Podcasts about Advocate general

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

-Five members of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice previously testified at Seattle city council meetings about AI data centers. Now, three of them are apparently under investigation by the company. -Richard Hermer, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland, has reportedly told his department to stop posting official updates on X. -Rivian has been sued on allegations that it made misleading statements about the self-driving capabilities of its R1T truck and R1S SUV. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In today's episode of iGaming Daily SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by SBC Editor-at-Large Ted Menmuir and SBC News Editor Ted Orme-Claye as the trio discuss the latest developments in Tipico's European Court of Justice case and what a potentially landmark ruling could mean for historical player claims, regulatory frameworks and the wider iGaming industry.Tune in to today's episode to find out:Why Tipico is facing legal challenges over bets placed between 2013 and 2020What the Advocate General's opinion says and why it could trigger player refund claimsWhether this opinion is legally binding and what happens next in the ECJ processHow Tipico has responded and where Malta's Bill 55 fits into the wider debateWhat the potential consequences could be for operators that previously worked in grey marketsHost: Charlie HornerGuests: Ted Menmuir & Ted Orme-ClayeProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

Ryanair, today called on Micheál Martin to urgently pass legislation to scrap the Dublin Airport cap of 32m passengers before St Patrick's Day Today, the Advocate General of the European Court ruled that even an outdated traffic cap, such as the one at Dublin Airport, may still be enforceable. Shane was joined by Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary to discuss the ruling

இந்தியாவில் 50 ஆண்டுகளுக்கும் மேலான சட்ட அனுபவம் கொண்ட பேராசிரியர் ரவிவர்மகுமார் அவர்கள் கர்நாடக மாநிலத்தின் முன்னாள் Advocate General ஆவார். இந்தியாவில் சமூக நீதியும் இடஒதுக்கீடும் குறித்த அரசியலமைப்பு சட்ட நிபுணராக பரவலாக அறியப்படுகிறார். கர்நாடக மாநில பின்தங்கிய வகுப்புகள் ஆணையத்தின் நிறுவனர் தலைவரான அவர், சில சர்வதேச நாடுகளின் அரசியலமைப்பு வடிவமைப்பில் சமூக நீதி, இட ஒதுக்கீடு கொள்கைகள் சேர்க்கப்படுவதில் பங்களித்துள்ளார். இந்தியாவில் மண்டல் வழக்கு முதல் EWS வழக்கு வரை முக்கிய இடஒதுக்கீடு தொடர்பான வழக்குகளில் அவர் வாதாடியுள்ளார். தற்போது உச்சநீதிமன்றம் மற்றும் கர்நாடக உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் மூத்த வழக்கறிஞராகவும், முக்கிய குற்ற வழக்குகளில் Special Public Prosecutor ஆகவும் பணியாற்றி வரும் பேராசிரியர் ரவிவர்மா குமார் அவர் மெல்பனில் நடைபெற்ற Fourth International Humanists Conference யில் கலந்துகொள்ள ஆஸ்திரேலியாவுக்கு வருகை தந்திருந்தார். அவரை சிட்னி SBS ஒலிப்பதிவு கூடத்தில் வைத்து சந்தித்து உரையாடியவர் றைசெல்.

⚖️ The long-awaited Advocate General's Opinion on FIFA's Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) has landed… but is it a definitive ruling or just another layer of confusion?In this episode of The Agents Angle, we unpack FIFA's perceived 'win', the grey areas in the AG's analysis, and what it might all mean moving forward.

⚽ From Brazil to England… with a stop-off at FIFA, this episode of The Agents Angle explores what's shaping the football agent world right now.We're joined by Luís Fernando Pamplona Novaes, a highly respected Brazilian sports lawyer at NKDPN and director of international agency N29 Football Solution - who shares expert insights into Brazil's evolving agency market, suspended regulations, the impact of Saudi football, and the need for cultural understanding.

Nick Henderson, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, responds to the opinion of the European Court of Justice's Advocate General that Ireland must provide adequate accommodation for asylum seekers.

A Clare MEP has accused the Government of an "act of desperation" in allowing a case involving asylum seekers' human rights go to the European Court Justice. The ECJ's Advocate General has issued an opinion stating that Ireland can't use lack of capacity as an excuse not to house those seeking international protection here. The High Court in Ireland had sought a ruling from the ECJ after two applicants alleged breaches of their rights after being denied housing when seeking asylum in Ireland in 2023. Scariff native, Independent MEP Michael McNamara, saying the Government's resources should be going into speeding up processing times.

Dame Eleanor Sharpston KC served as an Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union from 2006 to 2020, before being removed following Brexit. Eleanor has held academic roles at the University of Cambridge, has numerous honorary doctorates and is a Bencher at the Middle Temple. In this conversation we discuss her remarkable career and explore parallels between our different paths.

