Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU, Article 258 : paragraph 46
• TFEU, Article 267 : paragraphs 32, 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 47
• Directive 89/106 -A02P1 : paragraph 55
• Directive 89/106 -A03 : paragraphs 55, 56
• Directive 89/106 -A04P1 : paragraphs 32, 36, 48
• Directive 89/106 -A04P2 : paragraphs 38, 40, 46, 54, 59
• Directive 89/106 -A06P1 : paragraphs 39, 41, 46, 56
• Directive 89/106 -A07P3 : paragraphs 37, 44
• Directive 89/106 -C04 : paragraph 50
• Directive 89/106 -C11 : paragraph 38
• Directive 89/106 -C12 : paragraphs 54, 56, 59
• Directive 93/68 : paragraphs 51, -53
• Directive 93/68 -A04P1 : paragraphs 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 47
• Directive 93/68 -A04P2 : paragraphs 34, 35, 40, 42, 43, 47, 57 - 59, 61
• Directive 93/68 -C12 : paragraphs 57 - 59, 61
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT11 : paragraphs 63, 66, 70, 72
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT3 : paragraphs 66, 67
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT4 : paragraphs 66, 68
• Directive 98/34 -A08 : paragraph 64
• Directive 98/34 -A08P1L1 : paragraphs 63, 72
• Directive 2006/96 -A01PT11 : paragraphs 70, 72
• Directive 2006/96 -A08P1L1 : paragraphs 70, 72
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -192/89 -N10 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -192/89 -N11 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -188/91 -N17 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -188/91 -N18 : paragraph 35
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/94 -N54 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N40 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N41 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N42 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N43 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N48 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 -N49 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/08 -N31 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -385/10 -N15 : paragraph 50
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/13 : paragraph 46
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/13 -N55 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/13 -N56 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/13 -N63 : paragraph 41
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -307/13 -N16 : paragraph 66
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -307/13 -N19 : paragraph 67
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -307/13 -N26 : paragraph 69
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -307/13 -N27 : paragraph 69

Operative part

• Interprets : TFEU, Article 267
• Interprets : Directive 89/106 -A04P1
• Interprets : Directive 89/106 -A04P2
• Interprets : Directive 89/106 -C12
• Interprets : Directive 98/34 -A01PT11
• Interprets : Directive 98/34 -A08P1L1

Opinion

• 11957E/TXT : point 61
  
• TFEU, Article 34 : point 59
  
• TFEU, Article 267 : points 1, 30, 35, 40
  
• Agreement with Third Countries or International Bodies - 21994A1223(07) -A02 : point 56
  
• Agreement with Third Countries or International Bodies - 21994A1223(07) -A05 : point 56
  
• Agreement with Third Countries or International Bodies - 21994A1223(07) -N3 : point 56
  
• Directive 83/189 : points 6, 10, 17, 46
  
• Secondary Legislation - Document published in the OJ C series- 31985Y0604(01) : point 7
  
• Directive 89/106 : points 1, 4, 5, 12, 15, 34, 39, 42 - 44, 46, 62, 68, 75, 79, 83, 85, 86, 95
  
• Directive 89/106 -A03 : point 7
  
• Directive 89/106 -A03P1 : point 69
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04 : points 30, 81
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04P1 : point 9
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04P2 : points 48, 72, 73, 82
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04P2LA : point 8
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04P4 : point 82
  
• Directive 89/106 -A04P6 : point 82
  
• Directive 89/106 -A05 : points 52, 53
  
• Directive 89/106 -A05P1 : point 54
  
• Directive 89/106 -A06P1 : point 10
  
• Directive 89/106 -A07 : points 10, 11
  
• Directive 89/106 -A07P1 : point 48
  
• Directive 89/106 -A07P3 : point 50
  
• Directive 89/106 -A15 : point 82
  
• Directive 89/106 -A21 : point 70
  
• Directive 89/106 -A21P1 : point 10
  
• Directive 89/106 -CH3 : point 82
  
• Directive 89/106 -N1 : point 7
  
• Directive 89/686 : points 37, 38
  
• Directive 98/34 : points 1, 6, 17, 30, 34, 46, 62, 87, 88, 92 - 95
  
• Directive 98/34 -A01 : point 18
  
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT3 : points 90, 91
  
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT4 : point 90
  
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT6 : point 51
  
• Directive 98/34 -A01PT11 : point 90
  
• Directive 98/34 -A08 : point 20
  
• Directive 98/34 -A09 : point 20
  
• Decision 2003/312 : point 54
  
• Decision 2006/1673 : point 58
  
• Decision 2008/768 : point 84
  
• Regulation 765/2008 -A30P4 : point 84
  
• Regulation 305/2011 : points 5, 46
  
• Regulation 305/2011 -A08P3 : point 84
  
• Regulation 305/2011 -A17P3 : point 67
  
• Regulation 305/2011 -A17P5 : points 52, 79
  
• Regulation 1024/2012 -A10P3 : point 39
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 : point 19
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A10P6 : point 52
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A11 : point 54
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A15 : point 58
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A16 : point 58
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A17 : point 58
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A18 : point 58
  
