Pavlos Eleftheriadis, Democracy in the Eurozone (May 15, 2013). WG Ringe and P Huber (eds), Legal Challenges Arising out of the Global Financial Crisis: Bail-outs, the Euro, and Regulation (Oxford: Hart Publishing) (2013, Forthcoming); Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 49/2013. Available at SSRN
In December 2012 Four Presidents of the European Union (of the European Council, the Commission, the Central Bank and the Eurogroup) issued a paper outlining steps for a ‘genuine monetary union’ promising among others better democratic accountability for its institutions. This essay asks if an entity like the European Union – and the Eurozone within it – can indeed become democratic. I distinguish between two approaches to democracy, first as collective self-government or, second, as set of egalitarian institutions. The essay argues that the German Federal Constitutional Court supports the first theory and for that reason is very cautious of the idea of bringing democracy to the European Union. The collective view believes that without a single people, there cannot be self-government. The second theory accepts the primacy of domestic democracy but allows, by contrast, for international institutions of democratic accountability that support domestic democracy. I offer some arguments for this view and conclude that the four Presidents are not mistaken in endorsing the ambition of democratic accountability for the Eurozone. The European Union is a union of peoples. A union of this kind can become more democratic without seeking to become a democracy.
O stire interesanta in Irish Times.
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
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.
Textul in limba romana se poate gasi aici.
„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.”
Textul Legii britanice privind Uniunea Europeana din 2011 aici. Cu certitudine, despre aceasta lege se va mai discuta.
„Plan overboard”, aici.
Germany now defends its national interests more frankly, especially in Europe. Helmut Kohl, the chancellor who guided Germany to unification, was responsible for the last great act of self-denial, the surrender of the D-mark. The tone changed with his successor, Gerhard Schröder, who made it clear that Germany would not reach for its cheque book every time the European Union put out its hand. He also signed a deal to build a gas pipeline from Russia that bypasses Poland and the Baltic states (and now works for the consortium that is constructing it), suggesting that a more self-confident Germany would also be a more selfish one.
This marks a generational change. Responsibility is passing from the ‘68ers, moral prosecutors of the crimes committed by their parents, to the youth of 1989, notes Joschka Fischer, whose progress from radical street fighter to foreign minister sums up the arc of his generation. The next one has less need of the EU to keep it on the straight and narrow, or of NATO to protect it from attack. Last summer Germany’s constitutional court ruled that the EU lacked the democratic legitimacy to push European integration further.
Yet the ‘89ers face new anxieties that keep them hanging on to the old structures. Germans were the biggest beneficiaries of the post-war bargain under which Europe outsourced its security to America and used the money it saved to build the welfare state, notes Jan Techau of the NATO Defence College in Rome. But Europe is no longer the front line and America’s focus is shifting to the Pacific. Europeans fret that China and America will make global decisions over their heads.
The answer to that is for the Europeans to speak with a more coherent voice and to strengthen their partnership with the Americans. Terrorism, climate change and the rise of China are probably best faced by investing more in the main alliances, not less. But the alliances themselves are under strain from a variety of causes. It falls to Germany to help.
Angela Merkel, a more self-effacing character than Mr Schröder, has sent mixed signals. She was instrumental in securing the passage of the Lisbon treaty, which strengthens the EU’s role in justice, migration and foreign policy. Yet when it came to picking the first holders of the top jobs created by the treaty—the president of the European Council, which represents heads of government, and the high representative for foreign affairs—she joined her fellow leaders in choosing figures too puny to compete with them. In European emergencies Mrs Merkel has been watchful of German treasure and national prerogatives. Like her predecessor, she wants a permanent seat for Germany on the UN Security Council. Germany is coming to resemble France in balancing European cohesion with the pursuit of national status, says Gunther Hellmann of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt.
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].
„There seems to be no vision within the Union of where we are heading. There is no consensus over where the borders of the EU should lie in the future, and there is no consensus over how we should define our role in the world.”
„…in 10 or 20 years, Europe will be forced to compete with new economic superpowers which will also have their own political agendas. And at that point, we won’t be able to play an equal role if we do not have a single EU representation in international organizations such as the IMF or the UN Security Council and are hence unable to speak with one voice.”
„It’s in precisely those areas where we need more Europe that you can find the largest emotional resistance from the member states. For example, there’s the issue of a common foreign policy. Take the war in Iraq, which the overwhelming majority of Europeans opposed. It wasn’t possible to bring Europe’s weight to bear and to dissuade the Americans from pursuing this folly. From the very beginning, we Europeans were divided into two irreconcilable camps regarding this issue.”
A se vedea si: Evz
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.
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
Legal Issues of Economic Integration
Volume 36, Issue 2, 2009
The Second Second Irish Referendum: Finally a Fair Choice
Wolf Sauter, The Proposed Patients’ Rights Directive and the Reform of (Cross-Border) Healthcare in the European Union
Hans Mahncke, Anne Scully-Hill, The Emergence of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System
Nikolaos Lavranos, Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities Judgment of the European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) 3 September 2008, Not Yet Published
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 864/2007 al Parlamentului European si al Consiliului din 11 iulie 2007 privind legea aplicabilă obligatiilor necontractuale („Roma II”)
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.
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, pp. 313–337
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.
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.