In this episode of Eyeway Conversations, George Abraham reminisces about Sadhan Gupta in conversation with his daughter, Chandriya Alam. Blind from the age of 15 months, Sadhan Gupta defied all odds. He rose to become a prominent Member of Parliament, Advocate General of West Bengal, and a dedicated trade union leader. This episode explores his remarkable journey, showcasing his resilience, his passion for social justice, and his unwavering commitment to workers' rights and disability rights. Discover how Sadhan Gupta, despite his visual impairment, lived a full and impactful life. Learn about his multifaceted career, his contributions to Indian politics, and the profound influence he had on his family and community. This is a conversation that celebrates the life of a truly remarkable individual and serves as an inspiration to all. Key Points: Sadhan Gupta's life and career: Lawyer, politician, social activist. Overcoming adversity: Living a fulfilling life despite blindness. Dedication to workers' rights, social justice, and disability rights. His profound impact on family and community. Tune in for an inspiring conversation that celebrates the life and legacy of a truly remarkable individual. Eyeway National Toll-Free Helpline:If you or someone you know with vision impairment needs guidance, contact 1-800-5320-469.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel's defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations?  Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Go Deeper – AJC Analysis: Statement: American Jewish Committee Appalled by ICC's Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Israelis Explainer: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks.  Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod. Belle Yoeli:   Thanks so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7. I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read. And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this?  Belle Yoeli:   Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it's not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense.  If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies.  And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians. And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ? Belle Yoeli:   So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It's quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.  And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC's jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories.  And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted. That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So is Israel a member of the ICC? Belle Yoeli:   So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right?  But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees.  The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents.  So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of? Belle Yoeli:   So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue.  So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration? Belle Yoeli:   So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And what about the international community? Belle Yoeli:   You know, it's interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do. You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war? Belle Yoeli:   I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see.  I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing.  And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam.  So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home? Belle Yoeli:   Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn't say. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners. Belle Yoeli:   Thank you so much for having me.    

In his remarks to the IIEA, Anthony Michael Collins, Former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reflects upon his time at the Court. As the rule of law in Europe faces increased challenges, Mr Collins discusses the importance of the Court for European citizens, and offers his perspective on the future of the CJEU. About the Speaker: Anthony Michael Collins is a former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (2021-2024). In October 2024, he was nominated by the Government of Ireland to serve as a Judge at the Court of Appeal. Prior to his role as Advocate-General, he served as a Judge at the General Court of the European Union from 2013 to 2021, where he was elected President of Chamber for two terms starting in September 2016. Mr Collins is President of the Irish Centre for European Law, an Adjunct Professor of Law at University College Cork, and a Bencher of the Honourable Society of King's Inns.

Become a Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Get our free Weekly Rundown newsletter and be the first to hear about breaking news and offers:https://nomadcapitalist.com/email Join us for the next Nomad Capitalist Live event: https://nomadcapitalist.com/live/ In this episode, we explain the battle Malta is fighting with the European Union over its citizenship program and cover an opinion issued by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in favor of Malta. Mr. Henderson also delves into what makes Malta's passport program so unique and what types of entrepreneurs and investors it is suited for. Nomad Capitalist helps clients "go where you're treated best." We are the world's most sought-after firm for offshore tax planning, dual citizenship, international diversification, and asset protection. We use legal and ethical strategies and work exclusively with seven- and eight-figure entrepreneurs and investors. We create and execute holistic, multi-jurisdictional Plans that help clients keep more of their wealth, increase their personal freedom, and protect their families and wealth against threats in their home country. No other firm offers clients access to more potential options to relocate to, bank in, or become a citizen of. Because we do not focus only on one or a handful of countries, we can offer unbiased advice where others can't. Become Our Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Our Website: http://www.nomadcapitalist.com/ About Our Company: https://nomadcapitalist.com/about/ Buy Mr. Henderson's Book: https://nomadcapitalist.com/book/ DISCLAIMER: The information in this episode should not be considered tax, financial, investment, or any kind of professional advice. Only a professional diagnosis of your specific situation can determine which strategies are appropriate for your needs. Nomad Capitalist can and does not provide advice unless/until engaged by you.

