﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>European &amp; Public International</title>
    <description>European &amp; Public International case reports</description>
    <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/711/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <webMaster>registration@casecheck.co.uk</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:08:38 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:08:38 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (ICSID, September 28 2007)</title>
      <description>One of the many disputes arising out of the Argentine economic crisis. ICSID found that Argentina had breached its obligations under the relevant Bilateral Investment Treaty in relation to “fair and equitable treatment” and in relation to the “umbrella clase”.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14324/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/14324/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=14324</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=14324</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) (Provisional Measures: July 13, 2006)</title>
      <description>Argentina requested provisional measures against Uruguay (under a 1975 Treaty) to suspend the authorisation and construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay and to compel Uruguay to cooperate with it to protect the environment around the River. The International Court of Justice rejected the request.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13235/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/13235/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=13235</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=13235</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Case C-349/03              Commission v United Kingdom (judgment of European Court of Justice of 21 July 2005)</title>
      <description>By excluding Gibraltar from part of the scope of the directive on mutual assistance in the field of taxation, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its Community obligations.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12144/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12144/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12144</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12144</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04                Commission v United Kingdom (judgment of European Court of Justice of 12 July 2005)</title>
      <description>The Court confirmed that a ‘positive list’ system under which only products containing substances included on the lists in the annexes to the Community directive on food supplements could be marketed in the Community was appropriate for securing the free movement of food supplements and ensuring the protection of human health.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12145/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12145/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12145</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12145</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nestle v Mars UK Ltd (Approximation of laws) [2005] EUECJ C-353/03 (07 July 2005)</title>
      <description>The distinctive character required for registration of a mark may be acquired through its use as part of an already registered trade mark. In order to acquire distinctive character through use the mark must be perceived by the relevant category of persons to designate a product or service from originating from a given company.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12146/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12146/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12146</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12146</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Commission v Austria (Social policy) [2005] EUECJ C-147/03 (07 July 2005)</title>
      <description>Making access for students who have obtained their secondary education diploma in another Member State subject not only to the general Austrian admission requirements, but also to the requirements for immediate admission to the chosen course of study in that other State constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12147/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12147/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12147</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12147</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Plama Consortium Limited v The Republic of Bulgaria, Decision on Jurisdiction (February 8, 2005)</title>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction under Article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty and under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11761/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/11761/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=11761</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=11761</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
