查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- WTO爭端解決報告於歐洲共同體法律體系內部之地位與效力:歐洲共同體法院與第一審法院所持之立場
- The Direct Effect of the GATT/WTO Rules within the European Community Legal System: The Position of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the Court of First Instance
- 歐盟與美國之農業貿易紛爭
- WTO下之選擇性防衛條款與防衛協定
- WTO爭端解決體系之研究
- The Political Economy of Regional Trade Agreements in the Context of the WTO and Its Implications for Taiwan--GATT Article XXIV in Relation to NAFTA
- WTO體系下的區域整合審查機制--以服務貿易經濟整合協定為中心
- 國際法源下GATT/WTO爭端解決機制論析
- 中共加入WTO的基本分析
- 我國「原產地規則」解析
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | WTO爭端解決報告於歐洲共同體法律體系內部之地位與效力:歐洲共同體法院與第一審法院所持之立場=The Status and the Effect of the WTO Dispute Settlement Reports in the European Community Legal System: The Position of the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance |
---|---|
作 者 | 李貴英; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 16:3 民94.04 |
頁 次 | 頁1-46 |
分類號 | 558.2 |
關鍵詞 | 歐洲共同體法院; 第一審法院; 關稅暨貿易總協定; 世界貿易組織; 爭端解決程序及規則瞭解書; European court of justice; ECJ; Court of first instance; CFI; GATT; WTO; DSU; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 有關WTO爭端解決小組及上訴機構報告在歐洲共同體法律體系內部之地位與效力,引起諸多爭議、探討與關注。烏拉圭回合之前,歐洲共同體法院判例並未明揭應如何定位1947年GATT時代之爭端解決小組報告。烏拉圭回合之後,歐洲共同體法院及第一審法院在若干案件中均駁回原告直接援引WTO爭端解決報告所提之主張。儘管如此,在Biret一案中,歐洲共同體法院所持之立場似乎有所轉變。設若WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構裁定歐體法規或措施不符WTO協定之規定並建議歐體改正後,倘因歐體未於合理期間內確實執行報告內容而導致個人權益受損,仍不應完全排除個人得直接援引WTO爭端解決報告向法院主張其權利之可能性。不過截至目前為止,歐體法院或第一審法院在處理此一問題時,似乎仍採審慎保守之態度與立場。 |
英文摘要 | The question of the status and the effect of the WTO dispute settlement reports in the European Community legal system has instigated a legal debate and therefore merit some closer attention. Before the Uruguay Round, the case law of the European Court of Justice did not give any guidance as to how the Court would qualify the legal status of a 1947 GATT panel report. After the Uruguay Round, both the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have rejected in several cases the arguments brought forward by the applicants concerning the direct effect of the WTO Panel and Appellate Body reports. However, it seems that the European Court of Justice has changed its reasoning in the Biret judgment. In this judgment, it seems to leave open the possibility of individuals relying on the WTO panel and Appellate Body reports to recover damages suffered if the panel or Appellate Body has established that certain EC rules or practices are not in conformity with the WTO rules and has required the EC to bring them into conformity with the WTO rules, but the European Community has failed to comply within a reasonable period of time. To date, both the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have been very prudent and have taken a rather conservative approach in this regard. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。