Comisia Europeana. Comunicare despre “Small Business Act” pentru Europa

Aici.

Republica ceha. Guvernul pentru Curtea Constitutionala despre Tratatul de la Lisabona

Precum se stie, instanta constitutionala din aceasta tara urmeaza a se pronunta asupra compatibilitatii tratatului in cauza cu dreptul constitutional… Guvernul ceh si-a prezentat punctul de vedere. Cititi aici, din EUObserver.

Si poate doriti sa cititi si punctul de vedere al Presedintelui Cehiei, Vaclav Klaus, trimis Curtii Constitutionale.

Italia. Curtea de Casatie despre discriminare fata de “tiganii hoti”

Din The Guardian. Si nu, in speta materialul nu este romanesc.

Italy’s highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.

(…)

The ruling by the court of cassation, which appears to provide judicial backing for the government’s policies, was handed down in March, but reported only yesterday. The judges overthrew the conviction of six defendants who signed a leaflet demanding the expulsion of Verona’s Gypsies in 2001.

Among those convicted of racially discriminatory propaganda was Flavio Tosi, an official of the anti-immigrant Northern League, who has since become Verona’s mayor. He was quoted by a witness at his trial as having said afterwards: “The Gypsies must be ordered out because, wherever they arrive, there are robberies.”

The court of cassation decided this did not show Tosi was a racist, but that he had “a deep aversion [to Roma] that was not determined by the Gypsy nature of the people discriminated against, but by the fact that all the Gypsies were thieves”. His dislike of them was “not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice”. The judges scrapped the two-month jail sentences and ordered that the case be reheard.

Their ruling was published hours before police in Verona arrested eight Roma of Croatian origin accused of having induced minors to carry out burglaries in northern Italy. The arrests were co-ordinated by the prosecutor who charged Tosi and the others seven years ago.

Franco Frattini, the foreign minister, who until earlier this year was the European commissioner for justice and human rights, applauded the fingerprinting initiative, saying: “These things are done in many other European countries.” He and other government supporters said the main beneficiaries would be Roma children at risk of being forced to break the law.

But an opposition MP, Gian Claudio Bressa, said the government was enacting measures “that increasingly resemble those of an authoritarian regime”. On Sunday Maroni’s top aide was reported to have imposed a vow of silence on three special commissioners appointed to deal with what the Italian media calls “the Roma emergency”.

Nediscriminarea casatoriilor intre homosexuali & propunerea Comisiei Europene

Da, in sfarsit Comisia Europeana a prezentat propunerea de directiva care ar egaliza totul. Despre ea am mai scris aici; despre tribulatiile ei. Initiativa e inclusa in pachetul de masuri de ordin social pentru Comunitate. Dar de la problemele pe care CJCE le-a evidentiat in Viking, Laval, Rueffert… si pana la dimensiunea sociala a altor dimensiuni… credem ca e distanta, si nu mica…

Si nu o spunem noi, ci altii discrimineaza (cel putin indirect). Din EUObserver, despre initiative:

Arnaldo Abruzzini of Eurochambres commented “we question the rationale of the whole package, which appears like a patchwork of a dozen of initiatives, randomly put together without any clear coherence,” adding that there could be questionable impact on businesses from some of the proposals.

On the other hand, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) argues Brussels has made a “modest step forward” with its social agenda in general and on works councils in particular.

But ETUC chief John Monks said “We are waiting for stronger and more ambitious initiatives.”

 

Ei bine, acum vine supararea ca nu vorbeste despre casatoriile acelea. Cititi la EUObserver.

In sfarsit, acum o scurta idee din textul motivarii respectarii principiului subsidiaritatii:

The diversity of European societies is one of Europe’s strengths, and is to be respected in line with the principle of subsidiarity. Issues such as the organisation and content of education, recognition of marital or family status, adoption, reproductive rights and other similar questions are best decided at national level. The Directive does not therefore require any Member State to amend its present laws and practices in relation to these issues. Nor does it affect national rules governing the activities of churches and other religious organisations or their relationship with the state. So, for example, it will remain for Member States alone to take decisions on questions such as whether to allow selective admission to schools, or prohibit or allow the wearing or display of religious symbols in schools, whether to recognise same-sex marriages, and the nature of any relationship between organised religion and the state.

Marea Britanie. Ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona ulterior pronuntarii justitiei

Asta e, intr-adevar, o stire interesanta. Scriam anterior despre ea, cum ca un milionar “eurosceptic” a sesizat High Court. Bine, Gordon Brown face respectiva afirmatie referitoare la ratificarea ulterioara a tratatului in cauza.

Cititi in The Guardian.

Actualizand informatiile, trebuie sa stiti ca instanta a respins actiunea; gasiti textul hotararii R (Wheeler) v Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary (pronuntata la 25 iunie a.c., insa publicata ulterior) aici.

