Yasuhiro Shigeta, The ECJ’s ‘Hard’ Control over Compliance with International Environmental Law: Its Procedural and Substantive Aspects, International Community Law Review, Volume 11, Number 3, September 2009, pp. 251-305.
This study shows that the ECJ, while not directly applying and interpreting environmental treaties, exercises procedurally and substantively ‘hard’ control over compliance with EC legislation implementing those treaties, in the fields of nature conservation and hazardous waste management, on certain conditions and within certain limits. This study also shows that the ECJ’s acknowledgment of its exclusive jurisdiction on the marine environment as seen in the 2006 MOX Plant case has contradictory effect on its substantively ‘hard’ control: such acknowledgment, although being a plus factor where there is no Community measure, becomes a minus factor since it in practice means that there already exist Community measures. Although the above observations are also instructive to other international judiciaries’ study, structural and situational differences should be considered.
Chris Koedooder, Niki de Lang, Anti-terrorist Blacklisting in the European Union: The Influence of National Procedures on the Judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, vol. 36, 4/2009, pp. 313–337
Summary:
The most prominent example of anti-terrorism measures is undoubtedly the freezing of funds of individuals or entities suspected of committing or supporting terrorist acts. The European Union (EU) implements United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions and maintains its own anti-terrorist blacklist. This article looks at fund-freezing decisions taken on the basis of both the UN sanctions regime and the autonomous EU sanctions regime and the resulting jurisprudence of the Community courts. Discussion of recent judgments of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in the Sison and OMPI cases, both concerning EU level sanctions, will illustrate that the underlying national procedures can have considerable influence on the Court’s judgments in this field. Central to the discussion will be the relevance of national procedures and judgments on the validity of blacklisting decisions and their review.
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de la data de 30 octombrie 2009, ora 12,30
la Universitatea Romano-Americana, Bld. Expozitiei, nr. 1B, Amfiteatrul Jean Monnet
Conferinţa
«Legea aplicabilă obligaţiilor contractuale conform Regulamentului (CE) nr. 593/2008 al Parlamentului European şi al Consiliului din 17 iunie 2008 (Regulamentul ROMA I)»
Program. UPDATING…
Moderator: Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România
Alina Oprea, Regulamentul Roma I şi regimul juridic al normelor imperative
Viviana Onaca, Ioana Burduf, Cauza C-133/08, hotărâre din 6 octombrie 2009 (ICF): prima aplicare a Conventiei de la Roma privind legea aplicabila obligatiilor contractuale
Angela Mîţă-Baciu, Noua reglementare în domeniul legii aplicabile contractelor în Europa şi în statele membre ale UE [New regulation on the applicable law for contracts in Europe and EU Member States]
Bogdan Trandafirescu, Libertatea părţilor în determinarea legii aplicabile contractului de comerţ internaţional din perspectiva Regulamentului Roma I
Anca Melinte, Silvia Axinescu, Legislatia aplicabilă în cadrul contractelor electronice
Anca Ileana Duşcă, Robert Bischin, Unificarea dreptului contractelor – şi rolul ei – în dezvoltarea economiei europene
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 şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum, care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 29 octombrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia, precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la conferinta sunt disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com
Este încurajată participarea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate anterior dar şi altele referitoare la probleme conexe ce ar putea fi de interes.
Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro
Parteneri:
SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice
Revista Forumul Judecatorilor
Editura Universitară
Editura Wolters Kluwer
Editura Hamangiu
Editura C.H.Beck
Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.
* * *
Documente referitoare la această conferinţă vor fi disponibile la adresa web
http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/
Nu se percepte taxă de participare. Locurile sunt limitate, înscrierea participanţilor realizându-se în ordinea cronologică a confirmarilor. Sunt aşteptate propuneri de sponsorizare a evenimentului.
Sau cum ar veni “the use of foreign law & doctrine in American courts”…Ori despre modele de “fédéralisme d’exécution“.
“The federal systems of Switzerland, Germany, and the European Union, for example, all provide that constituent states, not federal bureaucracies, will themselves implement many of the laws, rules, regulations, or decrees enacted by the central “federal” body.”
