Euro Crisis Responses and the EU Legal Order: Increased Institutional Variation or Constitutional Mutation?

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno De Witte

Euro crisis reforms as major example of interstitial institutional change in the EU - Forms of institutional change : unusual sources of law, new tasks for the EU institutions, new organs, competence creep, institutional hybrids, and more differentiated integration - Question whether some or all of this amounts to a ‘constitutional mutation’ of the EU legal order - Reasons to doubt whether the constitutional fundamentals have changed - Alternative thesis: increased institutional variation, deepening the differences between EMU law and the rest of EU law.

Author(s):  
Bruno De Witte ◽  
Thibault Martinelli

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.


2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.


Author(s):  
Samantha Velluti ◽  
Vassilis P. Tzevelekos

The paper introduces the theme and topics of this Special Issue on the extraterritoriality of EU law and human rights in the fields of trade and public procurement since the entry into force of the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon. It briefly explores the meaning of extraterritoriality in international (human rights) law and the EU legal order highlighting the complexity of such notion in both legal systems. In so doing, it provides the context and focus of analysis of the collection of papers that make up this Special Issue, which addresses a number of topical questions concerning the extraterritorial conduct of the EU, as well as the extraterritorial effects of EU law in those specific fields, from the perspective of human rights.


Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offer the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flowcharts. This chapter includes questions on a wide variety of often overlapping points concerned with the sources of European Union (EU) law. The sources of law are the Treaties which are regarded as primary sources and secondary legislation which can be enacted by the institutions of the Union by virtue of the powers given by the Member States and which are contained in the Treaties. Additional sources of law in the EU legal order are agreements with third countries, general principles and the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) establishing, amongst other case law developments, the doctrine of direct effects, supremacy of EU law and state liability.


Author(s):  
Renaud Dehousse ◽  
Paul Magnette

This chapter examines the history of European Union institutions, and especially the quasi-constant change that has taken place since the creation of the EU. It begins with a discussion of five phases of EU institutional development: the founding, consolidation of the European Community model, institutional change through task extension, reform of the institutional system, and the brief ‘constitutional’ moment at the turn of the century. It then considers the euro crisis and Brexit, along with the respective weight of state interests, ideas, and institutions in the evolution of EU institutions. It shows how institutional change in the EU seems to have followed a functionalist logic, leading to complex compromises that, in turn, prompt regular calls for ‘simplification’ and democratization.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Nic Shuibhne

Abstract This paper examines the growing significance of the ‘territory of the Union’ in EU citizenship law and asks what it reveals about Union citizenship in the wider system of the EU legal order. In doing so, it builds on scholarship constructing the idea of ‘personhood’ in EU law by adding a complementary dimension of ‘place-hood’. The analysis is premised on territory as a place within—but also beyond—which particular legal qualities are both produced by and reflect shared objectives or values. In that respect, the paper offers a comprehensive ‘map’ of Union territory as a legal construct, with the aim of uncovering what kind of legal place the territory of the Union constitutes as well as the extent to which it is dis-connectable from the territories of the Member States. It also considers how Union territory relates to what lies ‘outside’. It will be shown that different narratives of Union territory have materialized in the case law of the Court of Justice. However, it is argued that these segregated lines of reasoning should be integrated, both to reflect and to progress a composite understanding of Union territory as a place in which concerns for Union citizens, for Member States, and for the system underpinning the EU legal order are more consistently acknowledged and more openly weighed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-213
Author(s):  
Mark Dawson

Abstract The rise in Europe of populist movements has created severe anxiety about the stability of the EU legal order. This article argues that, while populist ideas challenge numerous elements of the EU’s constitutional settlement, there exists no fundamental incompatibility between populism and EU law. By comparing its response to populism with attempts by EU law to stabilise its legal order in the face of political contestation arising from other political cleavages, the article discusses three different ways to understand the interaction between EU law and populism. EU law may seek to ‘survive’ the growth of populism by (i) bracketing or insulating its institutions from populist contestation, (ii) accommodating populist ideas or (iii) confronting the constitutional strategies populists utilise domestically. In examining the constitutional foundations of populism and its relation to emerging doctrines of EU law, the article seeks to build a road map of how populist movements might utilise or resist EU law in their development.


2021 ◽  
pp. 94-140
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

This chapter takes an overall view of the EU legal order and examines its legal system, including the elements which are either different from or similar to member states’ legal systems. It begins by taking an overall view of the EU legal order, the different forms of EU law, and the various sources of law contributing to this legal order, in particular now the rich source of human and fundamental rights in the EU legal order. It considers the non-strictly legally binding rules known as ‘soft law’. It also looks at the ways or processes by which the binding laws are made and reviews alternative decision-making and law-making developments.


Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses the key concepts within the EU legal order: supremacy, direct effect, indirect effect, and state liability. The doctrine of supremacy dictates that EU law takes precedence over conflicting provisions of national law. If a provision of EU law is directly effective, it gives rise to rights upon which individuals can rely directly in the national court. If an EU measure is not directly effective, a claimant may be able to rely on it through the application of indirect effect, which requires national law to be interpreted in accordance with relevant EU law. State liability gives rise to a right to damages where an individual has suffered loss because a Member State has failed to implement a directive or has committed other breaches of EU law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document