European Courts

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. 

The European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, is not directly related to the EU - it covers most of the countries in Europe including the 25 EU member states. As its title suggests, it deals with human rights and fundamental freedoms. With the introduction 

---

Born in Salzburg, Austria, on January 27, 1756, Wolfgang was five when he learned his first musical composition—in less than half an hour. He quickly learned other pieces, and by age five composed his first original work. Leopold settled on a plan to take Nannerl and (1V Wolfgang on tour to play before the European courts. Their first venture was to nearby Munich where the children played for Maximillian III Joseph, elector of Bavaria. Leopold soon sethis sights on the capital of the Hapsburg Empire, Vienna. On their way to Vienna, the... 

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. 

All the highlighted directives and the European Court Ruling, as well as the two examples of internationally binding agreements that mandate substitution, have been analysed closely with respect to the scope of each text and the rationale for the requirement of substitution. For this purpose it seemed most practical to present the findings in a table format. The following directives have been analysed ... 

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. 

The association of Madeira with the United States is intimate. The Declaration of Independence, on 4th July 1776, was toasted by George Washington with a chalice of Madeira wine. It was the wine preferred by kings, emperors, and statesmen and served during the banquets of European Courts. Thomas Jefferson, and all the other "Founding Fathers," greatly appreciated the most exquisite wines of the time, but preferred Madeira over all. 

P. H. Smith, Curing the body politic chemistry and commerce at court 1664-70 , in Patronage Institutions Science, Technology and Medicine at the European Court, 1500-1750, ed. B. T. Moran, Boydell Press, Rochester, NY, 1991, pp. 195-209. 

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. 

Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J. Princeton University Press, 1994), "Alchemy as a Language of Mediation," "Consumption and Credit The Place of Alchemy in Johann Joachim Becher s Political Economy," in Alchemy Revisited, ed. Z. R. W. M. von Martels (Leiden Brill, 1990), 215-21, and "Curing the Body Politic Chemistry and Commerce at Court, 1664-70," in Patronage and Institutions Science, Technology, and Medicine at the European Court, i oo ij o, ed. Bruce T. Moran (Rochester, N.Y. Boydell Press, 1991), 195-209. 

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],... 

This acronym distinguishes the Agency from the European Court of Auditors (ECA). 

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. 

Model to assess occupational inhalation European community European Court of Auditors European Environment Agency or a chemical ... 

Judgment of the European Court of 5 February 2004, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, Case C-24/00 European Court Reports 2004. http //eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do uri=CELEX 62000J0024 EN html... 

In the past the exclusive distribution for the product to the pharmacist was seen as a contract between the manufacturer and APB. Nevertheless, after a judgement from the European court, it became clear that the label is only a quality label, meaning that the pharmacists are supporting the product. It gives no rights on exclusive distribution through pharmacies. This means that the product can be distributed out of a pharmacy. 

---