Court European, of Justice

It may bring an action before the European Court of Justice should community laws not be respeeted by the member states. It is here, within the Pharmaceutieals and Cosmetics Unit of the Directorate-General for Enterprise (formerly the Directorate-General for Industry, DG III), that European legislation on medicines is drawn up and implemented. 

The acceptance of the Substitution Principle as a workable legal act was demonstrated in a European Court of Justice (ECJ) court case in 2000. Trichloroethylene (TRI), a cancer-causing chemical, was banned in Sweden and companies had to find alternatives. Exemptions were only given when a suitable alternative was not available, when use did not lead to unacceptable exposure and on the condition that the company continued to seek alternatives. Forthe majority of exemptions, the firms had managed to substitute TRI in most of their production, but had not found a suitable alternative for a specific use in the production process. One firm appealed against the ban, but the European Court of Justice ruled against them. The ECJ ruling demonstrates acceptance of the Substitution Principle in EU courts. 

In October 1995, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on equal treatment for men and women regarding the age at which they should be exempted from paying an NHS prescription charge. Until then the exemption from the prescription charge had been linked to the state pensionable age of 60 years for women and 65 for men. Men are now exempt from the age of 60, at an estimated cost of 30 million per year in 1995 for lowering the age and 10 million for refunds for those men between 60 and 65 years who had paid for a prescription in the preceding 3 months. ... 

The ruling Swedish political establishment is, of course, well aware that issuing restrictions based on its own extremist version of the PP may cause serious international complications. In particular, the EU Commission as well as the WTO can be expected to raise objections about Sweden introducing non-tariff barriers to trade. To head off complaints appearing before the European Court of Justice and WTO, Sweden has devised various subtle means to circumvent its international obligations under, for instance, the articles on the Free Movement of Goods as stipulated by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. 

For example, the EU recently cleared the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup), which is practically nontoxic to humans, for consumer use. Nevertheless, KEMI has notified importers and distributors that sales of glyphosate to the public will be severely restricted in the future. Faithful to its socialist traditions, the almighty Swedish State attaches no value to the billions of Swedish crowns invested by private homeowners in lawns, flowerbeds, rose gardens, and so on. An appeal to KEMI s decision will most likely be directed to the European Court of Justice. 

The withdrawal of a number of copper-containing antifouling paints for pleasure boats and marine vessels in the Baltic, based on alleged minor environmental effects localized to marinas, led to a number of protests to the Swedish government. Although the government upheld the mandated withdrawals, these restrictions will likely also be appealed to the EU Commission and then further to the European Court of Justice. 

This response is absolute nonsense. Sweden had banned the herbicide amitrole and several bis-dithiocarbamate fungicides because of flawed scientific evaluations that misinterpreted thyroid tumors in rodents, known to lack relevance for humans, as indicators of a human risk associated with normal usage. In contrast to Sweden s action, IARC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleared all of them of suspicions of causing cancer at current exposure levels,45 and the EU has approved amitrole for general use. Sweden s Minister of the Environment, Kj ell Lars-son, has declared that Sweden will fight all the way to the European Court of Justice to stop reintroduction of these horribly dangerous pesticides. 

On April 1, 2008, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission used improper procedures to exempt deca-BDE from RoHS Directive. The ruling did not question positive EU Risk Assessment outcome of deca-BDE. The outcome of this April 1 ruling was that deca-BDE was banned in the use of electronic and electrical equipment after June 30, 2008. 

The European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice, consisting of 15 judges (appointed by the Member States) and 9 Advocates-General, is based in Luxembourg. It is responsible for arbitrating in disputes relating to the interpretation and application of EU legislation. 

Any national deviation from EC legislation under national law must be notified to the European Commission, which may decide against the legislation. In these cases, the European Court of Justice may make the final decision on application of legal principles. Several Member States have taken regulatory measures beyond any enacted at the EU level. Cases include (i) Austria s ban on polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (ii) the Netherlands ban on mercury in thermometers and Denmark s near-total ban on all uses of lead. In some instances, the European Commission has challenged the action of a Member State [251]. The most famous case was when Sweden banned trichloroethylene (TCE). The European Court of Justice held that Sweden was entitled to the ban because proportionality was respected through a system of authorisations [252],... 

