scholarly journals The democratisation of European nature governance 1992–2015: introducing the comparative nature governance index

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Kingston ◽  
Zizhen Wang ◽  
Edwin Alblas ◽  
Micheál Callaghan ◽  
Julie Foulon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Aarhus Convention ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEuropean environmental governance has radically transformed over the past two decades. While traditionally enforcement of environmental law has been the responsibility of public authorities (public authorities of the EU Member States, themselves policed by the European Commission), this paradigm has now taken a democratic turn. Led by changes in international environmental law and in particular the UNECE Aarhus Convention (UNECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention (1998). Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention), signed on June 25, 1998.), EU law now gives important legal rights to members of the public and environmental non-governmental organisations (“ENGOs”) to become involved in environmental governance, by means of accessing environmental information, participating in environmental decision-making and bringing legal proceedings. While doctrinal legal and regulatory scholarship on this embrace of “bottom-up” private environmental governance is now substantial, there has been relatively little quantitative research in the field. This article represents a first step in mapping this evolution of environmental governance laws in the EU. We employ a leximetrics methodology, coding over 6000 environmental governance laws from three levels of legal sources (international, EU and national), to provide the first systematic data showing the transformation of European environmental governance regimes. We develop the Nature Governance Index (“NGI”) to measure how the enforcement tools deployed in international, EU and national law have changed over time, from the birth of the EU’s flagship nature conservation law, the 1992 Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). At the national level, we focus on three EU Member States (France, Ireland and the Netherlands) to enable a fine-grained measurement of the changes in national nature governance laws over time. This article introduces our unique datasets and the NGI, describes the process used to collect the datasets and its limitations, and compares the evolution in laws at the international, EU and national levels over the 23-year period from 1992–2015. Our findings provide strong empirical confirmation of the democratic turn in European environmental governance, while revealing the significant divergences between legal systems that remain absent express harmonisation of the Aarhus Convention’s principles in EU law. Our data also set the foundations for future quantitative legal research, enabling deeper analysis of the relationships between the different levels of multilevel environmental governance.

Part I Rationales for State Aid Rules, 2 Evolution of Aid in the EU: Classifying Different Types of Countries, and the Financial and Economic Crisis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Aggregate Data ◽  
European Market ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Single European Market ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the evolution of (non-crisis) aid in the EU-27 since 1992, which serves as a basis to assess the similarities and differences between the practices of granting aid in EU Member States. Aggregate data for the EU-27 as a whole suggests that Member States have given a smaller percentage of their GDP as aid over time, which might be regarded as reflective of the view that they are accepting the need for its reduction and its control in the single European market. While declining in the first half of the 1990s, aid levels peaked in 1997, only to be reduced by 1999. This can be explained based on the new regulations that were pursued during the time period, which resulted in broader definitions by the Commission and tighter control.

Higher Education, Equal Access, and Residence Conditions: Does EU Law Allow Member States to Charge Higher Fees to Students Not Previously Resident?

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth Davies
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Financial Benefit ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
The Eu

This article looks at the law and policy issues surrounding the practice of charging uniform fees for higher education to home students and students coming from other EU Member States. It begins with the observation that within the EU such fees are heavily subsidised by governments and therefore amount to a financial benefit (or a disguised grant) to students. In the light of this, this article suggests that restricting that subsidy to students resident prior to their studies would be not only compatible with recent case law on non-discrimination but would also fit better with the underlying logic of free movement, which denies any right to benefits for non-economic recent migrants. Secondly, it looks at the policy, and finds that while equal fees have a number of very positive social effects, they also carry moral and economic risks. A better approach, less distorting of the market for higher education and more consistent with the wider EU approach to welfare migration, might be to require exportability of subsidies from the student's state of origin.

