de fapt…
Tratatul dintre Regatul Belgiei, Republica Cehă, Regatul Danemarcei, Republica Federală Germania, Republica Estonia, Republica Elenă, Regatul Spaniei, Republica Franceză, Irlanda, Republica Italiană, Republica Cipru, Republica Letonia, Republica Lituania, Marele Ducat al Luxemburgului, Republica Ungară, Republica Malta, Regatul Ţărilor de Jos, Republica Austria, Republica Polonă, Republica Portugheză, Republica Slovenia, Republica Slovacă, Republica Finlanda, Regatul Suediei, Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii şi Irlandei de Nord (state membre ale Uniunii Europene) şi Republica Bulgaria şi România privind aderarea Republicii Bulgaria şi a României la Uniunea Europeană
a fost ratificat prin Legea nr. 157/2005, publicat in Monitorul Oficial nr. 465/1.06.2005.
{*}
Giovanni Tamburrini, Non-profit Organizations and Patrons’ Protection: A Comparative Legal and Economic Analysis of Civil Law and Common Law Systems, vol 13, ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, September 3/2009 [*].
The unceasing proliferation of non-profit organizations indicates more and more clearly problems of resources allocation which are common in the for-profit sector. Whereas for the latter legal tools have been developed in order to allow shareholders to claim responsibility of their boards directly, non-profit organizations still operate with a very weak system of oversight.
This paper investigates solutions offered by two different legal traditions, namely the Italian and the US American. In particular, the analysis focuses on the dichotomy civil law-common law to find out how the relevant principles of contract law apply to patrons-directors relationship. The notions of causa and consideration, in fact, play a fundamental role to determine the dimension of such contractual relationships and to identify which actually are the terms of the contract itself. Basically, it is assumed that non-profit by-laws contain clauses which mandate directors to employ funds according to the scopes of the organization itself. To deem those provisions as part of the contract between patrons and directors would prove far more complicated in common law jurisdictions where courts tend to rely very heavily on the negotiated and written terms. For practical reasons, US state laws have therefore preferred to keep non-profit organizations on a public dimension, entrusting only to the General Attorneys the power to enforce the break of fiduciary duties from directors. In Italy, on the other hand, the criteria associated with the interpretation of the contracts are more elastic. Such an approach allows the courts to consider the clauses of the articles of association as terms of the contract between patrons and director and acknowledges the former with the power to sue the latter, in that way underscoring the private dimension of non-profit organizations. The system of control over directors conduct in non-profit firms represents a very fundamental aspect providing the necessary pressure to keep the firm efficient.
International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, Volume 11, Number 4, August 2009.
{*}
RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN FUNDING OF CIVIL SOCIETY
Rebecca B. Vernon, Closing the Door on Aid
Ibrahim Saleh, Living in a Lie and Dying in Silence: The Trauma of Civil Society in the Middle East and North Africa
Rahma Adan Jillo and Faith Kisinga, NGO Law in Kenya
Marek Rymsza, State Policy Toward the Civic Sector in Poland
James Austin and Ezequiel Reficco, Corporate Social Entrepreneurship
CJCE a respins numeroasele motive de recurs ale societatilor bancare – “Clubul Lombard”.
Tony Barber, Dark clouds gather for EU on Lisbon treaty, 17.09. 2009, [*]
But the Irish referendum is not the only cloud on the EU’s horizon. For even if Ireland votes Yes, there remain considerable doubts over when Václav Klaus, the Czech president, will append his signature to the Lisbon treaty, allowing it to take force. Fears are growing in Brussels that Klaus intends to find an excuse to delay signing as long as possible – certainly, until some time in the first half of next year.
Andrew Gimson, Germans reel at prospect of ’submission to alien powers’, The Daily Telegraph, 18.09.2009 {aici}
Extracts
In a tone of barely suppressed fury, the court enumerates the encroachments Europe has made on national judicial systems and rules that this process must go no further. According to these judges, Germany’s Basic Law, or constitution, promotes peaceful co-operation within the EU and the United Nations, but this is not “tantamount to submission to alien powers”. (…)
The German judges add that measures of European integration “must, in principle, be revocable”, and declare that they themselves have the right to safeguard “the inviolable core content” of the German constitution: a process that “can result in Community law or Union law being declared inapplicable in Germany”. It is an extraordinarily high-handed and intransigent judgment. (…)
According to Prof Stürmer, who from 1981 was an adviser to Helmut Kohl on European policy, the judgment means that for the next 10 or 20 years, no German government “can really move forward on Europe”: there cannot be a successor treaty to Lisbon. He reproaches Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, for having failed to begin at once “an open, principled conflict” with the court. But Mrs Merkel is astute enough to realise that there are no votes to be won by taking on the Constitutional Court, which enjoys greater respect than the political class.
