The size and structure of the European Commission: legal issues surrounding project teams and a (future) reduced College

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-61
Author(s):  
Robert Böttner

European Commission – Size of the Commission – Presidentialisation – President’s power of organisation – Principle of collegiality – Responsibility of the College at large – Reorganisation of the Commission – Balance between efficiency and member state representation – Legality of project teams – Rotation of voting rights in EU law – System of rotation for the European Commission

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.


Author(s):  
Christian Tietje ◽  
Clemens Wackernagel

According to the European Commission, enforcement of the ICSID award in Micula constitutes illegal state aid under Article 107 TFEU. At the same time, Articles 53 and 54 ICSID Convention require unconditional enforcement of ICSID awards. So far, the relationship between the ICSID Convention and EU law is unresolved. This article presents different approaches to this relationship. It concludes that both EU law and the ICSID Convention are determining factors for the enforcement of intra-EU ICSID awards. As a result, the legal situation involves two competing legal orders each claiming superiority within their scope of application – an increasingly common situation in multilevel systems of governance. Discussing the various legal issues surrounding enforcement of intra-EU ICSID awards, the article proposes a solution to such problems along the lines of the ECtHR’s Bosphorus jurisprudence.


Author(s):  
Vincent Power

More than 1000 passengers on a Panamanian-registered ferry drowned in the Red Sea. Some survivors and relatives of some of the victims sued the classification and certification ship society which had surveyed the ferry. Relying on the Brussels I Regulation, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in the latter’s seat (in Italy). The defendants claimed sovereign immunity as they were acting on behalf of Panama (that is, the flag state). The CJEU ruled that, generally, Article 1(1) of the Regulation means that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of, and upon delegation from, a non-EU Member State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in the Regulation. The defendants were therefore not immune. The CJEU qualified its ruling by saying that this is conditional on the activity being not exercised under ‘public powers’ (within the meaning of EU law) because then it would then be a sovereign and not a commercial activity. The CJEU thereby ruled that the customary public international law principle that foreign states have immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude an EU Member State court seised of a dispute from exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation in these circumstances.


2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-515
Author(s):  
Jerzy Jendrośka

AbstractThe article aims to present the main legal issues related to implementation of the provisions of Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention regarding public participation in the preparations of plans and programs. The analysis is presented against the background of an overview of the legal nature and scope of obligations stemming from the second pillar of the Convention. The article attempts to identify the scope of application of Article 7 and the main elements of the framework for public participation included therein. The legal analysis is based, where appropriate, on the respective opinions of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. The implementation of the Aarhus Convention in EU law will be addressed in this respect in a separate article in the forthcoming issue of the journal.


Author(s):  
Georgios I. Zekos

The Commission is of the belief that the efficacy of arbitration agreements should be enhanced in order to give full effect to the will of the parties. According to the ECJ in the West Tankers decision, anti-suit injunctions for arbitration agreements are incompatible with the Brussels I Regulation so that they are no longer available so as to counter-attack a torpedo action brought before the courts of a Member State. Does the perplexing interference of courts in the whole arbitration process advance justice and effectiveness?


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Forni

Summary This article aims to assess which subjects could offer diplomatic protection in third countries to European citizens and/or European Union legal persons on the basis of eu law. The absence of a common standard of assistance and the lack of specific agreements with third states has de facto excluded the diplomatic protection ex Article 23 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (tfeu, formerly the tec or Treaty establishing the European Community). Yet the practice shows cases in which the European Commission claimed the infringement of the rights of eu citizens and eu corporations in cases of violation of an international agreement concluded by the Union, or in cases of a breach of general international law in a matter of eu exclusive competence. These evidences indicate that the eu could play an effective role in ensuring the protection of European citizens in third countries in situations in which the eu member states have transferred their competences to the European Union. However, these actions remain discretional, since the ‘duty to protect’ is far from achieved both in eu and in international law.


