![George Cumming - Profit, Discount and Interest Tables [microform], Häftad. Tillgänglighet: Lägg i varukorg](https://image.bokus.com/images2/9781015362444_766)
187 kr
Skickas inom 5-8 vardagar
George Cumming – författare
Visar alla böcker från författaren George Cumming. Handla med fri frakt och snabb leverans.
9 produkter
9 produkter
- Häftad, Engelska, 2008
342 kr
Skickas inom 3-6 vardagar
- Inbunden, Engelska, 2014
1 997 kr
Skickas inom 3-6 vardagar
- E-bokEngelska, 2011
2 711 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
Article 340 TFEU, which provides a method of compensation for victims of the Commission’s errors, is invoked as the basis for actions against Commission decisions under the Merger Control Regulation. Accordingly, the rules of procedure of the Community Courts come into play. This probing analysis asks the important questions: What limits can be imposed on the discretion of the Community Courts acting within their own rules of procedure? Is the manner in which the Court of Justice interprets those rules sufficient? Focusing on the crucial Court responsibilities of investigating facts and assessing economic damage in relation to the type of non-contractual liability apparent in antitrust cases, the author convincingly demonstrates that the scope for ‘case management’ by the Courts is strictly limited, and may engender information or evidentiary deficits that contravene ECHR Art 6.1 as well as the principles of effective judicial protection and rectitude of decision. A claim for compensation pursuant to Art 340 TFEU may be struck merely because the basic elements of the cause of action cannot be established to a minimal level. - E-bokEngelska, 2008
2 669 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
EU Directive 2004/48 EC obliges Member States to seek to achieve ‘partial harmonization’ of the remedies, procedures and measures necessary to enforce intellectual property law. These obligations provide what may be termed a minimum standard which must be fulfilled by the Member States in the course of their implementation of the Directive. However, the Directive is not faring well at the Member State level. The three authors’ vastly detailed, article-by-article analysis of the fortunes of Directive 2004/48 EC in three EU jurisdictions offers enormously valuable insights into the complex ways Member States respond to Community law, and in so doing provides an important addition to the ongoing inquiry into the nature of the reciprocal tensions between EU law (both judicial and legislative) and the laws of Member States. The particular investigation undertaken here reveals three paradigmatic situations: the situation in which the Directive has not been implemented at all, either because the Member State believes that its current legislation is adequate or that the wording of the Directive is such that no special legislation is required (England); the situation in which implementation has been inadequate, because either the pre-existing legislation constitutes inadequate legislation or because the specifically adopted legislation proves to be legally uncertain (The Netherlands); and the situation in which the relevant time for implementation for the Directive has elapsed and no specific legislation has been adopted (Germany). If there really is, as the European Commission contends, an ‘enforcement deficit’ in the protection of intellectual property rights by national rules of procedure, then the most effective remedial approach, Cummings shows, is through the principles of legal certainty, full effect, and effective judicial protection. These principles will assist the national court in interpretation of the precise meaning of the substantive obligations under the Directive. Drawing on the tenor of ECJ law that national procedural rules should not present an obstacle to adequate judicial protection, the author considers the conditions that must be fulfilled before an eventual claimant, who has suffered loss and damage caused by either the non-implementation or the incorrect implementation of a directive, may bring an action against the State for breach of Community law. The author presents his analyses of the implementation of the Directive in Dutch and English national procedure and his proposals for German implementation as three separate cases rather than comparatively, as any attempt to compare either the method of national implementation or the degree of adequacy or inadequacy inevitably obscures the essential particularities of each of the three national systems in relation to the Directive. Although this book will repay the study of anyone interested in European law, it will be of special value to practitioners and policymakers engaged in intellectual property law, particularly in EU Member States. - E-bokPDF, Engelska, 2007
2 358 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
The authors show how basic principles—such as protection of the rights of the defence, legal certainty, and proper conduct of the procedure—facilitate the application of the doctrines of effectiveness and non-discrimination to those elements of the national procedure which impede in some manner the effective enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 EC. Their in-depth analysis ranges over procedural aspects of such elements as rules of evidence, costs, expert testimony, injunctions, burden of proof, limitations, and forms of compensation, ultimately leading them to propose clear modifications of certain rules of national procedure that go a long way toward ensuring adequately effective enforcement.
- E-bokPDF, Engelska, 2008
2 669 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
EU Directive 2004/48 EC obliges Member States to seek to achieve ‘partial harmonization’ of the remedies, procedures and measures necessary to enforce intellectual property law. These obligations provide what may be termed a minimum standard which must be fulfilled by the Member States in the course of their implementation of the Directive. However, the Directive is not faring well at the Member State level.
The three authors’ vastly detailed, article-by-article analysis of the fortunes of Directive 2004/48 EC in three EU jurisdictions offers enormously valuable insights into the complex ways Member States respond to Community law, and in so doing provides an important addition to the ongoing inquiry into the nature of the reciprocal tensions between EU law (both judicial and legislative) and the laws of Member States.