Supreme Court of United States, 521 U.S. 898, Printz v. United States, 95-1478 Argued: December 3, 1996 — Decided: June 27, 1997. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
Steven Greer, Andrew Williams, Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice?, European Law Journal, Oxford: Jul 2009. Vol. 15, Iss. 4;
The European Convention on Human Rights, promulgated by the Council of Europe in 1950, is widely regarded as the world’s most successful experiment in the trans-national judicial protection of human rights. The EU’s much more recent judicial and political interest in human rights has also been widely welcomed. Yet, while the crisis currently afflicting the Convention system has not gone unnoticed, the same cannot equally be said of the difficulties presented by the increasing interpenetration of the two systems. Amongst the few who have shown some interest in these problems, the dominant view is that good will and common sense will provide adequate solutions. We disagree. Instead, we detect a gathering crisis which, unless properly analysed and effectively tackled, will only deepen as the EU’s interest in human rights develops further. In our view, the problem is essentially conceptual and that, ultimately, it boils down to a much-neglected question, simple to state but not so easy to answer: is the trans-national protection of human rights in Europe a matter of ‘individual’, ‘constitutional’ or ‘institutional’ justice?
George M. Cohen, Interpretation and Implied Terms in Contract Law (September 15, 2009). Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 2nd Edition, Forthcoming ; Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 2009-12. Available at SSRN.
Richard D.Freer, Forging American Arbitration Policy: Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: LIBER AMICORUM TIBOR VARADY, Peter Hay, Nenad Dimitrijevic, and Lajos Vekas, eds., Central European University Press, June 2009; Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 9-69. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
Although American courts initially were hostile to agreements to arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) instructed the courts – at least, on the face of things, the federal courts – to enforce arbitration clauses. It has become clear in the past generation that the FAA has accomplished much more. The currrent state of affairs is not the result of the legislation alone. The central thrust of the FAA was clear, but courts could surely have thwarted its impact by parsimonious interpretation. This is true in part because Congress failed to deal definitively with fundamental issues – including whether the FAA was to apply in state court proceedings and whether the Act provided federal subject matter jurisdiction. It fell to the courts to pick up the pieces left by the statutory language. The purpose of this brief piece is to review selected topics on which the courts have been required to fashion rules affecting the impact of the FAA. First are matters addressed by the legislation, but unclearly. As to these, courts have had to engage in basic statutory interpretation. Second – and perhaps more interesting – are matters not addressed at all by the FAA. As to these, the courts have had to decide whether (and, if so, how) to fill in the gaps in the legislation. In both sets of examples, Congress probably should have been clearer. And in both sets, the courts have forged courses that generally promote a broad application of the FAA. In the end, the broad, well-established American arbitration policy embodied in the FAA has been realized only because courts have been willing to step in to interpret and fill gaps as needed.
Legea nr. 298/2008 din 18 noiembrie 2008 privind reţinerea datelor generate sau prelucrate de furnizorii de servicii de comunicaţii electronice destinate publicului sau de reţele publice de comunicaţii, precum şi pentru modificarea Legii nr. 506/2004 privind prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal şi protecţia vieţii private în sectorul comunicaţiilor electronice, Monitorul Oficial nr. 780 din 21 noiembrie 2008
Directiva 2006/24/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 15 martie 2006 privind păstrarea datelor generate sau prelucrate în legătură cu furnizarea serviciilor de comunicatii electronice accesibile publicului sau de retele de comunicatii publice si de modificare a Directivei 2002/58/CE, JO, editie speciala in limba româna, capitol 13 volum 53 p. 51 – 57 [*]
Camera Deputatilor – tabel de concordanta [dispozitiile directivei, respectiv ale legii]
Adrian Vasilache, Legea privind stocarea datelor convorbirilor telefonice si pe internet este neconstitutionala,8.10.2009, Hotnews.ro
***, MCSI analizează decizia Curţii Constituţionale privind Legea reţinerii datelor, 09.10.2009 [*] Despre “infringement“-ul [care in aceasta situatie ne-ar paste], am scris chiar si pe acest blog (aici sau aici). Si anume, sa nu pasaritzi.
Pentru unele argumente privind drepturile fundamentale: CJCE, hotărârea din 10 februarie 2009, C-301/06, Irlanda/Comisia. [*]
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.
Sergiu Deleanu, Uzantele comerciale in contextul Regulamentului Roma I, Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 4/2009.
Gudrun M. Grabher, Anna Gamper (Eds.), Legal Narratives. European Perspectives on U.S. Law in Cultural Context, Springer, 2009 [*]
Capitol in carte:
Gunter H Roth, Simone Wasserer, Increased Competences through Development of the Law: The European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court, p. 195-213.
