C-701/22, MFE, pendinte. Proiectul RoEULaw, CSDE

Matteo Bonelli, Mariolina Eliantonio, Giulia Gentile (Editors), Article 47 of the EU Charter and Effective Judicial Protection, Volume 1 The Court of Justice’s Perspective, Hart Publishing, 2022

Seminar Wolters Kluwer: Temeiuri juridice ale prelucrării datelor cu caracter personal, 14 februarie 2023

Daniel-Mihail ȘANDRU, European Union Law and Arbitration. Slices and slides. Text, cases and materials, Editura Universitara, 2021 (OPEN ACCESS)

Daniel-Mihail ȘANDRU, European Union Law and Arbitration. Slices and slides. Text, cases and materials, Editura Universitara, ISBN 978-606-28-1263-8, DOI 10.5682 / 9786062812638, 2021, 298 p.

This present book, “European Union law and arbitration. Slices and slides. Text, cases and materials”, is what the title highlights: slices and slides. This training course was prepared following he invitation addressed by Mr Professor Flavius Baias to teach the course „European Union law and arbitration” at the master’s degree in „International Arbitration” of the Faculty of Law of the University of Bucharest.
The teaching material within this volume is rather a series of ideas or of references: it has a methodological, operational nature. But it is also a first form of a general construction dealing about the relationship between European Union law and arbitration. Documents enclosed reflect both theoretical and practical experiences. The reader has to get familiar with advanced concepts and mechanisms of both areas in order to fully understand this material.
I hope that this first step will be followed by debates and studies relevant to this field also in Romania.

Jose Antonio Moreno Molina, La construcción jurisprudencial europea de la teoría de los principios generales de la contratación pública y su plasmación posterior en la legislación de la Unión Europea (The European Jurisprudential Construction of the Theory of the General Principles of Public Procurement and Its Subsequent Incorporation Into the European Union Legislation)

Mark Fenwick, Mathias M Siems, Stefan Wrbka (eds), The Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty in Comparative and Transnational Law, Hart Publishing, 2017

Abrogarea art. 21 alin. 2 din legea contenciosului administrativ (revizuirea pentru incalcarea principiului prioritatii dreptului comunitar)

Art. 21 alin. 2 inainte de abrogare avea urmatorul continut:

”(2) Constituie motiv de revizuire, care se adauga la cele prevazute de Codul de procedura civila, pronuntarea hotararilor ramase definitive si irevocabile prin incalcarea principiului prioritatii dreptului comunitar, reglementat de art. 148 alin. (2), coroborat cu art. 250 alin. (2) din Constitutia Romaniei, republicata. Cererea de revizuire se introduce in termen de 15 zile de la comunicare, care se face, prin derogare de la regula consacrata de art. 17 alin. (3), la cererea temeinic motivata a partii interesate, in termen de 15 zile de la pronuntare. Cererea de revizuire se solutioneaza de urgenta si cu precadere, intr-un termen maxim de 60 de zile de la inregistrare.”

Legea nr. 299/2011 pentru abrogarea alin. (2) al art. 21 din Legea contenciosului administrativ nr. 554/2004  a fost publicată în Monitorul Oficial al României nr. 916/2011

Philipp Kiiver, The Conduct of Subsidiarity Checks of EU Legislative Proposals by National Parliaments: Analysis, Observations and Practical Recommendations

Philipp Kiiver, The Conduct of Subsidiarity Checks of EU Legislative Proposals by National Parliaments: Analysis, Observations and Practical Recommendations (December 5, 2011). ERA Forum, Vol. 12, April 2011. Available at SSRN

 Abstract:

This paper provides a legal and empirical analysis of certain aspects of the European Union’s early warning system for the principle of subsidiarity. It discusses the admissibility criteria for opinions from national parliaments against EU legislative proposals; it considers which principles national parliaments actually apply in these opinions in practice; and it develops practical legal techniques on how to incorporate principles other than subsidiarity in such opinions.

Andreas Von Staden, Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review Beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review

Andreas Von Staden, Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review Beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review (November 21, 2011). Jean Monnet Working Paper (NYU), Forthcoming. Available at SSRN

 Abstract:

Judicial review of the acts of national governments by courts beyond the state raises the question of the democratic legitimacy of such review. In this paper, I outline a position that identifies the ideal of self-government as the core of democracy and argue that in order to be democratically legitimate, judicial review by international courts must be guided by the principle of “normative subsidiarity.” Normative subsidiarity recognizes the legitimate exercise of decision-making authority by national governments in specific contexts as an appropriate instantiation of self-government at that level and, as a result, requires international courts to exercise some deference through appropriately defined judicial standards of review. While a number of international courts have already adopted appropriately deferential standards, I argue that all courts and tribunals engaged in judicial review beyond the state need to address the demands of normative subsidiarity if they want to enhance their specifically democratic legitimacy.

