Francis Snyder, Lu Yi, Transnational Law and the EU: Reflections from WISH in China, European Law Journal, Special Issue: International Workshop for Young Scholars 2012. The Future of Transnational Law: The EU, USA, China and the BRICS, Volume 19, Issue 6, pages 705–710, November 2013
Daniel Mihail ŞANDRU, Constantin Mihai BANU, Dragoş Alin CĂLIN, Rolul activ al judecătorului, dreptul la un proces echitabil şi refuzul efectuării unei trimiteri preliminare. Perspectiva Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului şi exemple din jurisprudenţa românească [The active role of the judge, right to a fair trial and refusal to make a preliminary reference. The perspective of the European Court of Human Rights and examples from Romanian case-law], Revista romana de drept european – RRDE nr. 3/2013, p. 137-160.
Într-o serie de hotărâri pronunţate până în prezent, Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului a arătat că obligaţia de motivare a refuzului cererii de sesizare de către o instanţă judecătorească vizată de art. 267 paragraful al treilea TFUE este primordială, ţinând cont de excepţiile prevăzute în jurisprudenţa CILFIT. Pentru început, articolul descrie contextul rolului activ al judecătorului naţional şi prezintă perspectiva Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului asupra dreptului la un proces echitabil în situaţia refuzului unei instanţe interne de a sesiza Curtea de Justiţie pentru pronunţarea unei decizii preliminare. Este expusă ulterior pe larg o hotărâre recentă a unei instanţe române privind acţiunea în răspundere împotriva statului, în cazul refuzului unei instanţe române de a adresa o întrebare preliminară. Articolul se încheie cu discutarea a două hotărâri recente provenite de la instanţe române, care ilustrează în sens contradictoriu rolul activ al judecătorului vizat de art. 267 paragraful al treilea TFUE, atunci când acesta respinge o cerere de sesizare a Curţii de Justiţie.
By a series of judgments delivered up to the present, the European Court of Human Rights held that the duty to state reasons concerning the refusal to seek a preliminary ruling, which is incumbent upon a court covered by Article 267(3) TFEU that has to take into account the exceptions provided for in the CILFIT case-law, is crucial. Firstly, the paper describes the framework of active role played by the national judge and presents the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial when a refusal of a national court to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice arises. Then, a recent judgment of a Romanian court concerning proceedings for liability against the State in the framework of refusal of a Romanian court to seek a preliminary reference is examined at length. The article ends by discussing two recent judgments originating from Romanian courts aimed to point out contradictory trends concerning the active role that the judge covered by Article 267(3) TFEU has to play when rejecting a request to refer preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice.
Theodora Kostakopoulou, Co-Creating European Union Citizenship: Institutional Process and Crescive Norms (August 27, 2013). Forthcoming, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 15, 2014; Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2013-24. Available at SSRN
By paying attention to processes and institutional change, EU citizenship emerges as a co-created institution. It is the product of institutional design and co-creation by actors at all levels of governance and is shaped by multilogues at the ‘top’, ‘bottom’ and ‘sideways’ as well as by citizens’ formal and informal actions. A co-creation perspective leads us to reconsider state-centered assumptions about which form of citizenship should be predominant and the dualism of centralism (supra-nationalism) versus ‘home-rule’ (inter-governmentalism) and to embrace a genuinely citizen-centered perspective. The article develops the co-creation paradigm, examines its dimensions, various forms and patterns and, by discussing the post-Rottmann and Zambrano case law (McCarthy, Dereci, Iida, O., S. and L. and Ymeraga) as well as Tsakouridis and P.I., sheds light onto the complex dynamics that make EU citizenship a vehicle of transformative institutional change but can also work against it.
Hans H. B. Vedder, EU Law and the Financing of New Energy Infrastructure (July 5, 2013). University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 14/2013. Available at SSRN
This article examines the legal framework applicable to public funding of new energy infrastructure. It does so by observing the need for investments in the energy network and then examining whether, to what extent and how the EU competition rules apply to this activity. It also examines the legal framework for EU funding of network investments to come to the conclusion that the current framework allows for an adequate balance between the need to ensure a level playing field and the energy goals set by the EU. These energy-related goals are, however, interpreted differently depending on the funding involved. Whereas the Member States can essentially rely on network-related objectives, the EU also includes sustainability-related targets. This can in turn be explained by the fact that sustainability-related targets are still predominantly the domain of Member State policies and network investments driven by these targets are therefore more likely to primarily benefit the national industry, putting the European level playing field at risk.
Institutul de Cercetări „Acad. Andrei Rădulescu” al Academiei Române
Publicaţiile „Dreptul” ale Uniunii Juriştilor din România
Noul Cod civil român la doi ani de la intrarea în vigoare
Probleme teoretice şi practice
Bucureşti, 9 octombrie 2013 Citește restul acestei intrări »
Trebuie să fii autentificat pentru a publica un comentariu.