Dreptul comunitar al afacerilor. blog

William M. Carter: Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication

Mai 31
Scrieti un comentariu

William M. Carter, Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication(2009). Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2009; Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-30. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:

This article suggests that a re-evaluation of the principle of subsidiarity is in order. While I make no sweeping claims that the principle of subsidiarity is always preferable or always undesirable, I do suggest that a close look at the myriad ways in which subsidiarity applies reveals that it may sometimes impede, rather than advance, the cause it purports to serve: namely, achieving universality of human rights. This article identifies situations where subsidiarity is more likely to diminish human rights protections that it is to advance them and suggests that subsidiarity should be abandoned or minimized in such areas.

Posted in CEDO, Drepturile omului, Subsidiaritate, Suveranitate

Despre legitimitatea medierii. Doar teoretic si la altii.

Mai 31
Scrieti un comentariu

Jonathan Crowe, Rachael Field, The Problem of Legitimacy in Mediation, (March 10, 2009). Contemporary Issues in Law, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 48-60, 2008; University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 09-10. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:

Mediation is becoming more and more prominent as a mode of legal dispute resolution. The problem of legitimacy in mediation raises the question of why mediation is legitimate as a means of settling social disputes. This issue mirrors a long-running and deep-seated problem of legitimacy in law generally. We argue that the most promising strategy for justifying the normative force of law – namely, that law provides a mutually beneficial mechanism of social coordination – does not translate straightforwardly to the mediation context. A distinctive response to the problem of legitimacy in mediation is therefore needed. The consensual nature of mediation may render it legitimate in some contexts, but it is unlikely to do so in others. Our conclusion is threefold: the problem of legitimacy in mediation exists; it is distinct from the problem of legitimacy in law generally; and the problem is more intractable than is generally thought.

Posted in Arbitraj si mediere

Comunicare a Comisiei Europene privind autoritatile comunitare de supraveghere a sectorului financiar

Mai 29
Scrieti un comentariu

Urmare a raportului de Larosiere, avem deja comunicarea Comisiei privind viitoarea infiintare a autoritatilor comunitare de supraveghere a sectorului financiar.

Comunicarea, intitulata “European financial supervision“, se gaseste aici. [deocamdata doar in EN, FR, DE]. O discutie asupra acesteia cu alta ocazie.

Posted in Globalizare, Integrare europeana, Subsidiaritate, criza economica (2009), financiar

Curtea Suprema din California si chestiunea referendumului de interzicere a casatoriilor intre homosexuali

Mai 26
Scrieti un comentariu

Cunoasti, poate, istoria recenta din California cu “prop 8″ si apoi cu actiunea de invalidare a rezultatului referendumului popular. Ei bine, acum continuarea.

Stirea este chiar notabila din punct de vedere al argumentelor juridice; redam un fragment in cele ce urmeaza:

In the 136-page majority opinion, Chief Justice Ronald M. George states the high court found homosexual couples, through civil unions, still possessed equal protection under the law and a constitutional right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.”

Adica, cu alte cuvinte, principiul egalitatii de tratament nu impune casatoriile intre persoane avand acelasi sex, atunci cand se recunoaste concubinajul (uniunea) intre astfel de persoane.

Decizia Curtii aici. Detalii in viitor.

Posted in Drept si politica, Interpretarea "legilor", egalitate de tratament/nediscriminare

Inchietudinea cunoasterii: doua cautari interesante pe blog

Mai 26
Scrieti un comentariu

Ce titlu pretios, nasha?

Una dintre cautari suna astfel: “un drept al omului“; din enunt nu prea intelegem ce va sa spuie cautato(a)rul(ea)… se intreba asupra unui exemplu? Nu credem, caci ar fi prea de tot. Sa ieie declaratiunea drepturilor omului, ori sa incerce cu CEDO… ori cu Carta drepturilor fundamentale a (!, da “a”, nu “ale”) Uniunii Europene (caci documentu’ e al UE…)…Va vedea, acolo, in acele “cataloage de drepturi” expresiunea sublima a preocuparii constante pentru noi culmi de… (ptiu! limbajul ma tradeaza, nasha?).

Cealalta este chiar interesanta, deci schimbam si registrul: “kadi 402/05 aspecte procedurale“. Este vorba despre celebra de acum cauza a CJCE, recursul impotriva hotararii de la TPI. Nu, nu este un “recurs prejudiciar” (sic!). Dar pe aceasta tema cu alta ocazie.