Hotararea Curtii Constitutionale Federale din Germania aici
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de 29 septembrie 2009, ora 14, la sediul său din Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13
Conferinţa
«Libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor şi serviciilor. Repere privind cadrul juridic comunitar al recunoaşterii reciproce a diplomelor»
Pentru exercitarea de către resortisanţii comunitari – persoane fizice, a libertăţilor fundamentale, o importanţă fundamentală o deţine sistemul recunoaşterii reciproce a calificărilor profesionale. În funcţie de tipul de activitate pe care o persoană fizică o poate desfăşura într-un stat membru, altul decât cel în care a obţinut calificarea („stat gazdă”), se distinge între, pe de o parte, libera circulaţie a lucrătorilor (pentru o activitate salariată), iar pe de altă parte, libera circulaţie a serviciilor şi libertatea de stabilire (pentru o activitate independentă, nesalariată, inclusiv o profesie liberă). De aceea, recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale de către statul gazdă permite respectivei persoane dobândirea accesului la aceeaşi profesie precum cea în care s-a calificat în statul de origine, în aceleaşi condiţii precum cetăţenii statului gazdă.
Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere atât din perspectiva teoreticienilor, cât şi practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi), pornind de la aspecte cheie evidenţiate în jurisprudenţa Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene şi în dreptul derivat comunitar.
Lucrările vor fi onorate de prezenţa unor cunoscuţi practiceni şi vor fi moderate de către Nicolae Turcu, Presedintele Sectiei de Drept Privat – Consiliul Legislativ din Romania si Mihai Şandru.
Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 28 septembrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.
Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la colocviu vor fi disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.
Este încurajată particularea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate, anterior dar şi referitoare la orice alte chestiuni conexe ce ar putea fi de interes. În acest sens, doritorii pot adresa o solicitare de înscriere pe lista vorbitorilor, trimiţând şi un scurt rezumat al principalelor puncte ce ar urma să fie atinse, la adresa de e-mail mihai.sandru@csde.ro.
CSDE vă mulţumeşte pentru retransmiterea acestei invitaţii către toate persoanele interesate.
Program (update):
Moderator: Prof. Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România
Prof. univ. dr. Cornel Munteanu, Director, Adrian Iordache, Centrul Naţional de Recunoaştere şi Echivalare a Diplomelor
Prof. univ. dr. Nicoleta Diaconu, Cadrul juridic privind realizarea liberei circulaţii a serviciilor şi lucrătorilor în Uniunea Europeană
Drd. Alina-Ştefania Gorghiu, Recunoaşterea diplomelor şi a calificărilor profesionale
Drd. Bogdan Olteanu, Directiva 2005/36/CE a Parlamentului European şi a Consiliului din 7 septembrie 2005 privind recunoaşterea calificărilor profesionale
Conf. univ. dr. Anca Ileana Duşcă, Lect. univ. dr. Robert Bischin, Linii directoare ale dreptului comunitar şi ale jurisprudenţei în materia recunoaşterii calificărilor profesionale
Judecător Mihăiţă Florin, Reglementarea şi jurisprudenţa comunitară în materia liberei circulaţii a serviciilor prestate de avocaţi
Avocat Cleopatra Marin, Mobilitatea în UE a resortisanţilor din statele terţe
Judecător Dragoş Călin, Repere jurisprudenţiale ale dreptului francez în domeniul recunoaşterii diplomelor
Conf. univ. dr. Mihai Şandru, Evoluţia politicii comunitare de formare profesională. Semnificaţia momentului Gravier (cauza 293/83)
Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro
Parteneri:
Editura Wolters Kluwer, Editura Hamangiu, Editura Universitară, Editura C.H.Beck, Editura Universul Juridic.
SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice, Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.
Prezentul regulament respectă drepturile fundamentale și principiile recunoscute, în special, de Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale a Consiliului Europei și de Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene. [Preambul, cons. 29]
Il gasiti aici [FR].