This special episode features UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in conversation with Professor Katerina Linos and Temple Law Professor Mark Pollack introducing a wider audience to the European Union Court of Justice and a special series of Linos' “Borderlines” podcast on the court.Together, these three leading legal educators introduce listeners to the form and function of the EUCJ and contrast its civil law history and consensus methodology with the U.S. common law heritage utilizing dissenting opinions. Learn about the court's traditions, scope, and unique Advocate General role, get a glimpse behind the scenes of the massive EU caseload, and compare fundamentals like sovereignty over states, the role of voting in chambers, and balancing accessibility and privacy.“Borderlines" features exclusive content with the world's leading international law experts. Check out recent interviews with former ICJ President Donoghue and ICC President Hofmański. About:More Just from Berkeley Law is a podcast about how law schools can and must play a role in solving society's most difficult problems. The rule of law — and the role of the law — has never been more important. In these difficult times, law schools can, and must, play an active role in finding solutions. But how? Each episode of More Just starts with a problem, then explores potential solutions, featuring Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as well as other deans, professors, students, and advocates, about how they're making law schools matter.Have a question about teaching or studying law, or a topic you'd like Dean Chemerinsky to explore? Email us at morejust@berkeley.edu and tell us what's on your mind. Production by Yellow Armadillo Studios. Please visit the episode page for a full transcript. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CBI gets a win, but the EU's watching. CBI firms should prioritize transparency and prepare for more oversight and scrutiny.View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.

Advocate General Collins proposed that the court “dismiss the Commission's action” against Malta and order it to pay Malta's legal fees.View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. Follow us on Youtube: www.youtube.com/@IASCompanion In today's lecture, we will discuss the Attorney General and the Advocate General. The Attorney General of India: Article 76 of the Constitution establishes the Attorney General (AG) as the chief legal advisor to the Government of India. Appointed by the President, the AG must be qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. The Advocate General of the State: Article 165 provides for the Advocate General, the highest law officer in a state. Appointed by the Governor, the Advocate General must be qualified to be a high court judge and serves at the Governor's pleasure. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary system for both the Centre and states, detailing the state executive in Part VI (Articles 153-167), which includes the Governor, Chief Minister, Council of Ministers, and Advocate General. The Governor is the nominal executive head of a state and an agent of the central government. Appointed by the President, the Governor is not elected. One person can serve as Governor for multiple states. A Governor must be an Indian citizen and at least 35 years old. Customarily, the Governor is not from the state of appointment, and the President consults the state's Chief Minister. The term is five years, subject to the President's pleasure, and can be extended until a successor assumes office. The Governor's powers include appointing key state officials, recommending President's Rule, acting as Chancellor of state universities, summoning and dissolving the state legislature, and promulgating ordinances. They also ensure the state budget is presented and can grant pardons and appoint judicial officers. The Governor has discretionary powers such as reserving bills for the President, recommending President's Rule, and appointing the Chief Minister in a hung assembly. They have special responsibilities in certain states for regional development and law and order. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century'. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU's capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe's Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century'. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU's capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe's Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this episode, Visualising Peace researcher Harris Siderfin interviews Lord Jim Wallace, Baron Wallace of Tankerness, about his career and the relationship between peace and politics in the UK.Lord Wallace is a Scottish Liberal Democrat politician with a long career of service in the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords, where he has been a life peer since 2007. He has held various ministerial positions during his time in government, including Deputy First Minister of Scotland, acting First Minister twice, Justice Minister and Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Minister. He trained initially in law, and in addition to his political career he is an advocate and member of the King's Council. He served as Advocate General for Scotland between 2010 and 2015, and he was Deputy Leader of the House of Lords from 2013 to 2015. He stood down as leader of the Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords in 2016 but retains an interest in human rights and constitutional affairs. Among other roles, he served as Moderator of the General Assembly of Scotland in 2021.In the episode, Lord Wallace reflects on his long career in politics and on the various ways in which he has seen politics and peacemaking intersect over that time. He reflects on the lack of political interest in solving conflict in Northern Ireland prior to John Major's premiership; on political debates about the first and second Gulf Wars, the renewal of Trident (as a nuclear deterrent), the UK's response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria; and on the limited discussions in Westminster about ways to address conflict in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia.  Lord Wallace is clear that peace is not as high a priority in political debates and campaigning as many other issues, and also that political understanding and discussion of peace-making (as opposed to peace-keeping) is somewhat lacking.Lord Wallace and Harris consider positive steps forward: for instance, more attention paid to justice, equality, mental health, climate change, poverty and discrimination, as key aspects of peacebuilding. Reflecting on his own faith, Lord Wallace also talks about the role that different religions and religious leaders can play in promoting peace both at home and abroad. Several times the conversation also turns to connections between democracy, debate and peacebuilding, with Lord Wallace stressing that increasingly combative, polarising modes of political discussion are driving more conflict. This ties into some work which the Visualising Peace team is doing on connections between peacebuilding and Responsible Debate (as outlined in the Young Academy of Scotland's Responsible Debate Charter).  We hope you find the discussion interesting. For a version of our podcast with close captions, please use this link. For more information about individuals and their projects, please visit the University of St Andrews' Visualising War website.Music composed by Jonathan YoungSound mixing by Harris Siderfin and Zofia Guertin