Franta, noua lege privind organismele modificate genetic & Consiliul constitutional

Din L’Express… Instanta constitutionala s-a pronuntat, constatand ca legea e conforma Constitutiei & principiului precautiunii.

Ce e interesant de sesizat este ca (aproape) toti (actorii implicati) sunt multumiti. Strange, isn’t it? Promitem sa urmarim evolutiile viitoare.

Regimul olandez al pariurilor online spre CJCE

Din Financial Times.

Ladbrokes claimed a significant moment in betting companies’ long battle to open up restrictive European markets when the Dutch Supreme Court referred its appeal against a ban on taking online bets from Dutch citizens to the European Court of Justice.

The UK’s biggest bookmaker claimed victory in a six-year case that ended on Friday when the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the country’s gaming laws but asked for guidance in the context of European law. Ladbrokes’s shares rose 8p, closing at 291¾p.

Dutch gaming law prevents Ladbrokes and others from taking sports bets online from any resident, even though Ladbrokes has no Dutch-facing website and does not advertise in the country. De Lotto is the only permitted operator of sports betting in the country and three years ago asked a lower court to stop Ladbrokes from taking bets from Dutch citizens.

The ruling comes ahead of a critical decision due in the next two weeks from the European Commission on whether to issue proceedings at the ECJ against countries it believes are unfairly restricting their gambling markets to competition. The Netherlands is one of 10 the EC may take action against.

John O’Reilly, head of Ladbrokes e-gaming division, said: “We have fought for six years against Dutch protectionism and finally we have won the referral to the ECJ. At last the Dutch courts have recognised that its laws on betting must be viewed in the context of European law.

“Under the Treaty of Rome we should be able to provide our services across borders in competition with the Dutch monopoly, but at the moment we are unfairly prevented from doing so.”

The ECJ is unlikely to rule on the Ladbrokes case for at least a year but some gaming operators hope the referral will strengthen the EC’s case against member states and put pressure on them to liberalise their laws.

CJCE si angajatii de peste 65 de ani; Cauza Heyday.

Din The Guardian.

A test case on age discrimination which goes to the European court of justice in Luxembourg early next month could open the way for employees in Britain to insist on working past 65.

If Heyday, the membership arm of Age Concern, wins the case it could also allow hundreds of workers forced into retirement to claim compensation from their former employers. The July 2 hearing date is months earlier than expected and a final decision could come by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Anna Johns, 72, who was made to retire at 70 in March 2007, scored a victory at the court of appeal last week for the hundreds already forcibly retired who hope a win for Heyday will pave the way to redress for them.

Her employers, Solent SD, argued that Johns had no chance of success because a Spanish worker who had challenged a similar retirement rule in his own country lost his case at the Luxembourg court. An employment tribunal struck out her claim on the basis of a preliminary ruling in the Spanish case.

But the employment appeals tribunal (EAT) ruled that Johns’s case should be put on hold because the outcome of the Heyday case could not be predicted, and there were clear differences between it and the Spanish case. Solent appealed but last week the appeal court ruled in Johns’s favour.

After she won at the EAT, the employment tribunals service agreed to bank all similar claims. Lawyers say hundreds have been filed. If Heyday wins in Europe and the case comes back to the UK courts these claims will be able to go ahead.

Heyday argues that the UK failed to implement the European directive on age discrimination properly when it brought in regulations in October 2006 banning discrimination on the grounds of age but kept 65 as a “default” retirement age.

Johns, from Southampton, worked in the customer service department of Solent, a newspaper and magazine wholesaler, until she retired at 65. She took a job at B&Q but then her former bosses asked her to go back, offering pay and hours she “couldn’t refuse”. When the age regulations came into force she was given six months’ notice that she had to retire at 70. She now works as a dogsitter and housesitter. “I was good at my job. I’m not being big-headed … I loved my job and I was good at it,” she said. “And I loved all the people I worked with. I still see them.”

Ailsa Ogilvie, director of Heyday, said: “The 1.2 million people in the UK working beyond retirement age do so only at the grace of their employer.

“It is absurd to think that as soon as you turn 65, the knowledge and skills that you’ve built up over the years are no longer valued and needed. Our right to work should not be based on our birth certificates, but on skills and motivation.

“The Government’s decision to allow employers to sack people at 65 completely contradicts its stated aim of encouraging longer working lives. We are hopeful that the European court of justice will find parts of the regulations relating to mandatory retirement age unlawful.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission supported Johns in taking her case to the court of appeal. John Wadham, its legal director, said: “This is a fantastic outcome for Ms Johns and the many others like her who are challenging mandatory retirement ages in the courts.

