The Whistleblower Protection Directive (2019/1937): A Satisfactory but Incomplete System

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Arnaud VAN WAEYENBERGE ◽  
Zachariah DAVIES
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Incomplete System ◽  
Final Text ◽  
Reporting Procedures

On 23 October 2019 the European Union enacted the Whistleblower Protection Directive. The directive introduces important common standards of protection for whistleblowers reporting on breaches of EU law and significantly increases the level of protection afforded to whistleblowers in many EU Member States. Many of the features of the directive go further than pre-existing national whistleblower protection regimes, particularly in relation to the categories of persons who may benefit from the protections under the directive and in terms of the flexibility of the prescribed reporting procedures. Nevertheless, the directive's effectiveness may be limited by certain grey-areas and missed opportunities in the final text of the instrument.

Treaties between EU Member States as Quasi-Instruments of EU Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno De Witte ◽  
Thibault Martinelli
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Euro Crisis ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

This chapter deals with legal instruments that formally speaking are not EU legal acts, but whose function is so intimately linked to the EU legal order that they can be called ‘quasi-instruments of EU law’. These are treaties concluded between all of the EU Member States (complementary agreements) or between only a selected number of them (partial agreements), in close connection with the operation of the European Union. Such international ‘side agreements’ have lately become rather prominent and controversial, particularly in the context of the euro crisis. The chapter discusses the variety of reasons for the adoption of those instruments, as well as the questions of legitimacy and compatibility with EU law which they raise.

SOME ASPECTS OF PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE STATE DEFENSE ORDER WHEN CHALLENGING BIDDING RESULTS

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
V. Yu. Slepak
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Restrictive Measures ◽  
The Eu

The article deals with some features of the systems of revision of decisions made in the compliance with the results of procurement procedures in the EU Member States in the light of the requirements of EU law. In particular, the author investigates the EU law requirements applied to bodies reviewing decisions in the context of the need to determine the balance between the principle of procedural autonomy of the European Union member States (Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union) and the principles of efficiency and equivalence (derived from jurisprudence interpreting Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union). Also, the paper analyzes the problems arising while determining the applicant’s locus standi, since an excessively narrow interpretation of the notion “interest in obtaining a relevant contract” may serve as an unreasonable restriction for the access to the procedures of reviewing and, more generally, access to justice. The author explores the issues of applying such grounds in order to exclude the procurement participant from the number of bidders on the ground of “commission of a significant violation of the rules of professional activity” in the understanding of EU restrictive measures applied to managers of the procurement participant. There may be situations when the actions of the sole executive body result in the application of restrictive measures and that may be considered as evidence of the commission of a fundamental violation of rules of professional activity; the article considers standings that both confirm this thesis and indicate an excessively broad interpretation of this rule. On the one hand, the European Court of Justice has affirmed that organs of governance, especially the sole executive bodies, have a decisive influence and effective control over business activity to such an extent that their actions can be regarded as actions of the company also with regard to issues of liability. On the other hand, restrictive measures themselves do not, by their nature, constitute a measure of liability. However, the question of whether national authorities have the right to reassess the conclusions of the EU Council with regard to challenging the bidding results remains open.

scholarly journals Lower Instance National Courts and Tribunals in Member States and Their Judicial Dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Graham Butler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts’ more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court’s approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court’s broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

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 European Regional Inequalities: The Other Face of Development

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Celeste Perrucchini ◽  
Hiroshi Ito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Capita Income ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Per Capita Income ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita

Empirical evidence suggests an overall convergence in terms of GDP and per capita income occurring among the European Union (EU) Member States. Nevertheless, economic inequalities have been increasing at the regional level within European Union countries. Through the review of relevant literature, this study analyzes the increasing inequalities from an economical point of view, focusing on Italy and the UK as examples. First, a general overlook of the empirical evidence of the GDP and per capita income at national and sub-national levels will be presented. Second, an explanation of the possible causes of the results will be proposed through the use of economical and sociological theories. The findings of this research might uncover the relative inefficacy of EU Cohesion policies and point towards the necessity for deeper and more thoughtful measures to continue the convergence of Member States while preserving internal equilibria. This paper ends with discussions for the future directions of the EU.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

scholarly journals National Food Safety Systems in the European Union: A Comparative Survey

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Central Level ◽  
The Eu

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.

scholarly journals Corporate law in Ukraine within the framework of approaching the European Union standards

2020 ◽  
pp. 181-188
Author(s):  
Valentyna Vasylieva ◽  
Anatolii Kostruba
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Corporate Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
History Of ◽  
National Systems ◽  
Supranational Level

The article is devoted to adaptation of the national corporate law to the law of European Union`s corporations. Special attention has been given to define the legal nature of the corporation. It is concluded that there is no established understanding of the above concepts in national legal science. The main approaches to the corporate legal nature in particular European systems of justice - in FRG, France, England - are considered in depth. Significant differences between the legislation of Ukraine and legislation of the European Union countries based on the history of their development and peculiarities of specific national systems of justice are detected. The regulation of corporate relations in the European Union at supranational level is considered. It is concluded that the European Union supranational law is its corporate law. The priority areas for unification of European corporate law at the supranational level are analyzed. The main instruments to adjust the activities of corporations in EU law are identified to be the Directives aimed at harmonizing and unifying national legislation of EU Member States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document