Judicial Review of UN Sanctions by the European Court of Justice
Abstract:
European University Institute (EUI)/Working Paper Series
The Legal Effect of Directives: Policy, Rules and Exceptions
European Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 349, 2009
Abstract:
This article reconsiders the legal effect of Directives for private parties within Community law. This is a vexed issue that has generated significant academic commentary and much case law. The qualifications and exceptions to the basic proposition that Directives do not have horizontal direct effect continue to grow, thereby rendering this overall area even more complex than it was hitherto. The article seeks to shed light on this topic by subjecting to critical scrutiny the policy underlying the ‘core rule’ that denies horizontal direct effect to Directives, and considering whether the judicially created exceptions or qualifications to that policy are consistent with it.Keywords: Directives, direct effect, indirect effect, incidental effect, principle of interpretation, legal reasoning
Aici.
Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels, Annelise Riles, International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach(April 23, 2009). American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 103, 2009; Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 253; Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-016. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
The relationship between international law and domestic law is rarely understood as a conflict of laws. Understanding it in this way opens up a parallel with the field of conflict of laws: the field for which the relationship between legal systems, especially the role of another system’s jurisdiction, laws, and judgments vis-à-vis the domestic legal system, are exactly the bread-and-butter issues. We argue for such an approach to international law in domestic courts: an approach that we elaborate as “theory through technique.”
In our view, conflicts should be seen broadly as the discipline that developed to deal with conflicts between laws, without necessarily being committed to any one method or policy. Surprisingly, we demonstrate that it is precisely the seemingly negative features of conflicts – the field’s high degree of technicality disparaged as a “conflict-of-laws machine” and the multitude of theories famously deemed a “dismal swamp” – that figure among the advantages of a conflict-of-laws approach to international law in domestic courts.
A conflict-of-laws approach offers ways to respect the nature of international law as law, without simplifying that nature by characterizing it exactly as domestic law. In addition, seeing the parallel with conflict of laws brings a wealth of experience that can enrich and refine the debate on international law in domestic courts. Finally, the parallel with conflicts changes international law in domestic courts from a specific problem addressed by international and constitutional lawyers into a general problem of relativism – which, we argue, conflict of laws is uniquely positioned to address.
Acum episodul II:
Hotararea TPI in cauza T-318/01, Othman/Consiliul & Comisia, aici [RO].
Cititi in Daily Mail, Telegraph etc.
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.
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.
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).
Stimată Doamnă/Stimate Domn,
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de 20 mai 2009, ora 13, în Sala de consiliu de la sediul său, Calea 13 Septembrie, nr. 13,
Colocviul
«Interpretarea şi aplicarea regulamentului comunitar în dreptul naţional. Condiţii şi elemente. Studiu de caz: Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1408/71».
Aplicarea unui act comunitar de către instanţele jurisdicţionale din România, în speţă a unui regulament, va deveni, în timp, o obişnuiţă. Considerăm necesar, ca în seria dezbaterilor referitoare la interpretarea şi aplicarea dreptului comunitar în România, iniţiate în cadrul Centrului nostru, să discutăm hotărârea Tribunalului Bucureşti în care au fost aplicate Regulamentul CEE nr. 1408/71 al Consiliului din 14 iunie 1971 privind aplicarea regimurilor de securitate socială în raport cu lucrătorii salariaţi şi cu familiile acestora care se deplasează în cadrul Comunităţii şi Regulamentul (CEE) nr.574/72 al Consiliului din 21 martie 1972 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamnetului (CEE) nr. 1408/71 privind aplicarea regimurilor de securitate socială în raport cu salariaţii şi cu membrii familiilor acestora care se deplasează în interiorul Comunităţii.
Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere din perspectiva teoreticienilor şi mai ales a practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi).
Lucrările vor fi onorate de prezenţa unor cunoscuţi practiceni. Până în prezent, au confirmat participarea Dragoş Călin, judecător – Curtea de Apel Bucureşti şi dr. Andrei Săvescu.
Colocviul ar urma să se centreze asupra următoarelor chestiuni, lista nefiind exhaustivă:
- efectul direct al dispoziţiilor de drept comunitar (primar şi derivat) ;
- aplicabilitatea directă în ordinea juridică naţională a regulamentului ca act normativ comunitar ;
- semnificaţia principiului egalităţii de tratament în contextul Regulamentului 1408/71.
Participarea se face numai pe bază de invitaţie, care poate fi obţinută printr-o cerere adresată Centrului (inclusiv prin e-mail la mihai.sandru@gmail.com) în care solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european. Invitaţiile pot fi obţinute până la 19 mai 2009.
