 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| ELSA GLSE |
 |
|
|
| ELSA SPEL |
 |
|
|
| Synergy |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Corporate Partners: 
 Auditing Partner:  Human Rights Partner: |
|
  |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
||||||||
|
ELSA Selected Papers on European Law 2005 (1) The impact of the state-of-origin principle on the protection of public concerns in international trade by PROF. M. LAURA PICCHIO FORLATI  Download this article |
||||||||
|
 |
||||||||
|
“Continent, city, country, society: The choice is never wide and never free.” by GRAINNE LARKIN Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
International Human Rights Law – Chinese Human Rights: Towards a theory of success by FRANCINE KAVANAGH Summary of Article: This paper seeks to address the dichotomy of cultural relativism and universalism with respect to International Human Rights. The focus country is that of China, and I have proposed the main aspects which define their reasons for opposing a universal approach to human rights as being cultural differences, differing hierarchy of rights and sovereignty. I have then turned to addressing the mechanisms for addressing China’s aversion to a globally unified human rights approach, by looking at the strategies used by the USA, the European Union, the United Nations and China itself. In concluding I have made recommendations as to how best to improve Chinese Human Rights given their apparent hostility towards a Universal approach. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
The Appraisal of Collective Dominance under the Clarified Substantive Test of the New EC Merger Regulation by MARIA LITZELL Summary of Article: The new European substantive standard, according to which mergers should be appraised, came into force on the 1st of May 2004, along with the new Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Although the US has a far longer merger control tradition than the EC, the two current substantive assessments are exceptionally convergent. The two systems share the same fundamental goal, the protection of the consumer welfare interest, and the two tests ultimately raise the same question: What losses in terms of competition has the merger resulted in? The purpose of this paper is to describe how a merger, which raises collective dominance concerns, is appraised under the significant impediment of effective competition test in the ECMR. Furthermore, this paper intends to analyze whether or not the ECMR reform of the European substantive assessment has resulted in a greater global convergence of merger control, especially in regards to the assessment of coordinated effects. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
The Referral Procedure; The Jurisdiction, Duties and Obligations of the European Court of Justice and Member States under Article 234E.C by JENNIFER HENRY Summary of Article: This Article examines the jurisdiction and function of Article 234 E.C in relation to European Union Law. It engages in a discussion of one of the two main functions of the European Court of Justice that being the referral procedure where the Court can interpret questions of Community law which are referred to it by Member States. This provision allows Member States who may be unsure of certain European Union Law provisions to refer questions to the E.C.J for interpretation. This article will consider the importance of the E.C.J’s role in accepting and also rejecting referrals from the national courts. It will examine the guidelines which must be fulfilled by the member state before the E.C.J will accept the referral. It will also highlight situations in which the Court will reject a member states submission. It will examine the national courts responsibility to be aware of the necessity and the importance to refer in times of doubt and also the implications of a failure to refer in some cases. It will al so consider the high volume of Article 234 applications which the E.C.J must deal with on a yearly basis and also draw attention to a possible number of unnecessary applications made by member states which contribute to a backlog in the E.C.J and possible delay in the system. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
“Trading with emissions allowances under the EU state aid law regime” by BARBARA GLOWACKA Summary of Article: As a result of a summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, informally known as the Earth Summit, United Nations published the Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter the UNFCCC). This is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (hereinafter the UNCED). The treaty aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in order to combat global warming. The UNFCCC included provisions for updates (called "protocols") that would set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol. One of the three Kyoto mechanisms is emission trading which provides for Annex I Parties to acquire units from other Annex I Parties. Emissions trading scheme may be established as a climate policy instruments at the national level (e.g. in Japan) or at the regional level (e.g. in the European Union). In this paper I would like to focus on the emission trading scheme governed by the European Union. This paper aims to describe Emission Trading Scheme and answer, under which circumstances allocation of allowances will amount to a state aid. This is an important issue as Member States of the European Union allocate emission trading allowances among installations, producing CO2 involved in the scheme, under certain criteria. Company having more allowances than it actually needs, might sell them on a free market. Possibility for a company to obtain extra money from emission allowances trading might be regarded in some cases as a government-induced distortion of competition. Thus, it is worth analyzing if and when allocation of emission allowances will amount to a state aid. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
“Serbia in the European Union – The status of Kosovo” by DAVOR JANCIC Summary of Article: The author deals with the integration process of Serbia in the European Union with the special emphasis on the status of Kosovo. After the appraisal of the dissolution of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and the Draft Constitution of Serbia with respect to Kosovo, the author describes the Copenhagen criteria as well as the basics of the Stabilization and Accession Process, which the Western Balkan countries must go through. Furthermore, the author examines the decisions and guidelines made at the highest level in the European Union i.e. by the European Council which paved the way for Serbia towards its European integration. Thereafter, the author focuses on the international status of Kosovo and its legal status in Serbia under the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The author then presents the basics of the UNMIK and KFOR missions on Kosovo as means of international presence in the region as well as the foundations of the Kosovo autonomy and its self-administration. The author also delves more deeply into the “Standards for Kosovo” whose fulfilment is among the most important conditions for the Kosovo’s EU integration within Serbia. The author concludes that the EU integration process of Serbia as well as Kosovo is still in its initial stage and that the fulfilment of the following three conditions: (1) full cooperation with ICTY, (2) resolution of the final status of Kosovo, (3) legal, administrative and economic reforms is a rather demanding requirement which all institutions will have to put additional efforts to accomplish. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Mandatory dealing in the European Union law: The way of thorns by DMITRIJS NEMIROVSKIS Summary of Article: The following article provides an in-depth analysis of Community case law on mandatory dealing, which encompasses cases on refusal to supply, refusal to grant access to essential facilities and refusal to licence intellectual property rights. The author commences with an analysis of the Community policy aiming at liberalisation of the natural monopoly type industries. He further highlights less successful attempts of the Commission to broaden the scope of application of the Commercial Solvents doctrine to industries falling short of inevitable monopoly characteristics. The next section of the article focuses on a perennially uneasy relation between the competition law and intellectual property law. The author elaborates in details on the case law addressing Magill requirements of exceptional circumstances test. He also scrutinises pros and contras of newly emerging Microsoft paradigm. The author concludes that the Community case law on mandatory dealing demonstrates consistency in application of Article 82 of EC Treaty. Although Commission has continuously insisted on a conceptual independence of essential facilities doctrine, the case law of Community courts demonstrates that all cases on mandatory dealing fall with the framework of the Commercial Solvents doctrine. However, the author admits that legal certainty requires further clarification of Community case law on refusal to licence intellectual property rights. Finally, he suggests that methodological controversies evident in the IMS case call Community and its Member States institutions for positive harmonisation of intellectual property laws within the Community. Download this article |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
