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.

Kosovo. O consecinta a independentei (cu sau fara ghilimele, cum doriti): sarbii (sau, cum ar zice unii, “comunitatea” sarba) isi infiinteaza Parlament

Stirea este interesanta. Desigur, pana una alta, cine ar putea afirma in mod onest ca nu au dreptul? Si asa e si la Banja Luka si in alte parti. Desigur, unii dau (si vor da) lectii…

Din EurActiv.

Serbs in Kosovo’s divided city of Mitrovica have announced they will establish their own parliament on 28 June. Although UN officials played down the move, EU diplomats told EurActiv they were concerned about “the future of Kosovo”.

(…)

The new parliament will consist of Serb representatives elected on 11 May in local elections in Kosovo, held in defiance of the international community and ignoring Kosovo’s newly proclaimed independence.

(…).

Si, in plus:

But speaking on condition of anonymity, a diplomat from an EU country that has not recognised Kosovo’s independence said the development comes as proof that the decision to establish a state within the limits of the Serb province was wrong.

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.

Despre consecintele in plan fiscal ale votului negativ din Irlanda asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona. Baza comuna de impozitare

O stire interesanta, pe care o redam in continuare:

Ireland’s no vote could affect common tax base fight

Ireland may find it harder to fight the proposed common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) after the country voted no in last week’s Lisbon Treaty referendum.

The country has been the most vehement member state against a CCCTB. The government and many businesses fear the common tax base is a forerunner to a harmonised corporate tax rate throughout the EU that would be higher than Ireland’s 12.5% charge. They argue that Ireland would lose substantial tax revenues because many Irish-based subsidiaries would leave if they had to pay more tax.

“Ireland has said no again,” said James Somerville, a partner at A&L Goodbody, an Irish law firm. “It would be easier to say no to the CCCTB as good Europeans,” he said. “Ireland has lost any goodwill it had in Europe and is not popular already among a lot of member states for opposing a CCCTB.”

Corporate tax was a key issue during the referendum campaign, says Fintan Clancy, a partner at Irish law firm Arthur Cox. “Campaigners against the Lisbon Treaty put up posters all over Dublin opposing tax harmonisation,” he said.

Under Ireland’s constitution, the country must hold a referendum on any decision to give away tax sovereignty. Clancy argues that if the country had voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty the Irish government could have given away the country’s veto on direct tax policy without another vote. “This could have paved the way for a CCCTB,” he said.

But the EU’s tax commissioner Laszlo Kovacs told Reuters that the Lisbon Treaty would not affect the plans for a CCCTB. “All those that campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty with slogans that Ireland will lose tax sovereignty were simply telling lies,” Kovacs said.

Planul B al Tratatului de la Lisabona; urmeaza planurile c, d…t,u?

Wolfgang Munchau, Europe’s hardball plan B for the Lisbon treaty, Financial Times, London (UK): Jun 16, 2008, pg. 9. [*]

Abstract (Summary)I personally found last week’s Irish No vote shocking, not in terms of what it means for the EU, but what it says about Ireland. Ireland is one of the EU’s great success stories. Dublin has become one of the great European cities. Both Ireland and the EU should have celebrated their relationship. The No vote leaves the country with exactly two alternatives. One is a humiliating U-turn, consisting of a Yes vote in a second referendum without a material change of circumstances. The other is that Ireland could lose its full EU membership if the second referendum produces another No victory. Ireland’s citizens would send the country back to the economic Dark Ages, from whence it emerged only a few decades ago.

Why am I so confident that the Lisbon treaty is going to be implemented? Because, contrary to widespread protestations, Europe’s leaders actually have a plan B. It is not a pretty plan. Just listen to what senior French and German politicians had to say over the weekend. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, suggested on Saturday that one way to implement the treaty was for Ireland to withdraw temporarily from the process of European integration. This is a fairly exotic comment for an otherwise non-exotic minister. I had no idea that that you could temporarily withdraw from the EU and rejoin it later, as though you were buying a forward contract with an option attached. What he is saying in effect is that Ireland should quit the EU.

Semnificatia votului irlandez

Despre acest subiect se va scrie, probabil, enorm. Asa cum s-a scris si despre votul francez, respectiv olandez anterior, asupra “Constitutiei”.