Giuseppe Martinico, Dating Cinderella: On Subsidiarity as a Political Safeguard of Federalism in the European Union

Giuseppe Martinico, Dating Cinderella: On Subsidiarity as a Political Safeguard of Federalism in the European Union, European Public Law, Vol. 17, Iss. 4, 2011, p. 649–660.

 Summary:

The aim of this article is to provide a brief overview of the debate on the subsidiarity principle. Subsidiarity is one of the most ambiguous and debated notions in law, and it definitively belongs to all the legal disciplines, from EU law to constitutional and administrative laws, passing through human rights law. The debate on this principle has been enriched recently by a number of articles and books focused on the new provisions concerning national parliaments included in the Lisbon Treaty.

 When dealing with subsidiarity, the impression, at the first glance, is that of a Cinderella principle because of its evanescent nature (rule or principle?) and of its difficult justiciability. This article suggests that just a strong change in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) case law might transform our Cinderella into a real constitutional principle.

 Despite the vast existing literature, I have decided to focus on a few, in my view, fundamental readings on this point by attempting to describe the noble design behind the introduction of the subsidiarity principle in EU law and the re-evaluation of the weight of this concept in the practice of courts. In doing so, I started from the recent contribution of Robert Schütze, in Chapter 5 of his book, From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: The Changing Structure of European Law, which defines subsidiarity as a ‘political safeguard’ of EU federalism.

 The first part of this article thus will be devoted to the analysis of this work. As will be evident after a few lines, I share the comparative approach chosen by Schütze, but despite this methodological convergence, our conclusions are different.

 In the second part of this article, I will try to show how the interpretation of subsidiarity, as followed by the ECJ, is misleading and, consequently, how the choice of the Lisbon Treaty to rely on the national parliaments as the most suitable watchdogs of subsidiarity has to be regarded as unsatisfactory.

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.

Alex Mills, Federalism in the European Union and the United States: Subsidiarity, Private Law and the Conflict of Laws

Alex Mills, Federalism in the European Union and the United States: Subsidiarity, Private Law and the Conflict of Laws. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 32. Available at SSRN

Abstract:

The United States has long been a source of influence and inspiration to the developing federal system in the European Union. As E.U. federalism matures, increasingly both systems may have the opportunity to profit from each others’ experience in federal regulatory theory and practice. This article analyses aspects of the federal ordering in each system, comparing both historical approaches and current developments. It focuses on three legal topics, and the relationship between them: (1) the federal regulation of matters of private law; (2) rules of the conflict of laws, which play a critical role in regulating cross-border litigation in an era of global communications, travel and trade; and (3) ‘subsidiarity’, which is a key constitutional principle in the European Union, and arguably also plays an implicit and under-analyzed role in U.S. federalism. The central contention of this article is that the treatment of each of these areas of law is related – that they should be understood collectively as part of the range of competing regulatory strategies and techniques of each federal system. It is not suggested that ‘solutions’ from one system can be simply transplanted to the other, but rather that the experiences of each federal order demonstrate the interconnectedness of regulation in these three subject areas, offering important insights from which each system might benefit.

C-453/08, Karanikolas si altii, hotararea din 02.09.2010; navodul mic nu este abrogat de regulamentul mare

C-453/08, Karanikolas și alții, hotararea din 02.09.2010

Prin intrarea in vigoare a unui regulament, dispozitiile nationale nu sunt abrogate (tacit), daca masura nationala nu este contrara dreptului UE, iar aplicarea principiilor se face de catre instanta nationala. Ma intreb de ce s-a mai pus o intrebare preliminara. Sau de ce s-a raspuns…

„Politica comună în domeniul pescuitului – Pescuitul în Marea Mediterană – Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1626/94 – Articolul 1 alineatele (2) și (3) – Interdicția utilizării anumitor tipuri de năvoade – Măsuri suplimentare sau care depășesc criteriile minime instituite prin acest regulament, adoptate anterior intrării în vigoare a regulamentului menționat – Condiții de validitate”

„21. Unealta de pescuit în discuție în reglementarea națională este un năvod turnant mic. Acest tip de năvod este utilizat pentru pescuitul speciilor mici pelagice, precum macroul și sardinele. Tehnica respectivă constă în încercuirea bancului de pești cu năvodul și închiderea părții inferioare cu ajutorul unui colier pentru a‑l transforma în sac, cu scopul de a reține toți peștii încercuiți. În Grecia, se pare că pescarii utilizează mai multe tipuri de năvoade turnante mici, mai precis, cele pentru sardine și clupeide, precum și pentru zărgan și zărgan de Atlantic. Ultimele sunt mai puțin lungi, au înălțime mai mică și ochiurile mai mici. Pe de altă parte, există taliane mari, denumite „gri‑gri”, utilizate pentru pescuitul sardinelor, care nu sunt vizate de măsura de interdicție.”

