BYE BYE OAKLEY


The questions referred by the High Court in Oakley v Animal have been removed from the ECJ register. There's no clue as to why, and it seems like we'll be kept in suspense as to what happens if a Member State implements an optional provision out of time...
BYE BYE OAKLEY BYE BYE OAKLEY Reviewed by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Presumably it's because Peter Prescott got a slapped wrist by the Court of Appeal for accusing the government of acting ultra vires in his original judgment that started the reference. Since that has now been overruled, there seems no point in asking the question.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.