52012PC0773 – Propunere de REGULAMENT AL PARLAMENTULUI EUROPEAN ŞI AL CONSILIULUI privind exercitarea drepturilor Uniunii pentru aplicarea și respectarea regulilor comerțului internațional, COM/2012/0773 final – 2012/0359 (COD)
Comisia Europeana a respins Initiativa Cetateneasca Europeana (ICE) pentru protectia minoritatilor nationale – Minority SafePack. Uniunea Democrata Maghiara din Romanie (UDMR) acuza o decizie politica si anunta ca ar putea propune contestarea acesteia la Curtea Europeana de Justitie, se arata intr-un comunicat de presa al UDMR, citat de Mediafax.
Presedintele UDMR, Kelemen Hunor, considera ca reprezentantii Comisiei Europene au luat o decizie politica atunci cand au respins Initiativa Cetateneasca Europeana (ICE) pentru protectia minoritatilor nationale – Minority SafePack, desi aceasta a fost elaborata in mod corespunzator din punct de vedere juridic si profesional.
Kelemen Hunor a aratat ca, indiferent de ceea ce a decis CE, propunerile formulate de mai multe formatiuni politice ale minoritatilor din state ale UE raman valabile si vor fi sustinute si de acum inainte.
„Comisia Europeana a respins Initiativa Cetateneasca Europeana (ICE) pentru protectia minoritatilor nationale – Minority SafePack, propunerea de parteneriat prezentata de minoritatile nationale si lingvistice din Europa. In definitiv, interesul comun al tuturor statelor europene ar fi ca fauritorii diversitatii culturale si lingvistice, minoritatile nationale, sa se bucure de o protectie si drepturi echitabile si recunoscute de toata lumea. In opinia mea, decizia Comisiei Europene a fost una politica, deoarece aceasta initiativa, prin care am urmarit validarea juridica a drepturilor minoritatilor si crearea unui cadru legal adecvat, a fost elaborata in mod corespunzator din punct de vedere juridic si profesional. (…) Indiferent de ce a decis Comisia, propunerile pe care le-am formulat impreuna raman valabile si le vom sustine si de acum inainte”, sustine Kelemen Hunor, citat in comunicatul de presa al UDMR.
Sylvain Brouard, Olivier Costa, Thomas König (Eds.), The Europeanization of Domestic Legislatures. The Empirical Implications of the Delors’ Myth in Nine Countries, Springer, 2012, VIII, 244 p. 41 illus., 30 in color.
Table of contents [pdf.]
– Addresses several strong theses, including those of G. Majone, A. Moravcsik, and Martin and Vanberg, about Europeanization and legislation
– Includes an annex with extensive quantitative data on law Europeanization, detailed by country, type of norm, topic, period of time, etc
– Provides a method by which to measure Europeanization
In ten years 80 per cent of the legislation related to economics, maybe also to taxes and social aff airs, will be of Community origin.” This declaration has been largely quoted, paraphrased and deformed by different authors, creating a persistent myth according to which 80% of the legislative activity of the national legislatures would soon be reduced to the simple transposition of European norms”. This book addresses the topic of the scope and impact of Europeanization on national legislation, as a part of the Europeanization debate which raises normative concerns linked to the “democratic deficit” debate. The state of the art shows that there are many assumptions and claims on how European integration may affect national legislation and, more generally, domestic governance but that there is a lack of solid and comparative data to test them. The aim of the book is to give a solid and comparative insight into Europeanization focusing on effective outcomes in a systematic way. This book analyzes the period 1986-2008 and includes an introduction, a global overview of European legislative activities which set the background for Europeanization of national legislatures, 9 country contributions (8 EU member states + Switzerland) including systematic, comparative and standardized data, tables and figures, and a conclusion with a comparative analysis of the European and domestic reasons for Europeanization.
All national contributions conclude that Europeanization of national legislation is much more limited than assumed in the literature and public debate. It is limited to 10 to 30% of laws (depending on the country), far less than the 80% predicted by Jacques Delors and mentioned daily by medias and public opinion leaders to demonstrate EU domination on member states. Beside that general statement, the various chapters propose a deep insight on EU constraint over national legislation, providing much information on the kind of laws and policies that are Europeanized, the evolution of this process through time, the impact of Europeanization on the balance of powers and the relations between majority and opposition at national level, the strategies developed by national institutions in that context, and many other issues, making the book of inter
The launch of the European External Action Service by the Lisbon Treaty coincides with a number of substantive changes to the legal framework of EU External Action. An ambitious agenda has been inserted into the primary law, calling on the EU in its relations with the world to “promote its values and interests”, “contribute to the protection of its citizens” and to “contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child” (Art. 3(5) TEU). These principles are not to be pursued in isolation, but in a consistent manner and are to be “guided by the principles which have inspired [the EU’s] own creation” (Art. 21 TEU). This, in turn, requires also the Union institutions, as well as the Member States, to act in ways that do not contradict the EU position, a particular EU external policy or objective. It is the ambition of the EEAS to foster both consistency, as well as providing impetus to the EU’s external action. Looking at its structure, one can see that it is in itself a sui generis institution composed of officials from the Commission, Council and the Member States. This raises some fundamental questions that go well beyond those concerning which person is going to be the new EU ambassador in Washington, Beijing or Moscow. Above all, can this new sui generis institutional innovation live up to the ambitions of the sui generis entity that is the EU? What old problems does it purport to solve, and what are the big new question marks that it raises? In essence, to which extent does bundling the external objectives in the Treaty as well as pooling together the institutional resources in Brussels and the delegations render the EU actually an ever-closer actor in the world? Having in mind that the launch of the EEAS took place on 1st of December 2010, this workshop aims to address three big questions marks concerning EU external action after Lisbon: 1) the institutional allegiance of the EEAS, 2) the future of the “left out” DG Trade and the Common Commercial Policy, and 3) the protection of EU citizens abroad.
– Workshop organized by the RELEX Working Group with the support of Prof. Marise Cremona