scholarly journals European law, national law and (un)certainty of law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-177
Author(s):  
Gian Benacchio
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
Radical Shift ◽  
The Eu

One of the fundamental values of any legal system is the principle of certainty of law, whose highest expression is its encoding in the various bodies of law. However, today this value is strongly, albeit inadvertently, called into question by the European Union - in particular, by a set of principles, and related mechanisms, designed to ensure uniformity of law across the EU Member States. These include the principle of primacy of EU law over the laws of its Member States, the principle of the disapplication of national laws that are incompatible with EU law (including the provisions of directives that have not yet been implemented, or that have implemented in a manner deemed incorrect), the principle of interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law and, above all, the conclusive and binding effect of the judgments of the EU Court of Justice even when they provide a 'unique' or unusual interpretation, not expressly provided for in EU law. These principles are now well-established benchmarks in supreme and national courts as well, to the extent that there has been a radical shift in the system and hierarchy of sources of law in each legal system of the EU Member States, at the expense of citizens, businesspeople and legal practitioners, who all find it hard to identify the exact rule to apply to specific cases.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

scholarly journals New Challenges for European Comparative Law: The Judicial Reception of EU Non-Discrimination Law and a turn to a Multi-layered Culturally-informed Comparative Law Method for a better Understanding of the EU Harmonization

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jule Mulder
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Culturally Informed ◽  
Harmonization Process ◽  
Legal Harmonization ◽  
The Eu

This article argues that comparative law needs to explore its critical potential when engaging with the European harmonization process and its effects on the law of the Member States. In the first part, the article evaluates existing comparative law methods and their suitability to identify legal and cultural factors that influence the judicial reception of EU harmonized law on a national level. Using EU non-discrimination law as a case study, it questions to what extent traditional methods are suitable to explain differences in the national judicial reception of EU harmonized law, despite the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret EU law. In doing so, it considers the potential of critical comparative law for the development of a deeper understanding of the national courts' reception of EU harmonized law as a key part of the broader legal harmonization process. In the second part, the article develops an original multi-layered culturally informed method to compare EU harmonized law. The proposal goes beyond the existing methods of comparative law by including critical aspects and stressing the relevance of embedding a general normative framework in any comparative critique. It challenges comparatists to reach deeply into national cultural spheres and to identify key influences on the application of EU rules and EU-national legal ‘hybrids’. The method creates room for multi-layered narratives of comparison aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the national legal and non-legal cultural background that can hinder or facilitate harmonization processes. This enriched comparative critique can offer new insights into the process of legal harmonization in the EU, particularly by focusing on the point of application rather than the previous phases of creation of EU law and its reception by Member States.

scholarly journals Waste Management at the Local Level in the EU and Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 329
Author(s):  
Viktor Ladychenko ◽  
Olha Melnychuk ◽  
Liudmyla Golovko ◽  
Oksana Burmak
Keyword(s):  
Waste Management ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Municipal Waste ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Waste Policy ◽  
Solid Municipal Waste ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of theoretical and practical issues related to the implementation of the responsibilities of bodies of local self-government for the management of solid municipal waste according to the Waste Framework Directive. Experience of EU Member States in this sphere was studied. The state of adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to the requirements of the European Union in the field of waste management has been investigated and proposals for implementation of experience of EU member states were made. Keywords: EU waste policy, EU law, waste management, municipal waste, adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to EU law

scholarly journals References for a Preliminary Ruling to the European Union Court of Justice: The Substantive Criteria of Admissibility

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 131-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena A. Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Acceptability Criteria ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure as stipulated by Article 276 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union had a significant impact on the de-ve lop ment of EU law and became a collaborative tool as part of the dialogue bet-ween supranational and national judges.The mechanism of preliminary ruling enables to ensure a uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all member states and consti tutes an instrumental element for preserving the uniformity of the European legal system.When developing the mechanism of preliminary ruling at EU level one consi-dered constitutional & legal traditions of member states, however, for long periods, the EU was perceived as "exotic" one and its impact on the national law was often underesti mated. Initially there were no any clear concepts how the mechanism of preliminary ruling would work. The EU court encouraged national judges of member states to use this mechanism; however, gradually it started introducing certain acceptability criteria in respect of such requests.The practice of the EU Court was summarized in the updated Rules of Procedure of 25 September 2012. During the period from 2014 to 2018, the number of cases sub mitted for preliminary ruling procedure was increasingly growing. Consequently, natio nal courts had started using this procedure relatively intensively and the con so-li dation of acceptability criteria created no serious problems for them.The imposition by the EU Court of minimal requirements towards the substance of requests does not reduce their number, since the acknowledgement of a re quest as inadmissible does not prevent a national court from sending a repeated re quest. However, it contributes to the improvement of quality and efficiency of the pre li mi-nary ruling procedure. The establishment of the respective requirements is necessary to ensure that the EU Court could provide national courts with an interpretation of EU law useful for resolution of a specific dispute and ensure constructiveness of the dialogue.

