Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26230
Cristina Teleki
Faced with the challenges posed by gatekeepers, EU competition law is undergoing a period of significant change. I attempt to show in this article that one can understand this change as a shift in the relationship between EU competition law and fundamental rights. More precisely, I show that the initial relationship between these two factors has been operational, in the sense that fundamental rights have been relied upon to operationalize the substance of competition law. In the operational relationship, the right to a fair trial has been deployed by the European Commission to create and expand its quasi-judicial arm. This long-standing operational relationship has recently evolved into an informative one, where the rights to privacy and data protection have informed the European Commission’s merger assessments involving gatekeepers. Finally, I argue that, in light of the Meta/Facebook case and recent EU legislation, the relationship between EU competition law and fundamental rights can be called foundational. Indeed, it appears that both the CJEU and EU legislators intend to inject fundamental rights into the foundations of EU competition law. I also highlight how the principle of transparency has played an important role in these developments as an enabler and magnifier. These changes are significant and will impact the work of competition authorities, data protection authorities and other public bodies in the EU.
{"title":"EU Competition Law, Fundamental Rights and the Principle of Transparency – An Evolving Relationship","authors":"Cristina Teleki","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26230","url":null,"abstract":"Faced with the challenges posed by gatekeepers, EU competition law is undergoing a period of significant change. I attempt to show in this article that one can understand this change as a shift in the relationship between EU competition law and fundamental rights. More precisely, I show that the initial relationship between these two factors has been operational, in the sense that fundamental rights have been relied upon to operationalize the substance of competition law. In the operational relationship, the right to a fair trial has been deployed by the European Commission to create and expand its quasi-judicial arm. This long-standing operational relationship has recently evolved into an informative one, where the rights to privacy and data protection have informed the European Commission’s merger assessments involving gatekeepers. Finally, I argue that, in light of the Meta/Facebook case and recent EU legislation, the relationship between EU competition law and fundamental rights can be called foundational. Indeed, it appears that both the CJEU and EU legislators intend to inject fundamental rights into the foundations of EU competition law. I also highlight how the principle of transparency has played an important role in these developments as an enabler and magnifier. These changes are significant and will impact the work of competition authorities, data protection authorities and other public bodies in the EU.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"121 32","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141667626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26289
Lena Hornkohl
Access to information is essential in order to guarantee fundamental procedural rights under EU law – in particular in order to make full use of the right of defence. At the same time, access to information ensures the greatest possible transparency for all parties and stakeholders. Furthermore, access to information is also crucial in order to strengthen private enforcement, which is the second essential pillar of the effective enforcement of EU law in competition law. This article outlines the options provided for accessing information in the context of the new DMA on EU level. This article is part 1 on the issue of ‘Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings’.
{"title":"Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings on EU Level","authors":"Lena Hornkohl","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26289","url":null,"abstract":"Access to information is essential in order to guarantee fundamental procedural rights under EU law – in particular in order to make full use of the right of defence. At the same time, access to information ensures the greatest possible transparency for all parties and stakeholders. Furthermore, access to information is also crucial in order to strengthen private enforcement, which is the second essential pillar of the effective enforcement of EU law in competition law. This article outlines the options provided for accessing information in the context of the new DMA on EU level. This article is part 1 on the issue of ‘Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings’.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":" 994","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141669097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26155
Vilhelm Persson
The constitutional principle of access to public records and the administrative principle of parties’ right to access their files create transparency in the Swedish Competition Authority. In many ways Swedish law is built on the same ideas as EU law. However, the Swedish constitution requires more specific provisions on confidentiality in statutes decided by the Parliament. As regards the Swedish Competition Authority, five different sections of the law protect confidentiality, depending on who is to be protected, what activities are concerned, what kind of information is involved and how likely it is that someone will be harmed. These detailed provisions can in principle contribute to predictability, limiting the authorities’ discretional power, but they also constitute a complex patchwork that can be difficult to comprehend. A problematic legal conflict would arise if a document were confidential according to EU law, for example to protect trade secrets, but not confidential according to Swedish law. However, so far, EU law has only been invoked to expand the right to access to documents, especially regarding companies that intend to bring action for competition law damages.