Ei bine, aici trimitem la doua analize de presa:

1. Irlanda & neoliberalismul (*)

Jack O’Connor, the union’s president, suggested that while EU social legislation has benefited Irish workers, there is a deep-rooted unease over how the interests of capital seem to be taken more seriously by the Brussels elite than social issues. “People are not comfortable with this ruthless neo-liberal Europe that seems to be emerging,” he said.

Although the treaty includes a bill of rights — including the right to strike — fears have been voiced that its provisions on social issues would have less legal weight than many of those relating to macro-economic policy. For example, the treaty says that competition must not be “distorted”. In some controversial recent verdicts, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has found that laws setting minimum wages flout competition rules.

Joe Higgins, leader of the Socialist Party and a former member of the Dáil, said many activists regarded the treaty’s rejection as “an opportunity to start a campaign against the neo-liberal juggernaut that’s being pushed down their throats.”

2. Instituirea cadrului institutional in asteptarea votului (*), articol din The Telegraph.

First, they will push through as much as they can under the existing dispensation. To a large degree this has already happened. Many of the institutions that would have been created by the constitution have already been established in anticipation of a “Yes” vote: the Human Rights Agency, the External Borders Agency, the Defence Agency.

Finlanda & Estonia au ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

EUObserver.

Din nou Irlanda. Sindicatele, Lisabona & neo-liberalismul

Evident, problema sindicatelor de acolo si din alte parti este abordarea CJCE in “cele trei hotarari“, dar si a Cartei drepturilor fundamentale a UE si, mai nou, problema lucrarilor temporari… De aici.

Private and public sector workers have today been urged to reject the “neo liberal” bias of the Lisbon Treaty and to ensure that Europe is as much about social as economic well being.

Speaking at a Dublin press conference attended by representatives of six trade unions, several of whom were appearing in a personal capacity, Jimmy Kelly, Irish regional secretary of the Unite union said it had advised its own membership to vote against the treaty from the outset.

He highlighted the impact of three recent judgments of the European Court of Justice which he said would have a serious impact on workers, and said there was a need for a “social progress” clause to be inserted to protect their rights.

He noted that the outcome of these judgments, known as the Laval, Viking and Ruffert cases, was not known when the treaty was being drawn up.

“Equal recognition of the rights of working people is essential if Europe is to deliver a sound, fair future for its citizens,” he said.

“Lisbon does nothing to recognise this…..we now appeal to all workers to stand up for their rights by rejecting Lisbon and sending a clear message that Europe should be as much about social as economic well being.”

Several contributors to today’s press conference argued that the treaty served to promote the “neo liberal” agenda and privatisation of services in areas such as health and education.

Eddie Conlon, a former national secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), said the Charter of Fundamental Rights “will not give workers the rights” which those on the “Yes” side had claimed.

He said it was noteworthy that a deal on the rights of agency workers had been agreed, after being opposed by the Government “all along”, just days before the polls opened here.

Milionar britanic actioneaza guvernul in justitie pentru neorganizarea unui referendum asupra Tratatului de la Lisabona

Tony Blair promisese un referedum care nu s-a mai tinut. Reclamantul invoca asteptarile sale legitime in cauza referitor la organizarea unui astfel de referendum de catre succesorul lui Blair, Gordon Brown.

Din EurActiv. Si din EUBusiness.com

Bernard Kouchner, Daniel Cohn-Bendit & poporul irlandez

Din EUObserver. Ce se intampla daca…? nomen odiosa. O noua CIG? sau mergem si fara ei…?

Si aici.

Suedia. Cauza Laval & pozitia patronatului

Da, nu ne mai saturam in a invedera diversele pozitii & aprecieri ale partilor… Acum e vorba despre “Confederatia intreprinderii suedeze“, adica despre cea mai mare organizatie a patronatului (ori angajatorilor) din respectivul stat. Hotararea CJCE in cauza Laval a lovit frontal, dupa cum se pare. Asa ca, acum apare problema ce e de facut… Cititi ce au afirmat dansii.

Opinions were split when the effects of the Laval case on the labour market were debated at a Europe Day conference in Stockholm. Unions claim the ruling disturbs the balance between freedom of movement and the right to take labour market action. Employers claim the opposite.

At the Europe Day conference on 9 May, the best ticket was a seminar on the ramifications for the Swedish labour market of the so-called Laval case.

(The case concerned Latvian labour imported to Sweden to help Latvian construction company Laval un Partneri Ltd.renovate a school near Stockholm. Swedish unionists, concerned that the wages were lower than Swedish standard, blockaded the site. When the case went to the European Court of Justice, the court ruled that the right to workplace action was fundamental but not as fundamental as the right of businesses to supply cross-border services.)