“We are all awaiting the results of the Heyday case with great anticipation, and the commission hopes it will deliver real change for people who want to work past 65.”

De la altii adunate. Azi: Quebec & crucifixul din plenul Adunarii legislative & multiculti

Cu unanimitate de voturi ale membrilor Adunarii parlamentare a provinciei Quebec:

QUE l’Assemblée nationale réitère sa volonté de promouvoir la langue, l’histoire, la culture et les valeurs de la nation québécoise, favorise l’intégration de chacun à notre nation dans un esprit d’ouverture et de réciprocité, et témoigne de son attachement à notre patrimoine religieux et historique représenté notamment par le crucifix de notre Salon bleu et nos armoiries ornant nos institutions.

De aici.

Discutia are ceva vechime deja, de ordinul a cateva saptamani, desigur; ea s-a purtat intr-un context mai amplu al multiculturalizmului (sic!) din provincia respectiva. Precum se stie sau nu, Canada este federatiune. Unde mai pui ca in provincia respectiva se resimt din cand in cand pulsiuni secesioniste.

Revenind la oile noastre, votul respectiv a avut loc in contextul dezbaterii unor concluzii ale unui raport al unor experti cu expertiza, denumit “Le temps de la conciliation“, in cadrul unei comisii consultative cu privire la acomodarea diferentelor culturale.

De unde reiese ca, (virgula) quebecoisii (sic!) au stiut sa acomodeze “trendul” (sic!) actual al multiculturalizmului (i.e. Quebec e un teritoriu cunoscut de atragere a emigrantilor…) cu traditia. Sa luam aminte!

Finlanda & Estonia au ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

EUObserver.

Review of Law & Economics

Damages for Breach of Contract, Impossibility of Performance and Legal Enforceability

German Coloma

Social Norms, Self-Interest and Ambiguity of Legal Norms: An Experimental Analysis of the Rule vs. Standard Dilemma

Yuval Feldman and Alon Harel

Frischmann’s View of “Toward a Theory of Property Rights”

Harold Demsetz

Causation and Incentives to Choose Levels of Care and Activity Under the Negligence Rule

Avraham D. Tabbach

A Positive Theory of Strict Liability

Keith N. Hylton

Cate bordeie, atatea obiceiuri. Sau despre reactii amestecate asupra propunerilor comunitare in materia timpului de lucru, respectiv statutului lucratorilor temporari

Cititi in EUObserver.

Dai un ban da’ stai in fata. Astazi: o noua prelevare fiscala franceza in contul IMM-uri

Titlul este ludic, evidemment. Pe scurt, se doreste instituirea unei noi taxe (i.e. prelevare procentuala din masa salariala a IMM-urilor) pentru sustinerea dialogului social. Frapant este ca s-ar putea s-o vedem si pe asta invalidata de CJCE, daca tinem cont de ce s-a mai intamplat pana acum in materia detasarii (transnationale) de lucratori in cadrul unei prestari de servicii (Comisia/Germania, Laval etc. etc.). Ba chiar si CEDO a spus-o recent, referindu-se la situatia din aceeasi Suedie…

Din La Tribune.

Un nouveau prélèvement, qui pourrait atteindre 0,15% de la masse salariale des entreprises de moins de dix salariés, servirait à soutenir le dialogue social. Il s’inscrirait dans le projet de loi sur la représentativité et le temps de travail.

Eric Woerth, ministre du Budget, a confirmé ce mardi matin, sur BFM, le principe d’une nouvelle taxe frappant les entreprises de moins de dix salariés. Alors que l’exécutif avait promis de de pas intaurer de prélèvement supplémentaire et qu’il vient, dans cette logique, de supprimer l’IFA (impôt forfaitaire annuel) qui frappait les entreprises, cette nouvelle contribution est censée servir à soutenir le dialogue social.

Selon le quotidien Les Echos, ce nouveau prélèvement serait fixé à 0,15% de la masse salariale et servirait à financer deux choses: “le détachement des négociateurs syndicaux lorsque ces derniers doivent interrompre leur activité salariée en entreprise, et les missions d’expertise et de sensibilisation auprès des chefs d’entreprise”.

En fait, le gouvernement, pour imposer cette nouvelle taxe, s’appuie sur un accord du 12 décembre… 2001, signé par l’UPA (artisans) et les cinq confédérations syndicales, prévoyant le financement du dialogue social dans les entreprises artisanales, et qui n’est appliqué que dans le secteur alimentaire. Selon Les Echos, cette reconnaissance nationale de cet accord ancien et son extension à tous les secteurs d’activité s’inscriraient dans le cadre du projet de loi sur la représentativité et le temps de travail.