Chiar felicitam curio(a)sul(a) care a “procesat” (sic!) o astfel de cautare, semn ca oamenii nu cauta doar “ce inseamna acquis comunitar” sau alte astfel de profunzimi…

Posted in Uncategorized

Permanentul & infringentimizarea Romaniei

Mai 22
3 Comentarii

Scuzati titlul, insa il veti intelege dupa ce veti parcurge cele de mai jos. Intr-o revista de profil a aparut un articol mai putin obisnuit (ideologic, ideatic al respectivei publicatiuni, desigur) – se cheama “Mediul si procedura de infringement” (sic!). Ati priceput, prin urmare, ca este vorba despre un articol “pe” (sic!) Uniunea Europeana.

Nu cunoastem cine a elaborat aceasta prezentare, insa ea merita discutata mai amplu in cele ce urmeaza (textul in rosu este originalul, comentariile sunt ale noastre). Contributia este valoroasa nu numai prin ceea ce spune, ci, mai ales, prin ceea ce lasa sa intelegem. In orice caz, este o mica perla de popularizare.

In cele ce urmeaza ne veti permite, poate, sa recurgem la parafrazarea unui barbarism din ce in ce mai frecvent uzitat (de ce oare? sa fie de vina nestiinta?) prin literatura noastra de specialitate. Este vorba despre “infringement“‘; propunem “romanizarea” termenului, pentru a curma chinul desemnarii unui termen “fensi” in gradiul neaos. Desigur, traducerea dezirabila ar fi “procedura de constatare a neindeplinirii obligatiilor de catre un stat membru”. Na, am zis-o si p-asta…

Prin urmare, sa purcedem:

Procedura de infringement (“non communication infringement procedurei) consta in orice actiune declansata impotriva unui stat membru al Comunitatii Europene care nu-si indeplineste obligatiile asumate in urma semnarii Tratatului Uniunii Europene sau prin legislatia comunitara secundara (reprezentata prin directive, regulamente, decizii).

Asadar, ati priceput ca e vorba despre infringentimizarea unui stat membru al Uniunii care… Ma rog, va dati seama ca e posibil ca pe scaunul de coafor ori in interludiul unei discutii despre filosoful postmodernismului tarziu Louis Vuitton sa se iste grave intrebari pentru persoana care citeste o astfel de afirmatie?

Nerespectarea normelor europene din domeniul protectiei mediului este cotata a fi prima cauza care duce la declansarea procedurii de infringement.
Procedura propriu-zisa de infringement consta fie in actionarea in judecata a statului care a incalcat dispozitiile legislatiei comunitare, fie in aplicarea de amenzi foarte mari celor care s-au abatut de la politica comunitara.
Hm, cine “coteaza” infringentimizarea mediului drept prima cauza - primum movens? Apoi cine imparte amenzile? Si cum se constata infringentimizarea mediului?
Oricum, atentie mare: “aplicarea de amenzi foarte mari celor care s-au abatut (sic!) de la politica comunitara” se poate dispune doar de catre… cine? (lasam in suspans raspunsul; se poate recurge la 50/50 sau la suna un prieten; sau chiar mai bine “pune mana pe carte”; nu, nu pentru facut cornete…). 
Ergo, nu e vorba despre “fie”…”fie”, ci doar despre o singura posibilitate…
De la data aderarii, Romania este supusa si ea procedurii de infringement.
Atunci sa pricepem ca infringentimizarea constituie o fatalitate pentru Romania? Si asta inca de la 1 ianuarie 2007? Au trecut 2 ani iar tara noastra este infringentimizata permanent…sau perpetuu…
Prin urmare, statul roman, prin autoritatile sale, este obligat sa aplice in totalitate acquis-ul comunitar si sa-l transpuna in plan national.
Orice incalcare a obligatiei de notificare a Comisiei Europene de catre statele membre, inclusiv de catre Romania, atrage dupa sine aplicarea procedurii de infringement.
Pare-se ca auctorele (sau auctritza, n-asha? tre’ sa feminizam in ton cu vremurile) a pierdut sirul ideatic, astfel inca a comis o repetitziune. Da’ n-are nimic – tre’ sa intre in capul cititorului… sau “consumatorului” dă “produse culturale”.
Comunitatea Europeana a creat un sistem electronic de notificare rapida (ENS) prin intermediul caruia statele comunitare transmit datele cu privire la indeplinirea obligatiilor pe care le au. Sistemul electronic este prevazut cu o procedura de validare nationala, centralizata, la care Romania, ca stat membru, are acces “onlinei.
Afirmatie corecta. Adica Romania are acces “onlinei (sic!). Pai na, intr-o logica simplista, desigur ca tzarisoara noastra a dobandit, odata cu infringentimizarea de la 1 ianuarie 2007, accesul la acel sistem electronic.
Problematica de mediu se afla in prim planul preocuparilor Comunitatii Europene, in sensul ca toate aspectele de mediu sunt prioritare altor interese.
Acum, am dori sa comunicam auctorelui ca afirmatia aceasta, atat de profunda, este, totusi, banala. Si parca e o picatura chinezeasca: se “aude” in fiecare contributie doctrinara autohtona in cheie apologetica. Sau encomiastica (na, bagam si termeni mai rari in text…).  Dupa cate vedem prin astfel de uvraje stiintzifice, problematica “cutare” e in prim planul preocuparilor Uniunii sau Comunitatii ori institutiilor europene. Am soma pe acesti vajnici auctori, ganditori, filosofi, experti cu expertiza (sic!), corporatzi cu “gulere albe” (in fapt, mai curand, cu gulere cenusii…) sa ne spuie si noua vreun exemplu de domeniu care nu se afla “in prim planul preocuparilor” institutiilor “europene” (urmand termonologia consacrata, deh!).
Romania trebuie sa respecte procedura de notificare, in termenele stabilitate, in mod deosebit pentru urmatoarele domenii: “Controlul poluarii industriale si Managementul risculuii, “Managementul deseurilori, “Protectia naturiii si “Calitatea aeruluii.

