SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2001 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2-1

Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı ve İlk Derece Mahkemesi

Deniz KIZILSÜMER
Pages
26–48
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The most important changes are the establishment of ‘judicial panels’under the CFI and ECJ in article 225a and CFI has the preliminary ruling jurisdiction after the Nice Treaty.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The European Community Treaty gave the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) responsibility for ensuring that ‘the interpretation and application of this Treaty is observed.’ Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty, and Nice Treaty made considerable modifications on the ECJ jurisdiction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Now, while the ECJ jurisdiction is concentrated on ‘serious issues on the Community’ the CFI has a wider jurisdiction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most important changes are the establishment of ‘judicial panels’under the CFI and ECJ in article 225a and CFI has the preliminary ruling jurisdiction after the Nice Treaty.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The European Community Treaty gave the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) responsibility for ensuring that ‘the interpretation and application of this Treaty is observed.’ Maastricht Treaty, Amsterdam Treaty, and Nice Treaty made considerable modifications on the ECJ jurisdiction. Firstly, the structure of the ECJ has been handled in the article. Then detailed scrutiny was made on the different types of cases in the EU law. The European Single Act established the Court of First Instance(CFI) only with limited powers however Treaty of Nice amendments changed the division of functions between the European Court of Justice and the CFI. Now, while the ECJ jurisdiction is concentrated on ‘serious issues on the Community’ the CFI has a wider jurisdiction. The most important changes are the establishment of ‘judicial panels’under the CFI and ECJ in article 225a and CFI has the preliminary ruling jurisdiction after the Nice Treaty.

Özet

Avrupa Topluluğu Andlaşması, bu Andlaşmanın yorumlanması ve uygulanmasında hukuka uygunluğun gözetilmesi görevini Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanına(ATAD) vermiştir.Maastricht, Amsterdam ve Nice Andlaşmaları ile ATAD’ın yargı yetkisinde önemli değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Çalışmada öncelikle Divan’ın yapısı incelenmiş daha sonra Topluluk yargı sisteminde açılabilecek dava türleri incelenmiştir. Tek Avrupa Senediyle kurulan İlk Derece Mahkemesinin sınırlı yargı yetkisi Nice Andlaşmasıyla genişletilmiş; Topluluk yargı organları arasındaki yetki dağılımı yeniden yapılmıştır. Bu değişiklikle, ATAD’ın işyükü azalırken ''daha önemli Topluluk konularında'' yetkili kalmaya devam etmiştir. Nice Andlaşmasıyla yargı sistemine getirilen en büyük yenilik ise yargısal panellerin kurulması ve İlk Derece Mahkemesine önkarar başvurularında yargılama yetkisinin tanınmasıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIZILSÜMER, D. (2022). Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı ve İlk Derece Mahkemesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2-1, 26–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/490774

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Abeysekera, I. ve Guthrie, J. (2004). An Empirical Investigation of Annual Reporting Trends of Intellectual Capital in Sri Lanka. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, (Basılmak üzere olan Dergi). İndirilme Tarihi: 2 Ekim 2003, WWW: Web: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00059-5
  2. Akdemir, A. (1998). Entellektüel Sermaye Konseptinin İşletmecilik Anlayışındaki Dönüşümleri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3, 63-72.
  3. Ante, P. (2004). Intellectual Capital - Does It Create or Destroy Value?. Measuring Business Excellence, 8, no. 1, 62-68.
  4. Brennan, N. (2001). Reporting Intellectual Capital in Annual Reports: Evidence from Ireland. Accounting Auditing Accountability Journal, 14, no. 4, 423 – 436. Brooking, A. (1996). Intellectual Capital: Core Assets for the Third Millennium Enterprise. New York: Thomson Business Press.
  5. Core, J.E. ve Guay, W.R. ve Buskirk, A.V. (2001). Market Valuations in the New Economy: An Investigation of What Has Changed.Working Paper, University of Pennsylvania. İndirilme Tarihi:3 Ocak 2004 WWW: Web: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=452163
  6. Çıkrıkcı, M. ve Daştan, A. (2002). Entellektüel Sermayenin Temel Finansal Tablolar Aracılğıyla Sunulması. Bankacılar Dergisi, 43, 35-51.
  7. Daley, J. (2001). The Intangible Economy and Australia. Australian Journal of Management. 26, 3-20.
  8. Daniel, K. ve Titman, S. (2001). Market Reactions to Tangible and Intangible Information. Working Paper, Northwestern University. İndirilme Tarihi: 12 Şubat 2004. WWW: Web:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=251862
  9. Dess, G. G. ve Ireland, R. D. ve Zahra, S. A. ve. Floyd, S. W ve Janney, J.J. ve Lane, P. J. (2003). Emerging Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship, Journal of Management, 29, no: 3, 351-378.
  10. Francis, J. ve Schnipper, K. (1999). Have Financial Statements Lost Their Relevance?. Journal of Accounting Research, 37, no: 2, 319 -352. Griliches, Z. (1981).
  11. Market Value, R&D and Patents. Economic Letters, 7, 183 – 187. Hope, J.ve Hope, T. (1997)
  12. Competing in the Third Wave, Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
  13. Kothari, S. P. ve, Sloan, R. G. (1992) Information in Prices About Future Earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 15, 143 – 171 Krippendorf, K. (1980) Content Analysis: an Introduction to its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lev, B. (2001).
  14. Intangibles, Management, Measurement and Reporting., Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press Mitchell, J.D. ve Chia, C. W. L ve Loh,