generality and abstraction are manipulable in the hands of judges and are not really predetermined by the legal sources in question or an established judicial method of interpretation. Uncontrolled judicial discretion of this kind is problematic from the point of view of the rule of law and democracy, especially when adjudication concerns constitutional provisions, the equivalent in the EU being interpretation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of the EU Treaties; reversal of ECJ interpretation through Treaty amendment is particularly difficult to achieve because it requires unanimous coordination by the Member States. This article examines two alternative ways of determining the correct or appropriate level of generality issue in ECJ interpetation, coherence or the legal traditions of the Member States, and argues in favour of the latter as a less subjective method. Application of the two alternative approaches is tested in two areas of EU law, state liability and criminal law.     

The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and national courts revisited

This article analyzes how the judicial politics sparked by the European Union's (EU) legal development have evolved over time. Existing studies have traced how lower national courts began cooperating with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to apply EU law because this empowered them to challenge government policies and the decisions of their domestic judicial superiors. We argue that the institutional dynamics identified by this ‘judicial empowerment thesis’ proved self‐eroding over time, incentivizing domestic high courts to reassert control over national judicial hierarchies and to influence the development EU law in ways that were also encouraged by the ECJ. We support our argument by combining an analysis of a dataset of cases referred to the ECJ with comparative case study and interview evidence. We conclude that while these evolving judicial politics signal the institutional maturation of the EU legal order, they also risk weakening the decentralized enforcement of European law.