Iarasi o cascada de afirmatii chinuite. Notificarea nu reprezinta singura ipoteza de infringentimizare a tzarii noastre sau a tarilor altora. E posibila infringentimizarea si pentru aplicarea incorecta/incompleta a iq-ului (sic!) comunitar, de exemplu. Notificarea catre Comisia Europeana poate fi omisa (na, mai uita si autoritatile nationale “responsabile” (sic!) - se tot intampla si prin alte state membre, mai vechi, chiar), insa respectivul stat poate aplica, intr-o forma sau alta, dreptul comunitar, caz in care, totusi, statul vinovat (sic!) va fi infringentimizat. Asa stau lucrurile.

Trecem succint peste formularea “termene stabilitate” (?) si ne gandim la Pactul pentru stabilitate & crestere…
In cazul in care Romania nu-si respecta obligatiile, va fi sanctionata prin procedura de infringement.

A treia oara cand se reia aceeasi idee in procesul ideatic mai amplu… Deja permanentul s-a facut coaja (dupa ce s-a incretzit) pentru curiosul lector… Gandul lui poate zboara spre filologul Versace. Sau poate spre Florenta, nu, nu la Ufizzi, ci la Ady Mouthou.
Masurile pe care le pot aplica responsabilii comunitari pot fi foarte drastice, de tipul: inchiderii instalatiilor neconforme cu standardele europene, pierderii fondurilor alocate pentru unele proiecte din domeniul managementului deseurilor, inchiderii Gradinilor Zoologice care nu indeplinesc criteriile de calitate cerute, sistarii activitatii agentilor economici care nu respecta managementul deseurilor etc.

Mda, enumerarea este chiar dadaista; cunoasteti modalitatea de creatzie a respectivului curent: se ia un text dintr-un ziar, se decupeaza bucatile continand cuvinte, se amesteca (intr-o caciula, intr-un sac, intr-o punga biodegradabila, sa fie in ton cu “preocuparile actuale dă mediu” (sic!)) precum la 6/49, se extrag bucatile si se alcatuiesc fraze. Un fel de telefonul fara fir.

De unde intelegem ca instalatiile de deseuri si gradinile zoologice (termen scris fara majuscula pentru ca e substantiv comun) se inchid chiar de Uniunea Europeana… poate chiar sub forma unei blocade intr-o infringentimizare continua…

Motivul e simplu: nu sunt la “standardele europene”. Bine, bine, astazi citim/vedem peste tot ca se tinde spre “standarde europene”: de la productia de caltabosi pana la scolile de soferi care ofera lectii de condus la aceleasi standarde.  Evident ca daca Eugen Lovinescu ar mai fi trait astazi ar fi devenit, la randul sau, intr-un plan mai elevat, desigur, adeptul “standardizarii” permanente. Sau nu?