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues' with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve' (and, if so, in what direction).For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues' with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve' (and, if so, in what direction).For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner?For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner?For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you're reading really mean.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you're reading really mean.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this world you and I will encounter temptations to sin, this condition is common to all of us; none are exempt from these temptations. These temptations may be overt or covert, anywhere from sexual sin to being proud in heart. But as believers in Christ, we have a Savior who will show us how to escape temptations to sin. He is our Advocate General and He shows us through the Word of God how to overcome. +++++++ You can find more information on my website: https://pastorjohndunning.com/ You can hear my personal testimony on this website: https://www.ifyouonlyknew.life/

What does the EU's Advocate General's non-binding ruling mean for the future of the European Super League? Does it spell the end for Juventus, Real Madrid and Barcelona's efforts to revive the project? Nima Tavallaey and Carlo Garganese discuss.This is an extended clip from this week's Thursday episode of The Italian Football Podcast which is only available for patrons on Patreon.com/TIFPTo listen to ALL complete episodes of The Italian Football Podcast, go to Patreon.com/TIFP and become a Patron for only $2.99 USD per month (excluding VAT).Follow us: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Former Real Madrid President Ramon Calderon speaks to Roger Hearing after Uefa and Fifa receive significant backing in their battle to block the creation of a European Super League. The European Court of Justice's Advocate General said the rules of football's European and world governing bodies were "compatible with EU competition law". A final ruling will be made by a 15-member Grand Chamber next spring. Tens of thousands of nurses in the state-run National Health Service are staging a strike in Northern Ireland, Wales and England in a dispute about pay. We find out why and whether there's a wider difference between public and private sector pay deals. Plus airports close in Peru as a result of the protests there.

From France's chances of becoming the first country to win back-to-back FIFA World Cup's since 1962, Didier Deschamps greatness as a tactician should he become first coach since Italy's Vittorio Pozzo to win back-to-back World Cups, to Roma's José Mourinho linked with Portugal job, and what the EU's Advocate General's non-binding ruling means for the future of European Super League and much more, as Carlo and Nima discuss it all.This is a teaser from the Thursday episode of the Italian Football Podcast.To listen to this & all other full episodes of The Italian Football Podcast, go to Patreon.com/TIFP to become a Patron for only $2.99 USD per month (excluding VAT).Follow us: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In this episode of Welcome To Fatherhood Interviews, Sir Royce Briales and Dr. Raheem Young talk to General Parker- Father, Son, Brother, Retired Boilermaker talk about his work in fatherhood advocacy and his struggle with the child support system. Thanks for listening and be well, You already are! ****Hall of Fame**** What does Fatherhood mean to you, General? The world! General/'s advice to any dad: Don't become one until we change this court system. Get in contact with General Parker gparker326@gmail.com www.allofusirnone.org Get connected with Welcome to Fatherhood: WTF Linktr.ee --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/wtf-interviews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/wtf-interviews/support

On 5 May, 2022, a selection of Lund University's honorary doctors from 2020 and 2021 met to discuss the role of science in society. Never before has the university gathered honorary doctors in this way for an interdisciplinary and popular science panel discussion. What do we really mean by the role of science in society? How much room can and should science take? How has the role of science in society developed? Participants: Thomas Henning, professor of astrophysics, Faculty of Science Ernest Aryeetey, professor of development economics, Faculty of Social Sciences Penelope J.E. Davies, professor of history of art, Faculty of Humanities Tuhina Neogi, professor of medicine and epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine Sylvaine Laulom, Advocate General, Faculty of Law Gary McPherson, professor of music education, Faculty of Fine & Performing Arts Moderator: Lisa Kirsebom, science journalist. Photo: Kennet Ruona. Recorded on 5 May 2022 at Palaestra, Lund.

On Monday 21 February, the Review of Democracy and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law co-hosted an event on the Court of Justice of the EU's judgment on the budget conditionality regulation. An article co-authored by two of the panelists,'Linking Money to Values - the New Rule of Law Regulation and its Constitutional Challenges', was cited by the Advocate General in the Opinion for the case. In this podcast, Oliver Garner and one of those co-authors, Professor Antonia Baraggia (Associate Professor in the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law at the University of Milan), discuss the judgment and conditionality as a constitutional tool in more detail.