Union representatives at the seminar said that the Laval ruling has affected the balance between freedom of movement and the right to take workplace action. This, they said, threatened the traditional labour market consensus on rules known in Sweden as the Swedish Model. Swedish Enterprise’s Lars Gellner took the opposite position: that the ruling has restored balance.

“We don’t have a Swedish template for foreign labour. This is a new situation. I think that the ruling was just about right.”

The debatemainly concerned minimum-wage legislation and the risk for wage dumping. Moderator Svante Nycander, former editor of Sweden’s biggest daily, Dagens Nyheter, suggested three possible routes to workable rules for temporary foreign labour in Sweden:

• making the Swedish labour market collective agreement generally applicable,
• legislating minimum wages,
• customising wage agreements for out-stationed companies.

Lena Maier Söderberg from Saco (Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations)said that Sacodid not believe in legislating a minimum wage. The TCO (Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees) representative, Ingemar Hamskär,wanted neither minimum wage legislation nor customised wage agreements for foreigners.ButClaes-Mikael Jonsson of LO (Swedish Trade Union Confederation) thought that customising might just work.

Swedish Enterprise has not yet decided which method to back but Lars Gellner saidin the debate that there’s reason to believe the government will somehow want to put minimum wages into law. A Swedish parliamentary study on the issue and the to-be-or-not-to-be of Lex Britannia is due by 15 December.

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.

Luxemburgul a ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

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

Lectia lui Jefferson pentru europeni

Jefferson: a lesson for Europeans

din The Times

de William Rees-Mogg

The US Constitution is 221 years old… hard to see the Lisbon treaty being so successful

On June 19 Sotheby’s will be holding an auction of “fine books and manuscripts” in New York. Included in the sale, at lot 18, is a fascinating letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr William Bache. It is dated Philadelphia, January 2, 1800. At that time, Jefferson was Vice-President. Sotheby’s estimate is that it will sell for $100,000 to $150,000. This is an historic document of the highest importance.

Jefferson himself is one of those rare historic characters whose influence still remains alive long after their death. Americans, both of liberal and conservative views, tend to regard him as the most original thinker among all the presidents, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. It was Jefferson who drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776; through his work on the Constitution of Virginia, he had considerable influence on the drafting of the US Constitution itself, though in 1787, when it was signed, Jefferson was still in Paris, as the US Ambassador to France.

The main criticism that is now made of Jefferson’s career is that he, like Charles James Fox in England, became overcommitted to the extreme development of the French Revolutionary process; Jefferson became more Jacobin than the Jacobins, even expressing approval of the execution of Louis XVI, whom he had previously regarded as a “good” king. So long as there was any hope of the French Revolution following the same course as America’s, Jefferson remained on the side of revolution.

The date of this letter is significant. Early February 1800 was the time when the news reached America of Napoleon’s coup d’état, best known as the Coup of 18 Brumaire from the French Revolutionary calendar. In Anglo-Saxon terms, it occurred on November 9, 1799.

Jefferson’s response to the news of Napoleon’s seizure of power was virtually a cry of pain. The event forced him to reconsider his whole position. He wrote to Dr Bache: “You have seen the afflicting details from Paris. On what grounds the revolution has been made, we are not informed, and are still more at a loss to divine what will be its issue; whether we are to have over again the history of Robespierre, of Caesar, or of the new phenomenon of an usurpation of the government for the purpose of making it free.

“Our citizens, however, should derive from this some useful lessons. They should see the necessity to rally firmly and in close bands round their Constitution; never to suffer an iota of it to be infringed; to incubate on minorities the duties of acquiescence in the will of the majority, and in the majority a respect to the will of the minority; to beware of a military force even of citizens; and to be wary of too much confidence in any man.

“The confidence of the French people in Bonaparte has enabled him to kick down their Constitution, and instead of that to leave them dependent on his will and his life. I have never seen so awful a moment as the present.”

Many European politicians have seen the EU as a future United States of Europe, although many of them are reluctant to admit it. The extraordinary thing is that they have not studied the history of the American Constitution. This is like the problem of bishops and Adam Smith. One hardly ever meets a bishop with a student’s knowledge of classical economics. They have seldom read Smith’s Wealth of Nations; they just assume it must be wrong.