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 icj.csde@gmail.com.
Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate, de către Centru, într-un volum care va apărea la Editura Universitară – editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la colocviu vor fi disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com.
CSDE vă mulţumeşte pentru retransmiterea acestei invitaţii către toate persoanele interesate.
Cu stimă,
Conf. univ. dr. Mihai Şandru
Partener media principal: juridice.ro
Eveniment sustinut de: GEORGE COCA – AVOCAT BAROUL BUCURESTI, DAN CIMPOERU - AVOCAT BAROUL BUCURESTI, Editura Universitară, Editura C.H.Beck, Editura Universul Juridic, UNJR, infolegal.ro, cjce.ro, Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice, Dreptul comunitar al afacerilor.Blog
Documente referitoare la această masă rotundă vor fi disponibile la adresa web
http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/
Nu se percepte taxă de participare. Ne cerem scuze, dar locurile sunt limitate, înscrierea participării realizându-se în ordinea cronologică a cererilor. Sunt aşteptate propuneri de sponsorizare a evenimentului
Ecouri: Jus Juventutis.
Mai tare decat senzatiile produse de actiunile unor particulari din Romania contra Consiliului Europei (aici), intrucat intrebarea preliminara a fost ridicata in cadrul unui litigiu din Italia de catre un judecator.
C‑287/08, Ordonanta din 03 octombrie 2008, Savia si altii
“Le Tribunale ordinario di Milano (tribunal ordinaire de Milan) estime que la solution du litige dépend de l’interprétation de l’article 6, paragraphe 2, UE, lu en relation avec l’article 6 de la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, signée à Rome le 4 novembre 1950. Il expose, à cet égard, qu’il y a lieu d’obtenir des éclaircissements sur la portée du droit à un procès équitable. ” (pct. 5)
Ei bine, anul trecut, Consiliul European (nu Consiliul Europei, sic!), in concluziile sale (si in declaratia anexata respectivului document), a enuntat o serie de garantii juridice doar sa avanseze ratificarea Tratatului de reforma (i.e. Lisabona). Nici atunci situatia nu era clara; situatia este neclara si in prezent. Cu alte cuvinte, juridic, cum s(e)-ar (poate) putea proceda?
Recent, a aparut o luare de pozitie ce merita atentie, cea a lui Andrew Duff; din Irish Times.
THE GOVERNMENT’S plan to have guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty added to the EU treaties by means of the Croatian accession treaty has run into opposition in the European Parliament.
The plan, which was announced by French president Nicolas Sarkozy last December, is intended to provide cast-iron legal guarantees to Irish voters ahead of a second referendum in the autumn.
Liberal MEP Andrew Duff, who is one of three MEPs who sat on the intergovernmental conference that drew up the treaty, told journalists yesterday that adding an Irish-specific protocol with the legal guarantees to an accession treaty was not legally possible.
“Adding this protocol to the Croatian accession treaty would leave the treaty wide open to attack in the courts,” said Mr Duff.
He added that rules in the EU treaties governing accession treaties only allow issues pertaining to a state’s accession to be dealt with.
Mr Duff said the procedures to allow for a general revision of the European treaties were different and the insertion of an Irish protocol into the EU treaties may have to wait for a new EU reform treaty to be drawn up and ratified.
He cited the example of Denmark, which had to wait five years before the guarantees and opt-outs it received after its No vote against the Maastricht treaty in 1992 were embedded in the EU treaties. The Danish guarantees were finally embedded in the EU treaties by means of the Amsterdam Treaty.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen has lobbied EU leaders to have legal guarantees on Lisbon regarding social/ethical issues, neutrality and taxation incorporated into the existing EU treaties at the earliest possible opportunity.
Embedding the guarantees into the treaties would provide a higher level of legal assurance in the eyes of the European Court of Justice than a stand-alone decision by the European Council on the guarantees.
But most EU analysts do not expect a new EU reform treaty to be agreed by states for many years, leaving the Croatian accession treaty as the best hope for the Irish Government.
In the Dáil yesterday, Mr Cowen reiterated that the guarantees on the Lisbon treaty promised by EU leaders last December “must be legally robust in order to reassure the public about the treaty”. “Whilst I respect the fact that other member states do not wish to re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty, I made it clear that for my part the legal guarantees will have to be attached to the EU treaties at the next possible opportunity,” he added.