Si les syndicats ne peuvent que se réjouir de ce projet, le Medef et les “petits patrons” de la CGPME y sont tout à fait opposés. Selon Les Echos, après l’échec de plusieurs procédures judiciaires nationales contre l’accord de 2001, les deux organisations patronales envisagent de saisir la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes.

Irlanda. Tratatul de la Lisabona & pastrarea dreptului de veto in materia avortului & in privinta OMC

Despre regimul avortului in statul respectiv am mai scris recent. Acum si despre OMC (Organizatia Mondiala a Comertului, nu?!). Stirea suna astfel, iar comunicatul aici:

Ireland will retain its right to veto World Trade Organisation talks and maintain its position on abortion if the Lisbon Treaty is passed, the Referendum Commission said today.

The Commission had decided to offer “clarification” to voters given the “confusion” that has surrounded some of the debate, the chairman of the Referendum Commission, Judge Iarfhlaith O’Neill.

World trade talks can be blocked because all such deals include elements that require unanimity, even if the agricultural chapter does not.

In his statement, Judge O’Neill said Protocol 35 to the Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that nothing shall affect Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution.

“Protocols have full legal force – they have the same legal status as an Article of the Treaties. This Protocol is EU law and it explicitly excludes Article 40.3.3. of the Irish Constitution from any other EU law. This mean’s Ireland’s constitutional position on abortion would not be affected by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,” he said.

Judge O’Neill said it was the Commission’s role to explain what is in the treaty and not to supervise the debate in the referendum campaign.

He said the Commission had listened to the debate in recent weeks and “we believe there may be some confusion on a number of issues”.

One area that needed further clarification, Judge O’Neill said, was how qualified majority voting would work under the new treaty and in which areas it would apply.

He explained the proposed voting system was not directly comparable to the existing system. Under the Lisbon Treay, decisions would require 55 per cent of member states to agree and that those states must support at least 65 per cent of the population.

“In addition, at least four member states must be opposed to a decision in order for it to be blocked. This ensures that decisions cannot be blocked by just three of the larger member states acting together, even if the population criterion is met.”

Ratification of the treaty would also mean some policy areas where unanimity is currently required would in future be decided by qualified majority voting, he said.

Member states will no longer have a veto in areas such as the election of the President of the European Council, measures concerning an immigration policy and the immplemetation of the solidarity clause in the event of a member state suffering a terrorist attack or a disaster.

However, unanimity will persist in agreements in the field of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, Judge O’Neill said.

But anti-treay group Cóir today accused the Commission of breaching its mandate by not providing “impartial information” and actively campaigning in the referendum on Lisbon.

Cóir spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain claimed the Commission was engaged in giving its opinion rather than presenting the facts. She said the Commission was trying “to fudge the issue” on abortion by saying that it will not affect the Irish Constitution.

“If the Judge O’Neill had listened closely, as he claims he and the Commission had done, he would have heard Cóir position on the issue”.

“The Lisbon Treaty gives the European Court of Justice the right to make a future ruling on Ireland’s abortion laws - and on other areas of importance such as family law and children’s rights,” she said

“In doing so it allows the EU Court to overrule the wishes of the Irish people, “ she claimed.

PIERRE KHALFA. Le droit européen contre l’Europe sociale

Cu intarziere de aproape 2 luni, despre “cele trei hotarari” ale CJCE (Viking, Laval & Ruffert, evident, insa pornind de la aceasta din urma); din Liberation:

Coup sur coup, en quelques semaines, la Cour européenne de justice vient de rendre trois arrêts redéfinissant les rapports entre le droit européen et le droit du travail existant au niveau national. Après l’arrêt Viking concernant la Finlande et l’arrêt Vaxholm-Laval pour la Suède, c’est maintenant au tour de l’Allemagne d’être touchée avec l’arrêt Rüffert. Jusqu’à présent, le droit du travail relevait essentiellement de dispositifs nationaux issus des compromis sociaux passés dans le cadre des Etats-nations. En théorie, l’Union européenne a, en la matière, une compétence limitée. Le traité de Lisbonne, en cours de ratification, n’a pas modifié cette situation et indique simplement que l’Union «soutient et complète l’action des Etats membres» (article 153 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne).

Les trois arrêts précités modifient cette situation. La Cour européenne de justice a décidé que l’application du droit du travail au niveau national relevait de ses compétences. Pour la Cour «les Etats sont néanmoins tenus de respecter le droit communautaire, même dans des domaines ne relevant pas de l’application des traités» (arrêt Vaxholm-Laval). Elle construit ainsi une doctrine juridique lui permettant d’intervenir sur des domaines ne relevant ni des traités ni du droit communautaire qui en est issu.