Comisia despre stiinta si drept:

44. (…)

În sfârșit, Comisia observă că măsura de interdicție în cauză în acțiunea principală datează din anul 1985 și că situația ar trebui examinată din nou, în lumina unor opinii științifice.

Articolul 1 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1626/94 al Consiliului din 27 iunie 1994 de adoptare a unor măsuri tehnice de conservare a resurselor de pește în Marea Mediterană, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2550/2000 al Consiliului din 17 noiembrie 2000, trebuie interpretat în sensul că, pe de o parte, intrarea în vigoare a acestui regulament nu produce efecte cu privire la validitatea unei măsuri naționale suplimentare de interdicție adoptate înainte de această intrare în vigoare și, pe de altă parte, că nu se opune unei astfel de măsuri, cu condiția ca această interdicție să fie în conformitate cu politica comună în domeniul pescuitului, ca măsura amintită să nu depășească ceea ce este necesar pentru atingerea obiectivului urmărit și să nu aducă atingere principiului egalității de tratament, aspecte care trebuie verificate de instanța de trimitere.

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.

CSDE: «Legea aplicabilă obligaţiilor contractuale conform Regulamentului (CE) nr. 593/2008 din 17 iunie 2008 (ROMA I)» (30.10.2009)

Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de la data de 30 octombrie 2009, ora 12,30
la Universitatea Romano-Americana, Bld. Expozitiei, nr. 1B, Amfiteatrul Jean Monnet

 Conferinţa

«Legea aplicabilă obligaţiilor contractuale conform Regulamentului (CE) nr. 593/2008 al Parlamentului European şi al Consiliului din 17 iunie 2008 (Regulamentul ROMA I)»

Program. UPDATING…

Moderator: Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România

Alina Oprea, Regulamentul Roma I şi regimul juridic al normelor imperative

Viviana Onaca, Ioana Burduf, Cauza C-133/08, hotărâre din 6 octombrie 2009 (ICF): prima aplicare a Conventiei de la Roma privind legea aplicabila obligatiilor contractuale

Angela Mîţă-Baciu, Noua reglementare în domeniul legii aplicabile contractelor în Europa şi în statele membre ale UE [New regulation on the applicable law for contracts in Europe and EU Member States]

Bogdan Trandafirescu, Libertatea părţilor în determinarea legii aplicabile contractului de comerţ internaţional din perspectiva Regulamentului Roma I

Anca Melinte, Silvia Axinescu, Legislatia aplicabilă în cadrul contractelor electronice

Anca Ileana Duşcă, Robert Bischin, Unificarea dreptului contractelor – şi rolul ei – în dezvoltarea economiei europene

Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere atât din perspectiva teoreticienilor, cât şi practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi), pornind de la aspecte cheie evidenţiate în jurisprudenţa Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene şi în dreptul derivat comunitar.

Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum, care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.

Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 29 octombrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia, precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.

Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la conferinta sunt disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com

Este încurajată participarea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate anterior dar şi altele referitoare la probleme conexe ce ar putea fi de interes.

Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro

Parteneri:

SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice

Revista Română de Arbitraj

Editura Universul Juridic

Revista Forumul Judecatorilor

Editura Universitară

Editura Wolters Kluwer

Editura Hamangiu

Editura C.H.Beck

Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, https://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.

Comitetul de organizare: Nicolae Turcu, Mihai Banu, Mihai Sandru, Andrei Savescu.

* * *

Documente referitoare la această conferinţă vor fi disponibile la adresa web

https://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/

Nu se percepte taxă de participare. Locurile sunt limitate, înscrierea participanţilor realizându-se în ordinea cronologică a confirmarilor. Sunt aşteptate propuneri de sponsorizare a evenimentului.

Critica publicitatii este permisa. Din nou despre proportionalitate la CEDO

Problema libertatii de expresie a societatilor e cunoscuta. Un nou episod: 

Kuliś si Różycki c. Polonia (CEDO, 6 octombrie 2009, n° 27209/03)

 [sumar]

  Kuliś and Różycki v. Poland (application no. 27209/03)

SANCTION FOR PUBLISHING SATIRICAL CARTOONS UNJUSTIFIED

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) 
of the European Convention on Human Rights

  

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the first applicant 7,200 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Principal facts

The applicants, Mr Mirosław Kuliś and Mr Piotr Różycki, are two Polish nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1946 respectively. The first applicant lives in Łόdź. The second applicant died in 2004.