James E. Pfander, Member State Liability and Constitutional Change in the United States and Europe, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2003. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
In a well-known series of recent cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has dramatically narrowed the obligation of states to comply with the rules of accountability that Congress has applied to other aspects of our national commercial life. Although the Court has frequently invoked the Eleventh Amendment to defend its narrowing of state accountability, its decision in Alden v. Maine makes clear that state sovereign immunity rests less on the text of the Constitution than on unwritten structural postulates that it has described as “implicit in the constitutional design.” Across the Atlantic, the European Court of Justice has drawn on similarly unwritten postulates in developing rules to govern member state accountability to central legislative norms. Yet in Europe, the ECJ has pushed in the opposite direction, expanding member state liability beyond the limits specified in the treaties that constitute the European Union.
This paper takes the differing approaches of the Supreme Court and the ECJ as the jumping off point for a rumination on the legitimacy of constitutional change in federal systems. In Europe, a doctrine known as the acquis communautaire has evolved in ways that require newly admitted member states to subscribe not only to the formal terms of the treaties themselves but also to the unwritten rules that the ECJ has announced in working out a jurisprudence of European integration. Avowedly forward looking, the acquis provides an underpinning of legitimacy for the ECJ’s jurisprudence. In effect, the acquis suggests that each member state, upon accession to the Union, must accept both the specific terms of prior judicial decisions and the notion of an evolving jurisprudence. In the United States, by contrast, the Supreme Court’s decisions have looked backwards through the lens of originalism to identify the nature of the accessionary bargain of the original thirteen states. Such a backward-looking originalism corresponds to the emphasis in the American equal-footing doctrine on the nature of the original deal among the states that formed the Union. It also corresponds to the Court’s rejection of the metaphor of living constitutionalism that one finds most famously expressed in Justice Holmes opinion in Missouri v. Holland.
The paper concludes with a suggestion that the acquis, coupled with the relatively dynamic quality of European federalism, may help to explain the ECJ’s evolving jurisprudence of constitutional integration. Europe continues to grow, with the planned accession of ten new member states in 2004 and more on the way. In the United States, by contrast, no new member states have joined the Union since the late 1950s, and the prospects for further growth as a nation seem remote indeed. The closing of the border in the United States may have contributed to the perception that the project of federal integration has been completed. Such developments may have also contributed to a closing of the judicial mind to the possibility of further change in the nature of federal relationships.
Berend Jan Drijber, Hélène Stergiou, Public Procurement Law and Internal Market Law, Common Market Law Review. New York: Jun 2009. Vol. 46, Iss. 3.
Abstract
In the classification of the ECJ’s case law, public procurement cases are ranked under the heading law relating to undertakings. This somewhat non-descript qualification does not say a great deal about the nature of public procurement litigation. In legal practice, public procurement has gradually developed into a separate area of law. Community law generalists find it increasingly difficult to follow the flood of cases on public procurement matters. Yet rulings that ostensibly deal with technical issues may also be relevant for the evolution of the case law on the fundamental freedoms in general. This article will situate the specialist case law on public procurement in the wider context of the general case law on the free provision of services. Two qualifications regularly appeared in this article: uncertainty and consistency. That may sound somewhat contradictory, but it is not.
Luke Eric Peterson, European Commission moves to intervene in another ICSID arbitration, Micula v. Romania – a dispute hinging on withdrawal of investment incentives by Romania, May 11, 2009 (Vol. 2, No. 8 ).
Avizul Comitetului Economic și Social European privind Cartea verde „Migrație și mobilitate: provocările și oportunitățile sistemelor educaționale din UE”
2009/C 218/17, 17 septembrie 2009
[*]
Cartea albă a Comitetului Regiunilor privind guvernanţa pe mai multe niveluri
2009/C 211/01, 04.09.2009
[*]
Raport privind auditul eficienței administrării Băncii Centrale Europene pentru exercițiul financiar 2006 însoțit de răspunsurile Băncii Centrale Europene, 2009/C 210/01, 4 septembrie 2009 [*]
Previziunile bugetare ale BCE au fost realiste?