Les arrêts Viking et Vaxholm-Laval condamnaient l’action collective des travailleurs pour empêcher une délocalisation dans le premier cas, un dumping salarial dans le second. L’arrêt Rüffert du 3 avril condamne le Land de Basse-Saxe pour avoir voulu appliquer à une entreprise polonaise une loi obligeant les entreprises de travaux publics à appliquer la convention collective du secteur dans le cas de passage de marchés publics. L’entreprise polonaise avait refusé de le faire en ne payant à ses ouvriers que 50 % du salaire minimum prévu par la convention collective. Dans les trois cas, l’argumentation de la Cour européenne est la même. Elle considère que l’égalité de traitement entre les salariés constitue une restriction de la «libre prestation de service» garantie par l’article 49 du traité instituant la Communauté européenne, article repris par ailleurs intégralement dans le traité de Lisbonne.

Le dumping social est explicitement justifié : «imposer aux prestataires de services établis dans un autre Etat membre, où les taux de salaire minimal sont inférieurs, une charge économique supplémentaire qui est susceptible de prohiber, de gêner ou de rendre moins attrayante l’exécution de leurs prestations dans l’Etat membre d’accueil […] est susceptible de constituer une restriction au sens de l’article 49 CE» (arrêt Rüffert). Elle indique de plus que «créer les conditions d’une concurrence loyale, à conditions égales entre employeurs suédois et entrepreneurs venant d’autres Etats membres» (arrêt Vaxholm-Laval) ne peut être considéré comme une mission d’ordre public et que, par conséquent, cela ne peut justifier une restriction à la libre prestation de service. La Cour peut, au nom de la liberté du commerce, limiter l’action syndicale et les droits des salariés. C’est le détricotage de l’ensemble des droits sociaux qui est programmé.

Ces arrêts de la Cour ne tombent pas comme des coups de tonnerre dans un ciel serein. Fin 2006, la Commission rendait public un livre vert intitulé Moderniser le droit du travail pour relever les défis du XXI^e siècle. Ce livre vert fut suivi, en juin 2007, d’une communication de la Commission «Vers des principes communs de flexicurité». L’analyse et les préconisations de la Commission sont édifiantes. Selon elle, le marché du travail serait «trop protégé». Pour lutter contre la division entre les exclus, outsiders, et les intégrés, insiders, il faut accroître la flexibilité de ces derniers. Le chômage et la précarisation des premiers sont le produit de la trop forte protection des seconds et les allocations chômage sont analysées comme des obstacles à l’emploi. On reconnaît là l’habituelle doxa néolibérale en matière d’emploi, alors même qu’aucune étude n’a pu mettre en évidence un lien quelconque entre le niveau de protection de l’emploi et le chômage. Il s’agit d’accélérer les évolutions se déroulant au niveau national pour promouvoir un «autre modèle contractuel» en lieu et place du contrat à durée indéterminée qui organise encore la grande majorité des relations au travail dans la plupart des pays européens. Bien entendu, rien n’est dit sur les politiques macroéconomiques de lutte contre le chômage.

Pour la Commission, la notion de «flexicurité» signifie flexibilité pour les salariés et sécurité pour les entreprises : il s’agit de supprimer les normes de protection de l’emploi, d’assouplir les règles d’embauche et de licenciement, de généraliser la flexibilité et la précarité du travail… le tout au nom de la lutte contre le chômage et la précarité. La novlangue orwellienne a encore de beaux jours devant elle.

Ces arrêts de la Cour de justice et les projets de la Commission sont en ligne directe avec la logique profonde de l’Europe actuelle, qui fait de l’ouverture à la concurrence son axe principal de construction. La liberté de circulation des biens, des services et des capitaux est au cœur des traités. Directement dérivé des traités européens, le droit de la concurrence, de niveau communautaire, surdétermine les autres. Les droits économiques et sociaux des citoyens qui relèvent du droit national y sont subordonnés. Le droit de la concurrence joue véritablement un rôle de droit «constitutionnel» au niveau européen. Face à ce droit de portée normative, les autres textes européens apparaissent en l’état comme de simples déclarations d’intention sans aucune véritable portée opérationnelle. Il est aujourd’hui de la responsabilité du mouvement syndical en Europe, et plus largement de tous les mouvements sociaux et citoyens, de construire les rapports de forces nécessaires pour bloquer les processus en cours et imposer une législation européenne qui permette l’harmonisation par le haut des droits sociaux.

Despre noua propunere de directiva in materia imigratiei

Din La Croix. Si apoi EUObserver.

Les Européens veulent harmoniser le renvoi des clandestins

Les ministres de l’intérieur européens doivent se prononcer d’ici à vendredi 6 juin sur un projet de directive sensible sur l’immigration

On l’appelle à Bruxelles la « directive retour ». Mais ses détracteurs la stigmatisent comme « la directive de la honte ». Proposée par la Commission européenne en septembre 2005, ce projet législatif vise à encadrer les procédures de retour des immigrants en séjour irrégulier dans les pays n’appartenant pas à l’Union européenne.La discussion du texte entre dans des jours décisifs. Un conseil des ministres se tiendra à ce sujet à Luxembourg jeudi 5 et vendredi 6 juin avant un prochain débat au Parlement européen. Mercredi, les représentants permanents à Bruxelles des 27 États de l’Union ont négocié un compromis sur l’aide juridique gratuite aux immigrés illégaux, que la directive rendrait obligatoire.

Ce point a mobilisé toute l’attention politique. S’inquiétant des sommes importantes qu’impliquerait cette assistance, l’Allemagne s’oppose à la financer, tout comme l’Autriche, mais aussi la Grèce, Malte et Chypre, trois pays par où transitent d’importants flux d’immigration.

La droite a besoin des voix centristes

Or les députés européens du groupe centriste (ADLE) conditionnent leur soutien au texte à cette disposition, que d’aucuns considèrent comme un élément de progrès pour éviter les expulsions arbitraires ou collectives.

« La droite, au Parlement européen, aura besoin des voix centristes pour dégager une majorité simple dès la première lecture », commente un observateur de l’hémicycle européen. « Les Vingt-Sept doivent se montrer conciliants pour espérer que le Parlement européen ensuite suive », confirme-t-on de source diplomatique à Bruxelles.

Selon la formule sibylline dégagée mercredi 4 juin, l’aide légale resterait obligatoire mais devra respecter la législation nationale de chacun. Étoffer le fonds européen pour le retour existant serait une autre piste.

Un compromis fragile
Si les ministres européens endossent ce compromis, un vote en séance plénière prévu le 18 juin à Strasbourg n’est pas pour autant acquis. Les députés s’intéressent à la durée maximale de rétention dans un centre fermé d’un immigré irrégulier.

Un compromis se dessine pour six mois, extensible sous conditions à un total de dix-huit mois. Mais le groupe des socialistes européens voudrait plafonner cette durée à douze mois.

En l’état actuel, ces durées sont très variables dans l’UE, de trente-deux jours au plus en France à des détentions illimitées en Suède ou aux Pays-Bas. « La détention n’est pour nous qu’une étape avant l’expulsion, alors que pour d’autres pays elle constitue une sanction », distingue un diplomate français.

Limiter davantage encore la durée maximale de détention serait très difficile à admettre par ceux des États qui n’ont jusqu’ici aucun plafond. À l’inverse, introduire un plafond pourrait inciter les pays en deçà à l’atteindre, redoutent les opposants à cette directive.

“Un texte perfectible”

D’autres éléments de compromis restent fragiles. La directive introduit l’interdiction, pour une personne expulsée, de séjourner sur tout le territoire de l’UE pendant cinq ans. Les socialistes voudraient ramener ce « bannissement » à deux ans. Ils souhaitent également allonger la durée accordée au retour volontaire, que le texte fixe à trente jours.

La France s’est en outre inquiétée que la directive rende difficile l’expulsion de mineurs scolarisés, selon un observateur. « Le texte est perfectible, reconnaît le député UMP européen Patrick Gaubert, interrogé par La Croix, mais il serait dommage de rejeter les avancées obtenues par le compromis. »

En l’absence de majorité simple au Parlement européen, une deuxième lecture exigerait une majorité qualifiée, jugée impossible à dégager.

CJCE. Hotararea in cauza C-308/06, Intertanko

Chiar astazi, CJCE s-a pronuntat in mentionata cauza . O relatare aici.

Cererea de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare privește validitatea articolelor 4 și 5 din Directiva 2005/35/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 7 septembrie 2005 privind poluarea cauzată de nave și introducerea unor sancțiuni în caz de încălcare (JO L 255, p. 11, rectificări în JO 2006, L 33, p. 87 și JO 2006, L 105, p. 65, Ediție specială, 15/vol. 15, p. 158).

Adica s-a ridicat problema interpretarii directivei din perspectiva Conventiei de la Montego Bay, respectiv Conventiei Marpol.

Instanta de trimitere a adresat urmatoarele intrebari:

„1)      În ceea ce privește strâmtorile utilizate pentru navigația internațională, zona economică exclusivă sau zona echivalentă dintr‑un stat membru și marea liberă, articolul 5 alineatul (2) din [Directiva 2005/35] este nul în măsura în care limitează excepțiile prevăzute în anexa I norma 11 litera (b) și în anexa II norma 6 litera (b) la [Convenția] Marpol 73/78 la proprietari, la comandanți și la membrii echipajului?