• Regulation 1025/2012 -A19 : point 58
  
• Directive 2015/1535 : points 6, 19, 46
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52003XC0327(04) : point 16
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52003XC0416(03) : point 57
  
• Commission - COM Document (Other than Draft Legislation) - 52011DC0311 : point 57
  
• Commission - SEC Document - 52011SC0671 : points 49, 58
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/88 -N8 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -188/91 -N18 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -194/94 : points 88, 94, 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -28/95 -N27 : point 34
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -443/98 : points 88, 94, 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -159/00 -N30 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/03 -N54 : point 90
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/03 -N57 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -432/03 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -342/04 : point 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -20/05 -N34 : point 90
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -20/05 -N35 : point 58
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -227/06 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -415/07 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/08 : point 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/08 -N35 : point 38
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -185/08 -N36 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -385/10 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -385/10 -N28 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -385/10 -N29 : point 85
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -484/10 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -171/11 -N32 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/13 -N63 : point 82
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -62/14 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/14 : point 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -251/14 : point 51
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 30/12/2014

Date of the Opinion

• 28/01/2016

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

27/10/2016

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 6 from 09.01.2017, p.9

Application: OJ C 96 from 23.03.2015, p.5

Name of the parties

James Elliott Construction

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Bruck, Véronique: La Cour de justice se déclare compétente pour l'interprétation d'un standard technique harmonisé élaboré en référence à une directive, Europe 2016 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.23-24 (FR)
2. Bruck, Véronique: Compétence de la Cour, Europe 2016 Décembre nº 12 p.23-24 (FR)
3. Volpato, Annalisa: The harmonized standards before the ECJ: James Elliott Construction, Common Market Law Review 2017, Volume 54, Issue 2, p. 591-603 (EN)
4. Meuwese, A.C.M.: Particuliere geharmoniseerde normen: het HvJ EU gunt zichzelf rechtsmacht, Ars aequi 2017 p.327-331 (NL)
5. Nusser, Jens: Justiziabilität harmonisierter technischer Normen, Neue juristische Wochenschrift 2017 p.315 (DE)
6. Bergé, Jean-Sylvestre: La non-invocabilité du droit européen en situation contractuelle, Revue des contrats 2017 n°1 p.146-147 (FR)
7. Graf von Westphalen, Friedrich: Justiziabilität harmonisierter technischer Normen, IWRZ – Zeitschrift für internationales Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.75-76 (DE)
8. Klindt, Thomas ; Wende, Susanne: Produktrecht: Justiziabilität harmonisierter technischer Normen, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.66-67 (DE)
9. Karpenstein, Ulrich: Gefährdet der EuGH den New Approach?, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2017 p.321-322 (DE)
10. Van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter ; Demoulin, Iris: La normalisation européenne après l'arrêt James Elliott Construction du 27 octobre 2016 : la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne a-t-elle élargi ses compétences d'interprétation?, Revue de la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Liège 2017 p.305-326 (FR)
11. Lundqvist, Björn: European Harmonized Standards as ‘ Part of EU Law ’ : The Implications of the James Elliott Case for Copyright Protection and, Possibly, for EU Competition, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 2017 p.421-435 (EN)
12. van Waeyenberge, Stephen ; Restrepo Amariles, David: James Elliott Construction: A "New(ish) Approach" to Judicial Review of Standardisation, European Law Review 2017 p.882-893 (EN)
13. Purnhagen, Kai P.: Voluntary “New Approach” Technical Standards are Subject to Judicial Scrutiny by the CJEU! - The Remarkable CJEU Judgment “Elliott” On Private Standards, European Journal of Risk Regulation 2017 nº 8 p.586-598 (EN)
14. Colombo, Carlo ; Eliantonio, Mariolina: Harmonized technical standards as part of EU law: Juridification with a number of unresolved legitimacy concerns?, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 2017 p.323–340 (EN)
15. Van Waeyenberge, Arnaud: La normalisation technique en Europe. L'empire (du droit) contre-attaque, Revue internationale de droit économique 2018 p.305-317 (FR)
16. Cuccuru, Pierluigi: The public and private sides of harmonized standards : James Elliott Construction v. Irish Asphalt : case C-613/14, German Law Journal 2018, vol. 19, nº 6, p. 1399-1416 (EN)
17. Van Leeuwen, Barend: Market Access, the New Approach and Private Law, European Review of Private Law / Revue européenne de droit privé / Europäische Zeitschrift für Privatrecht 2019, n° 2, p. 269-291 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Supreme Court - Ireland

Subject-matter

• Approximation of laws
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  
• Reference for a preliminary ruling : case not proceeding to judgment
  

Formation of the Court

Troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Šváby

Advocate General

Campos Sánchez-Bordona

Language(s) of the Case

• English
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• Spanish