European Union law Part 4

European Union law Part 4

 

32

European Union Food Law Update: A Special Look at the Treaty of Lisbon and its Impact on European Agricultural Policy
Emilie H. Leibovitch
Journal of Food Law and Policy
Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2010 p.139

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

33

THE GROWING INFLUENCE OF European Union law
Piet Eeckhout
Fordham International Law Journal
Volume 33, Number 5, May 2010 p.1490

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

34

Kücükdeveci: Mangold Revisited Horizontal Direct Effect of a General Principle of EU Law: Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) Judgment of 19 January 2010, Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG
Mirjam de Mol
European Constitutional Law Review
Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2010 p.293-308

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

35

From Oceano t? Asturcom: Mandatory Consumer Law, Ex Officio Application of European Union Law and Res Judicata
MARTIN EBERS
European Review of Private Law
Volume 18, Number 4, 2010 p.823-846

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

36

Private Antitrust Litigation in the European Union-Why Does the EC Want to Embrace What the US Federal Trade Commission is Trying to Avoid?
KENT BERNARD
Global Competition Litigation Review
Volume 3, Issue 2, 2010 p.69

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

Private litigation is not simply an add on to a competition law regime. U.S. substantive law encourages free-wheeling competition, firms are invited to be aggressive, and the litigation system looks to private parties to vindicate their own rights (with the Government handling criminal cases). EU substantive law was designed for government enforcement, is far more restrictive in terms of what firms may do, and relies on the discretion of the enforcer. The recent approach of the U.S. FTC is to try to mimic the EU approach-broad authority where there is no private right of action. To graft the U.S. style litigation system on the EU substantive matrix, may result in the worst of both worlds, not the best.

37

The Impact of the Practice of the European Court of Justice on the Civil and Commercial law of the Member States of the European Union
ATTILA HARMATHY
European Review of Private Law
Volume 18, Number 3, 2010 p.429-441

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

38

Mutual Recognition and the European Court of Justice: The Meaning of Consistent Interpretation and Autonomous and Uniform Interpretation of Union Law for the Development of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters
Borgers, Matthias J.
European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume 18, Number 2, 2010 p.99-114

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

39

THE IMPACTS OF THE CHINESE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW ON IP COMMERCIALIZATION IN CHINA & GENERAL STRATEGIES FOR TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN COMPANIES AND FUTURE REGULATORS
Dr Yijun Tian
Duke Law & Technology Review
2010, Articles 1-12

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

2010 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 004 – After thirteen years of discussion and three revisions, China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) was promulgated on August 30, 2007 and has come into effect on August 1, 2008. It is the first anti-monopoly law in China and has been viewed as an “economic constitution”and a “milestone of the country ‘s efforts in promoting a fair competition market and cracking down on monopoly activities.”However, the wording of some provisions of the AML, including the sections dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) protection, is not very clear. And juridical interpretations and more specific implementing regulations on the AML have not yet appeared. This has led to a lot of uncertainty for the operations of foreign enterprises, particularly IP related enterprises in China. This iBrief will provide an overview of possible impacts of the AML on the IP protection and commercialization in China. First, it will provide a brief overview of the AML, including both major compliments and criticism. Second, it will examine both opportunities and potential legal risks of foreign IP holders and investors when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impacts of Article 55, the IP-related provision. Thirdly, it will provide some practical suggestions and strategies for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as some useful defenses for potential IP lawsuits. Finally, it will provide some suggestions for future interpretation and implementation of Article 55 in the AML by drawing on lessons from the experiences of the United States and the European Union.

40

The Promotion of the Rule of law in the Western Balkans: The European Union’s Role
Lara Appicciafuoco
German Law Journal
Volume 11, Numbers 7/8, July/August 2010 p.741-768

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

41

The relationship between public and private enforcement in competition law: A comparative analysis of South African, the European Union, and Swiss law
Kasturi Moodaliyar, James F Reardon & Sarah Theuerkauf
South African Law Journal
Volume 127, Number 1, 2010 p.141

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

42

Product liability: jurisdiction and applicable law in cross-border cases in the European Union
Guillermo Palao Moreno
ERA Forum
Volume 11, Number 1, March 2010 p.45-65

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

43

Case Law of the European Union Courts – Leading Judgments 1 June to 31 August 2009
Johanna Engstrüm, Jean-Claude Alexandre Ho, Kassiani Christodoulou, James Cullen, Angelika Fuchs, Florence Hartmann-Vareilles, Leyre Maiso, Michele Messina, Marà­a Pilar Nuñez Ruiz and Cornelia Riehle
ERA Forum
Volume 10, Number 4, December 2009 p.643-686

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

44

The Adoption and Enforcement of Anti-Doping Rules Should Not Be Subject To European Competition Law
ROMANO SUBIOTTO, QC
European Competition Law Review
Volume 31, Issue 8, 2010 p.323

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

An entity cannot be deemed to be exercising an economic activity when adopting anti-doping rules. As a result, such an entity should not qualify as an “undertaking”under EC competition law with respect to this activity. This has the important consequence that, contrary to the current case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, anti-doping rules should not fall within the scope of arts. 81 and 82 EC, and that EC competition law should not serve as a basis to review the proportionality of anti-doping rules, nor limit the freedom of entities charged with supervising sporting activities under their jurisdiction to determine the anti-doping provisions that they deem appropriate.

 

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Commercial law, European Union law, Rule of law, country.


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *