Paul Gallagher, Stephen Brittain, The Court of Justice – Legal Reasoning, the Rule of Law and Data Protection

AURORA LÓPEZ AZCONA, La europeización del Derecho civil: crónica de un proyecto inconcluso, Actualidad jurídica iberoamericana, 2018

Parchetul European este o incercare

Deocamdata nereusita. O sinteza aici si detalii [documente] aici.

NIKOLAJ NIELSEN, National MPs protest EU public prosecutor idea, EUobserver, 01.11.2013

National democracy pushing back: European Commission shown its second ever ‘yellow card’, openeuropeblog, 23.10.2013

Propunere de REGULAMENT AL PARLAMENTULUI EUROPEAN ŞI AL CONSILIULUI privind exercitarea drepturilor Uniunii pentru aplicarea și respectarea regulilor comerțului internațional

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)

 

Notă bibliografică 

Notă bibliografică + Text (afişare bilingvă) 
htmlpdf   doc

Respingerea unei initiative cetatenesti de catre Comisia Europeana ar putea fi atacata la Curtea de Justitie a Uniunii Europene

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.

SURSA

Comisia Europeană intenționează să modernizeze dreptul european al societăților comerciale și guvernanța corporativă

Sylvain Brouard, Olivier Costa, Thomas König (Eds.), The Europeanization of Domestic Legislatures. The Empirical Implications of the Delors’ Myth in Nine Countries

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.]

Chapter 2. Thomas Konig, Tanja Dannwolf, Brooke Luetgert, EU Legislative Activities and Domestic Politics [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

EUI: Ever-Closer in Brussels – Ever-Closer in the World? EU External Action after the Lisbon Treaty, 21.01.2011

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

Detalii

Proiect CSDE in Seria Consultari Europene: „Identificarea dificultăţilor în materia soluţionării alternative a litigiilor în Uniunea Europeană” (CSDE-SCE-21)

Proiect CSDE in Seria Consultari Europene: „Identificarea dificultăţilor în materia soluţionării alternative a litigiilor în Uniunea Europeană” (CSDE-SCE-21)

Centrul de Studii de Drept European din cadrul Institutului de Cercetari Juridice al Academiei Romane organizeaza o selectie de CV-uri pentru realizarea unui punct de vedere documentat în acest sens. Vor fi selectati experti care vor realiza cercetarea şi punctul de vedere, concretizate într-un material care va fi publicat ulterior.

Denumirea proiectului: „Identificarea dificultăţilor în materia soluţionării alternative a diferendelor în Uniunea Europeană” (CSDE-SCE-21)

Persoanele interesate pot trimite un CV, în format european, la adresa mihai.sandru@csde.ro până la data de 27 ianuarie 2011. Vor fi contactaţi doar candidaţii selectaţi.

Sunt de asemenea invitaţi să trimită un CV şi cei fi interesaţi să participe la elaborarea unor studii viitoare, cu precizarea domeniilor de interes. Aceste candidaturi vor servi la actualizarea bazei de date a CSDE.

Cercetarea trebuie definitivată, iar punctul de vedere redactat până la data de 10 martie 2011.

Partener: Societatea de Ştiinţe Juridice.

Proiectul este sustinut de catre Editura Wolters Kluwer.

Documente:

Anunţul Comisiei

CONSULTATION PAPER On the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the European Union

Dezbatere CSDE: «Proiectul de Regulament european in materie de succesiuni internationale si implicatiile sale asupra dreptului roman» (25.11.2010)

Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române şi Uniunea Naţională a Notarilor Publici din România organizează la data de 25 noiembrie 2010, ora 12.00, la sediul Academiei Române din Calea Victoriei nr. 125, Sala de Consiliu,

Dezbaterea din seria „Consultări europene

« Proiectul de Regulament european în materie de succesiuni internaţionale şi implicaţiile sale asupra dreptului român»

Dezbaterea va fi deschisă printr-o prezentare susţinută de dl. Mircea Dan Bob, lector la Facultatea de Drept a Universităţii „Babeş-Bolyai” din Cluj-Napoca.

Conferinţa va continua cu prezentarea dlui conf. univ. dr. Dan Andrei Popescu, „Proiectul de regulament european în materia succesiunilor internaţionale şi implicaţiile sale asupra dreptului român”. (contribuţie în cadrul grantului CNCSIS 2442 IDEI, Competiţie 2008 „Specificitate şi complementaritate în dreptul privat european”).

Propunerea de Regulament al Parlamentului European şi al Consiliului privind competenţa, legea aplicabilă, recunoaşterea şi executarea hotărârilor judecătoreşti şi a actelor autentice în materie de succesiuni, precum şi crearea unui certificat european de moştenitor (PR), adoptată în toamna anului 2009, este rezultatul unor eforturi concrete şi intense făcute în direcţia unificării juridice europene în materie.

Textul pus în dezbaterea celor interesaţi, ridică o serie de probleme generate de conflictul dintre necesitatea unui regim unitar şi diversele regimuri naţionale ce funcţionează în statele membre.

Prezentarea va încerca să puncteze următoarele aspecte:

– opţiunile legiuitorului european şi scopurile urmărite prin PR;

– principalele puncte de divergenţă între statele membre din conţinutul PR;

– consecinţele adoptării PR pentru dreptul român.

Pentru mai multe informaţii, puteţi consulta:

– referitor la contextul general al adoptării PR:

Comisia Europeana

Comisia Europeana salută lansarea site-ului internet multilingv privind succesiunile

Ministerul Justitiei

– textul integral al PR:

– despre dl lector univ. dr. Mircea Bob, care va sustine ce susţine prezentarea

*           *    *

De asemenea, cu aceeaşi ocazie urmează a se prezenta şi discuta o lucrare publicată recent de către Editura Oxford University Press

The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations[1]

Autor Andrew Dickinson

9780199289684_140

Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 24      noiembrie 2010. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea    instituţională şi funcţia, precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.

Cu stimă,

Conf. univ. dr. Mihai Şandru

Parteneri media: www.beck.ro, www.agerpres.ro, www.avocatnet.ro, www.caleaeuropeana.ro,

http://www.curieruljudiciar.ro, www.competitivitate.ro, www.editurauniversitara.ro, www.euractiv.ro

www.fabricadebani.rowww.infolegal.ro,  Juridice.ro

Proiect CSDE în Seria Consultari Europene: „Extinderea utilizării achizitiilor publice electronice in UE” (CSDE-SCE-19)

Proiect CSDE în Seria Consultari Europene: „Extinderea utilizării achiziţiilor publice electronice în UE”  (CSDE-SCE-19)

Centrul de Studii de Drept European din cadrul Institutului de Cercetari Juridice al Academiei Romane organizeaza o selectie de CV-uri pentru realizarea unui punct de vedere documentat în acest sens. Vor fi selectati experti care vor realiza cercetarea şi punctul de vedere, concretizate într-un material care va fi publicat ulterior.

Denumirea proiectului: „Extinderea utilizării achiziţiilor publice electronice în UE” (CSDE-SCE-19)

„Achiziţiile publice electronice se referă la utilizarea mijloacelor electronice de comunicare şi de procesare a tranzacţiilor de către administraţiile publice şi alte organizaţii din sectorul public pentru achiziţionarea de bunuri şi servicii sau pentru atribuirea contractelor de lucrări publice. Însă miza este mult mai mare decât simpla trecere de la sistemele pe suport de hârtie la cele care utilizează comunicaţiile electronice pentru procedurile de achiziţii publice.

Utilizarea procedurilor electronice poate îmbunătăţi considerabil eficienţa achiziţiilor, a administrării globale a acestora şi a funcţionării pieţelor contractelor publice. Introducerea progresivă a sistemului electronic de achiziţii publice face parte din agenda ambiţioasă în materie de e-guvernare, care poate transforma în mod fundamental funcţionarea şi rezultatele administraţiei publice. Agenda digitală pentru Europa a Comisiei prevede adoptarea de către aceasta a unei cărţi albe care să precizeze măsurile pe care le va lua pentru a crea o  infrastructură interconectată pentru achiziţiile publice electronice.”

Carte verde privind extinderea utilizării achiziţiilor publice electronice în UE, SEC(2010) 1214, Bruxelles, 18.10.2010, COM(2010) 571 final

Persoanele interesate pot trimite un CV, în format european, la adresa mihai.sandru@csde.ro până la data de 14 noiembrie 2010. Vor fi contactaţi doar candidaţii selectaţi.

Sunt de asemenea invitaţi să trimită un CV şi cei fi interesaţi să participe la elaborarea unor studii viitoare, cu precizarea domeniilor de interes. Aceste candidaturi vor servi la actualizarea bazei de date a CSDE.

Cercetarea trebuie definitivată, iar punctul de vedere redactat până la data de 05 decembrie 2010.

Proiectul este sustinut de către Editura Wolters Kluwer.

Informaţii şi documente:

Anunţul Comisiei:

Carte verde privind extinderea utilizării achiziţiilor publice electronice în UE, SEC(2010) 1214, Bruxelles, 18.10.2010, COM(2010) 571 final

Vaughne Miller, How much legislation comes from Europe?