How simple should it be to take interim measures against the other party to a case? In these employment law proceedings this question is considered in the context of EU law and we also think about the imbalance of power between employers and employees. https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe Music from bensound.com

Two bills from the Scottish Parliament are questioned before the Supreme Court for fear that they go beyond the legislative competence of Holyrood. Music from bensound.com https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe

Nicole Scott is the Managing Partner at NMS Family Law Firm in Illinois. Nicole is a Family Law Practitioner, currently servicing the Chicagoland area. She graduated from Philadelphia University with my Bachelors of Science in Law and Society. While attending Philadelphia University, she interned for Councilman Curtis Jones Jr., of the 4th District and she worked for Kane and Silverman, P.C. While attending John Marshall, she interned for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, externed for the Honorable Judge Lionel Jean- Baptiste who resides in the Domestic Relations Division in Cook County, worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless as an Alvin H. Baum Fellow and she most recently worked as a senior law clerk at Schiller DuCanto and Fleck, LLP (the largest firm that practices solely family law in the nation). As far as school involvement goes, she was on the executive board for The Glenn T. Johnson chapter of the Black Law Students Association. There, she was the Advocate General, and her role involved being the face of community service and community relations for the group. She was also an Executive Board Member of the Journal for Information Technology and Privacy Law serving as Communications/Business Editor. Through all, she was able to maintain her position at the top of my class and graduated Cum Laude. Learn from her expertise and what trends are helping grow her firm on this episode of The Managing Partners Podcast! —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

This episode reviewed the “McGee Case” (1973), in which Mary McGee, a 27-year-old mother of four, took a case against the Attorney General and the Revenue Commissioners, in Ireland, because at that time, she could not get access to contraceptives.  This case was selected by, Gerard Hogan, S.C., a leading Irish lawyer, author, and academic who provided the commentary and analysis.  It must be pointed out that Gerard Hogan's career advanced significantly, in the legal world, since the recording of his observations and contribution in 2005. Having served in the High Court and Court of Appeal, he was Ireland's appointee as Advocate General to the European Court of Justice, in 2018 and, in 2021, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan was appointed to the Irish Supreme Court.

Facts in Brief In this case, transfer of a Criminal Trial from the Court at Salem (Tamil Nadu) to Patiala House Court, New Delhi, was sought by the Petitioner. A private complaint was filed before a Magistrate in respect of illegal use of a Trademark and in the said Criminal Trial, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, and the matter was fixed for appearance of the accused. Some civil suits were also filed in the said trademark dispute matter by the Respondents and the same were transferred by the Supreme Court from Salem to Delhi in the year 2018. Provision of Law Involved 406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney- General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney- General of India or the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Grounds of the Petitioner 1. Point involved in the Criminal Case is similar to one in the Civil Suits that are now being contested under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. 2. Proceedings in Salem are conducted in Tamil language that the Petitioner does not understand. 3. It would be more convenient for both the parties if the criminal matter is also heard in Delhi. 4. There is a distance of 2000 km from Salem to Petitioner's place of residence at Indore (MP) and there is no direct connectivity between two places. 5. The case of Mridum M. Damle v. CBI, (2012) 5 SCC 706, was also cited to buttress the submission that when a number of witnesses are gravely inconvenienced due to large distance between their place of residence and the place of trial, then there could be deleterious effects on the conduct of the trial and in such cases, a criminal case may be transferred. 6. Respondents have influence in Salem and there is apprehension that the Petitioner may not a fair Trial at Salem. Grounds of the Respondents 1. There is delay by the Petitioner in approaching the Supreme Court as the Trial that commenced in the year 2018 has already reached the stage of leading of evidence. 2. Personal appearance of the Petitioner in the Criminal Trial has been dispensed with by the Trial Court at Salem. 3. A criminal case cannot be equated and mixed with a civil case. And there is no bar in law that civil and criminal proceedings cannot go on simultaneously. 4. The case of Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 845, was cited to argue that mere apprehension that the Petitioner would not get a fair trial at Salem is not enough and he must bring credible evidence or material to support his contention. No such material or evidence has been brought by the Petitioner in the present case. Held by the Court 1. Even if it is conceded that the civil cases would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case, yet the same would not justify the transfer. And two different judicial fora are hearing the civil and criminal cases respectively. 2. Substantial progress has been made in the criminal case. 3. The apprehensions and allegations of the Petitioner do not show any unjust influence of the Respondents in respect of the criminal case at Salem. Therefore, the Petitioner's case of having a possible tainted trial is unfounded. 4. Problem in understanding the language is in itself not a ground for transfer of a case. It may be a weighing factor when the decision to transfer has already been taken by the Court. 5. Power under Section 406 of CrPC to transfer a case is to be sparingly used and cannot be exercised on mere apprehensions of one of the parties. 6. If the Court hearing a case has jurisdiction to hear the matter, then grounds such as unfamiliarity with the language of the Court cannot be a ground for transfer. Aid of translator could be sought in this regard. 7. Convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for transfer and powers under Section 406 of CrPC can be exercised only when it is “expedient for the ends of justice.” The present case is not the one. 8. The case of Mridul M. Damle (supra) is of no help to the Petitioner as in that case, 88 out of 92 witnesses were from different parts of Maharashtra and it was difficult for them to travel to Delhi. 9. The Court cited the case of Rajesh Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 217, wherein it was held that often one of the parties have to travel in a case to reach the court and if the plea of inconvenience is accepted every time, then the contents of Section 406 of CrPC would have no meaning left. It was further stated that “convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned.” 10. Therefore, the Transfer Petition was dismissed. Concluding Remarks Section 406 of CrPC shall come into effect only when it is expedient for the ends of justice. But what is justice? I think in terms of Section 406 of CrPC, justice would mean anything that does not lead to some serious financial disadvantage or evidence regarding possibility of a mistrial or loss of rights or other such issues, to any of the parties. If the mere location of a Court is leading to any of the above, then it would not be expedient for the ends of justice to continue the criminal trial at such a place. Suppose a person is hand to mouth and he is asked to travel long distances, then I think that it would be a travesty of justice in such a case and the case must be transferred in order to do justice to such a person. In the present case, the parties were well-off. Both of them had engaged Senior Advocates and the dispute between them had commercial origins. Further, the Petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence that would justify his apprehensions of not having a fair Trial. I concur with the reasoning of the Court that issues like language and convenience are quite trivial in nature when it comes to transfer of cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure has granted jurisdiction to a particular criminal court to hear and try the matter. Such jurisdiction cannot be taken away so lightly. There must be cogent reasons for doing so. Further, equating civil and criminal cases is never a good idea. Both of them have different courts, different grounds, different procedure and different law that governs them. Just because a criminal matter and a civil matter stem from the same subject-matter, that by itself cannot mean that a transfer of criminal case to the place of the civil case would be justified. Wealthy parties waste a fortune in contesting such frivolous simply because of petty ego issues. I consider such kind of litigation wasteful, not for the advocates but for the parties themselves. I feel that lack of efficacious and speedy modes of alternate dispute resolution is one of the reasons for litigating for the sake of litigating. People think that they can achieve anything with the help of law, but they cannot for law takes its own course and take into consideration the larger picture.

