The Doctrine of Acte Clair in the Context of National Courts Research Paper

The Doctrine of Acte Clair in the Context of National Courts - Research Paper Example A national court can ask the CJ questions pertaining to the interpretation of the EU charter. It can also ask the CJ to give rulings on the interpretation of the Treaty and Acts of the EU institutions. The CJ can be asked questions on the validity of Acts of the EU institutions - not on the validity of the Treaty through, or be asked to give rulings on such Acts. In practice, as only the CJ can rule on the invalidity of EU law, any such question must be referred to it by the concerned national court. This function of the CJ is enshrined in the EU charter. Art 256(3) TFEU (Art 225(3)EC: Art 168(a) EEC) specifies the General court’s authority that it shall have the ‘†¦jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Art 267 TFEU, in specific areas†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Moreover, CJ can only interpret EU law. It cannot interpret national law nor pass comment on the compatibility of national law with EU law. A good example can be found in th e case of 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585. If CJ is asked a question raising the compatibility of national law with EU law, it has the duty to reformulate the question into one just of EU law – see eg26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1. In C221/89 ex p Factortame [1992] QB 680. Nevertheless, even though expressed in abstract terms, the CJ gives a clear ruling that UK law is incompatible with EU law. Additionally, the CJ can only rule on the interpretation of EU law, not on the application of it by the national court in the particular case. However, often the guidance given by the CJ is so specific that it equates to the application, for example as seen in C392/93 R v HM Treasury ex p BT[1996] ECR I 1631.

Productivity within Allstate Insurance Corp Research Proposal

Productivity within Allstate Insurance Corp - Research Proposal Example That was one conclusion drawn from a study carried out recently by Benjamin Waber and Sandy Pentland of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.† (2) Although the methods for achieving the same or better outcomes with fewer resources may vary, improved productivity will not occur unless it is pursued actively. Ineffective searches and wasting time looking for information is a cost of a company. Many service economy jobs could enjoy substantial productivity growth through better application of information technology. For example, every time you check in at the airport, you wait several minutes as the agent frantically taps away at a hidden computer. Most of this time is wasted due to airline softwares horrendous usability. With a better user interface, agents could process passengers much faster, which would immediately increase their productivity and save time for customers. The answer, according to Nick Bloom, Raffaella Sadun and John Van Reenen, researchers at the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, is that American companies make much more effective use of information technology than European companies.† (4) The importance of incentives to employees on the productivity is well known fact. Even socialism has admitted it. As Gerard Roland says â€Å"Prior to the privatization, It was China that went the farthest in trying to give managers better profit incentives. Data on 769 Chinese enterprises between 1980 and 1989 in four provinces (Sichuan, Jiangsu, Jilin, and Shanxi) analyzed by Groves and colleagues (1994) showed that increased autonomy to managers led them to give more incentives to workers by increasing the shares of bonuses in total wages payments and the share of contract workers relative to permanent workers. Increased incentives also had a positive effect on productivity.† (5) Companies can increase productivity in a variety of ways. The most obvious methods involve automation and