Vaughne MillerHow much legislation comes from Europe?, House of Commons, RESEARCH PAPER 10/62 13 October 2010 disponibil la adresa www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf

The former European Commission President, Jacques Delors, predicted in July 1988 that within ten years 80% of economic legislation, and perhaps also fiscal and social legislation, would be of European origin. Since then, Treaty amendments have given the European Union a role in several additional policy areas, which has contributed to a view that national legislatures are becoming ‘Europeanised’, both in terms of the quantity of EU laws and their impact on domestic law- and policy-making.In the UK data suggest that from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations, although the degree of involvement varied from passing reference to explicit implementation. Estimates of the proportion of national laws based on EU laws in other EU Member States vary widely, ranging from around 6% to 84%.This paper explores various approaches to the question of how much national law is based on or influenced by EU law.

Consultare online: Protecting our natural capital: an EU strategy to conserve biodiversity and ensure the provision of ecosystem services by 2020

Protecting our natural capital: an EU strategy to conserve biodiversity and ensure the provision of ecosystem services by 2020

IPM 2.4

Pana la urma PE a fost de acord cu SWIFT

Acordul dintre Uniunea Europeană și Statele Unite ale Americii privind prelucrarea și transferul datelor de mesagerie financiară din Uniunea Europeană către Statele Unite ale Americii în cadrul Programului de urmărire a finanțărilor în scopuri teroriste

Martin Tsamenyi, Mary Ann Palma, Ben Milligan, Kwame Mfodwo, The European Council Regulation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing

Martin Tsamenyi, Mary Ann Palma, Ben Milligan, Kwame Mfodwo, The European Council Regulation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: An International Fisheries Law Perspective, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Volume 25, Number 1, 2010

Abstract

On 29 September 2008, the Council of the European Union (EU) adopted Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Essentially, the EU IUU Regulation establishes a framework in which access to EU markets for fisheries products is partly conditioned by the extent to which a country, area or region of origin is demonstrably or increasingly free of IUU fishing. Aside from the amendments to US legislation in 2007, the EU IUU Regulation is the only other domestic legislative measure adopted solely to combat IUU fishing, with four main components: port State measures against third-country vessels, a catch documentation scheme, IUU vessel listing, and listing of non-cooperating States. This article analyses the EU IUU Regulation in the context of international fisheries law, and particularly international efforts to combat IUU fishing. It is concluded that the measures outlined in the EU IUU Regulation, despite several ambiguities, are generally consistent with those called for under international fisheries instruments and measures being implemented by regional fisheries management organisations.

Modelul romanesc la export: astazi Bundesverfassungsgericht & pastrarea datelor

Stirea suna astfel:

German court rules that interpretation of EU rules on data retention breach Constitution The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled yesterday that the German law implementing the EU’s Data Retention Directive breaches the German Constitution. However, the Court ruled against the implementation of the Directive, rather than the Directive itself. The Court ruled that the retention of information is permitted only under strict rules of Constitutional law, if someone’s life or freedom were in danger, and therefore all data collected before yesterday’s ruling under the Directive must be immediately erased. Prior to this decision, internet providers and telecommunication companies were obliged by the Directive to store telephone numbers, emails and internet connections of all citizens for six months without needing a concrete reason. The judges ruled that the implementation of the Directive provided „neither adequate data security, nor sufficient boundaries on the application of data retention.”

Comunicatul Bundesverfassungsgericht [germana].

Julie Adshead, An integrated approach to water protection and management: the European Union model

Julie Adshead, An integrated approach to water protection and management: the European Union model, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 1, Iss3, 2009.

Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive. It seeks first to determine whether its provisions align with modern thinking on integrated river basin management and second to assess the degree to which it has the potential to achieve legislative and inter-agency integration throughout the Union.

Design/methodology/approach – This is a desktop study. The paper draws upon theories and definitions of integrated river basin management and internal integration in existing literature and then proceeds to examine the provisions of the Water Framework Directive in the light of the models identified.

Findings – The framework for river basin management in the Water Framework Directive does not fully match the modern approach to integrated river basin management. The directive is limited by its primary focus upon the single medium of water, and its consequent failure to fully address wider land use planning issues. It, therefore, also fails to achieve integration between all relevant legislative instruments. It provides a framework for stakeholder involvement that could potentially serve the goal of inter-agency integration. However, due to the high level of discretion in the hands of member states, there is likely to be a substantial divergence of practice across the EU.

Originality/value – In assessing the Water Framework Directive against modern notions of river basin management and the directive’s stated integrative aspirations, the paper informs implementation and practice in member states.

Droit international privé des successions – quel futur en Europe et en Suisse?