The first applicant owns a publishing house named “Westa Druk” which publishes a weekly magazine, Angora, and its supplement for children, Angorka. The second applicant was the editor in chief of the magazine.

On 16 May 1999 Angorka published an article referring to an advertising campaign by a company, Star Foods, for its potato crisps. The article was critical of an ad placed by the company onto its crisps packaging which called a popular cartoon character for children “a murderer”. The Angorka article included in particular an image of the cartoon character followed by the statements “Polish children shocked by crisps ad” and “Don’t worry, I would be a murderer too if I ate this muck!”.

The Star Foods Company brought civil proceedings against both applicants seeking an apology, reimbursement of their legal costs and the payment of some money by the applicants to a charity. These claims were granted by the courts who found that the applicants’ article, by using strongly pejorative words which conveyed disgust and repulsion, had discredited the products of the company. The applicants’ subsequent appeals were dismissed.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court 

Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained of the sanctions imposed on them.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 June 2003.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, 
Lech Garlicki (Poland), 
Giovanni Bonello (Malta), 
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), 
Ledi Bianku (Albania), 
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The Court noted that the company’s crisps campaign, although mainly aimed at children, had used slogans with inappropriate content for them. This had clearly raised issues which were of interest and importance for the public.

In addition, the cartoon published in the applicants’ article had been obviously inspired by the company’s advertising campaign as they had used the cartoon character and the slogan which had featured on the crisps packets. The Court accordingly found that the applicants had not aimed to denigrate the quality of the crisps but to raise awareness of the type of slogans used by the company and the unacceptability of such tactics to generate sales.

The Court finally considered that the domestic courts had failed to have regard to the fact that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and in so doing could resort to some exaggeration or even provocation, as had been the situation in the present case. Accordingly, the domestic courts had not justified the sanctions imposed on the applicants, and there had been therefore a violation of Article 10.

***

This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts

Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or

Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 
Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or 
Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

¹ Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. 

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.

(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.

Partidele germane spre un acord asupra viitoarei legi impuse prin decizia Curtii constitutionale federale

Cititi despre asta in Deutsche Welle ori in EUObserver, spre exemplu.

William M. Carter: Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication

William M. Carter, Rethinking Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Adjudication(2009). Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 2009; Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-30. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:

This article suggests that a re-evaluation of the principle of subsidiarity is in order. While I make no sweeping claims that the principle of subsidiarity is always preferable or always undesirable, I do suggest that a close look at the myriad ways in which subsidiarity applies reveals that it may sometimes impede, rather than advance, the cause it purports to serve: namely, achieving universality of human rights. This article identifies situations where subsidiarity is more likely to diminish human rights protections that it is to advance them and suggests that subsidiarity should be abandoned or minimized in such areas.

La final de mandat al Parlamentului European. Dezbatere asupra a 5 rapoarte despre Parlamentul European & Tratatul de la Lisabona

Nu stim daca s-o mai fi scris pana acum, prin „blogosfera” cel putin, despre chestiunea despre care voim a scrie in continuare.

Asadar, Tratatul de la Lisabona a reprezentat, reprezinta si cu siguranta va reprezenta un subiect de discutie/de scris etc. foarte amplu, mai mult sau mai putin pertinent, mai mult sau mai putin detasat etc. Mai interesant este modul in care institutiile UE se raporteaza deja la el. Istoria recenta a acestei raportari o cunoasteti poate (e.g. modul in care Parlamentul European a cerut & impus pastrarea insemnelor UE la care se renuntase ulterior „Constitutiei”).

Parlamentul European l-a dezbatut. Acum, la final de mandat (alegerile bat la usa, nasha?), au fost elaborate 5 rapoarte asupra mentionatului tratat, dupa cum urmeaza:

– Parliament’s new role and responsibilities in implementing the Lisbon Treaty  on the Parliament’s new role and responsibilities implementing the Treaty of Lisbon;

– Institutional balance of the European Union  on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union;

– Relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon  on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon;

– Financial aspects of the Lisbon Treaty;

– Implementation of the citizens’ initiative requesting the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the implementation of the citizens’ initiative

Asadar, precum vedeti, aspecte foarte importante. Puteti citi aceste rapoarte aici (ultima parte a paginii).

