tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3940672918756074056..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Those CJEU case citations: the answerVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88717806540088088032014-06-15T17:53:15.567+01:002014-06-15T17:53:15.567+01:00I am confused. You say four mandatory components *...I am confused. You say four mandatory components *plus the prefix ECLI*, and then don't use the prefix ECLI in any examples... So are the examples right? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30572400651439442942014-06-11T23:23:26.785+01:002014-06-11T23:23:26.785+01:00Just to save you another scare.... If you click &q...Just to save you another scare.... If you click "international" in the link provided in the post, you'll see that EPO Board of Appeal is since about a year enthusiastically using ECLI. Their implementation is however not a new way of numbering, but the final part of ECLI is simply the old case number... <br /><br />CJEU could easily have done the same by choosing a more understandable format, e.g. ECLI:EU:C:2014:131.11 (or ECLI:EU:C:2014:C131.11) for C131/11 instead of the new ordinal number ECLI:EU:C:2014:317<br /><br />I could also add some good news:<br />-Bailii is not planning be replaced by IE/UK<br />-there will be an ECLI resolver; a website tool where you can type in the ecli and which will provide links to available case law databasesPandora50000https://www.blogger.com/profile/01185301637426454264noreply@blogger.com