2)      În ceea ce privește apele teritoriale ale unui stat membru:

a)      articolul 4 din Directiva [2005/35] este nul în măsura în care impune statelor membre obligația de a considera neglijența gravă un criteriu al răspunderii pentru deversarea de substanțe poluante; și/sau

b)      articolul 5 alineatul (1) din Directiva [2005/35] este nul în măsura în care exclude aplicarea excepțiilor prevăzute în anexa I norma 11 litera (b) și în anexa II norma 6 litera (b) la [Convenția] Marpol 73/78?

3)      Articolul 4 din Directiva [2005/35], care impune statelor membre obligația de a adopta măsuri naționale care să includă neglijența gravă printre criteriile răspunderii și să sancționeze deversările în apele teritoriale, încalcă dreptul de trecere inofensivă consacrat în Convenția [de la Montego Bay] și, în cazul unui răspuns afirmativ, articolul 4 este nul în această privință?

4)      Utilizarea expresiei „neglijență gravă” la articolul 4 din Directiva [2005/35] încalcă principiul securității juridice și, în cazul unui răspuns afirmativ, articolul 4 este nul în această privință?

CJCE a raspuns:

Rezultă de aici că natura și economia Convenției de la Montego Bay se opun aprecierii, de către Curte, a validității unui act comunitar în raport cu această convenție.

În consecință, trebuie să se răspundă întrebărilor prima‑a treia că validitatea Directivei 2005/35 nu poate fi apreciată:

–        nici în raport cu Convenția Marpol 73/78,

–        nici în raport cu Convenția de la Montego Bay.

 Si de la Reuters:

BRUSSELS, June 3 (Reuters) - The European Union is entitled to set tougher standards and criminal penalties on sea pollution than measures included in international conventions, the EU’s highest court said on Tuesday.

The European Court of Justice dismissed a challenge to the 27-nation bloc’s marine pollution laws by an international coalition of ship operators.

Shipping interests, including tanker owners group Intertanko, had argued that the EU directive on ship-source pollution contravened two sets of international maritime laws.

Ship owners said the directive sought to criminalise accidental spillages and questioned whether the EU had the right to impose criminal liability on foreign-flagged ships.

“The court has concluded that the validity of the directive cannot be assessed in the light of either the Marpol Convention or the Convention on the Law of the Sea,” an ECJ statement said.

Din Financial Times, “Dreptul maritim in haos“:

The global shipping industry yesterday accused Europe’s top court of plunging international maritime law into chaos after it refused to invalidate a European Union directive criminalising polluters at sea.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg side-stepped industry arguments that the directive contravenes international standards by introducing tougher sanctions for both reckless and accidental pollution.

In a highly technical decision, the court instead concluded that the validity of the directive could not be judged by reference to those conventions, in effect leaving national courts to decide whether the EU law has been properly interpreted.

Shipping companies claim the directive, which was put forward after the sinking of two oil tankers damaged the Spanish and French coasts, will restrict their efforts to recruit responsible seafarers, while also failing to ward off “rogue” operators.

David Moorhouse, chairman of Lloyd’s Register Group, said that the court had lost sight of the fact that the industry needed to operate under a uniform set of standards. “This judgment will have serious repercussions for the safe operation of ships,” he said.

The ECJ ruling is the latest twist in a three-year battle that first started at the High Court in London.

The European Commission insists that the directive is compatible with international maritime conventions - specifically Marpol, which deals with pollution, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The EU introduced the measure partly due to concerns that those standards were regularly being flouted.

CJCE. Irlanda & sotul (dintr-un stat tert) al unui cetatean al UE (resortisant al unui alt stat membru, rezident in cel dintai stat)

Stirea din Irish Times suna astfel; solutia la care va ajunge Curtea pare relativ simpla, nu? Si probabil va lua in considerare & dreptul la viata familiala si va face trimitere la CEDO & la Carta…

EU court to rule on Irish ban on non-EU spouses

EUROPE’S HIGHEST court will hear a landmark case today that will decide whether spouses of European Union citizens who are not themselves citizens of the EU can continue to live in Ireland.

The case involves four couples who are appealing a decision by the Government to deport them because the husband in each case is not an EU citizen and has never lived lawfully in another EU state.

None of the spouses issued with “notice of intent to deport” orders are married to Irish citizens but are married to citizens of other EU states. In each case the couples were married in the Republic and the non-EU national husbands had all unsuccessfully applied for asylum, according to pre-hearing documents.

The four couples lodged an appeal with the High Court against the “notice of intent to deport” orders, arguing they breach EU law, and particularly their right to live and work in any EU state.

The High Court recently referred several legal questions on this issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which will issue a recommendation to the High Court in the months following the hearing.

It is widely anticipated that the ECJ case will set a precedent for thousands of other couples residing in Ireland and, more widely, better define the rights of EU states to manage their own immigration policies.