17. BCE și-a estimat în mod suficient de realist nevoile bugetare pentru cheltuielile recurente aferente
domeniilor de activitate, ceea ce a condus la o rată de execuție bugetară relativ ridicată pentru exercițiile
bugetare 2006 și 2007. Cu toate acestea, previziunile bugetare pentru activități din cadrul secțiunilor
„Proiecte” sau „Dezvoltarea/Construirea Băncii” s-au dovedit a fi nerealiste, dacă avem în vedere întârzierile
semnificative legate de execuția proiectelor în 2006 și, într-o mai mică măsură, în 2007.
21. Curtea recomandă Băncii Centrale Europene:
— să analizeze cauzele întârzierilor care au afectat proiectele și să propună măsuri cu scopul de a îmbunătăți
întocmirea bugetului pentru aceste proiecte;
— să consolideze normele și procedurile bugetare într-un document unic;
— să definească un plan de acțiune în vederea rezolvării problemelor întâmpinate în ceea ce privește
implementarea sistemului ERP;
— să consolideze procedurile de control în domeniul transferurilor bugetare.
Avizul Comitetului Economic și Social European privind propunerea de directivă a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului de modificare a Directivelor 77/91/CEE, 78/855/CEE și 82/891/CEE ale Consiliului și a Directivei 2005/56/CE privind obligațiile de raportare și întocmire a documentației necesare în cazul fuziunilor și divizărilor
2009/C 218/05, 11 septembrie 2009
[*]
L’Institut européen de Roumanie, l’Ambassade de France en Roumanie et la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Bucarest ont l’honneur de vous inviter à participer lundi 28 septembre 2009 à 11h00 à la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Bucarest (Bd. Kogalnicineanu nr. 36-46, 050107 Bucarest, salle de conférence Stoicescu) à la conférence :
« Droit national et droit européen »
donnée par
M. Bernard STIRN, Président de la section du contentieux du Conseil d’Etat
La conférence sera ouverte par M. Henri PAUL, Ambassadeur de France en Roumanie et modérée par M. Flavius BAIAS, Doyen de la Faculté de droit.
Cet évènement sera la dix-huitième conférence du cycle “Roumanie – France : ensemble en Europe” co-organisé par l’Institut européen de Roumanie (IER) et l’Ambassade de France en Roumanie depuis 2007 afin de donner une perspective franco-roumaine sur l’intégration européenne de la Roumanie.
* * *
M. Bernard STIRN, 57 ans, juriste et ancien élève de l’Ecole nationale d’administration, a intégré le Conseil d’Etat en 1976. Il en a été Secrétaire général de 1991 à 1995 et en préside la section du contentieux, plus haute instance de la juridiction administrative française, depuis 2006. Son parcours professionnel l’a également amené à occuper différentes responsabilités administratives au sein du Ministère de l’industrie et de la recherche et du Ministère de l’éducation nationale. Il est également (depuis 2001) Président de l’Opéra national de Paris.
Professeur associé auprès de l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris et de l’Ecole nationale d’administration, Bernard STIRN est l’auteur de plusieurs ouvrages de référence en droit administratif ainsi que sur les droits et libertés civiles. Son expérience de la haute administration et du système juridictionnel français en fait un expert reconnu de l’articulation entre droit national et droit européen et sa pratique professionnelle a contribué à une meilleure intégration des normes communautaires dans la pratique administrative et la jurisprudence en France.
* * *
L’enregistrement des participants aura lieu entre 10h30 et 11h00. La conférence sera donnée en français avec traduction simultanée en roumain. Nous serions très heureux de votre participation et vous prions de la confirmer auprès de l’IER par courriel (florentina.costache@ier.ro), fax (021 / 314 26 66) ou téléphone (021 / 314 26 96 ou 97), jusqu’au jeudi 24 septembre 2009.
Urmare a cauzei Feryn, dar fara legatura cu ea, o stire interesanta, tot din Belgia. Sau despre reprimarea faşismelor de dormitor (ma rog, din camera de zi). Sau, cu alte cuvinte, tot despre “micuţi si oamenii legii” (sic!). Si, vorba cantecului: “O ultimaaaa tigaraaaa, uitataaaa intr-un colt peeee etajeeeeraaaaa”.
“Le Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme a introduit une plainte à l’encontre d’une famille d’accueil de la région anversoise, suite à la diffusion du programme TERZAKE ce lundi 7 septembre sur la VRT.
