European Court of Justice

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about European Court of Justice

Theresa May
We want to have a smooth and orderly process of withdrawal ... that's why we want that implementation period and we have to negotiate what will operate during that implementation period, and yes that may mean we will start off with the ECJ.feedback
share this quote
Oct 09 2017
“This concern as you recall in your resolution is aggravated by certain discriminatory measures taken a few months ago by the UK authorities … We need a consistent interpretation of the agreement on both sides of the Channel. That only the ECJ can guarantee.” said Michel Barnier speaking about European Court of Justice. It’s one of the 76 quotes about European Court of Justice you can find on this page. 53 people have said something about this topic. Among them: Julian King and Kersti Kaljulaid. Browse the quotes by date and by name to find those that are relevant to you.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !
Dominic Raab - The Telegraph

The EU has never had an international agreement with any other country by where disputes are settled by the ECJ.feedback

Dominic Raab - The Telegraph

When we leave the EU, we're taking back control over our laws. There will be divergence between the case law of the EU and the UK. It is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the EU, and for the EU to keep half an eye on the case law for the UK. All this jingoistic stuff about foreign courts and foreign judges and lawyers is not language I've ever used.feedback

Keir Starmer

The repeated reference to ending the 'direct jurisdiction' of the ECJ is potentially significant. This appears to contradict the red line laid out in the prime minister's Lancaster House speech and the government's white paper, which stated there could be no future role of the ECJ and that all laws will be interpreted by judges in this country. Nothing the government says it wants to deliver from Brexit – be it on trade, citizens' rights or judicial cooperation – can be achieved without a dispute resolution system involving some role for European judges.feedback

Alison McGovern

The vagueness and incoherence of the government's proposals prove what an appalling error they committed by making ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ a red line in negotiations. To have any kind of relationship with Europe – be it on trade, citizens' rights or security – there will need to be a court in place to resolve disputes. That court will include European judges, will have the power to make decisions that affect the UK, and most likely will shadow the ECJ in the vast majority of cases.feedback

Paul Jenkins

If the UK is to be part of something close enough to a customs union or the single market to remove the need for hard borders, it will only work if the rules are identical to the EU's own internal rules. Not only must they be the same but there must be consistent policing of those rules. If Theresa May's red line means we cannot be tied to the ECJ, the Brexit treaty will need to provide a parallel policing system.feedback

Paul Jenkins

That may be a new court but, in reality, any new court will have to follow what the ECJ says about the EU's own rules, otherwise the new system won't work. So, never mind Theresa May's foolish red line; we will have the ECJ in all but name.feedback

Steve Peers

Brexit ministers should spell out that although they are opposed to the ECJ's current role of (for instance) asserting the supremacy of EU law over UK law, they can accept the kind of indirect or informal ECJ role that other non-EU countries have agreed to in the past.feedback

Steve Peers

The idea that a close link with the EU can be combined with a complete break with the ECJ is simplistic. It's the judicial version of 'have our cake and eat it too.feedback

Peter Hain

This government's dogmatic insistence on taking Britain out of the jurisdiction of the European court of justice could put vital funding for Northern Ireland at risk. Ministers themselves say the UK should remain part of the PEACE programme. But they have not faced up to the reality that this cannot be squared with their policy of leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ. The government needs to bow to reality and accept that this programme will require the softening of their unnecessary red line on judicial sovereignty.feedback

Bobby Friedman

The government must offer some clarity on the judiciary’s relationship to the ECJ – because the Brexit bill itself is ambiguous, and will lead to uncertainty all round. What happens when a judge gets demob-happy? The answer can be seen in the intervention by the imminently departing president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, in the debate over the role of the European court of justice – better known as the ECJ – once Britain leaves the EU. The government will doubtless be less than delighted at another dissenting voice in the Brexit process.feedback

David Neuberger

If the United Kingdom parliament says we should take into account decisions of the ECJ then we will do so, if it says we shouldn't then we won't, and basically we will do what the statute says. If it doesn't express clearly what the judges should do about decisions of the European Court of Justice, then the judges will simply have to do their best. But to blame the judges for, as it were, making the law when parliament has failed to do so would be unfair.feedback