Iata cum, vrand, nevrand, Romania va raspunde in cazul in care nu-si va respecta angajamentele asumate prin Tratatul de Aderare la Uniunea Europeana.

Biata locutiune “vrand, nevrand” a fost violentata semantic: ar vrea tarisoara noastra sa raspunda? sau n-ar vrea? That is ze question.

Termenele sunt fixate, obligatiile sunt foarte clare, sectoarele cele mai vizate de procedura de infringement sunt prestabilite, astfel incat autoritatilor romanesti, cu ajutorul cetatenilor, nu le mai ramane decat sa le respecte.

 

 

A, am priceput; aici se face apel la simtul civic al intregului popor… in frunte cu… (ptiu!). Domeniile astea de infringentimizare sunt un fel de sabia lu’ Damocles din filmul “300″ cu baietii aia gen chippendales. Cum sunt prestabilite? Precum predestinarea in doctrina calvina? Nu, nu Calvin Klein ori Lacoste.

Oricum, fraza respectiva e de genul “noapte buna, copii”… adica, puteti dormi, toate sunt la locul lor: si termenele, si obligatiile, si sectoarele… mai ramane de “antamat” (sic!) doar elanul popular. Ca daca nu… vine infringentimizarea pe capul cetateanului…

Acum, ne permitem sa dam o sugestie auctorelui: poate elibereaza poporul muncitor de povara respectarii nemijlocite a sarcinilor trasate, atat in lupta cu poluarea factorilor de mediu (sic!), cat si cu incalzirea globala/globalista, avand in vedere “particularii”, in sens de, sa zicem, agenti economici. Adica, sa se mentzina in targhet sau in trend…

Sa ne ferim de procedura de infringement pentru ca, de fapt, ea inseamna o nota mica la materiile la care Romania mai are inca de recuperat.

… totusi. Dincolo de aceste metafore cu premiantul clasei (Ioropa e clasa, Romania e codasu’) ori de o fenomenogie a gandirii romanesti actuale privind misterium tremendum-ul “temelor nefacute pă plan intern”, este bine sa cunoastem (inclusiv auctorele) ca nu e vorba atat de note proaste, cat de amenzi colosale. Platite de statul infringentimizat Comisiei Europene. Si penalitati, care se percep pana la remedierea situatiei constatate… de catre Curtea de Justie a Comunitatilor Europene. Ca uitam, aproape, sa precizam cine trebuie sa infringentimizeze statele “codase”… “ca sa nu mai ramaie repetente”.

PS. revista respectiva are, totusi, si articole interesante, precum cel despre Sfantul Pahomie cel Mare.

Posted in perle de metafizica juridica (sau feng shui juridicesc)

Despre amendarea ulterioara a unui tratat al Uniunii Europene printr-un protocol: astazi Spania & tarii mai multi euro-parlamentari

Mai 21
Scrieti un comentariu

Dincolo de aspectul relativ minor la prima vedere ramane problema juridica.

Asadar, Spania ar urma sa propuna la urmatorul “summit” (“sommet” sau “reuniune”, ma rog, fiecare cum prefera) al Consiliului European un protocol care sa consfinteaza cresterea numarului de membrii ai Parlamentului European. Pentru sine si pentru alte state membre ale UE.

Chestiunea este interesanta, caci pana in prezent nu s-a operat cu o astfel de forma juridica. Sa vedem ce se va alege.

In plus, sa vedem cum se vor cuprinde garantiile/concesiile facute Irlandei intr-o astfel de forma/formula.

Acum stirea, din Irish Times.

SPAIN IS pressing its EU partners to agree a new protocol to the Lisbon Treaty to alter the number of sitting MEPs if the treaty finally enters into force.

Madrid wants all 27 EU leaders to sign up to the protocol at next month’s European summit and then ratify it in national parliaments if Ireland votes Yes in an autumn referendum. This controversial legal manoeuvre could enable Ireland to get its own guarantees on Lisbon enshrined in the EU treaties earlier than anticipated by the Government. But it could also complicate negotiations at the EU summit in Brussels.

“We intend to put forward a text at the June council, which says that the extra 18 MEPs from 12 countries that are included in the terms of the Lisbon Treaty should take their seats as soon as the Lisbon Treaty enters into force,” said Diego López Garrido, Spain’s minister of state for European affairs.

