scholarly journals “United in Diversity” – The Integration of Enhanced Cooperation into the European Constitutional Order

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 1731-1747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
European Law ◽  
Acquis Communautaire ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Political Concept ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Principle

The “unity dogma” has long characterized the European law discourse. In many of its landmark decisions the European Court of Justice had recourse to the “unity argument,” such as in Costa vs. E.N.E.L., where it rightly states that “the executive force of Community law cannot vary from one state to another … without jeopardizing the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty.” Other expressions of the “unity dogma” include the legal principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the fundamental freedoms, which lie at the heart of the single market, or the political concept of acquis communautaire obliging new Member States to subscribe to all existing Community laws. Indeed, the establishment of a supranational legal order requires a continued focus on its uniform application in the Member States without which the effectiveness of European law is at stake. My intention is not to call into question the underlying rationale of this quest for unity. The aim of this contribution is rather to show that the asymmetric non-participation of individual Member States in selected areas of Union activity can be embedded into the existing European legal order and does not contradict its constitutional aspirations, thereby giving substance to the Union's motto “United in Diversity.”

scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States as a Constitutional Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kangnikoé Bado
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
West African ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Innovative Solutions

One of the major innovations made by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is the unequivocal granting of a supranational role to the Court of Justice of the organisation. However, its human rights mandate has led to real and potential tensions within the ECOWAS legal order. The tensions stem from the legal force of judgments of constitutional courts of member states and the admissibility of individual petitions before the Court. This work identifies some deficiencies in the current regime of the human rights mandate of the Court. Gaps exist at the level of the member states’ constitutional order, as well as at the community level. The supranational competence of the jurisdiction must be implemented by the possibility of ordering concrete measures to be taken by states for the reparation of human rights violations. Innovative solutions are suggested in this work in order to fill procedural and substantial gaps in the protection system established in West Africa.

Supranational Differentiation and Enhanced Cooperation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uniform Composition

The ‘unity dogma’ has long characterized European law discourse. In many of its landmark judgments, the European Court of Justice had recourse to the ‘unity argument’—such as in Costa v ENEL, where the Court stated that ‘the executive force of Community law cannot vary from one state to another … without jeopardizing the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty’. Unilateral national deviations could not be tolerated without the common rules ‘being deprived of their character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question’. Other expressions of the ‘unity dogma’ include the principle of non-discrimination or the uniform composition of EU institutions. This contribution demonstrates that the asymmetric non-participation of some Member States in selected policy areas can be embedded into the supranational legal order. The main danger seems to be a structural weakening of political legitimacy.

Recognition Of Companies Incorporated In Other EU Member States

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 521-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Micheler
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Few decisions of the European Court of Justice have received as much attention as the 1999 judgement in Centros.1 This decision provided private international lawyers with an opportunity to examine choice of law in relation to companies against the background of European law. It also caused company lawyers to re-examine their national legislation in the light of foreign rules.

Negotiating Turkey's Membership to the European Union. Can the Member States Do As They Please?

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Hillion
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
European Union Enlargement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Limits to member states' discretion in European Union enlargement negotiations – Changing the fundamentals of the EU constitutional order through the conclusion of accession treaties – The case of Turkey – Caveats, precautions and fallback strategies in the ‘Negotiating Framework for Turkey’ – Enforcing the limits to member states' discretion in European Union enlargement negotiations – The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice before ratification and after entry into force.

scholarly journals Dyskusja nad modelem wykładni prounijnej w polskiej nauce prawa

2018 ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Wojciech Rowiński
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Consistent Model ◽  
Theory Of Law ◽  
Normative Models ◽  
The Eu

The aim of this paper is to present the discussion on normative models of the pro-EU interpretation of national law in Polish jurisprudence. The European Court of Justice drew only general assumptions concerning the pro-EU interpretation, and left the Member States free to choose the methods of its implementation. The author analyses the proposals of the models described in the science of European law as well as in the theory of law, and on that basis comes to the conclusion that a universal and consistent model that would ensure full realisation of the EU law objectives regarding the pro-EU interpretation has not yet been developed.

Foreign Affairs Federalism in the European Union

2019 ◽  
pp. 331-351
Author(s):  
Robert Schütze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Treaty Of Rome ◽  
Formed Part ◽  
Mixed Agreements

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

A Constitutional Court for Europe?

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Council ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Draft Constitution

The purpose of this article is to consider the effect of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At the time of writing, the future of the draft Constitution is somewhat uncertain. Having been finalised by the Convention on the Future of Europe in the summer of 2003 and submitted to the then President of the European Council, it formed the basis for discussion at an intergovernmental conference (IGC) which opened in October 2003. Hopes that the text might be finalised by the end of the year were dashed when a meeting of the IGC in Brussels in December 2003 ended prematurely amid disagreement over the weighting of votes in the Council. However, it seems likely that a treaty equipping the European Union with a Constitution based on the Convention’s draft will in due course be adopted and that the provisions of the draft dealing with the ECJ will not be changed significantly. Even if either assumption proves misplaced, those provisions will remain of interest as reflecting one view of the position the ECJ might occupy in a constitutional order of the Union.

TAX PLANNING AND STATE AID UNDER THE EUROPEAN LAW

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 228-232
Author(s):  
Aygun Gunduz Guliyeva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Tax Avoidance ◽  
Tax Planning ◽  
State Aid ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

There is a strong link between funding criteria from government sources and the advantage and selectivity associated with classifying an event as government assistance. However, the selectivity criterion is very important when considering whether there is a banned state aid. Finally, the European Court of Justice no longer applies the rule of law and exclusion to selectivity. Instead, the selectivity review consists of two parts: whether a precaution is selective and whether preference is necessary and proportionate. Key words: EU, tax, tax avoidance, state aid, tax planning, competition

“Unity in Diversity” Reloaded: The European Court of Human Rights’ Turn to Subsidiarity and its Consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-123
Author(s):  
Mikael Rask Madsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Unity In Diversity ◽  
The Common ◽  
Individual Justice

Abstract The European Convention of Human Rights system was originally created to sound the alarm if democracy was threatened in the member states. Yet, it eventually developed into a very different system with a focus on providing individual justice in an ever growing number of member states. This transformation has raised fundamental questions as to the level of difference and diversity allowed within the common European human rights space. Was the system to rest on minimum standards with room for domestic differences, or was it to create uniform standards? These questions have come up as increasingly contentious issues over the past years and have triggered a number of reforms seeking to introduce more subsidiarity in the system, striking a different balance between the European and national oversight of human rights. The article analyses this turn to subsidiarity by exploring whether the reform process has introduced new forms of difference and diversity within the common space of European human rights. Covering the period from 2000 to the end of 2019 and using a dataset of all judgments of the period, the article provides a structural analysis of developments in reference to the margin of appreciation which is the European Court of Human Rights’ long-standing tool for balancing the common standards, yet leaving space for individual member states to find local solutions to implementing those standards. It concludes that recent developments have contributed to a more federal-style construction of European human rights with more space for differences within the common general standards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document