Before completion of an EU risk assessment on TCE, Sweden decided that epidemiological evidence on the hazardous properties of the chemical was sufficient to warrant strict regulatory control in the workplace (through the application of Article 138 of the EC Treaty). Sweden therefore began to implement a company use-specific authorisation system. Sweden s action was later challenged by the European Commission as causing unnecessary barriers to trade, but a European Court of Justice ruling upheld the Swedish system. 

EC ECJ Economies in transition and amending Council Directive 96/61 /EC, O] L 275, 32-45, 25 October 2003 European Commission European Court of Justice The countries listed in Annex I or Annex B that are undergoing the process of transition to a market economy but that are also classified along with the EU, Japan and the US as Annex I parties to the UNFCCC... 

MediRegs European Pharmaceutical Regulation Suite assembles comparable documents generated by the EU, such as legislation, European Court of Justice Opinions, and EMEA guidelines and EPARs. This separately searchable collection is updated weekly on the Internet and monthly on CD/ROM. 

In luly 1980, the European Commission issued a Directive (80/778/EEC), setting a MAC for individual pesticides in drinking water of 0.1 gg/1, and a cocktail standard of 0.5 gg/l for the total concentration of all pesticides. States failing to meet the conditions of the Directive risk condemnation hy the European Court of Justice, and imposition of penalty payments (see Faure, 1994). Eor example, in Italy, concentrations of atrazine, a herbicide used in maize cultivation, reached this level in 1984 in 1989,11 wells in the Veneto region recorded atrazine levels of over 1 gg/l (seeZanin etal., 1991). Local restrictions in 1986 against contaminated drinking water supplies had little effect, and a nationwide han on the sale and use of atrazine was imposed in 1990. ... 

Judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of 19 November 1991, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic, Joined cases C-6/90andC-9/90,ECR [1991] pagei-5357. 

The Commission is also responsible for monitoring the application of Community law. In this capacity, it can bring infringement proceedings against Member States before the European Court of Justice. 

The Court of Justice has the imjxjrtant task of monitoring the legahty of actions by the Community institutions and providing legal protection. The apphcation of Community law by the Member States is also subject to the independent judicial scrutiny of the European Court of Justice. In addition, the Court gives the national courts guidance on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and Community legal acts. 

In Europe, the European Community (EC) was formed by the union of three organizations the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951 the European Economic Community (EEC), established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), established in 1957. In 1967, with the Merger Treaty, these organizations merged to form the EC. After the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the EC became the European Union (EU) which consists of the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. ... 

Since our entry into the European Community, our courts must follow the rulings of the European Court of Justice. On an application from a member country, the European Court will determine the effect of European directives on domestic law. Potentially, the involvement is far-reaching in industrial obligations, including safety. 

In Scotland precedent is important, but there is also emphasis on principle. The European Court of Justice regards precedents but is not bound by them. 

Some anomalies still exist in respect of pensionable and retirement age but the question of discrimination on the retirement age of public sector employees was resolved in a case that went to the European Courts of Justice . 

There are two European Courts - the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. 

The European Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, is the highest court in the European Union (EU). It deals primarily with community law and its interpretation. It is normally concerned with breaches of community law by Member States and cases may be brought by other Member States or institutions. Its decisions are binding on all Member States. There Is currently no right of appeal. 

Additional concepts have also been introduced into the implementing regulations, incorporating certain other words and phrases from the directives. Examples of these are effective and suitable and suitable and sufficient. The interpretation of these phrases has perhaps not been tested in the courts to the same extent as practicable or reasonably practicable and, given their origin, it is likely that any litigation which depends upon the scope of these phrases will not be able to be completed without a reference to the European Court of Justice. ... 

See the case-iaw of the European Court of Justice Case C-183/00, Gonzalez Sanchez V. Medicina Asturiana S71 (2002) ECR i-3901. 

---