{"title":"Transparency of the Swedish Competition Authority","authors":"Vilhelm Persson","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26155","url":null,"abstract":"The constitutional principle of access to public records and the administrative principle of parties’ right to access their files create transparency in the Swedish Competition Authority. In many ways Swedish law is built on the same ideas as EU law. However, the Swedish constitution requires more specific provisions on confidentiality in statutes decided by the Parliament. As regards the Swedish Competition Authority, five different sections of the law protect confidentiality, depending on who is to be protected, what activities are concerned, what kind of information is involved and how likely it is that someone will be harmed. These detailed provisions can in principle contribute to predictability, limiting the authorities’ discretional power, but they also constitute a complex patchwork that can be difficult to comprehend. A problematic legal conflict would arise if a document were confidential according to EU law, for example to protect trade secrets, but not confidential according to Swedish law. However, so far, EU law has only been invoked to expand the right to access to documents, especially regarding companies that intend to bring action for competition law damages.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":" March","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141670012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26219
Magnus Strand
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a new instrument of EU competition policy. It has been pointed out that although the DMA does not include any provisions on private enforcement, there should still be room for private enforcement of rights under the DMA. However, it has not been properly scrutinised to what extent the provisions of the DMA are suitable for such private enforcement. This article contributes to the literature by addressing this deficit and explaining the interwoven aspects of EU law and national law upon which private enforcement of the DMA will rely. The analysis is carried out in two main tiers. First, the core substantive provisions of the DMA are analysed. It is concluded in this stage that there are some rules in the DMA which may trigger private law sanctions when breached. Second, the system of judicial protection of rights conferred on individuals under EU law is explained and applied to the DMA. In this regard, it is concluded that it would be appropriate to extend any private law remedies that are available to claimants who have been victims of an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU to claimants who have been victims of an infringement of protective provisions in the DMA.
{"title":"Private Enforcement Under the Digital Markets Act: Rights and Remedies Revisited","authors":"Magnus Strand","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26219","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26219","url":null,"abstract":"The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a new instrument of EU competition policy. It has been pointed out that although the DMA does not include any provisions on private enforcement, there should still be room for private enforcement of rights under the DMA. However, it has not been properly scrutinised to what extent the provisions of the DMA are suitable for such private enforcement. This article contributes to the literature by addressing this deficit and explaining the interwoven aspects of EU law and national law upon which private enforcement of the DMA will rely.\u0000The analysis is carried out in two main tiers. First, the core substantive provisions of the DMA are analysed. It is concluded in this stage that there are some rules in the DMA which may trigger private law sanctions when breached. Second, the system of judicial protection of rights conferred on individuals under EU law is explained and applied to the DMA. In this regard, it is concluded that it would be appropriate to extend any private law remedies that are available to claimants who have been victims of an infringement of Article 101 or 102 TFEU to claimants who have been victims of an infringement of protective provisions in the DMA.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":" 474","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141669440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26397
Helene Andersson
The legal professional privilege is an important principle underpinning the EU judicial system as it ensures the proper administration of justice, procedural efficiency and protects fundamental rights such as a client’s defence rights and the right to privacy enshrined in Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter. In competition cases, the European Commission has relied on an old ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ECJ), and only acknowledged one of these aims – the protection of the client’s defence rights. While the ECJ has recently received the chance to align the EU standard to that of the ECHR by broadening the scope of protection, the Commission appears unwilling to abandon its previous stance. It is important that the Commission shoulders the responsibility to ensure a procedure that is fair, and which acknowledges the basic principles underpinning a society governed by the rule of law. The current approach breathes life into questions on the legitimacy of its actions and the appropriateness of letting it take on the roles of enforcer, prosecutor and judge in competition cases, where companies not only risk having to pay fines of up to ten percent of their annual turnover, but now also appear to have to face the threat of divestitures should the Commission find that they are infringing the EU competition rules.
