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

C-68/18, Petrotel-Lukoil, pendinte

Universitatea Petru Maior, Tîrgu Mureș „Conferința Națională Achiziții Publice în România – ediția a II-a. Modificarea legislației în 2017”, 23 ianuarie 2018

Cuvant inainte – la monografia Dreptul european al contractelor. Realităţi. Influenţe. Domeniu de aplicare

Cuvânt înainte

la monografia Dreptul european al contractelor. Realităţi. Influenţe. Domeniu de aplicare, C. H. Beck, 2013, Gina Orga-Dumitriu

Mihai Sandru

Conferinta de lansare a volumului, 29 mai 2013, Academia Română

Citește restul acestei intrări »

Jean Claude Piris despre o Uniune Europeana cu „doua viteze”

In Financial Times aici.

Eufemisme?

Est-ce un transfert de souveraineté ?

Non, car on ne déléguera pas à d’autres notre souveraineté économique. Il s’agira d’un exercice partagé de la souveraineté par des gouvernements démocratiquement élus. On conforte sa souveraineté et son indépendance en l’exerçant avec ses amis, ses alliés, ses partenaires.
J’ajoute que pas un seul domaine nouveau de compétences ne sera transféré à une quelconque autorité supranationale.

De aici.

Croatia – stat membru al UE din 01 iulie 2013

Croatia – stat membru al UE din 01 iulie 2013

Comunicatul Consiliului, 09.12.2011

Istoricul aderarii Croatiei

Textul declaratiei sefilor de stat sau de guvern din zona euro (9 decembrie 2011)

Textul in limba romana se poate gasi aici.

Un citat

„Now [eurosceptics] understand that one of the issues that the markets are looking at is the capacity of the euro area to have quick answers because the markets are very fast and democratic procedures are always slower than the markets. And we have to understand this.”

De aici.

European Union Act 2011 (Regatul Unit)

Textul Legii britanice privind Uniunea Europeana din 2011 aici. Cu certitudine, despre aceasta lege se va mai discuta.

Beneficiile crizei economice pentru democratizarea UE – Anthony Browne (in The Spectator)

„Plan overboard”, aici.

Noua Constitutie maghiara (2011)

In traducere engleza.

Curtea Constitutionala – decizia 1258/2009. Legea nr.298/2008 (privind retinerea datelor) este neconstitutionala in intregime

 

Decizia nr. 1258/2009, a Curtii Constitutionale referitoare la exceptia de neconstitutionalitate a prevederilor Legii nr. 298/2008 privind retinerea datelor generate sau prelucrate de furnizorii de servicii de comunicatii electronice destinate publicului sau de retele publice de comunicatii, precum si pentru modificarea Legii nr. 506/2004 privind prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal si protectia vietii private în sectorul comunicatiilor electronice, Monitorul Oficial nr. 798/23.11.2009

Roland Vaubel, Constitutional courts as promoters of political centralization: lessons for the European Court of Justice

Roland Vaubel, Constitutional courts as promoters of political centralization: lessons for the European Court of Justice, European Journal of Law and Economics, Dec 2009, Vol. 28, Iss. 3; pg. 203 [*]

Abstract (Summary)

A cross-section analysis covering up to 42 countries and including the usual control variables shows that central government outlays as a share of general government outlays are significantly larger if the judges of the constitutional or supreme court are independent of the federal government and parliament and if the barriers to constitutional amendment are high. This evidence is consistent with the view that constitutional judges have a vested interest in centralization or that there is self-selection or both. These insights are used to draw lessons for the reform of the European Court of Justice. Self-selection should be reduced by requiring judicial experience–ideally with the highest national courts. The vested interest in centralization could be overcome by adding a subsidiarity court.

O scena, niste flori, alte flori …si demontatul scenei. Istoria se repeta

de data aceasta la francezi.

Asadar, din acest raport se poate observa cu usurinta cat de interesanta va fi pentru Romania presedintia UE.

Informatii.

Yasuhiro Shigeta, The ECJ’s ‘Hard’ Control over Compliance with International Environmental Law: Its Procedural and Substantive Aspects, International Community Law Review, 3/2009

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.

Abstract:

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

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.

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?

Bogdan Manescu- sef al Departamentului pentru Afaceri Europene (DAE)

Bogdan Manescu –  sef al Departamentului pentru Afaceri Europene (DAE) din 09.10.2009-

Curtea Constitutionala din Romania se indreapta spre modelul german?

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. [*]

UPDATE: hotararea integrala

Tratatul la Lisabona pe ultimele sute de km: intre Dublin si Praga (sau, poate, Brno)

Tony Barber, Dark clouds gather for EU on Lisbon treaty, 17.09. 2009, [*]

But the Irish referendum is not the only cloud on the EU’s horizon. For even if Ireland votes Yes, there remain considerable doubts over when Václav Klaus, the Czech president, will append his signature to the Lisbon treaty, allowing it to take force. Fears are growing in Brussels that Klaus intends to find an excuse to delay signing as long as possible – certainly, until some time in the first half of next year.


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

Conferinta: Bernard Stirn „Droit national et droit européen”, 28.09.2009, UB

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.

La trebonal, moncher, sau despre fotografia rasista & xenofoaba din dormitor

Urmare a cauzei Feryn, dar fara legatura cu ea, o stire interesanta, tot din Belgia. Sau despre reprimarea faşismelor de dormitor (ma rog, din camera de zi). Sau, cu alte cuvinte, tot despre „micuţi si oamenii legii” (sic!). Si, vorba cantecului: „O ultimaaaa tigaraaaa, uitataaaa intr-un colt peeee etajeeeeraaaaa”.

„Le Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme a introduit une plainte à l’encontre d’une famille d’accueil de la région anversoise, suite à la diffusion du programme TERZAKE ce lundi 7 septembre sur la VRT. 

Dans ce reportage, un journaliste de la VRT rend visite ‘undercover’ à une famille d’accueil anversoise agréée par l’organisme flamand de l’enfance, Kind&Gezin, pour se renseigner sur les modalités de prise en charge de son enfant.

Le reportage met clairement en évidence les tendances racistes et xénophobes du couple d’accueil, qui arbore dans sa salle de séjour, aux yeux de tous, un portrait d’Adolf Hitler, un drapeau interdit du VMO (Vlaamse Militanten Orde) et une collection d’objets à caractère raciste.

La mère d’accueil soutient explicitement que les théories du régime nazi devraient être appliquées à la société actuelle, visant par là les personnes d’origines turque et marocaine.

 On ne peut exclure que ces idées racistes soient également propagées auprès des autres parents, visiteurs, voire auprès des enfants accueillis par le couple.

Le Centre estime qu’il y a à la fois infraction aux articles 20 et 21 de la loi du 30 juillet 1981 tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie modifiée par la loi du 10 mai 2007, et à l’article 1 de la loi contre le négationnisme du 23 mars 1995.

De pe site-ul centrului de lupta impotriva rasismelor, xenofobiilor & altor tare post-moderne din Belgia. Daca, in prezent, ii culeg pe faşişti din dormitor, banuim ca urmatoarea etapa de combatere a faşismelor va cobora spre interiorul persoanei umane.

(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.