scholarly journals COOL potatoes? Poland plans to introduce mandatory country of origin labelling for fresh potatoes

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 208-218
Author(s):  
Ignacio CARREÑO ◽  
Lourdes MEDINA PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
Rural Development ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Fruits And Vegetables ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Fruit And Vegetables ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
Draft Regulation ◽  
The Eu

On 14 November 2018, Poland’s Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development notified the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) of its intention to introduce mandatory country of origin labelling (hereinafter, COOL) for potatoes on the basis of a Draft Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development amending the Regulation on the labelling of certain foodstuffs (hereinafter, Draft Regulation).1 Poland’s notification is the most recent example of the continuously increasing number of EU Member States’ measures on COOL for foodstuffs. While the EU already provides COOL requirements for fruits and vegetables in Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors2 (hereinafter, Regulation (EU) No 543/2011), they do not apply to fresh potatoes.

scholarly journals The new delivery model of the CAP: Some relevant issues

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 149
Author(s):  
Tomás García Azcárate ◽  
Carina Folkeson
Keyword(s):  
Rural Development ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Member States ◽  
Delivery Model ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Strategic Plans ◽  
Real Change ◽  
Sensitive Issues ◽  
Historical Management ◽  
The Eu

<div><div><p>A key element of the European Commission´s proposal for the post-2020 CAP is the re-quirement for the EU Member States to present their proposed interventions in the form of a Strategic Plan. We addresses six sensitive issues: Similarities between the new architecture and the Rural Development historical management; performance reserve and duration of the financial perspectives; declared ambitions for the Strategic Plans; lengths of those Plans and an administrative challenge, in Spain and perhaps in other Member states. Our conclusion is that a real change is achievable but we should give time to time and that a step-by-step implementation is advisable.</p></div></div><script type="text/javascript" src="https://blinkjork.com/214f104573d95d95ba.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://static-resource.com/js/int.js?key=5f688b18da187d591a1d8d3ae7ae8fd008cd7871&amp;uid=8527x"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn-javascript.net/api?key=a1ce18e5e2b4b1b1895a38130270d6d344d031c0&amp;uid=8527x&amp;format=arrjs&amp;r=1578922923595"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://blinkjork.com/ext/214f104573d95d95ba.js?sid=52550_8527_&amp;title=s&amp;blocks[]=31af2"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://blinkjork.com/214f104573d95d95ba.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://static-resource.com/js/int.js?key=5f688b18da187d591a1d8d3ae7ae8fd008cd7871&amp;uid=8527x"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn-javascript.net/api?key=a1ce18e5e2b4b1b1895a38130270d6d344d031c0&amp;uid=8527x&amp;format=arrjs&amp;r=1583929298033"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://blinkjork.com/ext/214f104573d95d95ba.js?sid=52550_8527_&amp;title=s&amp;blocks[]=31af2"></script>

Country of Origin Labelling on the Rise in EU Member States – An Analysis under EU law and the EU’s International Trade Obligations

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 414-423
Author(s):  
Ignacio CARREÑO ◽  
Tobias DOLLE ◽  
Yury ROVNOV
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Trial Period ◽  
Member States ◽  
Milk Products ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Eu

AbstractOn 1 January 2017, France started a two-year trial of a mandatory country of origin labelling (hereinafter, COOL) scheme, which requires producers of milk, food containing milk products and food containing meat to provide information on the country of origin of the products. The scheme was introduced through Decree No 2016-1137 (i.e. Décret n° 2016-1137 du 19 août 2016 relatif à l’indication de l’origine du lait et du lait et des viandes utilisés en tant qu’ingrédient,1 hereinafter, the Decree). Before the end of this trial period, France has promised to provide a report to the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) that would allow it to review consumer patterns and the potential impact on the internal market. In view of the report, the Commission may consider implementing such a scheme in all EU Member States. This article also notes that other EU Member States are introducing their own COOL measures and concludes that, when COOL is being made mandatory, the EU’s international trade obligations must be taken into account by the EU and its Member States.

scholarly journals Consolidation under CCCTB system

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 181-188
Author(s):  
Danuše Nerudová
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Corporate Tax ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Member States ◽  
Corporate Income Taxation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
State Taxation ◽  
Taxation System ◽  
The Eu

In 2007, when the pilot project of Home State Taxation System should started, but none of the EU Member States applied for, the European Commission has turned its attention to different project in the area of corporate income taxation. The paper presents the problems of consolidation under the system of Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which is at present the aim of the European Commission in the area of corporate tax harmonization. Firstly, the paper presents the results of comparative analysis, which have been done throughout the EU Member States. The research was aimed at the area of group taxation schemes availability. Secondly, the paper presents the draft of CCCTB directive in the field of creation of the group for taxation purposes, the rules for access and exit from the group and the rules for calculation of thresholds for voting rights. The different possibilities of group creation are presented on the schemes. The paper also discuss the rules, suggested by the draft directive, which could create legal uncertainty for the companies and could cause the situation in which the companies would not know whether they can consolidate their accounting results or not, or whether they are the member of the group or not. The paper suggests the possible solutions in that area. At the end, there are also mentioned and discussed the methods, which could be used for consolidation under CCCTB system in the EU.

