So, it has been a while since my last post. Things have been kind of overwhelming on the research front, and the summer break did not help much either I'm afraid. Mea culpa. But I'm back, with good intentions blogging wise.
This morning my colleague Arnoud Pijls shot me an e-mail with a link to this Amsterdam Court of Appeals decision of September 13, 2011, in which the court asks the European Court of Justice a so-called 'prejudicial question': here a question as to the correct interpretation of a certain European guideline on consumer protection (Richtlijn oneerlijke bedingen in consumentenovereenkomsten (Richtlijn 93/13/EEG van de Raad van 5 april 1993 betreffende oneerlijke bedingen in consumentenovereenkomsten, Pb 1993, L 95/29).
Although this subject matter is not something typically discussed on TDT, the matter is relevant. Think for example of the Inter Access Group case discussed at nauseam here at TDT (see the last post here), in which I questioned whether the Enterprise Chamber was free - as it did - to not take into account in its decision to facilitate the massive dilution of a majority shareholder by means of several immediate measures, whether its decision was in sync with section 1 of the First Protocol to the European Treatise on Human Rights (the protection of property part, that is).
The case mentioned above touches on that interplay between EU law and national law, and whether the national courts are generally supposed to review the application of national law for compatibility with mandatory supra-national law if relevant, even if not brought into question by the parties to the national proceeding. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
The Inter Access Group case is also likely to pop-up again outside the Netherlands, be it not in Brussels (at the European Court of Justice) but in Strassbourg (at the EHRM court).