Senatul ceh & chestiunea transferului de competente la UE in contextul ratificarii Tratatului de la Lisabona

Czech Senate committee nods to EU-related special mandate of govt

Prague – The special mandate of the government that would bar it from transferring Czech national powers to the EU without the parliament’s consent is sure of being introduced now that the Senate constitutional and legal committee has nodded to the relevant legislation, Senator Jirina Rippelova told CTK.

The committee today approved the amendments to the orders of procedure of the two houses of parliament in view of the possible Czech ratification of the EU’s Lisbon treaty. The amendments secure the special mandate’s observance.

The Senate is to vote on the amendments and on the Lisbon treaty at its plenary session in early May.

Senators for the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), many of whom are known as Eurosceptics, have set the passage of the amendments as a condition for their support of the Lisbon treaty’s ratification.

The treaty cannot make it through the upper house without support of at least some ODS senators, the strongest party in parliament and in the outgoing Czech government.

The lower house approved the Lisbon treaty in February, also by the votes of several ODS deputies.

If the treaty were approved by the Senate as well, it would be submitted to President Vaclav Klaus, its staunch critic, for signing.

The amendments to the two houses’ orders of procedure define the range of possible EU decisions which the Czech government or president would not be able to join on Prague’s behalf without the previous consent from parliament.

These are mainly decisions that would extend the cases of the EU decision-making on the basis of a qualified majority instead of an unanimous vote, and decisions that would extend the EU’s powers beyond its current basic legislation.

In connection with the Lisbon treaty, the amendments also deal with the Czech parliament’s way of discussing EU norms and the Czech parliament’s right to turn to the European Court of Justice and challenge European regulations or decisions over suspected breach of the principle of subsidiarity.

Sursa.

Mislav Mataija, Internal Situations in Community Law: An Uncertain Safeguard of Competences within the Internal Market

Mislav Mataija, Internal Situations in Community Law: An Uncertain Safeguard of Competences within the Internal Market,  February 6, 2009. Columbia Public Law Research. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:
This article deals with the so-called internal situation rule, which prevents the application of European Community law in cases deemed to be confined to one Member State. Rather than focus on possible avenues to avoid the „reverse discrimination” against the actors of the regulating state (e.g. its own nationals) which arises because of the non-application of EC law, I assess the costs and benefits of the rule directly.

The approach to this problem is, first, to conceptualize the internal situation rule as a specific, substantive requirement of EC provisions that assume cross-border movement, and not as an overarching, general principle of EC law. With that in mind, I go on to claim that the rule is largely inadequate for the purpose of protecting Member State competences. Because the rule focuses on cross-border movement in the abstract sense, it does not clearly delineate an „internal” sphere that Member States could regulate independently.

Next, I analyze how the case law of the European Court of Justice has interpreted the internal situation rule in various areas of free movement law, concluding that the rule is overly formalistic and that it fails to distinguish between cases where there is or is not a true impact on the internal market. In addition, I analyze the disparities in its application, arguing that they cannot be accounted for by the differences between, e.g., free movement of goods and free movement of persons.

Finally, I suggest a more substantive approach to defining internal situations, inspired in particular by public procurement and competition case law. Instead of looking for factual cross-border links, I suggest that what should be at stake is the adverse impact of the restriction (Member State legislation, administrative measure, practice etc.) that is being challenged.

GRAINNE DE BURCA, Nu-ul Tratatului de la Lisabona: o problema irlandeza sau europeana?

GRAINNE DE BURCA, The Lisbon Treaty No-Vote: An Irish Problem or a European Problem?, University College Dublin Law Research Paper No. 03/2009 [*]

The Irish No vote to the Lisbon Treaty has been presented by Europe’s political leadership (including Ireland’s political leadership) as essentially an Irish problem. In other words, the no vote was said to reflect concerns specific to the Irish population, and the solution proposed was for the Irish Government to suggest ways for the EU to respond to these concerns so that the Lisbon Treaty could be ratified. This paper examines the reasons why Ireland’s no-vote to Lisbon in 2008 was treated so differently from the French and Dutch no-votes to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005. On that occasion, the no-votes were quickly recognized as a collective European problem rather than as a specifically Dutch or French problem, and it was not long before the Constitutional Treaty in its original form was declared to be dead. The paper argues that although there may have been many plausible reasons for distinguishing between the Constitutional Treaty no-votes and the Lisbon Treaty no-vote, the EU strategy of treating Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as primarily an Irish problem is a short-sighted one. Ireland’s no-vote is merely the latest manifestation of an ongoing crisis of popular legitimacy in the EU, and the European Council’s strategy of treating it as essentially an Irish problem is part of the ongoing failure of Europe’s political leaders to acknowledge the link between this crisis of popular legitimacy and the deliberately de-politicized nature of the European Union.