If all EU states sign up to the protocol and ratify it in early 2010, this would enable the number of MEPs in the European Parliament to increase from the 736 allowed in the Treaty of Nice to the 754 allowed under Lisbon.

If the new protocol is not agreed and ratified, the extra 18 MEPs from 12 countries allowed under Lisbon cannot legally take their seats until 2014 because the European elections are currently being conducted under the Nice treaty.

Spain is particularly anxious to enable the additional MEPs to take their seats because it will be allocated four of the 18 extra seats.

France, Sweden, Austria, Britain, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia and Malta would also receive more MEPs under the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr López Garrido said yesterday there would be an “imbalance” between the EU institutions if the MEPs could not take their seats until the end of the new legislature due to transition problems when moving from the Nice treaty to Lisbon Treaty.

“The treaty introduces changes to both the Council of Ministers and the parliament, so we obviously need to introduce the reforms for both institutions at the same time,” he said.

The Spanish push to have a protocol to Lisbon ratified by all 27 national parliaments in early 2010 could potentially offer the Government a vehicle through which it could get its own protocol containing its sought guarantees ratified at the same time.

It had initially planned to get this ratified, and therefore enshrined in the EU treaties, with the next accession treaty – probably Croatia in 2011 or 2012.

Enshrining the guarantees in the EU treaties would provide cast-iron legal certainty to the public on the issues in question.

But some member states such as Britain may oppose reopening the Lisbon debate in their national parliaments, particularly before a general election.

“The Spanish could cause a lot of problems if they insist on this,” said Sara Hagemann, analyst with the European Policy Centre.

“No one has a problem with the content of a protocol that enables the MEPs to take their seats but it could be used . . . in Britain to reopen the debate on Lisbon.”

There are also fears among some diplomats that raising the issue at the European Council could prompt other EU states to seek to make changes to Lisbon, potentially opening a Pandora’s box of new requests.

Mr López Garrido said the Spanish proposal was just a small technical adjustment rather than a change to Lisbon and should not prompt other requests. Britain has not raised any problem with the proposal, he added.

But one EU diplomat said it was still unclear whether the Spanish proposal would find support at the leaders’ summit in June.

“The main issue is the Irish guarantees and no one will want this to interfere with that,” he said.

Posted in Drept si politica, Integrare europeana, Interpretarea "legilor", tratate UE

O stire interesanta: regasirea testamentului politic al lui Ludovic al XVI-lea

Mai 20
Scrieti un comentariu

Cititi in Le Figaro.

Posted in revista presei

Spre crearea unui Consiliu european privind riscul sistemic & a unui sistem european al autoritatilor de supraveghere – raspuns la criza economica din spatiul comunitar. Opozitia partii engleze

Mai 20
Scrieti un comentariu

Urmare a recomandarilor grupului de Larosiere. Din Financial Times; chestiunea de ordin juridic aici priveste temeiul juridic prin Tratatul CE.

European plan for financial regulation faces UK obstacles

Proposals for a radical overhaul of financial supervision in Europe, due to be published next week, are likely to put Brussels on a collision course with the UK. A draft of the European Commission’s working document on financial supervision, obtained by the Financial Times, suggests that EU officials are determined to push ahead with the two-tiered approach suggested this year by Jacques de Larosiere, the former French central banker, as they try to guard against future financial crises. In particular, the draft recommends the creation of a European Systemic Risk Council, to assess and warn of threats to financial stability in the region. A “European system of financial supervisors” is also to be set up to oversee individual banks and financial institutions. Linked to this, there are plans to upgrade three existing pan-EU coordinating committees to become European supervisory authorities for the banking, insurance and securities sectors respectively, with recommendations that the “strengthened framework” be up and running in 2010. The three new bodies would be asked to develop harmonised rules and common approaches to supervision and to settle potential disputes between national supervisors, who would continue to handle day-to-day matters. The organisations could also be given responsibility for supervising “certain entities with pan-European reach [such as] credit rating agencies and EU central counterparty clearing houses”, the draft says. However, it is understood that these proposals are likely to encounter fierce resistance from the UK authorities. Sources familiar with the UK position said that one main objection would probably centre on the legality of giving binding mediation powers to European supervisory authorities, so that they could ultimately determine the outcome of a dispute between national supervisors. The other fundamental concern is likely to centre on the splitting of supervisory responsibility from fiscal responsibility – and allowing the new pan-EU bodies to supervise entities which, in a crisis, might need bail-out funds from national governments. A UK government spokesperson said last night: “We will consider [the report] carefully when the document is published. “It’s a starting-point for discussion.” Proposals for the European Systemic Risk Council look less contentious. In the draft, the Commission backs Mr de Larosiere’s suggestion that the ESRC be chaired by the president of the European Central Bank but adds: “The ESRC chairperson could, alternatively, be any central bank governor elected by the membership. “If the chairperson comes from a central bank within the euro system, it would seem appropriate that a vice-chairperson should be elected from among those member states outside the euro area, and vice versa.” The draft also stresses that the ESRC would not have any legally binding powers but would report regularly to member states and the European parliament The Commission’s working document is due to published on May 27. It might then be discussed by EU finance ministers as early as June and, possibly, reviewed by EU leaders when they meet at a summit later that month. Depending on the political progress made during the summer, the Commission could then draw up more detailed legislation by the autumn.