Author(s):  
Caroline Heber

The enhanced cooperation mechanism allows at least nine Member States to introduce secondary EU law which is only binding among these Member States. From an internal market perspective, enhanced cooperation laws are unique as they lie somewhere between unilateral Member State laws and uniform EU law. The law creates harmonisation and coordination between the participating Member States, but it may introduce trade obstacles in relation to non-participating Member States. This book reveals that the enhanced cooperation mechanism allows Member States to protect their harmonised values and coordination endeavours against market efficiency. Values which may not be able to justify single Member State’s trade obstacles may outweigh pure internal market needs if an entire group of Member States finds these value worthy of protection. However, protection of the harmonised values can never go as far as shielding participating Member States from the negative effects of enhanced cooperation laws. The hybrid nature of enhanced cooperation laws—their nexus between the law of a single Member State and secondary EU law—also demands that these laws comply with state aid law. This book shows how the European state aid law provisions should be applied to enhanced cooperation laws. Furthermore, the book also develops a sophisticated approach to the limits non-participating Member States face in ensuring that their actions do not impede the implementation of enhanced cooperation between the participating Member States.


2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Monika Jurčová ◽  
Peter Varga

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to assess the conformity of the Slovak solutions with regard to refunds for cancelled travels and their conformity with EU law, i.e. the Package Travel Directive. In the article, the position is analysed of the European Commission and its reflection to Slovak legislation on refunds of travels after cancellation of the breach concerning travels by the travel agencies. Method. Legal analyses regarding the Slovak amendment of Package Travel Act and comparison of its provisions with the Package Travel Directive. Findings. In the article, the way is described as to how the Slovak legislator solved the reimbursement for cancelled travels due to pandemic situation. Also provided is the statement regarding the reasoned opinion of the European Commission that followed the adoption of the amendment of the Slovak Package Travel Act. The authors analyse compatibility of the COVID PTA Amendment with European Union law. In the article, it is described that due to time constraints set by the COVID PTA Amendment for refund because of cancelled travels, non-compliance with EU legislation had probably expired by September 2021. Research and conclusions limitations. The research was focused on EU (Package Travel Directive) and Slovak legislation (Package Travel Act) and assessment of compliance of Slovak with EU law. Practical implications. The article draws attention to the question whether some effects of the COVID PTA Amendment will persist after September 2021 provided that the topical purpose of this legislation to postpone refund for travellers has already been accomplished by setting the deadline for 14 September 2021. Secondly, it raises the question of possible damage suffered by the individuals due to the breach of EU law by the Slovak Republic. Originality. As the article is focused on the most current situation, this topic has not been discussed by other authors in other studies. The authors assume a view that makes assessment regarding legality of the Slovak amendment for Package Travel Act with EU law. Type of paper. Research paper.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-153
Author(s):  
Tatjana Josipović

The paper considers and comments on the instruments of protection of the fundamental rights of the Union in private law relationships that are in the scope of applicable EU law. Special attention is paid to the influence of fundamental rights of the Union on private autonomy and the freedom of contract in private law relationships depending on whether fundamental rights are protected by national law harmonized with EU law, or by horizontal effects of the Charter of general principles. The goal of the paper is to determine the method in private law relationships that can attain the optimal balance between the protection of fundamental rights of the Union and the principle of private autonomy and the freedom of contract regulated by national law of a member state. The author favors the protection of fundamental rights in private law relationships by applying adequate measures that create indirect horizontal effects of the provisions of EU law on fundamental rights. These concern national measures that can also secure adequate protection of fundamental rights via interpretation and application of national law in line with EU law in private law relationships.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel

Abstract The European Union and its member-states’ involvement in the economic sphere, manifesting itself in establishing the rules of entrepreneurs’ functioning – their responsibilities and entitlements – requires a precise determination of the addressees of these standards. Proper identification of an entrepreneur is a condition of proper legislation, interpretation, application, control and execution of the law. In this context it is surprising that understanding the term entrepreneur in Polish law and in EU law is not the same, and divergences and differences in identification are fundamental. This fact formed the objective of this article. It is aimed at pointing at key differences in the identification of an entrepreneur between Polish and EU law, explaining the reasons for different concepts, and also the answer to the question: May Poland, as an EU member-state, identify the entrepreneur in a different way than the EU?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document