Several EU states, including Britain, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, have intervened in the case in support of the Government.

The Department of Justice argues that a previous ECJ judgement in 2003 in the case of Hacene Akrich provides the legal basis to deport non-EU spouses of EU citizens.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice said the Akrich case stated that to avail of the freedom of movement of EU workers and family members a “non-EU citizen must be lawfully resident in a member state when he moves to another member state to which the citizen of the Union is migrating or has migrated”.

But the European Commission and immigrant rights groups have lined up in support of the four applicants, arguing that deporting the spouses of EU citizens is discriminatory and contrary to one of the four basic European freedoms: the freedom to live and work in all EU member states.

“Our view is that freedom of movement for EU citizens within the union is a fundamental right and should not be curtailed simply due to the nationality of a spouse,” said Hilkka Becker, senior solicitor with the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

The four applicants are expected to argue that the European Free Movement Directive passed in 2004 provides the necessary legal right for non-EU spouses of EU citizens to move freely within the Union.

This will be contested by the Government, which argues that this directive deals only with movement within the Union and not entry to it.

Last year, the Government issued thousands of non-EU spouses with “notices of intent to deport” orders after a separate High Court ruling that found it was within its rights to insist that non-EU spouses of EU citizens must live in another EU state before residing here.

The Government said it was correctly implementing an immigration law it passed in April 2007, which lays down that non-EU relatives of an EU citizen must reside lawfully in another EU state before being permitted to work and live here.

This was introduced to prevent “marriages of convenience”, whereby non-EU citizens may persuade EU citizens to marry them just to gain entry to the Union.

Brian Burns, a solicitor with the Dublin-based law firm Burns, Kelly, Corrigan, that is representing one of the applicants, said the case would set a precedent for the whole of Europe. “My client is suffering severe hardship because he is unable to work in Ireland and his wife is pregnant and cannot work at the moment,” he added.

Luxemburgul a ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

Ma rog, Camera deputatilor din Luxemburg. Texul proiectului aici.

SUA. Procurorii generali din 10 state cer suspendarea deciziei Curtii Supreme din California care impune legalizarea casatoriilor intre indivizi de acelasi sex

Ei bine, acum etapa II. Instanta suprema din California a impus legalizarea casatoriilor respective. Decizia aici. Apoi urmeaza petitiunea mai multor procurori generali de suspendare a efectelor deciziei.

Din stire:

In a letter to the court’s chief justice, Ronald George, the attorneys general — all Republicans — asked that the marriages be put off until after the November election, when California voters are expected to vote on a measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

The attorneys general said that allowing same-sex marriages now could unnecessarily open the door to legal challenges from gay residents of other states who get married in California. Upon returning to their home states, the newlyweds could demand equality in everything from tax-filing status to testimonial privileges in civil suits, the attorneys general said.

O actualizare din LA Times: unii afirma ca statul in cauza, California, se va imbogati pe seama celor care vor hotarari sa-si “uneasca” (desigur, un fel de-a vorbi, pana la urma) destinele. Sa dam cuvantul unei doamne de la un “institut de drept al orientarii sexuale”:

“M.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, estimates that gay weddings could provide a $370-million boost to the state economy.

That estimate presumes that about half of California’s 92,000 same-sex couples will tie the knot, multiplied by $8,040, the amount of money from savings accounts that Badgett figures same-sex couples will use on their weddings.

Event planners, restaurants, tent and chair rental companies, florists, caterers and hotels should all get a piece of that pie, she said.

“There’s an opportunity to get a big wedding windfall,” she said.

There are, of course, some caveats. No one can accurately project how many gay couples will spend thousands on weddings. And the legality of gay weddings is potentially short-lived, as officials verify petition signatures for a proposed Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would prohibit same-sex marriage”.

4 iunie a.c. Propunerea de modificare a Constitutiei Californiei intra la referendumul din noiembrie, cand se organizeaza alegeri… Associated Press.

The measure would amend the state constitution to “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

Si corespondenta oficiala referitoare la initiativa de modificare a constitutiei (*).

Libera circulatie (a marfurilor), protectia mediului (fata de emisiile de dioxid de carbon) si proportionalitatea. Sau despre o posibila (viitoare noua) actiune in fata CJCE - Comisia/Austria

In cauza C-320/03, Curtea a condamnat in  2005 Austria pentru o lege din Tirol in urma unei actiuni initiate de Comisie; regimul din landul respectiv impunea restrictii pentru circulatie (sau cum ar zice lumea azi “trafic”) pe o autostrada pentru camioane de peste o anumita capacitate ce tranzitau ruta respectiva (spre Italia). Hotararea respectiva este un exemplu excelent de argumente pro & contra, in special in contextul proportionalitatii.

Acum