This book analyses the horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the European Union, from a constitutional perspective. It advances two main arguments: First, it argues that the horizontal effect of fundamental rights (i.e. their application to disputes between private parties) cannot be usefully discussed based on the existing EU horizontality doctrine, which associates horizontality with the exercise of horizontal direct effect only. That doctrine is characterised by a series of overly technical rules as to how the latter may be produced and has a case-specific nature that lacks overall constitutional coherence. Secondly, the book argues that a substantive theory of horizontality is required in EU law and sketches its main parameters. In the fundamental rights context, horizontal effect has organisational implications for society, which go beyond specific intersubjective disputes. It is argued that its determination requires an explicit recognition of the public character of certain private platforms of will formation (e.g. the workplace) and a discussion of the role of fundamental rights therein. At the same time, a constitutionally adequate model of horizontality involves an acknowledgment of the supranational character of EU adjudication: the determination of horizontal applicability of a fundamental right within a type of private authority relationship falls upon the Court of Justice, but the precise manifestation of horizontal effect (e.g. direct, indirect or state-mediated effect) rests with national courts.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.