{"title":"The Legal Professional Privilege in Competition Law Cases – A Key Element in Protecting the Proper Administration of Justice","authors":"Helene Andersson","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26397","url":null,"abstract":"The legal professional privilege is an important principle underpinning the EU judicial system as it ensures the proper administration of justice, procedural efficiency and protects fundamental rights such as a client’s defence rights and the right to privacy enshrined in Articles 47 and 7 of the Charter. In competition cases, the European Commission has relied on an old ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ECJ), and only acknowledged one of these aims – the protection of the client’s defence rights. While the ECJ has recently received the chance to align the EU standard to that of the ECHR by broadening the scope of protection, the Commission appears unwilling to abandon its previous stance. It is important that the Commission shoulders the responsibility to ensure a procedure that is fair, and which acknowledges the basic principles underpinning a society governed by the rule of law. The current approach breathes life into questions on the legitimacy of its actions and the appropriateness of letting it take on the roles of enforcer, prosecutor and judge in competition cases, where companies not only risk having to pay fines of up to ten percent of their annual turnover, but now also appear to have to face the threat of divestitures should the Commission find that they are infringing the EU competition rules.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":" 1183","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141668927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26396
J. Nergelius
This article analyses the three topics listed in the headline in that order, and it subsequently identifies and discusses a common thread between them. The fact that they have all been affected by the enactment of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), of which they belong to the core area, is very crucial here, and so is the interplay or interaction between the European Courts and leading national courts, not least in the constitutional area. Cases such as Melloni, from 2013, have shown the problems that may occur should the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) not respect fundamental rights and national constitutional values. If the CJEU wants to maintain its key role in the future structure of EU law, it needs to show that it cares about fundamental rights and that it wants to work together, not against the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and national courts. The three concepts discussed in this article, all strengthened by the Charter, have so far been most helpful in this process – and may become even more important in the future.
{"title":"A Few Words on Drittwirkung, Transparency and Personal Integrity in the Light of Digitalization","authors":"J. Nergelius","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26396","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26396","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the three topics listed in the headline in that order, and it subsequently identifies and discusses a common thread between them. The fact that they have all been affected by the enactment of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), of which they belong to the core area, is very crucial here, and so is the interplay or interaction between the European Courts and leading national courts, not least in the constitutional area. Cases such as Melloni, from 2013, have shown the problems that may occur should the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) not respect fundamental rights and national constitutional values. If the CJEU wants to maintain its key role in the future structure of EU law, it needs to show that it cares about fundamental rights and that it wants to work together, not against the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and national courts. The three concepts discussed in this article, all strengthened by the Charter, have so far been most helpful in this process – and may become even more important in the future.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":" 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141668552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26192
Riina Autio
The EU courts have divided an investigation into two distinct stages with different aims: the preliminary investigation phase and the contradictory phase. This paper examines issues related to the digitalisation of the preliminary investigation phase, from screening and open source intelligence to data processing during unannounced inspections or dawn raids. The question is how rights of defence are secured without jeopardising an investigation where data sets have grown beyond anything previously known. Within the context of the principle of openness of government activities in Finland and Sweden, the author sets out to find how the main rule of openness is balanced with the objectives of the preliminary investigation phase. The article examines case-law and literature, complemented with public statements from competition authorities, to find that a fair balance between conflicting interests has been achieved thus far. Examples of open questions currently subject to debate do, nonetheless, range from using personal apps for detection to whether national identity as per Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union can tip the balance between confidentiality of correspondence and cartel enforcement categorically in favour of the former. The Court of Justice will likely have to address the issue of national identity in the ongoing Ronos case.
{"title":"Digitalisation of the Preliminary Investigation Phase, Fundamental and Human Rights and the Principle of Openness - Balancing Conflicting Interests in the Review of Large Data Sets","authors":"Riina Autio","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26192","url":null,"abstract":"The EU courts have divided an investigation into two distinct stages with different aims: the preliminary investigation phase and the contradictory phase. This paper examines issues related to the digitalisation of the preliminary investigation phase, from screening and open source intelligence to data processing during unannounced inspections or dawn raids. The question is how rights of defence are secured without jeopardising an investigation where data sets have grown beyond anything previously known. Within the context of the principle of openness of government activities in Finland and Sweden, the author sets out to find how the main rule of openness is balanced with the objectives of the preliminary investigation phase. The article examines case-law and literature, complemented with public statements from competition authorities, to find that a fair balance between conflicting interests has been achieved thus far. Examples of open questions currently subject to debate do, nonetheless, range from using personal apps for detection to whether national identity as per Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union can tip the balance between confidentiality of correspondence and cartel enforcement categorically in favour of the former. The Court of Justice will likely have to address the issue of national identity in the ongoing Ronos case.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"118 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141667520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26270
Julia Helminger
Access to information is essential in order to guarantee fundamental procedural rights under EU law – in particular in order to make full use of the right of defence. At the same time, access to information ensures the greatest possible transparency for all parties and stakeholders. As another key point, access to information is also crucial in order to strengthen private enforcement, which is the second essential pillar of the effective enforcement of EU law in competition law. This article outlines the options provided for accessing information in the context of the new DMA in selected Member States, namely Austria and Germany. This article is part 2 on the issue of ‘Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings’.