Sursa.

Posted in Drept si politica, Globalizare, Integrare europeana, Temeiul juridic al actelor CE-UE, criza economica (2009), financiar

UK. Raport al unei comisii parlamentare din Camera Comunelor privind reforma “guvernarii corporative” si a remuneratiilor din “City”

Mai 19
Scrieti un comentariu

Ei bine, titlul este plin de barbarisme. Insa, in esenta, treaba sta asa:

Banking Crisis: reforming corporate governance and pay in the City

Raportul a fost pregatit in cadrul Comisiei parlamentare insarcinate cu controlul parlamentar asupra autoritatilor publice fiscale si financiare din Regat, Treasury Committee [*]

“City” desigur este “City of London”.

Gasiti raportul aici.

Posted in Globalizare, criza economica (2009), financiar

O nedumerire: “raportul larosiere in romana”

Mai 16
Scrieti un comentariu

Asadar, o cautare de pe blogul nostru: problema este ca, din cate stim, textul raportului grupului prezidat de dl. de Larosiere se gaseste doar in limba engleza (nici macar in franceza ori germana).

Posted in Uncategorized

Drept si politica in UE. Astazi despre amanarea propunerilor Comisiei in materia succesiunilor, respectiv a impozitului pe societati

Mai 14
Scrieti un comentariu

Redam in extenso o stire chiar interesanta [sursa]:

Commission fears negative Irish reactions over law on inheritance.

Plans for EU-wide recognition of inheritance claims have fallen victim to Ireland’s projected second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The European Commission has postponed a controversial plan to have wills and inheritance claims recognised across member states until after the Irish referendum, expected in the autumn. 

Both Commission President José Manuel Barroso and Catherine Day, the secretary-general, requested that the proposal be put on hold, for fear of negative reactions in the Irish Republic on the sensitive matter of family inheritance ahead of the crucial referendum.

Jacques Barrot, the European commissioner for justice, freedom and security, was to publish the proposal in March, but was halted just weeks before. “Officially we were told it was because of the referendum, that it might have a negative influence,” said one EU official. The delay mirrors a decision by the Commission not to propose legislation on corporate tax ahead of the first Irish referendum in June last year.

Opt-ins

Although Ireland, as well as the UK, would be offered an ‘opt-in’ to the new legislation, even discussing it is seen as a risk, because it could generate resentment about the EU among the electorate. In both countries, opponents depict it as a potential threat to their common law systems. The fear for both countries would be a proposal that allowed foreign laws on inheritance to be applied in their own courts. This could, for instance, see relatives ‘claw back’ property or items given away by the deceased during their lifetime – a mechanism allowed under many member states’ succession laws, but precluded by Irish and UK law.

Legal uncertainty

Other member states argue that legislation is needed to remove legal uncertainty in the increasingly common cases of EU citizens living in one member state with certain inheritance rules, but with property in another member state subject to different rules. There is already anger among some countries that an opt-in is permitted to Ireland and the UK on police and judicial co-operation, which allows them to negotiate on a proposal and choose not to adopt it at the end. “In particular the French are angry at the way this is operating,” an official said. One of the factors in the call by Barroso and Day to defer discussion of the proposal is thought to be a desire to allay UK and Irish fears about the proposal, encouraging them to opt in from the start.

Best proposal possible

The formal Commission position, as expressed by a spokesman, is that “this is a very sensitive issue and we want to make sure we have the best proposal possible”. He denied that the Irish referendum or the opt-in have anything to do with the delay in the proposal’s publication, adding: “The Commission services are still at work on it and I don’t know when we will be able to have a final text.”

