scholarly journals Cybersecurity in the EU The Example of the Financial Sector: A Legal Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1149-1179
Author(s):  
Christian Calliess ◽  
Ansgar Baumgarten

AbstractCybersecurity in the financial sector is a dynamic and evolving policy field with unique challenges and specific characteristics. While it has recently received a lot of attention from disciplines like Economics and Politics, legal literature on this topic, especially with regard to EU law, still lags behind. This is surprising, given that cybersecurity in the EU is characterized by complex governance structures, a variety of legal sources, and a wide range of different rule makers and involved actors, and given that only a clear legal framework with efficient institutions at both EU and Member State level can provide for a safe digital environment. The purpose of this Article, therefore, is twofold: On the one hand, it aims to introduce the legal aspects of cybersecurity in the financial sector while taking stock of existing cybersecurity schemes, including their strengths and weaknesses from a legal perspective. On the other hand, it will set out key elements that cybersecurity regulation in the financial sector must respect in order to be effective and come up with reform proposals to make the EU financial sector more cybersecure.

Law and World ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 8-13

In the digital era, technological advances have brought innovative opportunities. Artificial intelligence is a real instrument to provide automatic routine tasks in different fields (healthcare, education, the justice system, foreign and security policies, etc.). AI is evolving very fast. More precisely, robots as re-programmable multi-purpose devices designed for the handling of materials and tools for the processing of parts or specialized devices utilizing varying programmed movements to complete a variety of tasks.1 Regardless of opportunities, artificial intelligence may pose some risks and challenges for us. Because of the nature of AI ethical and legal questions can be pondered especially in terms of protecting human rights. The power of artificial intelligence means using it more effectively in the process of analyzing big data than a human being. On the one hand, it causes loss of traditional jobs and, on the other hand, it promotes the creation of digital equivalents of workers with automatic routine task capabilities. “Artificial intelligence must serve people, and therefore artificial intelligence must always comply with people’s rights,” said Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission.2 The EU has a clear vision of the development of the legal framework for AI. In the light of the above, the article aims to explore the legal aspects of artificial intelligence based on the European experience. Furthermore, it is essential in the context of Georgia’s European integration. Analyzing legal approaches of the EU will promote an approximation of the Georgian legislation to the EU standards in this field. Also, it will facilitate to define AI’s role in the effective digital transformation of public and private sectors in Georgia.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica García Quesada

AbstractFailures of compliance with European Union (EU) directives have revealed the EU as a political system capable of enacting laws in a wide range of different policy areas, but facing difficulties to ensure their actual implementation. Although the EU relies on national enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with the EU legislation, there is scarce analysis of the differential deterrent effect of national enforcement in EU law compliance. This article examines the enforcement of an EU water directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, in Spain and the UK. It focuses on the existing national sanctions for disciplining actors in charge of complying with EU requirements, and on the actual use of punitive sanctions. The analysis shows that a more comprehensive and active disciplinary regime at the national level contributes to explain a higher degree of compliance with EU law. The article calls for a detailed examination of the national administrative and criminal sanction system for a more comprehensive understanding of the incentives and disincentives to comply with EU law at the national state level.


2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.


2021 ◽  
pp. 145-156
Author(s):  
Karol Piwoński

The aim of this article is to analyse the position and role of the European Commission in the procedure provided in the regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the European Union’s budget. For this purpose the scheme of this procedure was analysed, by interpreting the relevant regulations using the dogmatic method and considering opinions of the EU institutions and views of the scholars. A comparative method has also been applied. The new position of the Commission in the procedure for protection of the EU budget has been compared with the position it plays in the existing instruments. The analysis made from the point of view of the position of individual institutions in the new procedure, although it does not allow predicting how they will be implemented. The conducted analysis demonstrates that the European Commission – an institution of Community character – has gained wide competences, and in applying them it has been given a wide range of discretion. On the one hand, the introduced regulations exemplify a new paradigm in creating mechanisms for protection of the rule of law. On the other hand, they raise doubts as to their compliance with EU law. However, they undoubtedly constitute a decisive step towards increasing the effectiveness of the EU's instruments for the rule of law protection.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-54
Author(s):  
Peter Ludlow