Charles Grant

If we want a transitional deal including the single market and customs union, which is what business wants, it will need to be off the shelf. That means it is something similar to the Norway option with four conditions that will have to be accepted: free movement, paying into the budget, following EU rules including new ones, and accepting ECJ rulings.feedback

Dimitris Avramopoulos

If now we see readiness to respond positively to this last messages that we have sent we are ready to stop all this procedures. There is still time, approximately one month during which these governments are invited to change position.feedback

Fabian Zuleeg

The way the UK has conducted these negotiations has burned many bridges and there are precious few allies and friends left. The notion that the EU could somehow concede on fundamental aspects of the treaties, such as freedom of movement or the oversight of the ECJ, is not only unlikely but would be struck down by the Court when challenged, making the Tony Blair suggestion unworkable.feedback

Heidi Alexander

[Gardiner] starts by asserting the reasons he says people voted for Brexit last year – a list that could have come straight out of Tory central office – sovereignty, immigration and the ECJ. But what about the false promise of large amounts of extra money for the NHS? What about the British prime minister who hyped up his negotiations with the EU but came back with very little to show for it?feedback

Katie Vickery

If the European Court of Justice adopts the opinion of the Advocate General then protected products, even when used as ingredients, will continue to enjoy a high level of protection.feedback

Peter Fleischer - Google

Since 2014, we've worked hard to implement the 'right to be forgotten' ruling thoughtfully and comprehensively in Europe. For the last 18 months, we've been defending the idea that each country should be able to balance freedom of expression and privacy in the way that it chooses, not in the way that another country chooses. We're doing this because we want to ensure that people have access to content that is legal in their country. We look forward to making our case at the European Court of Justice.feedback

Theresa May

We are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is not going to happen.feedback

Benoît Dillet

This rejection of the ECJ as [a] mediator comes from the U.K. government's rhetorical and strategic call for 'taking back control'. If they manage to reach a compromise, then it would show the strength of EU institutions, since Theresa May has been unilateral on this issue for years.feedback

Paul Condon

Only two years ago the prime minster saw the European court of justice as being a very worthwhile price to pay for access to these vital databases [and] for police and criminal justice cooperation mechanisms. We are going to have to monitor what is happening in Europe and constantly upgrade our standards to ensure we are equivalent to the EU.feedback

Keir Starmer

It's increasingly clear that the government acted recklessly by giving up on membership of Euratom. As with so many aspects of the prime minister's Brexit strategy, she has let ideological obsessions – in this case preventing any future role for the European court of justice – take priority over safeguarding jobs and the economy.feedback

Dominic Grieve

I've never been particularly impressed with [the ECJ], but the fact is it is there and it's going to be doing a lot of work that is relevant to us. I think we need to continue to keep an open mind on whether the ECJ might in future be a mechanism for resolving disputes in those bodies we are still participating.feedback

Polly Toynbee

As reality bites, Conservative Euro-fever continues to rage, with pros and antis both rampant. Labour must stand by but prepare to step in. The Brexit crunch is here. Ministers from DExEU, the new Brexit department, trying to bite the promised cake find their teeth breaking on the concrete hard choices. Theresa May’s red lines, her adamantine insistence on total immigration control with no European court of justice oversight, makes the department’s job impossible on single market and customs union access. So James Chapman, the Daily Mail journalist who was previously David Davis’s chief of staff, told Radio 4 on Saturday. There are no cakes, only rocks and hard places. Sticking to her red lines really does mean losing free access for our trade, and the 60% of our exports that go either to the EU or to 45 other countries with EU trade deals. It means lorries paying tariffs backed up around the M25 to Watford.feedback

James Chapman

Where she's taken some absolutist positions on particular issues, I'm thinking of The European Court of Justice, she's set a red line effectively for a conference speech that hamstrung these negotiations in my view. On David Davis, there isn't anyone better to do this negotiation in parliament in my view. He's a very tough, resilient operator. There have been red lines that have been set for him, that make the job he has to do very difficult.feedback