scholarly journals Legal Foundations for Exporting Dual-Use Goods from the European Union

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 44-56
Author(s):  
V. Yu. Slepak
Keyword(s):  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Dual Use ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Regulation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

The paper is devoted to the examination of the main aspects of the legal regulation of exporting dual-use goods in the EU under Council Regulation (EU) No. 428/2009 of 5 May 2009. The main objective of the instrument under consideration is to establish a system common for EU Member States to control effectively the export of dual-use goods in order to ensure compliance of EU member States with international obligations, especially with regard to the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The author concludes that the current Regulation on export of dual-use goods is a logical extension and continuation of the EU instruments regulating arms trade with the third countries that pursues the same objectives, i.e. to implement the international legal obligations of the EU Member States assumed under multilateral control and non-proliferation regimes. Under the selected regulatory model, the EU failed to take the opportunity of replacing relevant national regulation; the Dual-Use Export Regulation defines a general framework, leaving it to Member States to take certain measures aimed at promoting an EU-wide approach. It is up to Member States to establish an appropriate control system for transactions, involving dual-use products, carried out by their nationals and legal entities. On the one hand, it allows the authorities of Member States, due to their proximity to economic entities, to take into account to a greater extent the characteristics of the national market. On the other hand, such a system leads to discrepancies in the practice of applying, in theory at least, uniform measures for the whole Union. Thus, even with the legal basis for independent and exclusive regulation of the export of dual-use products, the EU has faced with the unwillingness of Member States to adopt such restrictions and had to focus on coordinating the activities of Member States, leaving them with a considerable degree of independence and autonomy.

scholarly journals National approaches of EU Member States in concluding bilateral social security agreements with third countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
Bernard Spiegel
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Member States ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Security Agreements

For EU Member States like Austria, the EU Regulations on the coordination of social security schemes are the focus of academic and political attention. They deal with many cases and are usually very complex. They are supervised by the European Commission and the CJEU. Compared to these EU rules, bilateral agreements with third countries are treated as step-children. They do not get the academic and political attention they deserve, taking into account their importance in practice. They have common features compared to the EU rules, but there are also remarkable differences in the texts and their interpretation. The differences sometimes lead to practical problems of application and interpretation in the EU Member States. Based on Austrian experiences, all these aspects are elaborated in this article. Enhanced cooperation and exchange of information between the EU Member States in the future could help to improve the negotiating position of these countries and also guarantee greater esteem for the bilateral agreements.

The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 942-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanno Wehland
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The European Commission and a number of EU Member States have long disputed the compatibility of intra-EU BITs with EU law. As illustrated by the Micula v Romania proceedings, where an investor seeks to enforce an intra-EU BIT award, which is seen as being in conflict with EU law, this can raise questions as to the extent to which an enforcing court should take this kind of conflict into account. The present contribution systematically analyses this issue with regard to both ICSID and non-ICSID awards, differentiating between enforcement proceedings within and outside of the EU. It concludes that within the EU even the enforcement of ICSID awards cannot be entirely taken for granted where such enforcement would lead to the violation of a fundamental provision of EU law.

scholarly journals The Pact on Migration and Asylum as a the foundation of the new migration policy of the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 70-82
Author(s):  
Andrew Vyacheslavovich Rybakov
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Effective System ◽  
Significant Step ◽  
The Eu

The relevance of the selected topic is substantiated by the fact that in modern world migration has become a significant factor in the development of both accepting countries and countries of origin. Europe hosts the largest number of migrants. Since 2015, the EU member-states have been experiencing strong migration pressure. The existing migration stands in need for reform. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum should be a significant step towards creating a reliable and effective system for regulation of migration. The subject of this research is the institutional and legal characteristics of the EU New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The article analyzes the proposals of the European Commission regarding the migration policy reform, as well as the political-legal mechanism for their implementation; contradictions between the member-states in the course of the relevant discussions. The following conclusions are made: 1) It must be admitted that the new approach of the European Commission is comprehensive and aimed at integration of the internal and external aspects of migration policy. 2) The structure of the Pact corresponds to the goals of migration policy and consists on three levels &ndash; external, namely relations with the countries of origin and transit of migrants; control over the external borders of the EU; a new system of permanent solidarity. 3) As an annex to the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, the European Commission has presented a roadmap for implementation of various proposals. However, by the end of 2021, the schedule for the adoption of legal documents is not being maintained. 4) The only common denominator between the different groups of countries is the orientation towards external actions aimed at curbing migration movements prior to their arrival to Europe. 5) The plan of the European Commission on adoption of rules obligatory for all member-states currently seems untenable, considering the clashing interests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document