The three European Council meetings which are discussed in these Notes covered a wide range of subjects and included sessions with the new US president and NATO's secretary general. They were nevertheless dominated by the pandemic and more particularly by the efforts of the EU and its member states to vaccinate their citizens as rapidly as possible. It was not an easy task and the EU rollout during the first three months of 2021 was significantly slower than that of either the UK or the US. There were many explanations, including the European Commission's failure to invest enough money early enough, inefficiencies at member state level and the production difficulties of the manufacturers in general and of AstraZeneca in particular. As the months have passed, many if not most of these difficulties seem, however, to be less consequential than they did at the time. The Commission and most of the member states learned from and made good their early failures and, AstraZeneca apart, BioNTech and the other manufacturers succeeded in delivering even more vaccines than they had promised to do. These improvements were already beginning to make themselves felt before the end of the first quarter. They were not widely acknowledged however, either inside or outside the political class. Partly because good news is always slow to drive out bad news, but still more because the debate about the vaccination rollout was driven by forces which were only loosely connected with the pandemic, including in particular the German-German debate in an election year, the British government's need to find and proclaim a post-Brexit success and the blunders of the European Commission's president. The politics of the rollout are indeed as interesting as, if not more interesting than the objective challenges which policymakers grappled with. Above all because the process highlighted once again the significance of the European Council. Despite strong countervailing pressures in the media, which continued to propagate the story of 'Europe's failure' and widespread dislike of von der Leyen's management style, the European Council maintained its commitment to an EU-wide rollout strategy and endorsed a string of initiatives, including an EU certificate, which aimed to defend the Union against the corrosive effects of the pandemic. The non-Covid business which the European Council addressed between January and March may have been overshadowed by the pandemic but it was far from unimportant, and the debates which it provoked anticipated both the concerns and the language of European Council discussions later in the year about the EU's role in a rapidly changing world order. The sessions with Jens Stoltenberg and Joe Biden in February and March respectively were reassuring rather than dramatic, but it was already apparent, particularly in the debate before and during the February meeting, that the lines between 'Atlanticists' and 'Europeans' have shifted significantly and that the buzz words of the emerging EU consensus – 'resilience', 'the reduction of dependencies' and 'a European capacity for autonomous action' – were well on the way to becoming common currency.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45
Author(s):  
Marko Stankovic ◽  
Bojan Milisavljević

The paper analyzes Serbian system of local self-government under the Constitution of 2006 and its possible improvements. There are two major aspects of reform. On the one side, there are weaknesses in internal law and practice that were detected in last three decades and six concrete proposals for their correction. On the other side, considering that Serbia negotiates on integration with the EU, some improvements of the system should be a result of that process, fully in accordance with the European standards of local self-government. Reforming the local self-government in both of these directions should lead to better legal framework in the Republic of Serbia and upgrading the constitutional system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-237
Author(s):  
Iryna Ratynska

The article analyzes the features of the existing legal framework of strategic management of state joint-stock companies in Ukraine. It was established that Ukraine has formed a regulatory framework for the management of state-owned companies, which is typical for a decentralized system of management of state-owned objects. It was covered that the for-mation of the modern regulatory framework of this activity took place in 3 stages. For all stages, it is characteristic that at each of them long-term planning of development of the public sector of the economy had declarative, exclusively formal character. It was found that on the one hand, in the current national legislation, at the state level of management of joint-stock companies of the public sector of the economy, an unlimited number of too detailed program and forecast documents are recorded. On the other hand, the priority and coordination of such documents have not been established. In addition, the attention is focused on the fact that in the national legislation there was a consolidation of the contradiction between the strategic and operational management of state joint-stock companies.


Author(s):  
Bohinc Rado

Social enterprises are very diverse across Europe. There is a wide range of different legislative approaches and different organisational and legal forms on the national level. In some countries, existing legal forms such as associations, foundations, cooperatives and share companies are used as social enterprises. In other countries, new legal forms are designed for social enterprises by adapting existing legal forms (companies, cooperatives), e.g. social cooperatives in Italy, cooperative collective interest companies in France, community interest companies in the UK.The reason for the variety of approaches how to implement the idea of social enterprise, is in the lack of uniform binding rules on the level of the EU. Here, we present our views on the legal framework needed to implement the concept of social entrepreneurship in the EU in a more efficient and effective manner.First, we present a range of definition of social entrepreneurship and enterprises, many of them not consistent and/or sufficiently elaborated. Further, some historical roots are presented on social and self-managed economy, and the concept of social enterprise is elaborated from the point of view of its eligibility. Comparative analysis aims to prove critical diversity of approaches across the EU that leads to stagnating in place and lagging behind.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Iryna Iefremova ◽  
Iryna Lomakina ◽  
Nataliia Obiiukh

In the context of exacerbation of environmental problems that are global in nature, it is necessary to assess the opportunities and development prospects of environmental policy not only at the international level, but also at the regional European level. In this regard, the focus of our article is to consider the problem of protecting groundwater as a strategic natural resource and to analyze the practice of applying European directives on water quality and protection of groundwater in EU countries. In the EU, the basic legal framework for water protection is defined in the Water Framework Directive that determines the need to develop monitoring programs and basin water management plans to improve the quality of water in the EU by the member states. However, taking into account the fact that groundwater, especially drinking artesian water, is vulnerable to pollution, improvement of the legal groundwater protection system and the search for rational groundwater protection practices implemented in the EU countries are vitally necessary. Therefore, the paper aims to explore the ways of EU legislation development in the field of water resources protection, identifying the main areas of groundwater protection and analyzing the legal means used in certain EU countries, in particular, Austria, Germany, as well as identifying priorities and objectives for Ukraine on the way to integration into the system of European water legislation. Keywords: EU legislation, groundwater, groundwater pollution, groundwater use, water management, water protection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document