James Chapman

Now the government has announced its intention to withdraw from the Euratom treaty as we leave the EU and the reason for that appears to be there's a locus for the ECJ in that treaty which covers the free movement of nuclear scientists. Now I would have thought the UK would like to continue welcoming nuclear scientists who are all probably being paid six figures and are paying lots of tax. But we're withdrawing from it because of this absolutist position on the European court. I think she could show some flexibility in that area.feedback

Kersti Kaljulaid

You may blame your country out of the European Union, which isn't anyone's objective, not in the mainstream political scale at least. People started to think, Hold on, what have we got from the European Union project … If you look at the hard statistics, almost every country is better off than they were at the beginning of the century.feedback

Kersti Kaljulaid

Brexit will not define our presidency in any way. We want to talk about the European Union's future. And I believe we can now see the ice is starting to break really about the negativity concerning the European Union.feedback

Kersti Kaljulaid

Brexit is a negotiation process for which I now feel the European Union seems to be even slightly better prepared than the United Kingdom, which kind of shows us that when the European Union needs to react quickly it can do so with considerable speed and effectiveness. During our presidency I don't exactly see how we can go so quickly to the discussions on the trade.feedback

Kersti Kaljulaid

Partly, I believe this is because straight after the Brexit vote everyone in Europe realised that blaming Brussels is not cheap at all.feedback

David Davis

The argument now is going to be more about whether the European Court of Justice has a say, and that is where the fight comes in.feedback

Claude Moraes

Looking at the small print, the government's offer is full of holes and threatens the rights of both EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in other EU countries. It will create yet further uncertainty. This situation could have been resolved had there been a strong and comprehensive offer, but instead the government has proposed cuts in rights by introducing income thresholds for family reunification and removing the protection of the European court of justice. This will create greater uncertainty for both UK and EU citizens and take up limited negotiating time.feedback

David Davis

When we are doing all these deals on trade and other areas, there will be arbitration arrangements. There won't be the ECJ, there will be a mutually agreed chairman and somebody nominated from both sides, that's the normal way, but there my be other ways too, and it may well be we have an arbitration arrangement over this, but it's not going to be the European Court of Justice. It's about finding the place that suits both sides. That's what we're about. I'm pretty sure [we can reach a deal]. I'm not 100 per cent sure. You can never be. It's a negotiation...I'm pretty sure, but I'm not certain.feedback

David Davis

When we're doing all these deals on trade and other areas, there will be arbitration arrangements. There won't be the ECJ, there'll be a mutually agreed chairman and somebody nominated from both sides, is the normal way but there may be other ways too. And it may well be we have an arbitration arrangement over this but it's not going to be the Court of Justice.feedback

Chris Scicluna - Daiwa Capital Markets

The UK Government's decision to prioritise controlling freedom of movement of people and rule out jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and thus to forego single market and customs union membership represents a reckless act of economic self-harm.feedback

Franklin Dehousse

The UK would then become the only third [ie foreign] state submitted to the full and direct jurisdiction of the ECJ… Such a state would thus be bound by decisions taken by a judicial authority where it is not represented and whose judges would be appointed by its potential opponents.feedback

Michel Barnier

I can't negotiate with myself. Thus the four freedoms go together. And we will not compromise on the autonomy of decisions of the EU.feedback

Michel Barnier

The subjects we need to deal with are extraordinarily complex from a technical, judicial and financial point of view. That's why we're ready to start very quickly. I can't negotiate with myself. All options are available and on the table. The UK government knows the rules, the conditions for each one of its options. We will not accept any cherry picking.feedback

Michel Barnier

I am concerned [by the need] to have a partner for the negotiation as quickly as possible. That's my preoccupation today. I need a British delegation on the other side of the table, a head of the British delegation that is stable, accountable and that has a mandate. That's why we're ready to start very quickly. I can't negotiate with myself.feedback

