Nordic gambling markets and the possibilities for state-level control1

2006 ◽  
pp. 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Cisneros Örnberg

Gambling has gone through considerable changes during recent decades with new forms of gambling, increased turnover, and increasingly extensive marketing of different modes of gambling. At the same time, the monopolistic structure of state-controlled gambling has been questioned by media and private actors on national and European Union (EU) levels. The focus has increasingly ended up on legal interpretations of the possibilities of and the obstacles for state regulation, which has recently placed Nordic gambling monopolies under scrutiny. The purpose of this article is to clarify the legal arrangements for gambling in the Nordic countries and also how the different countries have chosen to react to increased pressure for deregulation of this area. The article describes how gambling is regulated in the five different countries and analyses what parts of the legal framework of the EU are a threat to the existing gambling systems in these countries.

Author(s):  
Graham Butler

Not long after the establishment of supranational institutions in the aftermath of the Second World War, the early incarnations of the European Union (EU) began conducting diplomacy. Today, EU Delegations (EUDs) exist throughout the world, operating similar to full-scale diplomatic missions. The Treaty of Lisbon established the legal underpinnings for the European External Action Service (EEAS) as the diplomatic arm of the EU. Yet within the international legal framework, EUDs remain second-class to the missions of nation States. The EU thus has to use alternative legal means to form diplomatic missions. This chapter explores the legal framework of EU diplomatic relations, but also asks whether traditional missions to which the VCDR regime applies, can still be said to serve the needs of diplomacy in the twenty-first century, when States are no longer the ultimate holders of sovereignty, or the only actors in international relations.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Vincent DELHOMME

Amidst a growing interest from European Union (EU) Member States, the European Commission recently announced that it would put forward a legislative proposal for the adoption of a harmonised and mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme at the EU level. The present contribution discusses the implications of such an adoption, taking a behavioural, legal and policy angle. It introduces first the concept of front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the existing evidence regarding its effects on consumer behaviour and dietary habits. It then presents the legal framework currently applicable to (front-of-pack) nutrition labelling in the EU and discusses some of the main political and practical aspects involved with the development of a common EU front-of-pack label.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-91
Author(s):  
L. S. Voronkov

The paper is dedicated to the differences between the classical instruments for regulating interstate political and trade-economic relations from those used in the development of regional integration processes. Traditionally, the Eurasian Economic Union is compared with the European Union, considering the EU as a close example to follow in the development of integration processes. At the same time, there exist the other models of integration. The author proposes to pay attention to the other models of integration and based on the analysis of documents, reveals the experience of Northern Europe, which demonstrates effective cooperation without infringing on the sovereignty of the participants. The author examines the features of the integration experience of the Nordic countries in relation to the possibility of using its elements in the modern integration practice of the Eurasian Economic Union.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner

The European Union (EU) has supported the growing calls for the creation of an international legal framework to safeguard data protection rights. At the same time, it has worked to spread its data protection law to other regions, and recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reaffirmed the autonomous nature of EU law and the primacy of EU fundamental rights law. The tension between initiatives to create a global data protection framework and the assertion of EU data protection law raises questions about how the EU can best promote data protection on a global level, and about the EU’s responsibilities to third countries that have adopted its system of data protection.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
James Gallagher

<p>The European Union (EU) has undergone constant political and economic integration since its inception in 1952. It has developed from a community in the aftermath of World War Two, into a Union of diverse states with its own political and legal system. It is the best example of international integration and co-operation in the world.  A number of treaties represent the primary law of the EU. The treaties represent the EU’s commitment to promote human rights, freedom, democracy, equality, and the rule of law. The Treaty of Lisbon¹ was introduced and adopted by the Member States to increase participatory democracy within the EU. Originally called the Reform Treaty, it amended the existing EU and EC treaties, providing the EU with the legal framework to meet the future challenges and to respond to the increasing demands of the citizens’ for a more transparent and open institution.  The European Parliament is the only directly elected institution of the EU, and traditionally had the least amount of power of the EU institutions. The Lisbon Treaty attempted to address the so-called democratic deficit through a range of institutional reforms that recognised the importance of European citizen involvement in the EU. Citizen involvement in the EU has also been increased through the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). The ECI represents a further step towards the EU becoming a true participatory democracy.  This purpose of this paper is to critically assess the democratic involvement of European citizens in the operation of the EU, and how the constitutional foundation of the EU provides for this involvement. The paper will seek to answer to what extent European Citizens’ have the ability to affect real and meaningful change upon the EU, a power that currently sits with the governments of Member States.  Democracy is often associated with the power of the citizens to affect change in the institutions that govern them. The theory of constituent power goes one step further and argues that it gives citizens the ability to alter not only the governing institutions, but the also the power that those institutions exercise. This begins with an introduction of the main institutions of the EU, before moving to discuss the theory of constituent power, before assessing what factors would be necessary for constitutent power to be successful in the EU.  ¹ Official Journal of the European Union 2007 No C 306/1 (herein after referred to as the Treaty of Lisbon). Adopted 2008, entered into force 1 December 2009.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-486
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Samoilova

Abstract With all eyes on the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, another pandemic has been growing in the shadows: violence against women. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention creates a legal framework in order to protect women against all forms of violence. Its ratification process, however, has faced considerable challenges, particularly in the Central and Eastern European Member States. This article discusses the basic elements of the Istanbul Convention, reflects on the ratification process in the EU and its Member States, and sets out the main legal issues raised in the European Parliament’s request for an opinion (A-1/19 of 22 November 2019) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Special focus is put on the choice of the correct EU legal basis and the practices of ‘splitting’ and ‘common accord’. This article argues that the European Parliament’s request for an opinion provides the perfect opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to further clarify the law and the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its Member States.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-307
Author(s):  
George Pavlidis

In order to enhance the existing legal framework on asset recovery, the European Union (EU) will have to apply a ‘no safe haven’ policy to the proceeds of corruption and use all appropriate legal tools. We argue that a new EU instrument on asset recovery, modelled after the Swiss Law on Asset Recovery, would be a valuable addition to the EU’s legal arsenal against corruption, in compliance with its commitments under the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Such an EU instrument will deal specifically with the EU’s power to block the assets of foreign politically exposed persons (PEPs) and eventually facilitate restitution of these assets. Following the model of the Swiss law, a reversal of the burden of proof as to the origin of PEPs’ assets could be introduced in the new EU instrument. Judicial review should be wide enough to ensure fairness to the affected PEPs, balancing the new powers of the Council of the EU.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-99
Author(s):  
Enkelejda Turkeshi

Illegal waste management activities violate specific rules that aim at preventing or reducing the negative effects they may have on the environment and human health. For the purpose of providing a more effective protection of the environment, in many countries and since 2008 even at the European Union (EU) level, besides the relevant administrative offences, it is also provided for a specific criminal offence against environment concerning serious infringements of the waste management legislation. This paper examines the current legal framework in Albania concerning waste-related criminal offences, against the minimum standard set forth by the EU in the Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of environment through criminal law. While the adoption of the new framework law on Integrated Waste Management in 2011 as part of Albania’s efforts in aligning its legislation to that of the EU, has been a positive step towards more stringent rules concerning waste management, thus helping in tackling the serious and constantly evolving problems that the country has been facing in this field for years, the paper suggests that certain amendments to the Criminal Code are also necessary, as the minimum standard of the EU requires that criminal law applies at least in the case of particularly serious infringements of the new waste management legislation. These amendments would increase the protection of the environment and further the alignment of the Albanian legislation with that of the EU, while the country is seeking to fulfill obligations for EU membership.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document