Dans ce reportage, un journaliste de la VRT rend visite ‘undercover’ à une famille d’accueil anversoise agréée par l’organisme flamand de l’enfance, Kind&Gezin, pour se renseigner sur les modalités de prise en charge de son enfant.
Le reportage met clairement en évidence les tendances racistes et xénophobes du couple d’accueil, qui arbore dans sa salle de séjour, aux yeux de tous, un portrait d’Adolf Hitler, un drapeau interdit du VMO (Vlaamse Militanten Orde) et une collection d’objets à caractère raciste.
La mère d’accueil soutient explicitement que les théories du régime nazi devraient être appliquées à la société actuelle, visant par là les personnes d’origines turque et marocaine.
On ne peut exclure que ces idées racistes soient également propagées auprès des autres parents, visiteurs, voire auprès des enfants accueillis par le couple.
Le Centre estime qu’il y a à la fois infraction aux articles 20 et 21 de la loi du 30 juillet 1981 tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie modifiée par la loi du 10 mai 2007, et à l’article 1 de la loi contre le négationnisme du 23 mars 1995.
De pe site-ul centrului de lupta impotriva rasismelor, xenofobiilor & altor tare post-moderne din Belgia. Daca, in prezent, ii culeg pe faşişti din dormitor, banuim ca urmatoarea etapa de combatere a faşismelor va cobora spre interiorul persoanei umane.
HOTĂRÂREA CURTII (Marea Cameră) din 8 septembrie 2009
cauza C‑42/07, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol & Bwin International Ltd/Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
Cerere de pronuntare a unei hotărâri preliminare – Articolul 49 CE – Restrictie privind libera prestare a serviciilor – Exploatarea jocurilor de noroc prin internet
Sergiu Deleanu, Uzantele comerciale in contextul Regulamentului Roma I, Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 4/2009.
Christiana H.J.I. Panayi, Corporate Mobility in Private International Law and European Community Law: Debunking Some Myths. YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW, Eeckhout, P., Tridimas, T., eds., Vol. 28, Oxford University Press, 2009; Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26/2009. Available at SSRN.
E oficial! (sic!; precum incepe astazi redactarea multor stiri de presa, nasha?): un grup de senatori cehi sesizatara Curtea constitutionala din aceeasi republica cu privire la (sau, sa ne exprimam romglez – “pe“)constitutionalitatea numitului tratat cu Constitutia. Precum stiti, instanta s-a pronuntat anterior asupra aceluiasi tratat, insa la un mod general. Precum intelegem, acum e randul unui control constitutional mai amanuntit.
Asadar, stirea:
“Prague – Seventeen Czech senators, mainly from the right-wing Civic Democrats (ODS), today filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the amendments “on special mandate” related to the Lisbon treaty, ODS senator Jiri Oberfalzer has told CTK.
The special mandate prevents the Czech government from approving transfer of powers to the EU without the parliament’s agreement.
Apart from ODS senators, the complaint was signed by unaffiliated senator Tomas Toepfer and Liana Janackova, chairwoman for the Party of Free Citizens.
The senators also plan to ask the Constitutional Court again to assess the the Lisbon treaty to reform the EU institutions as such.
The senators’ initiative has been criticised by supporters of a quick ratification of the treaty who say this step is just delaying tactics that would enable President Vaclav Klaus to postpone the signing of the treaty and thus its final ratification.
Klaus is known as a staunch critic of the Lisbon treaty.
Minister for European Affairs Stefan Fuele recently called the senators’ efforts “an unsubstantiated and illogical step” that should not hamper the ratification process.
However, the senators argue that the amendments on the special mandate are not sufficient and that it is at variance with the constitution for the houses of parliament to approve further transfers of power to the EU by less than a constitutional majority.
The senators called on the Constitutional Court to apply the final right to interpret the European legislation related to the Lisbon treaty. They also propose that parliament approve Czech candidates for EU commissioner and judges of the European Court of Justice.
The treaty’s opponents among senators turned to the Constitutional Court already in 2008. Last November the court said it did not find the treaty inconsistent with the Czech constitutional order.
[...]“
Stirea si in Prague Monitor.
Sau, precum se exprima “expertii cu expertiza” in limba romgleza vernaculara: “raportul pă competenţie” din 2008.
RO, EN, FR. De asemenea, este interesant si documentul insotitor - SEC(2009)1004, disponibil doar in EN & FR.