The particular investigation undertaken here reveals three paradigmatic situations:
the situation in which the Directive has not been implemented at all, either because the Member State believes that its current legislation is adequate or that the wording of the Directive is such that no special legislation is required (England);the situation in which implementation has been inadequate, because either the pre-existing legislation constitutes inadequate legislation or because the specifically adopted legislation proves to be legally uncertain (The Netherlands); andthe situation in which the relevant time for implementation for the Directive has elapsed and no specific legislation has been adopted (Germany).If there really is, as the European Commission contends, an ‘enforcement deficit’ in the protection of intellectual property rights by national rules of procedure, then the most effective remedial approach, Cummings shows, is through the principles of legal certainty, full effect, and effective judicial protection. These principles will assist the national court in interpretation of the precise meaning of the substantive obligations under the Directive. Drawing on the tenor of ECJ law that national procedural rules should not present an obstacle to adequate judicial protection, the author considers the conditions that must be fulfilled before an eventual claimant, who has suffered loss and damage caused by either the non-implementation or the incorrect implementation of a directive, may bring an action against the State for breach of Community law.
The author presents his analyses of the implementation of the Directive in Dutch and English national procedure and his proposals for German implementation as three separate cases rather than comparatively, as any attempt to compare either the method of national implementation or the degree of adequacy or inadequacy inevitably obscures the essential particularities of each of the three national systems in relation to the Directive. Although this book will repay the study of anyone interested in European law, it will be of special value to practitioners and policymakers engaged in intellectual property law, particularly in EU Member States.
- E-bokPDF, Engelska, 2011
2 711 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
Article 340 TFEU, which provides a method of compensation for victims of the Commission’s errors, is invoked as the basis for actions against Commission decisions under the Merger Control Regulation. Accordingly, the rules of procedure of the Community Courts come into play. This probing analysis asks the important questions: What limits can be imposed on the discretion of the Community Courts acting within their own rules of procedure? Is the manner in which the Court of Justice interprets those rules sufficient?Focusing on the crucial Court responsibilities of investigating facts and assessing economic damage in relation to the type of non-contractual liability apparent in antitrust cases, the author convincingly demonstrates that the scope for ‘case management’ by the Courts is strictly limited,and may engender information or evidentiary deficits that contravene ECHR Art 6.1 as well as the principles of effective judicial protection and rectitude of decision. A claim for compensation pursuant to Art 340 TFEU may be struck merely because the basic elements of the cause ofaction cannot be established to a minimal level.As a penetrating analysis of the restricted discretion which the Community Courts exercise as distinct from the statutory context in which they operate, this book clears new ground in EU law. Showing that Commission decisions in antitrust cases – which consider hypothetical futuresituations in the event of a proposed merger being carried out – are not easily reconcilable with the judicial review function of the Courts, particularly when such decisions have financial and other adverse consequences, the author provides lawyers, policymakers, and academics in EU competition law with a new and challenging perspective on their field. - E-bokPDF, Engelska, 2014
1 807 kr
Läs direkt efter köp
Questions of admissibility surrounding expert evidence have always bedevilled the judiciary. However, statutory language and rules of procedure, conscientiously interpreted and applied to the use of expert evidence, can go a long way towards achieving rectitude of decision where judgement requires knowledge not necessarily possessed by the jurists responsible for trying the case. In this remarkable work of analysis and commentary, George Cumming takes the position that the prominent international courts of Europe fail to follow their own rules of procedure in the use of expert opinion, thus potentially breaching the express right to a fair trial embodied within Article 6 (1) ECHR. In the process of developing his core thesis that statutory interpretation often requires the use of expert evidence in order to achieve a semantically accurate meaning, the author focuses on such crucially important topics as the following: the necessity for expert interpretation of technical language; how the non-expert use of technical words unjustifiably enlarges their scope of application; social scientific methods of statutory interpretation and proof of meaning; relevance of the court’s duty to properly examine the merits; use and admissibility of so-called Brandeis Brief materials; contexts involving competing social or political philosophies; and how use of experts may serve to confer an element of social legitimacy upon a statutory interpretation. The centrepiece of the analysis is a comparative examination of the use of expert evidence (or lack thereof) in controversial cases in five tribunals: the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada. In great detail the author shows how the three US and Canadian courts have demonstrated a degree of credibility which is very much related to the quality of the expert evidence they consider – credibility he finds lacking in the European judgements. Given the limited ability of procedure to achieve rectitude of decision, this extraordinary work has far-reaching implications for recognition of the rule of law. The author shows how the expert evidence deficiency found in the European courts undermines empirical analysis of their application of the TFEU and ECHR, thus adding another obstacle to an already problematic search for legal truth. Dealing as this book does with the use of vital evidence in the context of a procedural deficit, it cannot be ignored by European jurists or legal academics.