In this episode, we touch on the recent opinion by the EU's Advocate General in regards to the EU's Blocking Statute that runs up against US sanctions on Iran and Cuba.

Court didn't go well last week for 2 out of 3 PC residents, Alexis is in jail! Jason is in jail! Marty defends himself. Valentin gets in deeper. Brook Lynn is lying about a baby! Maxie is lying about a baby! Will their lies become ONE? We dunno. Join us as Matt & Kat jabber on for an hour about ABC's General Hospital! 

Messianic Concert Violinist, Maurice Sklar, joins Sharon and Philip to describe a very significant experience he had in December of 2018. He was summoned to the Courtroom of Heaven as a recorder of an end-time proceeding. Satan declared that it was his time to take over the earth and demanded his rights be given to him. But Jesus Christ, our Advocate General, presented a document that had been hidden from the beginning of time. https://sklarministries.com/  https://www.facebook.com/mauricesklar  https://globaloutpouring.com/ CONNECT ON SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook https://www.facebook.com/GOGlobalOutpouring/ Find us on Facebook and Instagram @GOGlobalOutpouring and on Twitter @Global_Outpour Instagram https://instagram.com/goglobaloutpouring?igshid=b72ar1wr39e7 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoOlbvsSkM4SIJGOyPSYprg

Coming up in this week's episode: GDPR compliance when working from home during Covid-19 lockdown, GDPR changes continue after the end of Brexit transition, Capital Business Media relocates to Ireland to avoid UK-EU data transfers, Leave.EU moves to Ireland and faces calls for investigations into GDPR breaches, Advocate General CJEU pronouncement in Facebook case may have widespread implications, Soft Opt-in - when can it be used and what limitations, United Nations data breach, German laptop retailer fined for excessive staff and customer video surveillance, Colorado Covid-19 data breach, UK Police National Computer (PNC) data breach

Pastor Larry ministers in Minot Thursday evening.

Follow The MirYam Institute Twitter: https://bit.ly/3jkeUyxFollow Benjamin Anthony Twitter: https://bit.ly/3hZeOe9Like Benjamin Anthony Facebook: https://bit.ly/333Ct93Like The MirYam Institute Facebook: https://bit.ly/2SarHI3Follow Benjamin Anthony Instagram: https://bit.ly/30m6uPGFollow The MirYam Institute Instagram: https://bit.ly/3l5fvEDSupport the show (https://www.miryaminstitute.org/donate)

Constitutional courts are under attack in many countries in Europe and beyond. Why? And why now? What can be done to protect them, and what are the most important conditions for constitutional courts to function? These are the questions we discuss in the first episode of our new podcast with three guests, two of them former constitutional judges with first-hand experience on these matters, and one a scholar who has written an outstanding book on the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. STANISLAW BIERNAT was the Vice President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal while the government launched its takeover campaign against the court. PEDRO CRUZ VILLALON, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, was a Judge at and President of the Spanish Constitutional Court, which has suffered greatly in recent years in the Catalan secession drama. MICHAELA HAILBRONNER is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Gießen and an expert on the probably most influential constitutional court in Europe, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht.