{"title":"Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings at Member State Level – The German and Austrian Experience","authors":"Julia Helminger","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26270","url":null,"abstract":"Access to information is essential in order to guarantee fundamental procedural rights under EU law – in particular in order to make full use of the right of defence. At the same time, access to information ensures the greatest possible transparency for all parties and stakeholders. As another key point, access to information is also crucial in order to strengthen private enforcement, which is the second essential pillar of the effective enforcement of EU law in competition law. This article outlines the options provided for accessing information in the context of the new DMA in selected Member States, namely Austria and Germany. This article is part 2 on the issue of ‘Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings’.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"102 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141667368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-08DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i2.26352
A. Engel, Xavier Groussot
The procedural and institutional rights granted by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights have an important impact at national level in the application and interpretation of competition law by national courts and national authorities. In Sweden, the situation is particularly fascinating since the principle of openness – which affords a maximum standard of human right protection – may conflict with the procedural and institutional rights of the Charter, i.e. Articles 41, 47 and 53 of the Charter. The application of the Charter by the public procurement authority is also of interest here. Arguably, the principle of openness as defined by Swedish law should be respected in light of the procedural and institutional rights granted by the EU Charter.
{"title":"Digitalisation in EU Competition Law and the Swedish Principle of Transparency","authors":"A. Engel, Xavier Groussot","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i2.26352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i2.26352","url":null,"abstract":"The procedural and institutional rights granted by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights have an important impact at national level in the application and interpretation of competition law by national courts and national authorities. In Sweden, the situation is particularly fascinating since the principle of openness – which affords a maximum standard of human right protection – may conflict with the procedural and institutional rights of the Charter, i.e. Articles 41, 47 and 53 of the Charter. The application of the Charter by the public procurement authority is also of interest here. Arguably, the principle of openness as defined by Swedish law should be respected in light of the procedural and institutional rights granted by the EU Charter.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"119 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141666644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-05DOI: 10.36969/njel.v7i1.25761
Ignacio Fornaris
Starting with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Obala case, this article explores: how the Court has redefined the concepts of ‘contract matters’ and ‘tort, delict, or quasi-delict matters’; actions related to ‘tenancy agreements for immovable property’ versus ‘rights in rem’; and the evolving interpretation of ‘services’ within the Brussels I Recast Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It also illustrates the discrepancies in the analysis of the term ‘civil and commercial matters’. The Obala ruling has led to changes in how these concepts are understood and studied in certain contexts, thereby reshaping their interpretative contours. As a result, this article conducts a retrospective analysis to grasp these changes and their implications.
{"title":"Exploring the Evolution of Contractual Concepts within Regulation No 1215/2012 Through CJEU Judgments: Civil and Commercial Matters, Contracts, Tenancies of Immovable Property, and Provision of Services Under Examination","authors":"Ignacio Fornaris","doi":"10.36969/njel.v7i1.25761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i1.25761","url":null,"abstract":"Starting with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Obala case, this article explores: how the Court has redefined the concepts of ‘contract matters’ and ‘tort, delict, or quasi-delict matters’; actions related to ‘tenancy agreements for immovable property’ versus ‘rights in rem’; and the evolving interpretation of ‘services’ within the Brussels I Recast Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It also illustrates the discrepancies in the analysis of the term ‘civil and commercial matters’. The Obala ruling has led to changes in how these concepts are understood and studied in certain contexts, thereby reshaping their interpretative contours. As a result, this article conducts a retrospective analysis to grasp these changes and their implications.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"226 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140740141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：