The Legal Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Greece in View of the European Union Legislation: A Review

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-324
Author(s):  
Aggi Dimacopoulou ◽  
Andreas Lapourtas
Author(s):  
Dumitru Murariu ◽  
Victor Gheorghiu

Şura Mare cave (Romania) - the most important known hibernating roost for Pipistrellus pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) The Sura Mare cave from Romania is one of the largest roost for hibernating colonies of bats with more than 40,000 individuals. Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus are prevalent species with more than 34,000 individuals in mixed colonies. Other 6 bat species are less represented (e.g. Rhinolophus ferrumequinum only 500 individuals) but Miniopterus schreibersii's colony counts 3,500 individuals. From the total of 8 identified bat species, 5 are a priority according to the European Union legislation: Rhinolophus ferrumequinum, Myotis myotis, M. oxygnathus, Barbastella barbastellus and Miniopterus schreibersii.


Author(s):  
Амала Алиевна Умарова

В статье анализируются отдельные нормативные акты, выступающие в качестве основы правовой охраны интеллектуальность собственность в Европейском Союзе. The article analyzes individual normative acts that act as the basis of legal protection of intellectual property in the European Union.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3985
Author(s):  
Adam Kozień

The concept of sustainable development is widely used, especially in social, environmental and economic aspects. The principle of sustainable development was derived from the concept of sustainable development, which appears in legal terms at the international, EU, national and local levels. Today, the value of cultural heritage that should be legally protected is indicated. A problematic issue may be the clash in this respect of the public interest related to the protection of heritage with the individual interest, expressed, e.g., in the ownership of cultural heritage designates. During the research, scientific methods that are used in legal sciences were used: theoretical–legal, formal–dogmatic, historical–legal methods, as well as the method of criticism of the literature, and legal inferences were also used. The analyses were carried out on the basis of the interdisciplinary literature on the subject, as well as international, EU and national legal acts—sources of the generally applicable law. Research has shown that the interdisciplinary principle of sustainable development, especially from the perspective of the social and auxiliary environmental aspect, may be the basis for weighing public and individual interests in the area of legal protection of cultural heritage in the European Union. It was also indicated that it is possible in the situation of treating the principle of sustainable development in terms of Dworkin’s “policies” and allows its application not only at the level of European Union law (primary and secondary), but also at the national legal orders of the European Union Member States.


Author(s):  
Alessia Vacca

This article focuses on the comparison between European Union Law and Council of Europe Law in the field of the protection of minority languages and looks at the relationships between the two systems. The Council of Europe has been very important in the protection of minority languages, having created two treaties of particular relevance: the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in 1992 and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1995; both treaties contain many detailed provisions relating to minority languages. Not all countries, even of the European Union, have ratified these treaties. 12 out of 27 EU countries did not ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The European Union supports multilingualism because it wants to achieve unity while maintaining diversity. Important steps, with respect to minority languages, were taken in the European Community, notably in the form of European Parliament Resolutions. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, approved in Nice the 7th December 2000, contains art. 21 and art. 22 related to this topic. The Treaty of Lisbon makes a cross reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which is, consequently, legally binding under the Treaty of Lisbon since December 2009. The Charter could give ground for appeal to the European Court of Justice in cases of discrimination on the grounds of language


2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-79
Author(s):  
Iliana Genew-Puhalewa

This study attempts to characterize terminology unification in the European Union legislation, regarding both content and form. It analyzes terms related to the thematic field of environmental law in four official EU languages: two Slavic (Bulgarian and Polish) and two non-Slavic (Modern Greek and English). Different types of relations between the languages under comparison suggest possible directions for further comparative study. The comparison aims to identify differences and similarities in the componential structure, formal-grammatical structure, word formation structure, form variantivity, origin and formal status. The study may also testify to the presence of linguistic convergence processes in the multilingual European Union.


Author(s):  
Eleanor Sharpston

The chapter examines the role played by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU) in ruling authoritatively on the meaning of European Union legislation. The EU legislative process differs from the parliamentary process in the United Kingdom for good reason. Within the European Union, there are many different traditions of how such drafting should be done; whilst, at EU level, multinationalism and multilingualism have a significant impact on what emerges as the final text. The chapter explains the difficulties encountered and gives illustrations from the Court’s case-law of instances where the Court has either decided not to take steps that might be construed as ‘legislating’ or, conversely, has gone to the limits of ‘constructive re-interpretation’. The chapter concludes by asking how far the Court should ‘bend’ a legislative text.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 1601-1616
Author(s):  
Katharina Pabel

The fundamental right to an effective remedy as guaranteed in Art. II-107(1) of the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’ (CT) is part of a comprehensive guarantee of effective legal protection and procedural guarantees. In the following, this fundamental right and how it relates to Parts I and III of the CT will be investigated in detail. First, the scope of Art. II-107(1) CT will be identified in Part B. Part C comments on the binding effect of this right. Finally, in Part D, some aspects of the Union's system of legal protection will be investigated in the light of Art. II-107(1) CT, and it will be discussed whether this right could be an instrument to close gaps in the legal protection of individuals against measures of the European Union.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Eriksson ◽  
René Custers ◽  
Karin Edvardsson Björnberg ◽  
Sven Ove Hansson ◽  
Kai Purnhagen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document