scholarly journals Germany

2020 ◽  
pp. 55-71
Author(s):  
Nina Amelung ◽  
Rafaela Granja ◽  
Helena Machado

Abstract Germany’s DNA database was established in 1998 and grew into one of the mid-sized databases in the EU. Under the leadership of its Minister of the Interior, Germany was among the countries that drove the creation of the Prüm system and was among the first signatories of the Prüm Treaty in 2005. The 2007 German Presidency of the EU, along with the European Commission, also pushed for the integration of the Convention of Prüm into an EU legal framework. In terms of bordering practices, the German situation serves to illustrate an expansive and diffusive mode of debordering. This expansiveness is documented by the country’s early involvement and comprehensive establishment of data exchange with most of the countries in the system; this diffusive character is illustrated by the string-pulling practices employed by Germany, and some other Member States’ governments, to influence transnational police collaboration in the EU.

2019 ◽  
Vol 19(34) (1) ◽  
pp. 144-152
Author(s):  
Barbara Wieliczko

The creation of an effective and efficient agricultural policy by the state is an extremely difficult task. It seems that designing proper agricultural policy becomes more difficult the larger the area. The aim of the article is to try to answer the question of what role in the creation and implementation of agricultural policy in the EU should be played by the European Commission, and by individual Member States. The answer to this question is based on the theories of fiscal and environmental federalism. The article is based on a review of literature and analysis of the optimal scope of public administration's competences in the creation and implementation of agricultural policy. The obtained results allow to determine how to optimize the division of tasks related to the agricultural policy between the levels of administration, which enables the implementation of a more effective and more efficient agricultural policy.


Author(s):  
D. S. Castilhos ◽  
D. R. Alves

The European internal market allows people and businesses to circulate freely in the 28 member states. The possibility of companies to compete equally and fairly is guaranteed by European Union (EU) competition policy. These rules encourage companies to be more efficient. The present study provides an overview of the discussion of relevant issues with these objectives: describing the creation and development of EU’s competition policy and characterise the importance of the role played by the European Commission in this area in addition to examining the imposition of pecuniary sanctions on companies. Is at issue the application of the rules in the Treaty on the functioning of the EU and Regulation No 1/2003? In conclusion, it was verified that the system adopted by the EU shows some fragility in the defence of the fundamental rights of companies.Keywords: Competition policy, European Union.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin

In a 2012 Communication, the European Commission described the current approach to social security coordination with third countries as ‘patchy’. The European Commission proposed to address that patchiness by developing a common EU approach to social security coordination with third countries whereby the Member States would cooperate more with each other when concluding bilateral agreements with third countries. This article aims to explore the policy agenda of the European Commission in that field by conducting a comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India. The idea behind the comparative legal analysis is to determine whether (1) there are common grounds between the Member States’ approaches, and (2) based on these common grounds, it is possible to suggest a common EU approach. India is taken as a third-country case study due to its labour migration and investment potential for the European Union. In addition, there are currently 12 Member State bilateral agreements with India and no instrument at the EU level on social security coordination with India. Therefore, there is a potential need for a common EU approach to social security coordination with India. Based on the comparative legal analysis of the Member States’ bilateral agreements with India, this article ends by outlining the content of a potential future common EU approach.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Karolis Kačerauskas

The Slovak hybrid mail services case (or Slovenska posta case) is truly unique in EU jurisprudence. Within the last decade, the European Commission rarely applied Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions in individual cases. Thus Slovenska posta constitutes one of the rare examples of such enforcement. Slovenska posta also constitutes a very rare example of a judicial review of Commission decisions based on Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU. Slovenska posta is only the second case when European courts were called upon to review the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU by the Commission and the first when the judicial review was conducted over a Commission decision regarding “failure to meet the demand”. Indeed, since 1989–1990 (when the Commission commenced to apply Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions introduced by the Member States) and until 2014, when the Court of Justice adopted its decision in Greek lignite (DEI) case, none of the Commission decisions was reviewed by EU courts. Such lack of appeals resulted in a rather strange situation under which the Commission and CJEU developed their own jurisprudence on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU and occasionally interpreted the same legal criteria differently. In this regard, a court review in Slovenska posta was eagerly awaited in the hope it would reconcile these diverging positions and provide more clarity on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU.


Author(s):  
Petr YAKOVLEV

The decision on Britain’s secession from the European Union, taken by the British Parliament and agreed by London and Brussels, divided the Union history into “before” and “after”. Not only will the remaining member states have to “digest” the political, commercial, economic and mental consequences of parting with one of the largest partners. They will also have to create a substantially new algorithm for the functioning of United Europe. On this path, the EU is confronted with many geopolitical and geo-economic challenges, which should be answered by the new leaders of the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament.


Competitio ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Daniel Pop

This paper discusses how the CEE-10 countries complied with the EU conditionality in the field of regional policy, examining whether the territorial reforms implemented were carried out leading to the enrooting of sub-national regional governance structures. Following the discussion of the EU requirements in the field of regional policy, I turn to a case by case analysis of how the meso-level government tiers were set up in the CEE-10 countries. The analysis leads to the finding that the limited interest in the CEE-10 countries to develop extensive regional governance structures by creating new autonomous sub-national governance structures coupled with the frequent contradictory and often unofficial requirements by the European Commission during negotiations, has led to a weak institutionalization of meso-level governments when compared to the institutional and policy structures within the EU-15.


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>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document