Michel Barnier

I can't negotiate with myself. My preoccupation is that time is passing, it is passing quicker than anyone believes because the subjects we have to deal with are extraordinarily complex. I don't know what hard Brexit or soft Brexit means. I read yesterday 'Open Brexit' too! Brexit is withdrawal from the EU - it's the UK's decision. We're implementing it. We haven't negotiated, we haven't progressed. Thus we must begin this negotiation. We are ready as soon as the UK itself is ready.feedback

Jonathan Portes

It would involve the UK accepting foreign judges and the EU accepting that the ECJ is not the ultimate arbiter. If both sides can do that, it will be a very good signal … if not the chances of getting a resolution on the substantially more difficult elements are close to zero.feedback

Steve Peers

The repeal bill will end ECJ jurisdiction for post-Brexit judgments but maintain pre-Brexit rulings as precedent. What the government means to say is it wishes to overturn these pre-Brexit ECJ rulings immediately – a derogation from the normal rule.feedback

Camino Mortera-Martinez

If Britain wants to have a bespoke agreement, it would need to accept, at a minimum, partial ECJ oversight. There may be no precedent for a non-Schengen, non-EU country having preferential status at Europol, but this should not mean that one cannot be created.feedback

Albrecht Ritschl

A phased Brexit using Efta as a stepladder to put integration with the EU into reverse would give Theresa May a symbolic clear break with the EU at an early stage of the exit process, since Britain would no longer be subject to the rulings of the European court of justice. At the same time it would protect a legal framework for the further negotiating of a free trade deal, since Efta has its own court of arbitration in Berne.feedback

Allie Renison

While the court confirmed that member states do have a role over aspects of investment, it parted with the earlier advocate general's opinion on a raft of important policy areas such as transport, labour and environmental standards, which it said are reserved for the EU executive when negotiating free trade agreements. This may mean a separation between trade and investment in future agreements. How this affects Brexit negotiations will depend on whether the final trade agreement includes investment provisions or not, although neither the UK or EU has expressed much interest in this to date.feedback

Nicole Kar - Linklaters

This is the most significant ECJ case on EU trade policy for twenty years and has huge ramifications for any UK-EU FTA. In policy terms, now the UK government will want to consider whether it moderates its ambition for the UK-EU FTA to those matters where there is exclusive competence in order to secure agreement through EU Member State governments by qualified majority voting.feedback

Max Conze - Dyson

We feel vindicated by this clear opinion from the European Court of Justice and will go back and open proceedings against Bosch as appropriate. Consumers are buying products because they want to be environmentally friendly. This is simple, it's about doing the right thing by consumers: we want what the energy rating it says on the box to be the true energy rating and that is clearly not the case now.feedback

Michel Barnier

The European Council has decided that preserving the rights of EU citizens and their families will be a priority. The level of protection afforded under EU law must not be watered down. Brexit should not alter the nature of people's daily lives. The EU requires crystal clear guarantees that rights will be effectively enforced. The European Court of Justice will play its role.feedback

Julian King

You are not going to get me to comment on aspects of the UK government's position. From the commission's point of view on terrorism, cyber and serious organised crime, we have a shared assessment of the threat and we are stronger countering them if we are working together. At the moment there are no precedents for non-EU member states having a link to the Schengen information system. So if the UK wanted that it would have to be something to be discussed, it would have to be a particular bespoke arrangement.feedback

Julian King

There is no precedent for such a thing. You get into the wider issue of data protection rules and data adequacy. An overall arrangement on data adequacy, ie the EU recognising that it accepted the level of data protection in the UK. Full membership as such, at the moment, is available to EU member states. So it would have to be, if the UK wanted it, subject to discussion and agreement with the member states, something new and different, the terms of which and how that operates would have to be agreed.feedback

Julian King

The UK has exported 8,000 people under the European arrest warrant and imported a thousand, it is an active user, but there you are talking about an element of the acquis [EU law] and legal and criminal proceedings, so you have to have some level of arbitration. The existing level of arbitration is the European court of justice, so that is an issue that will have to be worked through in the negotiations. By definition the jurisprudence relating to the European arrest warrant is ECJ jurisprudence.feedback