At an EU summit last December, Mr Sarkozy supported the Government’s request. “To give a legal value to the engagements made to Ireland by the 26 other member states, we have committed that at the time of the next EU enlargement – whether that will be in 2010 or in 2011, when probably Croatia will join us . . . we will use that to add a protocol [on Ireland] to Croatia’s accession treaty,” Mr Sarkozy told journalists at the meeting.
Mr Duff’s opposition could not overturn a decision of the European Council, but the conclusions of last December’s summit meeting do not include any reference to using the Croatian accession treaty to incorporate the Irish guarantees in the EU treaties.
EU diplomats said yesterday that a final decision on how to structure the guarantees to provide legal certainty to Ireland would not be made until an EU summit planned for June.
Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche said yesterday he did not agree with Mr Duff’s analysis and stressed that a decision on the guarantees had been taken last December.
“Frankly I don’t agree with him and I don’t think anyone else agrees with him either,” said Mr Roche, who added the Government may not seek to attach the protocol to the Croatian accession treaty but could ask states to ratify an Irish protocol separate from it.
It is unclear if the other 26 EU states would be willing to ratify an Irish protocol laying out guarantees on Lisbon on its own, to allow them to be embedded into the treaties.
Un lord britanic, Hoffmann, nu E.T.A. Hoffman (cel cu calugarul Medardus si cu motanul Murr), ridica o chestiune interesanta. Ce pacat ca pe la noi inca n-a aparut o astfel de preocupare: acum si CEDO, alaturi de “sora” ei de la Luxembourg (sic!) [n.n. - "sora" pentru ca multi inca le confunda, dar n-are nimic...] impune un “drept federal”?
A senior British judge has accused the European Court of Human Rights of going beyond its jurisdiction and trying to create a “federal law of Europe”.
De la BBC. De asemenea, puteti citi stirea si in The Telegraph, The Spectator, The Guardian, The Daily Mail etc.
In fapt, stirea are originea intr-o adresa a domniei sale din martie a.c. prezentata la “Judicial Studies Board”, pe care o puteti citi de aici.
Judgment Day, The Economist, 26.03.2009.
The Constitutional Court is to rule on the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, which critics say could put the judges out of business. In February it heard arguments that the treaty would give the EU the attributes of a state without making it democratically accountable, and would sap the court’s powers to protect the fundamental rights of Germans. Yet few court-watchers expect the judges to throw Lisbon out. Germany’s EU membership is enshrined in the constitution; and the court has long-standing partnerships with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Lisbon would tilt the balance of power a bit toward Luxembourg, but not as far as its opponents fear. The Constitutional Court is in some people’s eyes Germany’s most powerful institution. The court is revered partly because Germans’ affinity for the rule of law is greater than for democracy, some scholars say. The German constitution, or basic law, which will mark its 60th birthday on May 23rd, is a never-again document. Its first article declares that “human dignity shall be inviolable”. It endows Germany with a weak president and strong state governments. Hans-Jurgen Papier, the court’s president, thinks its reputation for activism is exaggerated.
Numéro: 58/2009
Date: 19-03-2009
Numéro(s) de rôle: 4572
Type: Recours en annulation
Norme(s) contrôlée(s): Décret flamand du 10 octobre 2008 portant assentiment au Traité de Lisbonne modifiant le Traité sur l’Union européenne et le Traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et l’Acte final, signé à Lisbonne le 13 décembre 2007
Dispositif: Rejet du recours
Mots-clés: Conventions internationales – Traité de Lisbonne – Décret d’assentiment.
FR
J. J. van Dam, J. A. R. van Eijsden, Ex officio Application of EC Law by National Courts of Law in Tax Cases, Discretionary Authority or an Obligation?, EC Tax Review, 2009, Vol. 18, Iss. 1.Abstract
In the absence of Community procedural rules, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which are derived from the direct effect of EC law. The European Court of Justice has specified in its case law how the general Community testing framework for domestic procedural rules should be applied in case of ex officio application of EC law. The principle of equivalence requires that the national courts must of their own motion raise claims based on Community law, if they are authorized or required to do so with arguments based on domestic law. A domestic limitation for the national courts of law to apply law of its own motion does have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of Community law. However, the principle of effectiveness in principle does not require a national court to apply EC law ex officio if the national court is under the domestic rules not authorized to do so, insofar this limitation to apply law of its own motion is justified by principles of the domestic judicial system.