Suella Braverman is a barrister, MP and Brexiteer. In February 2020 she was appointed to the role of Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland. This week she found herself in the headlines after sending a tweet in support of Dominic Cummings, a senior government adviser caught travelling across the country during lock down. Edward Stourton profiles the minister for Fareham and government's chief legal adviser. Producer: Sandra Kanthal, Vivien Jones Editor: Penny Murphy

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”. In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission. In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix. Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’ As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”. While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

MirYam's podcasts are uploaded for your listening pleasure and convenience.Taking the form of speeches, interviews, conversations and debates, our podcasts are an ideal means for you to join the conversation wherever you are.Support the show (https://www.miryaminstitute.org/donate)

After more than 30 years as an Advance Care Paramedic, Kerry is now working on health navigation, advocacy and disruption. She is disrupting the status quo with new innovation in coaching/teaching people on how to ask the tough questions in our fractured healthcare system, plan for their own health future, being an active collaborator with their health and creating new support systems for caregivers who are the unrecognized heros of health. Lucca and Rebecca explore Kerry's journey both professional and personal, and hear stories of transformation!

Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.  

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Dr. John Ackerman, professor of Constitutional Law at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), researcher at the Legal Research Institute of UNAM, and editorial director of the Mexican Law Review.Mexico’s new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador was inaugurated on Saturday and began his six year term with a press conference--something unusual for Mexican presidents. He promised to bring what he called “deep and radical change” in his fight against crime, and he even held a meeting with his national security team at 6:00 am today, something he said would happen daily. López Obrador said that he has a “respectful” relationship with President Trump, but it promises to turn rocky in negotiations over migrants and a border wall. And, Obrador has proposed sweeping changes to the country’s economic policy to break from neoliberalism. Tuesday’s weekly series is False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show. French Prime Minister Edouard Phillippe announced this morning that the fuel tax that set off rioting around the country will be suspended for six months. The yellow vest protests have grown to include other issues, however, reflecting widespread anger at President Macron for his failure to implement reforms. Brian and John speak with Gilbert Mercier, editor in chief of News Junkie Post and the author of “The Orwellian Empire.” Former President George H. W. Bush died over the weekend at the age of 94. His body now lies in state in the US Capitol and a funeral will take place tomorrow. The hosts look at the Bush presidency and the Bush legacy each day this week, focusing on a different issue. Today is about his role in the coup that overthrew Haiti’s democratically elected government in 1991. Kim Ives, an editor of the newspaper Haïti Liberté, joins the show. The European Court of Justice’s Advocate General delivered a non-binding opinion yesterday that the UK could arbitrarily cancel its decision to withdraw from the European Union if it so chose. The decision comes as the House of Commons begins a week of debate on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan, and Parliament found the government in contempt this morning for not issuing Brexit advice. Steve Hedley, the senior assistant general secretary of the the UK’s Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers Union, joins Brian and John. Israel’s military says that it has begun an operation to destroy what it calls “cross border attack tunnels” under its border with Lebanon dug by Hezbollah operatives. An Israeli government spokesman said the tunnels had only recently been detected and they will be destroyed without having to cross the border into Lebanon. But is this in fact motivated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal and political problems at home? Miko Peled, the author of “The General’s Son - A Journey of an Israeli in Palestine” and "Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five,” joins the show.Nexstar Media Group announced this morning that it will buy Tribune Corporation’s 42 television stations and cable network in an all-cash $4.1 billion deal. An earlier takeover attempt by Sinclair Media was blocked by the Federal Communications Commission. If approved, the company will own more than 200 television stations covering 39 percent of all American households. Brian and John speak with Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press.

What does it mean to be British? The legal answer is not as simple as you might think. For years citizenship by descent could only be passed down the male line and in this case the Supreme Court grapples with Parliament's attempt to correct the discrimination in the British Nationality Acts. In this episode we also discuss how the Justices engage with Parliament and how the concept of nationality is at a crossroads in 2018. Music from bensound.com

The Supreme Court has opened up British citizenship by double descent to all children born to British women in non-Commonwealth countries between 1949 and 1983. Delivering a judgment which makes no attempt to disguise his academic interests as a historian, Lord Sumption delivered a simple solution to a question of statutory interpretation that has been described as “impenetrable” by the leading authority on nationality law (with whom the Inner House agreed) and “paradoxical” by the Supreme Court. The case is Advocate General for Scotland v Romein [2018] UKSC 6. Historical gender discrimination British nationality law was from its inception until 1983 discriminatory towards women. Prior to 1983, British citizenship could...