On Friday, 19th March 2010, the 22nd Journée de droit international privé, organised by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (ISDC) and the University of Lausanne (Center of Comparative Law, European Law and Foreign Legislations), will analyse the Commission’s Proposal on Succession: “Droit international privé des successions – quel futur en Europe et en Suisse?”.

The list of confirmed speakers includes Prof. Andrea Bonomi (Univ. of Lausanne), Prof. Paul Lagarde (Univ. of Paris I – Sorbonne ) and Prof. Oliver Remien (Univ. of Würzburg). A detailed programme and further information will be posted as soon as available.

CONFLICTOFLAWS.NET

Regulamentul (CE) nr. 864/2007 al Parlamentului European si al Consiliului din 11 iulie 2007 privind legea aplicabilă obligatiilor necontractuale („Roma II”)

Regulamentul (CE) nr. 864/2007 al Parlamentului European si al Consiliului din 11 iulie 2007 privind legea aplicabilă obligatiilor necontractuale („Roma II”)

Text integral

Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Second Preliminary Draft June 6, 2009

Prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property

Aici

 

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

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.

J. BREYER: despre federalismul din Statele Unite ale Americii, Elvetia, Germania si Uniunea Europeana (1997)

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.

 Integral

Steven Greer, Andrew Williams, Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice?, European Law Journal, 4/2009

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;

ABSTRACT

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?

Despre Lisabona, cu detasare. Euros(c)eptica

Andrew Gimson, Germans reel at prospect of ‘submission to alien powers’, The Daily Telegraph, 18.09.2009 {aici}

Extracts

In a tone of barely suppressed fury, the court enumerates the encroachments Europe has made on national judicial systems and rules that this process must go no further. According to these judges, Germany’s Basic Law, or constitution, promotes peaceful co-operation within the EU and the United Nations, but this is not „tantamount to submission to alien powers”. (…)

The German judges add that measures of European integration „must, in principle, be revocable”, and declare that they themselves have the right to safeguard „the inviolable core content” of the German constitution: a process that „can result in Community law or Union law being declared inapplicable in Germany”. It is an extraordinarily high-handed and intransigent judgment. (…)

According to Prof Stürmer, who from 1981 was an adviser to Helmut Kohl on European policy, the judgment means that for the next 10 or 20 years, no German government „can really move forward on Europe”: there cannot be a successor treaty to Lisbon. He reproaches Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, for having failed to begin at once „an open, principled conflict” with the court. But Mrs Merkel is astute enough to realise that there are no votes to be won by taking on the Constitutional Court, which enjoys greater respect than the political class.

A. Gimson Blog

Hotararea Curtii Constitutionale Federale din Germania aici

(Re)Sesizarea Curtii constitutionale cehe cu privire la constitutionalitatea Tratatului de la Lisabona

E oficial! (sic!; precum incepe astazi redactarea multor stiri de presa, nasha?): un grup de senatori cehi sesizatara Curtea constitutionala din aceeasi republica cu privire la (sau, sa ne exprimam romglez – „pe„)constitutionalitatea numitului tratat cu Constitutia. Precum stiti, instanta s-a pronuntat anterior asupra aceluiasi tratat, insa la un mod general. Precum intelegem, acum e randul unui control constitutional mai amanuntit.

Asadar, stirea:

„Prague – Seventeen Czech senators, mainly from the right-wing Civic Democrats (ODS), today filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the amendments „on special mandate” related to the Lisbon treaty, ODS senator Jiri Oberfalzer has told CTK.

The special mandate prevents the Czech government from approving transfer of powers to the EU without the parliament’s agreement.

Apart from ODS senators, the complaint was signed by unaffiliated senator Tomas Toepfer and Liana Janackova, chairwoman for the Party of Free Citizens.

The senators also plan to ask the Constitutional Court again to assess the the Lisbon treaty to reform the EU institutions as such.

The senators’ initiative has been criticised by supporters of a quick ratification of the treaty who say this step is just delaying tactics that would enable President Vaclav Klaus to postpone the signing of the treaty and thus its final ratification.

Klaus is known as a staunch critic of the Lisbon treaty.

Minister for European Affairs Stefan Fuele recently called the senators’ efforts „an unsubstantiated and illogical step” that should not hamper the ratification process.

However, the senators argue that the amendments on the special mandate are not sufficient and that it is at variance with the constitution for the houses of parliament to approve further transfers of power to the EU by less than a constitutional majority.

The senators called on the Constitutional Court to apply the final right to interpret the European legislation related to the Lisbon treaty. They also propose that parliament approve Czech candidates for EU commissioner and judges of the European Court of Justice.

The treaty’s opponents among senators turned to the Constitutional Court already in 2008. Last November the court said it did not find the treaty inconsistent with the Czech constitutional order.

[…]”

Stirea si in Prague Monitor.