In the same way, there are few Europhiles with a good knowledge of late 18th-century American history. Hardly any of the “experts” on the European constitution seem to have read The Federalist, which was written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, and first published in 1788.

In 1825 Thomas Jefferson himself proposed that The Federalist should be adopted as a required text in the University of Virginia. He described it as: “An authority to which appeal is habitually made by all… as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.” Perhaps The Federalist should be a required text in Brussels and for the European Court of Justice.

I do not argue that the problems of early 21st-century Europe are identical to those of late 18th-century America. I am not myself a federalist. Yet the Americans did have to face similar problems in trying to reconcile the relationship of the federal government with the individual states - the very questions that confront Europe in the Lisbon treaty.

The American Constitution has succeeded in providing the US with a stable democratic framework that has survived the great changes of the past two centuries, including - in the 20th century - two world wars, a Cold War and a slump. The US Constitution is 221 years old, and still able to produce a presidential election with three highly gifted candidates. The Constitution has repeatedly proved able to regenerate itself.

The original French Constitution was adopted only shortly after the American; within a decade it had been overtaken by the Terror and overthrown by Napoleon. Surely, Europe should be asking this question: why did the US Constitution succeed when the French Constitution has repeatedly failed? There is also the primary question of assent. The articles of the US Constitution were adopted by the Federal Convention in September 1787; the opening words are: “We, the people of the United States…”

Combined with the earlier treaties, Lisbon does form a sort of constitution, though an unsatisfactory one. Yet no one would be entitled to start this European constitution with the words: “We, the people of Europe…” It might have to be: “We, the people of Ireland…”, since the Irish are the only people allowed a vote. Will the Lisbon constitution last as long as the American? The answer is probably not.

Irlanda. Tratatul de la Lisabona nu afecteaza regimul juridic (restrictiv) referitor la avort

Poate va amintiti de cauza C-159/90, Grogan. De asemenea, poate stiti ca, in Europa, alaturi de Malta si Polonia, Irlanda are un regim restrictiv al avorturilor. Oricum, Irlanda are un protocol special in acest sens, inclus in Tratatul de la Maastricht, astfel incat asigurarile de neintruziune sunt, oarecum, superflue. Asadar, stirea suna astfel:

No abortion change under Lisbon

The Lisbon Treaty continues to provide Ireland with “absolute control” with regard to its position on abortion, Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said.

Mr Martin, who is director of Fianna Fáil’s referendum campaign, accused the group Coir, which is campaigning for a No vote in the June 12th referendum, of conducting a “deeply cynical campaign”.

He said the group was claiming that Europe “wants to force us to change our laws on the legalisation of prostitution and hard drugs, and abortion and euthanasia”.

“It is a sad reality that many of the Treaty’s opponents insist on trying to paint the Union as the enemy which wants to control us. They have said that a Union which has helped us to achieve historic social and economic progress actually wants to destroy all of this. This is part of a tactic to spread concern and confusion,” Mr Martin said.

“While we are advocating a Yes vote on the basis of the positive benefits of the Treaty, necessity dictates that we have to respond to attacks when they are made.

“One of these is the outrageous claim that the Treaty will give the Union the right to instruct us what to do on a range of social issues, and in relation to abortion in particular.”

Mr Martin said Ireland had, in 1992, negotiated a protocol on abortion in the Masstricht Treaty which “gives explicit protection to the right of the Irish people to decide our national laws on the right to life”.

“Since then, the EU institutions have fully respected Ireland’s position and have never challenged the applicability of the Protocol. After 16 years the union has proven that it is not in any way seeking to take control on this area.”

Mr Martin said the Lisbon Treaty “continues to provide Ireland with absolute control with regard to the protection of the unborn”.

“Member state policies with regard to abortion are clearly acknowledged as not being within the control of the EU. Nothing within the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or in the powers of the European Court of Justice, can affect Ireland’s position on abortion.”

He said Coir was “the worst offender by far” on the issue.

“In spite of operating from the same offices as [anti-abortion group] Youth Defence, they have tried to claim that they have no connection. They have distributed a national leaflet which directly claims that Europe wants to force us to change our laws on the ‘legalisation of prostitution and hard drugs, and abortion and euthanasia’.

“This is not a new tactic from Youth Defence. For the Nice Treaty they also set up a front organisation and sent out equally misleading material claiming that the union was about to take control of our social policies. This time they have decided to try to stay out of the spotlight by not holding regular press conferences.