Disclosure rules in eu public procurement: Balancing between competition and transparency

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 528-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsi-Maria Halonen
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
Procurement Procedure ◽  
The Eu

The paper examines the disclosure of information within public contract awards under EU law. EU Public Procurement rules have several objectives that may at some times be conflicting with each other. A certain level of transparency of public procurement procedure is necessary in order to fight corruption, enhance trade opportunities and ensure effective legal remedies. On the other hand, too much transparency may have certain anti-competitive effects. The national laws regarding disclosure of information vary in different EU member states. In Finland the EU law principle of effective remedies has been interpreted as requiring full transparency among the bidders. The transparency rules under EU law and certain Member States' national laws are analysed. As a conclusion, it is suggested that the rules on disclosure should not be left solely to the discretion of member states as the over-transparent approach taken by certain member states may negatively affect the markets both on a national and EU level.

scholarly journals Joined Cases A. K. v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (C-585/18) and CP (C-624/18), DO (C-625/18) v. Sąd Najwyższy (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-486
Author(s):  
Joelle Grogan
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Standard ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
National Measure ◽  
The Eu

Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, and C-625/18 concerning the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) is the latest in a series of European Union (EU) Member States requesting the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to rule on the independence of their judicial systems. While the organization of justice systems within Member States is a competence of Member States (and thus not for the EU to determine or decide), the CJEU has held that Member States are nevertheless required to comply with obligations under EU law to ensure effective judicial protection and, as a necessary corollary, judicial independence. The significance of the current case lies in the formulation by the CJEU of a “European” standard of judicial independence, and its finding that national judges may set aside the jurisdiction of courts found not to be independent against that standard and to disapply any national measure (in accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law) that gives jurisdiction to a non-independent court.

scholarly journals National Law or EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-191
Author(s):  
Georgi Mihaylov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Respective State ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The article examines cases of conflict between the national law of the EU Member States and European Union Law. There is an analysis of the legal advantage of EU law over national law or vice versa. Conclusions have been drawn that the national law should maintain its advantage when the reason for it is contained in the Constitution of the respective state.

Towards an Ever Closer Union Between Residents and Citizens?

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. 78-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michèle Finck
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Traditional Concept ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Domestic Reform ◽  
The Eu

Alien suffrage in Luxembourg – The traditional concept of the electorate – Link between nationality and voting rights – From the national to the resident worker? – The decoupling of nationality and citizenship – The transformation of the state as a consequence of European integration – Comparison to other EU member states – Consequences for EU law of domestic reform – The intertwinement of constitutional spheres in the EU

EU whistleblowing rules to change in favor of whistleblowers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-61
Author(s):  
Alja Poler De Zwart
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Reporting Channels

Purpose To describe the new EU Whistleblowing Directive and its implications. Design/methodology/approach Describes organizations to which the Directive applies, the scope of reportable whistleblowing concerns, whistleblowers’ reporting channels and mechanisms, whistleblower protections, how organizations should respond to whistleblower reports and how organizations should prepare for the new rules. Findings The new Directive will require Member States to create rules for organizations with more than 50 workers, will mandate such organizations to implement whistleblowing hotlines for reporting a broad range of EU law violations, and will contain minimum standards on how to respond to and handle any concerns raised by whistleblowers. Practical implications Organizations in the EU can and should start taking initial steps to prepare for the new rules as soon as possible. There will likely be some differences among whistleblower rules in individual EU Member States. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced corporate, technology, media, telecommunications and compliance lawyer.

Article 44 General principle for transfers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner
Keyword(s):  
General Principle ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Eu

Recital 6; recital 48; recital 102; Article 45 (Adequacy decision) (see too recitals 103–107); Article 46 (Transfers subject to appropriate safeguards) (see too recitals 108–109); Articles 4(20) and 47 (BCRs) (see too recital 110); Article 48 (Transfers not authorised by EU law) (see too recital 115); Article 49 (Derogations) (see too recitals 111–114); Article 50 (see too recital 116); Article 83(5)(c) (Fines for non-compliance with data transfer restrictions); Article 96 (Relationship with previously concluded agreements of the EU Member States).

Strengthening the Single Market through informal dispute-resolution mechanisms in the EU: The case of SOLVIT

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-117
Author(s):  
Evgenia Kokolia
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Key Characteristics ◽  
The Eu

SOLVIT is an informal out-of-court dispute-resolution tool between the EU Member States and Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland to practically help citizens and businesses when encountering problems in cross-border situations with their rights enshrined in EU legislation. In light of the recently adopted Commission Communication on the reinforcement of SOLVIT, 1 the authors analyse its key characteristics and challenges. The authors concludes that an enhanced role of SOLVIT can efficiently promote a culture of compliance and smart enforcement of EU law in the Single Market together with the Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document