The financial dealings of Rangers Football Club have been subject to a great deal of scrutiny in the recent past and in this case the Supreme Court focused on one particular aspect of the way that the club was run. When a footballer signed for the club they were offered the chance to avoid paying income tax by using a complicated trust mechanism. In this episode we unpack that mechanism and consider the legal arguments that allowed the system to be abused. Music from bensound.com

RFC 2012 Plc Appellant V Advocate General For Scotland Respondent by Timur Boltaev

Nick’s review of three recent cases covers the significant litigation involving equal pay claims against a private sector employer, the ambit of the ACAS early conciliation procedure and the Advocate General’s opinion on a dress code banning clothing associated with a religion or belief. To follow Nick on Twitter, please go to Nicholas Robertson@NicholasRober11 to receive links to all the cases mentioned.

Hey people, welcome back! This episode has a slight difference in tone to the others, we are mainly focused on one topic throughout (hard to believe I know!). That topic? Well it's THE topic for vapers right now, advocacy and the damned foolish regulations that are being imposed on the sale, distribution and manufacture of vape products. We mainly focus on the EU regulations (as that's what effect us most), but please do make sure you check out whats happening in your corner of the world as it's grim all over, fucking 1984 is here man!! :P Key points of discussion include 100Thousdand campaign, an upcoming protest march in London, and the always informative and excellently articulate Clive Bates and his look at the AG decision on the Totaly Wicked E-Liquid case against Article 20 of the TPD. This as I said a slight change of tone, and apologies I kind of dominate, when I get ranty I get ranty :P Also I pull apart a letter I received from my local MP Lucy Fraser, to which I will be responding and keeping you all up to date with. Plus: Guest appearance from my cat Yuki PayPal and Bitcoin Bloodbowl and our first non losses Marvel Heros 2016 Please send any correspondence you have had from local officials regarding vaping restrictions where you are (so we can mock/praise accordingly), as well as comments and feedback to ramblingvapers@gmail.com Links: VAPERS STAND UNITED: Protest, 19th March, Parliament Square, London - https://www.facebook.com/events/997773430314802/ Vaper? Living in the UK? Show your support and hopefully see you there! 100Thousdand Campaign - http://100thousand.com/ These guys are doing fantastic work, please at least sign their petition, it's on our Advocacy page and check out their site. Clive Bates: http://www.clivebates.com/ This my friends is a true stalwart of vaping, please do have read of his blog, his articles are some of the most well thought out and informative on the net, here are some recent great reads: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3719 - What was unethical about snoopers measuring particulates at a vape convention? http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3711 - Totally Wicked case: Advocate General's flawed reasoning would protect the cigarette trade http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3589 - TPD implementation – maximising harm by going beyond the minimum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOLXs6Yhaj4&index=2&list=LLudEkBk4hzZt2xCFfDLUGjw - Great video from Smoke Without Fire on YouTube. Over the next coming show's we are going to play with format and look to introduce new segments, and feedback is always welcome!

Nick is joined by David Reade QC to discuss the recent Opinion from the Advocate General in the Woolworths/Bluebird cases on the trigger for collective redundancy consultation. These cases are very significant for UK employers, and since David represented Bluebird in the European Court, he is well placed to share his thoughts on what the Opinion means for employers. The link to the cases mentioned have been posted on Twitter by Nick. Please follow Nick at Nicholas Robertson@Nicholasrober11

Dominic Grieve makes the case for the Human Rights Act and civil liberties recorded at a special event celebrating Liberty. The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP was appointed Conservative spokesman for Scotland in June 1999 and in September 2001 he was appointed Conservative spokesman for criminal justice and community cohesion as part of the Shadow Home Affairs team. From 2003 to 2009 Dominic Grieve was Shadow Attorney General. The Leader of the Opposition appointed Dominic Grieve to Shadow Home Secretary in June 2008, and in January 2009 Dominic Grieve became the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, continuing with his front bench role in criminal justice matters, constitutional affairs and ethnic diversity. Under the coalition Government Dominic Grieve was the Attorney General for England and Wales and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, until July 2014. 5x15 brings together five outstanding individuals to tell of their lives, passions and inspirations. There are only two rules - no scripts and only 15 minutes each. Learn more about 5x15 events: 5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories

For the 64th episode of the Scottish Independence Podcast I spoke with Baron Wallace of Tankerness and I could not have hoped for a more distinguised guest. As his wikipedia page says about him......a British politician, leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and the Advocate General for Scotland. He was formerly Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Member of Parliament (MP) for Orkney and Shetland, Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Orkney and the first Deputy First Minister of Scotland in the Scottish Executive.I managed to catch Jim briefly on the first night of his new speaking tour.Hope you enjoy...LINKShttp://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/https://twitter.com/mgreenwell

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies - Speaker: ELEANOR SHARPSTON, QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union Sir William Dale Memorial Lecture 2011 in association with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies - Speaker: ELEANOR SHARPSTON, QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union Sir William Dale Memorial Lecture 2011 in association with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/