“We have no intention of letting them away with their deeply cynical campaign.”

Coir has denied a connection to Youth Defence and said it was a “separate camp altogether”.

“We share an office, but it’s a big building,” a spokesman said.

Germania. Bundersrat-ul a ratificat Tratatul de la Lisabona

Relatari aici si aici.

Articol din perspectiva sistemului constitutional italian despre guvernarea pe mai multe niveluri

… care s-ar numi “multilevel governance” in (fosta) limba in care a scris Shakespeare…

Articolul, in limba italiana, aici.

Si Simfonia a IX era neterminata? Despre dreptul concurentei in UE

Jürgen Basedow, The Modernization of European Competition Law: A Story of Unfinished Concept, Texas International Law Journal. Austin: Summer 2007. Vol. 42, Iss. 3. [*]

Summary

I. Decentralization

II. A More Economic Approach in Merger Control

III. Private Enforcement

 

Un interviu al unui profesor de la Universitatea din Birmingham despre Tratatul de la Lisabona

 Anand Menon se cheama acel profesor, iar titlul articolului este “EU works well even without Lisbon Treaty” (*). Interviul este interesant; ca mostra un fragment:

Sometimes we hear that without a Lisbon Treaty, the only alternative is some kind of disintegration to the core and periphery, the creation of a multi-speed Europe or some kind of catastrophe. How would you comment? 

I was one of the people writing and arguing against the enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe because I thought it would lead to gridlock. I was totally wrong. Even under the procedures of the Nice Treaty, the enlarged European Union is functioning fine. Insofar as there have been disputes about specific pieces of legislation, these have been between old member states. There would have been rows about Iraq even without enlargement. The same goes for the Services Directive. These were debates dividing the old member states, not dividing “old” and “new”. 

For me, what the figures about voting in the Council indicate is that the EU has not slowed down at all. It is producing the legislation with the same speed as before. There isn’t an institutional crisis to be addressed. Or at least there isn’t an institutional crisis that is more serious than what existed prior of enlargement. 

Noutati despre ratificarea Tratatului de la Lisabona

Portugalia si Danemarca au ratificat tratatul, iar in Germania si Cehia au fost sesizate Curtile constitutionale. Despre acestea aici (*) si aici (*).

Suveranitatea statelor & migratia. Un exemplu

Finland has suspended sending migrants back to Greece following the UN refugee agency’s sharp criticism of conditions faced by asylum seekers in the Mediterranean country.

Finnish immigration minister Astrid Thors on Friday (18 April) announced that only if they receive written guarantees that migrants will be fairly processed, will they return migrants to Greece.

Last week, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees recommended that European states halt the sending of refugees to Greece, complaining that procedural norms and conditions were not being met.

“[Refugees] often lack the most basic entitlements, such as interpreters and legal aid, to ensure that their claims receive adequate scrutiny from the asylum authorities,” the UN agency said in a statement.

As a matter of course, Greece arrests all migrants missing the appropriate documentation and detains them for three months.

According to EU rules in place since 2003 – the so-called Dublin II Regulation - the first EU member state that a migrant enters should be the one to examine his or her asylum application, meaning that other member states regularly send asylum claimants back to Greece, as the country is often the first EU country a migrant steps foot in.

Greece argues that this puts an undue burden on it as well as other EU border states such as Spain, Italy, Cyprus and Malta.

Athens has denied accusation that it handles asylum seekers poorly. At the end of March, the Greek minister of the interior, Procopios Pavlopoulos, wrote to his Slovenian counterpart – Slovenia currently holds the six-month rotating presidency of the EU - and requested that European justice ministers discuss the matter.

Greece respects the human rights of migrants and “EU fundamental values” at all times, Mr Pavlopoulos said in the letter.

The letter said that police and port authority officers “carry out their duties with eagerness and self-denial abiding by the Greek Constitution and legislation.”

It went on to say that “third-country nationals” are “received by State officials with all due respect comporting to the principles of human rights.”

“It is often the case that State officials do more than their duties dictate.”

However, the Finnish move is not the first time a European country has halted sending refugees to Greece. In February, Norway - which together with Iceland is a signatory to the Dublin agreements without being part of the EU - suspended all such transfers, and Germany shortly followed by ending the return of unaccompanied minors to the country.

In March, a Swedish migration court refused the extradition of an Iraqi asylum-seeker to Greece, fearing he would not receive proper treatment.