The Rights of Turkish Immigrants in the European Union

1998 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Turkish Immigrants ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Turkish Migrants ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe main purpose of this article is to provide a framework of international legal conventions which may amount to an 'umbrella regime' for EU member states as regards their treatment of Turkish migrants, thus supplementing the protection already available in domestic law. To this end, the study pulls together analyses of relevant parts of international and supra-national law within the context of Turkish migrants in Europe which are applicable in protecting the rights of immigrants. In particular, the Ankara Association Agreement of 1963 and its components have put Turkish migrants in a more favourable position than most of the other non-EU migrants, hence creating a sort of 'intermediate' regime for them. The study has confirmed that the developments under the EU law have remained and will remain the main source of progress as far as the rights of Turkish migrants are concerned. Nevertheless, it also draws attention to a significant counter effect of such positive developments; that is, the danger of unwillingness on the part of the EU member states to enlarge the scope of the rights granted to Turkish immigrants under the above-mentioned legal frameworks.

scholarly journals Organizacja administracji ochrony środowiska w Polsce i Unii Europejskiej

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Maciej Jabłoński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Acquis Communautaire ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Eu

The organization of environmental protection in Poland and the European Union is a mutual connection of competencies and a correlation of systems and rights according to national and EU laws. The legal system of the EU is the result of decades of cooperation undertaken by the will of the Member States known as the acquis communautaire. EU law has primacy over national law, which in practice means that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of national law and EU law, the national law is deemed inapplicable and needs to be adjusted by the Member State.

scholarly journals The European Union and Education for Democratic Citizenship

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Grimonprez
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
Quality Education ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Competence ◽  
The Eu

The study makes an analysis of the legal framework which Member States must take into account when designing their policies on citizenship education. The Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education of the Council of Europe and the international right to education are read in conjunction with EU law. Suitable content for the EU dimension in mainstream education is explored. A method for objective, critical and pluralistic EU learning is proposed, based on the Treaties and on case teaching (stories for critical thinking). Member States are invited to take more action to ensure quality education. The EU has the legal competence to support the EU dimension in education. In the present state of EU law, quality education is no longer conceivable without an EU dimension incorporated in various key competences. At present the author works at the implementation of the ideas developed in the book as an Affiliated Senior Researcher at Leuven University (Case4EU-project in Belgium and other EU Member States).

The Day After: Alternatives to Intra-EU BITs

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 984-1014
Author(s):  
Teis Tonsgaard Andersen ◽  
Steffen Hindelang
Keyword(s):  
Safety Net ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
The Eu

Intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are the dinosaurs in the multi-level legal system of the European Union (EU). They sit uneasily with EU law, yet they provide an important tool for foreign investors to manage political risk in some EU Member States. This paper suggests, that alternatives to intra-EU BITs should best be developed from existing functional equivalents in EU law, ie substantive standards of protection in EU law should be made more transparent by the way of a ‘restatement’ of the pertinent legal practice. On principle, foreign investors should make use of functioning domestic courts. Where such institutions lack quality, the EU and the EU Member States should work towards their improvement. Meanwhile, a ‘safety net’ should be provided for foreign investors in case domestic courts fail to dispense justice. This ‘safety net’ may take the form of a PCA-administered arbitral forum or that of a ‘Unified Investment Court’.

scholarly journals ‘Access to Justice’ and the Development of the Van Gend En Loos Doctrine: The Role of Courts and of the Individual in EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-153
Author(s):  
Nasiya Daminova
Keyword(s):  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The ‘access to justice’ within the meaning of the Treaty of Lisbon and the pertinent CJEU jurisprudence is primarily seen as access to the EU judicial system, i.e. to the EU Member States’ national courts applying the EU Law or/and the CJEU. The concept of ‘access to justice’ is therefore developing such premises of the Van Gend en Loos judgment as direct effect, vigilance of the EU individual, and the symbiotic relationship between the CJEU and national courts via the preliminary reference procedure. This work aims to explore the development of two basic ideas of Van Gend en Loos, i.e. granting directly enforceable EU rights to individuals and authorizing national courts to protect those rights, in light of the ‘access to justice’ concept within the meaning of the Lisbon Treaty – considering their importance for the realization of EU individuals’ substantive rights and uncertainty surrounding this issue. The paper develops a critique of the theory of justice in EU Law, analyzing if and how the Van Gend en Loos premises influenced the role of individuals making an attempt to claim their EU rights and the role of the EU courts responsible for the enforcement of ‘access to justice’ in the European Union. The claim of this paper is that the new concept of ‘access to justice’ brought by the Lisbon Treaty may be seen as the further development of the Van Gend ‘federalizing effect’ for greater integration through law and an enhanced protection of the individual within the EU multilevel system of Human Rights protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document