A conference on the issue organised by the Czech presidency of the EU on 20-21 April was hamstrung because there was no legislation to discuss. The postponement has also created headaches for Sweden, which will have to set aside time for discussions on the proposal among member states when it takes over the EU’s rotating presidency on 1 July.

Posted in Comisia Europeana, Drept si politica, Integrare europeana, International Privat in UE, fiscalitate comunitara

Site instructiv despre activitatea politica a membrilor Parlamentului European

Mai 13
Scrieti un comentariu

Prezentarea site-ului pe care voim a-l pomeni suna astfel:

VoteWatch.eu is an independent monitoring website of EU politics. It provides detailed information about parliamentarians’ voting records and formal political activities – from committee work to parliamentary reports – and includes easy-to-access information on the political coalitions that are formed around policy issues.

VoteWatch.eu makes it possible for citizens, the media and other stakeholders to track the performance of Members of the European Parliament (MEP) and the groups they form. The website is updated on a continuous basis and as soon as votes are taken in the European Parliament’s plenary.

Asadar, il gasiti aici.

Posted in Parlamentul European

Fostul prim ministru ceh despre Presedintia ceha & neintelegerile cu Franta

Mai 13
Scrieti un comentariu

Din Le Figaro:

La relation entre la France et la République tchèque dans le cadre de la présidence tournante de l’UE a été “vraiment rude”, estime l’ancien premier ministre tchèque Mirek Topolanek dans un livre bilan intitulé “Cent jours à la barre de l’Europe”. “Un vieux et nouveau pays, un grand et un petit pays, un pays du Sud avec un penchant remarquable pour la régulation, les subventions et le protectionnisme contre un pays libéral ouvert …. la France contre la République tchèque. Vraiment rude“, écrit-il. Selon lui, sa relation avec le président français Nicolas Sarkozy a relevé du “clash naturel”. “Notre relation mutuelle a affecté toute la présidence ou du moins la partie que j’ai pu influencer”, écrit-il dans une des rares notes personnelles que contient ce livre rédigé par son porte parole Jiri Frantisek Potuznik. Mais, il a assurer n’en garder “aucune amertume”, mardi au cours d’une conférence de presse de présentation.

Acest “amertume” ne evoca pe filosoful de la Rasinari.

Posted in Integrare europeana, revista presei

Tratatul de la Lisabona & “religiile”

Mai 12
Scrieti un comentariu

Stire din EUObserver; citit-o cu atentie.

Posted in revista presei, tratate UE

Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress – Response

Mai 12
Scrieti un comentariu

Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress – Response [*]

Posted in Comisia Europeana, Contracte comerciale, Dreptul european al consumatorului, concurenta comerciala

UK. Nou raport despre viitorul serviciilor financiare

Mai 11
Scrieti un comentariu

UK international financial services – the future

Iata.

Posted in Globalizare, criza economica (2009), financiar

UK. Privy Council & discriminarea la decoratii

Mai 10
Scrieti un comentariu

…pe motiv de religie.

Din The Times:

An honour established by the Queen has been declared unlawful after Muslims and Hindus complained that its Christian name and cross insignia were offensive.

The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity was established by the Queen 40 years ago to recognise distinguished service and gallantry in the former colony of Trinidad and Tobago. It has been received by 62 people including the cricketers Garfield Sobers and Brian Lara, the novelist V. S. Naipaul and many of the islands’ leading politicians and diplomats.

The Privy Council in London has ruled that the decoration is unconstitutional because it discriminates against non-Christians. Five British law lords said that the creation of the honour breached the right to equality and the right to freedom of conscience and belief. The implications of the ruling on British decorations are being studied by lawyers at the Cabinet Office, which oversees the honours system. A spokesman said: “We have noted the judgment and are monitoring the situation.”

A parliamentary review of British honours has already recommended streamlining the system with new titles that have no reference to Christian saints or symbols.

[...]

Cf. sursa.

Bine, veti spune (si pe buna dreptate), in acest fericit caz de afirmare a egalitatii in abstracto, de ce nu se modifica si denumirea respectivului stat, Trinidad, botezat de Columb potrivit religiei sale (de la acea vreme)?

Cititi si decizia aici.

Posted in Drept si politica, egalitate de tratament/nediscriminare

SUA isi impart competentele, Uniunea “noastra” este (deocamdata) mai strangatoare

Mai 08
Scrieti un comentariu

Pentru situatia din SUA vedeti (cititi) aici.