Sursa (*).

Continua schimbare a drepturilor omului. Mai sunt ele principii?

Olivier De Schutter, Julie Ringelheim, Ethnic Profiling: A Rising Challenge for European Human Rights Law, Modern Law Review Vol. 71 Iss. 3, 358-384. [*]

Ethnic profiling, defined as the use of racial, ethnic or religious background as a determining criterion for the adoption of law enforcement decisions, has been rising significantly in Europe, in particular in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. This article examines whether European human rights law is well equipped to deal with this challenge, and if not, how it should be reformed. Against the widely held assumption that personal data protection legislation is insufficiently protective of ‘sensitive’ data relating to race or ethnicity, it explains instead why combating ethnic profiling has been made more difficult, rather than less, by an overly protective reading of the requirements of data protection laws. It then discusses the additional measures that European states could take to address more effectively the human rights concerns prompted by the development of ethnic profiling.

Suveranitatea taxelor

Diane M. Ring, What’s at Stake in the Sovereignty Debate?: International Tax and the Nation-State, Forthcoming in Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 49 (2008). [*]

The international tax problems of today are typically beyond the scope of a single nation to solve. However, the prospect of multinational problem solving, often under the auspices of an international organization, unleashes objections grounded in sovereignty. Despite widespread reliance on sovereignty arguments, little attention has been directed at what precisely is meant by sovereignty and what place it has in international tax policy. This article contends that a loss of sovereignty undermines both significant functional roles played by a nation-state (revenue and fiscal policy) and important normative governance values (accountability and democratic legitimacy). Whether these limitations are severe enough to demand that a sovereign state recall its taxing powers from an international body (or not surrender them initially) depends on the nature of the powers in question and the necessity for a coordinated global response.

Part I develops the basic nexus between sovereignty and taxation. Part II examines the use of sovereignty in the debates and analyses surrounding three international tax case studies. Drawing upon the case studies, Part III considers how sovereignty claims are manipulated in tax debates, how states think about sovereignty in taxation, and what their decisions, in turn, suggest about the future of international tax and the prospects for international cooperation.

Si Slovacia ratifica Tratatul de la Lisabona

Slovakia’s parliament has ratified the Lisbon Treaty, despite a boycott of the vote by some opposition parties.

Previous attempts to hold a vote had to be scrapped because of a series of walkouts by MPs over a media law, which critics say harms press freedom.

But one of the opposition parties decided to drop its boycott and give Prime Minister Robert Fico the majority he needed to push the bill through.

BBC; alta sursa

Franta. Comitet de reflexie pentru suplimentarea preambulului Constitutiei…

… cu noi drepturi. Stirea suna asa (*)

Le décret portant création d’un comité de réflexion sur le préambule de la Constitution est publié au Journal officiel du 10 avril.
Présidé par Simone Veil, il sera composé de Bernard Accoyer, Francine Bardy, Claude Bébéar, Denys de Béchillon, Philippe Bélaval, Richard Descoings, Samia Essabaa, Patrice Gélard, Axel Kahn, Pierre Manent et Jean-François Sirinelli (sur le préambule de la Constitution, V. JCP G 2008, act., 50).
Ce comité, dont la création a été annoncée par le président de la République le 8 janvier dernier (V. JCP G 2008, act. 43 ; JCP G, 2008, act. 50, J.-Ph. Feldman) sera chargé d’étudier s’il y a lieu de compléter les droits fondamentaux garantis par la Constitution et, dans l’affirmative, de rechercher quels pourraient être les principes nouveaux.
Après consultations publiques, il remettra son rapport au Président de la République avant le 30 juin 2008.

Décret n° 2008-328 du 9 avril 2008 portant création d’un comité de réflexion sur le Préambule de la Constitution aici (*).

Art. 1 din decret dispune:

Il est créé un comité de réflexion sur le Préambule de la Constitution. Il est chargé, conformément à ce qu’expose la lettre annexée au présent décret, d’étudier si et dans quelle mesure les droits fondamentaux reconnus par la Constitution doivent être complétés par des principes nouveaux. Il proposera, le cas échéant, un texte correspondant à ses préconisations.
Le comité peut entendre ou consulter toute personne de son choix.
Il remettra son rapport au Président de la République avant le 30 juin 2008.

Tot acolo este interesant de citit si anexa continand adresa Presedintelui Republicii adresata noii presedinte de comitet.