scholarly journals Increasing Legal Certainty without Trust: Why Regulation 2019/515 Cannot Achieve the Unachievable

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Benjamin JAN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Past

More than 40 years after Cassis de Dijon, the mutual recognition in the field of goods is still a failure. The promise of this principle for ensuring both market access and regulatory diversity has not been kept. Therefore, today, businesses rarely rely on mutual recognition to sell their products in another Member State. In an attempt to stimulate this procedure further, the European Union legislator tried to simplify the procedures to be followed by businesses and public administrations through Regulation 2019/515. This article argues that, although the Regulation creates more legal certainty, it fundamentally fails to address the underlying problem of lack of trust that has stalled mutual recognition in the past.

The New Transformation of Europe: Arcana Imperii

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-185
Author(s):  
Leone Niglia
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Structural Transformation ◽  
Monetary Union ◽  
Economic And Monetary Union ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Past

Abstract The European Union is undergoing a structural transformation—a regression from integration through law as an anti-hegemonic project of equal membership to a condition in which member state orders, under a transformed European Union law, gravitate around unequal relations of subordination. Alongside the surveillance mechanisms that constrain the member states to conform to the requirements of the Economic and Monetary Union are private law arrangements (the “memoranda of understanding” qua “contracts”) that equally, and with greater force, produce subordination. Adopting a critical comparative-historical approach, this Article delves into Europe’s collective legal memory, and the past of colonial relations, to make intelligible the deployment of the memoranda contracts whose harsh terms have been dramatically changing the condition of the “debtor countries” for the worse; in the arcana of private law lies the truth about the changing condition of sovereign power in contemporary Europe and about the potential to change direction and counter the “jurisdomination” turn.

Tax Law and the Internal Market: A Critique of the Principle of Mutual Recognition

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 189-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Functional Equivalence ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Regulatory Regimes

AbstractThe principle of mutual recognition tests a potential breach of internal market treaty provisions and restricts the scope for a Member State to justify a breach by reference to what happens, or has happened, in a different Member State. The principle of mutual recognition is a distinct principle to that of non-discrimination and does not apply by reference to the functional equivalence of Member States’ regulatory regimes. Mutual recognition has been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as a distinct principle (perhaps a general principle) of EU Law, quite separate to the settled principles of non-discrimination and prohibition of obstacles to market access. The principle of mutual recognition entrenches a neo-functionalist model of the Union project and acts as an accelerant to the harmonisation of the domestic regimes of Member States which are subject to its application, in areas where harmonisation is realistically possible. In areas where harmonisation is not realistically possible, the application of the internal market by reference to the principle of mutual recognition sets aside non-internal-market-compliant Member States’ regulatory provisions, leaving an unsatisfactory space in these regulatory regimes. However, the principle of mutual recognition is, in the light of the application of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition of obstacles to market access, quite unnecessary and operates to frustrate legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member States.

15. Harmonisation

2020 ◽  
pp. 340-357
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Individual Action ◽  
Member States ◽  
General Power ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the effectiveness of harmonisation in removing barriers to the four freedoms of the internal market in the European Union (EU). It explains the degree of variation amongst negative, positive, total and minimum harmonisation. It considers the relationship between mutual recognition and harmonisation and discusses concerns regarding the freedom of Member States to take individual action in harmonised fields and Member State competence. It evaluates the scope of the EU’s power to enact harmonising measures in the context of the internal market and the extent to which the Union effectively has a general power to regulate. The chapter also discusses the relevant procedures of Articles 114 and 115 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Von Bahr lernen? Anregungen für eine neue Russlandpolitik

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 124-128
Author(s):  
Matthias Dembinski ◽  
Vera Rogova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Transatlantic Relations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
International Support ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The 1960S

Egon Bahr’s 1963 speech outlined ways to achieve rapprochement with the Soviet Union through mutual recognition. The article asks in how far this approach can be useful for the current crisis in Russian-Western relations. It demonstrates that the policy-of-strength-approach has not reached the desired results so far, so that a change in strategy is needed. Along Bahr’s line of argument, it shows that functional separation can help to reduce tensions. If this strategy succeeds, cooperation in fields of mutual interests - that has been low in the past years - should be revived. However, unlike the 1960s, there is a lack of international support for rapprochement with significant divides both within the transatlantic relations and within the European Union.

Les héritages chrétiens: quel avenir?

Moreana ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (Number 176) (1) ◽  
pp. 175-190
Author(s):  
Bernard Bourdin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Religious Affiliation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
The Past ◽  
Religious Significance ◽  
Politics And Religion

The legacy from Christianity unquestionably lies at the root of Europe, even if not exclusively. It has taken many aspects from the Middle Ages to modern times. If the Christian heritage is diversely understood and accepted within the European Union, the reason is essentially due to its political and religious significance. However, its impact in politics and religion has often been far from negative, if we will consider what secular societies have derived from Christianity: human rights, for example, and a religious affiliation which has been part and parcel of national identity. The Christian legacy has to be acknowledged through a critical analysis which does not deny the truth of the past but should support a European project built around common values.

EU-China Student and Academic Staff Mobility: Present Situation and Future Developments

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Mathou ◽  
Jin Yan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Academic Staff ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Research Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
The Past ◽  
Comprehensive Information

Abstract The objective of this study was to provide comprehensive information about student and academic staff mobility between the European Union (EU) and China as well as the main strategies and policies in place to promote mobility. Based on quantitative and qualitative data provided by national authorities and various stakeholders consulted throughout the research process, the study aimed at taking stock of the situation and identifying trends regarding EU-China learning mobility over the past ten years. It also aimed at drawing recommendations to improve current and future mobility actions between the two regions.

ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS IN ARBITRAL AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT IN EUROPE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-415
Author(s):  
Ewelina Kajkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Brussels Regulation

THE status of anti-suit injunctions in Europe has long given rise to controversy. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-536/13, Gazprom OAO [2015] All E.R. (EC) 711 sheds a new light on the relationship between anti-suit injunctions and the European jurisdiction regime embodied in the Brussels Regulation (Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In this much anticipated judgment, the Court of Justice confirmed that, by virtue of the arbitration exclusion in Article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels Regulation, Member State courts are not precluded from enforcing anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitration tribunals and aimed at restraining the proceedings before Member State courts. Although the decision was given before the Recast Brussels Regulation came into force (Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, effective from 10 January 2015), it can be assumed that the same conclusion would have been reached under the new law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document