Posted in Conflictele jurisdictiilor, Drept si politica, Globalizare, Suveranitate, UE-SUA (EU-USA)

La final de mandat al Parlamentului European. Dezbatere asupra a 5 rapoarte despre Parlamentul European & Tratatul de la Lisabona

Mai 08
Scrieti un comentariu

Nu stim daca s-o mai fi scris pana acum, prin “blogosfera” cel putin, despre chestiunea despre care voim a scrie in continuare.

Asadar, Tratatul de la Lisabona a reprezentat, reprezinta si cu siguranta va reprezenta un subiect de discutie/de scris etc. foarte amplu, mai mult sau mai putin pertinent, mai mult sau mai putin detasat etc. Mai interesant este modul in care institutiile UE se raporteaza deja la el. Istoria recenta a acestei raportari o cunoasteti poate (e.g. modul in care Parlamentul European a cerut & impus pastrarea insemnelor UE la care se renuntase ulterior “Constitutiei”).

Parlamentul European l-a dezbatut. Acum, la final de mandat (alegerile bat la usa, nasha?), au fost elaborate 5 rapoarte asupra mentionatului tratat, dupa cum urmeaza:

- Parliament’s new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon Treaty  on the Parliament’s new role and responsibilities implementing the Treaty of Lisbon;

- Institutional balance of the European Union  on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union;

- Relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon  on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon;

- Financial aspects of the Lisbon Treaty;

- Implementation of the citizens’ initiative requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the citizens’ initiative

Asadar, precum vedeti, aspecte foarte importante. Puteti citi aceste rapoarte aici (ultima parte a paginii).

Posted in Drept si politica, Integrare europeana, Interpretarea "legilor", Legitimitate (UE), Parlamentul European, Subsidiaritate, Suveranitate, tratate UE

Interviu in “Cotidianul” cu J. Weiler. Evident, despre UE

Mai 08
Scrieti un comentariu

Din pacate, cum rasfoim destul de rar presa autohtona, am ratat ieri o piesa realmente interesanta. Astfel de ocazii apar foarte rar in presa noastra “generalista” (i.e. cotidiana).

Interviul merita citit cu atentie. Ar merita citat in extenso, insa nu o vom face, ci trimitem la sursa.

Dintre multele locuri interesante, citam unul singur; Weiler makes a strong point:

Sunt un pluralist, un liberal, cred că ar trebui să învăţăm toleranţa şi respectul pentru cultura altora, dar nu putem avea respect autentic pentru alte culturi dacă nu ne respectăm propria cultură.

Posted in Integrare europeana, obsesia laicista, revista presei

O cautare & un raspuns

Mai 07
1 comentariu

Asadar, pe blog se cauta tot felul de lucruri; am mai scris si cu alte ocazii despre asta.

Bine, acum s-a cautat asa: “carti despre lobby la ue“. Zis-am sa raspundem, atunci. Asadar, bibliografii nu vom face aici. Pentru inceput recomandam o carte care merita citita/conspectata:

Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU, scrisa de (auctorata, sic!) Rinus van Schendelen, si aparuta nu, nu la Vanju Mare University Press, ci la editura Universitatii din Amsterdam. Detalii aici.

Posted in Integrare europeana, Lobby, recenzie

Reprezentarea partilor in fata instantelor comunitare. Opinie (avizata&studiata)

Mai 05
Scrieti un comentariu

CHRISTOPHER MORCOM, Representation of Parties before the European Court of Justice—Is There a Need for Reform?, European Intellectual Property Review, Volume 31, Issue 5, 2009

Abstract:

Orders under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 have designated the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents (CIPA) and the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) as “authorised bodies” for the grant of rights of audience and litigators’ rights. Duly qualified patent and trade mark attorneys are now placed on the same footing as solicitors. Not so in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the statutes of which restrict these rights to “lawyers”. Recent Court of First Instance (CFI) decisions have prevented patent and trade mark attorneys from appearing or instructing barristers in cases before the court. This opinion considers the decisions and questions the Court’s interpretation of the word “lawyer”, which appears to ignore the fact that the attorneys have been granted rights under the 1990 Act to act, in essence, as lawyers.

Posted in CJCE, Copyright, Drept si economie, Opinii, contrafacere, jurisprudenta comunitara
Pagina Următoare »

    Domnia cantitatii & semnele vremurilor

    • 111,731 uitaturi pe blog