Antonio Tajani

If the UK, after the election, wants to withdraw (Article 50), then the procedure is very clear. If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy. If tomorrow, the new UK government decides to change its position, it is possible to do. The final decision is for the 27 member states, but everybody will be in favour. Under the (Brexit) treaty everything under the treaty is under the court. Technically it is the only possible solution. If you want to continue to guarantee citizens' rights you need to refer to the ECJ.feedback

James McGrory

This underlines what many suspect the government already knows: the idea of negotiating a complete deal in two years is a fantasy and a transitional deal is essential. A transition deal which protects our economy is going to require compromise on everything from payments to immigration to the ECJ.feedback

Michael Fallon

We have made it clear that we are leaving the European Union, we are leaving the single market, we are leaving the customs union, and we will no longer be a part of the ambit of the ECJ. But it is also clear that we have to avoid a cliff edge – we need to give businesses the certainty that they need that there won't suddenly be a difference the day after we leave and day before. We will do everything we can to avoid a cliff edge so there will be for some sectors inevitably implementation periods.feedback

Guy Verhofstadt

The withdrawal agreement will be an act of union law. An act of union law is naturally controlled by the European court of justice. It is as simple as that. The withdrawal agreement will be nothing outside the treaties. So automatically the court of justice is competent.feedback

Nicola Sturgeon

We are not leaving the EU today to give up control of immigration again, and we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. We are going to be a country … that is no longer part of a political union with supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.feedback

Iman Amrani

Religious identity isn’t something you can take off in public. The European court of justice has turned the headscarf into a symbol of resistance. This week’s decision by the European court of justice to allow the hijab to be banned in the workplace is yet another sign of the continent’s obsession with how Muslim women dress.feedback

Mario Draghi - European Central Bank

It's too early to take a firm stance on the regulatory framework that should be established once the UK leaves the EU. What is important is that we don't step back on the single market. And to be part of the single market, you have to be subject to the European Court of Justice. We'll have to look carefully at that.feedback

Jan Philipp Albrecht - European Parliament

And that's not only this regulation, but that's also the basic standard that in Europe every infringement of your data protection rights, of your privacy rights, have to be justified, have to be proportionate. The European Court of Justice also in December has judged on two of these laws – from the UK and Sweden – and said they are not in line with the fundamental rights of people.feedback

Nicolo Ghedini - Fininvest

We already had a favourable ruling from the appeals court, then the Bank of Italy referred the matter to the ECB. And so now we're presenting the same appeal to the European Court of Justice.feedback

Nick Barber

I can't see anybody wants to see it go to the European Court of Justice. I think all sides would agree that would be a mess.feedback

Christian Wigand - European Commission

We don't comment on ongoing court cases. As we have said from the beginning, the Commission is convinced that the Privacy Shield lives up to the requirements set out by the European Court of Justice, which have been the basis for the negotiations.feedback

Peter Szijjarto

We are challenging the quota decision at court (the European Court of Justice) and we firmly believe that that decision was made with a disregard to EU rules.feedback

Pia Bucella

To this day, there is still no functional operational system that takes care of waste from A to Z. The incinerator didn't exist last year, and that is unchanged today.feedback

Beatriz Beiras

We now turn to the third protagonist of this story, Judge José María Fernández Seijo, in Barcelona. You are a judge at Barcelona's business court, where Mr Mohamed Aziz brought a complaint against Catalonia Caixa Bank for abuse of his mortgage agreement, and he is asking for his eviction notice to be annulled. Why did you refer this case to the European Court of Justice?feedback

No quotes...
|< <
> >|

Quotes about European Court of Justice

Quote Verifier
verify-icon
Check if the quote you read on social networks is authentic
facebook_page
twitter_page
This webpage has been created by a robot: errors and absent quotes cannot be totally avoided
 
Feedback×

Quote :

Mistake :

Comments :