National Systems' Adaptation to the EU System: Trends, Offers, and Constraints

2003 ◽  
pp. 53-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Maurer ◽  
Jürgen Mittag ◽  
Wolfgang Wessels
Keyword(s):  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

The EU and National Systems of Labour Law

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Chalmers ◽  
Anthony Arnull ◽  
Phil Syrpis
Keyword(s):  
Labour Law ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Harmonization of VCU testing methods for maize varieties in a European context

2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-377
Author(s):  
J. Van Waes
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
Agricultural Crop ◽  
New Variety ◽  
Ecological Regions ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Maize Varieties ◽  
Separate System ◽  
Evaluation Of Parameters ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

In the European Community, a new variety of an agricultural crop must be submitted for official trials for DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability) and VCU (Value for Cultivation and Use) before commercialization. The guidelines for these tests are summarized in the European directive 70/457/EU (1970), revised in 2002 (2002/53/EU).  At present each EU country has a separate system for VCU testing. The EU directive stipulates that the VCU value must be satisfactory. The term “satisfactory” can be interpreted in different ways, so the level for admission for the same varieties may differ greatly between countries. For the market this can lead to a different assortment of varieties, adapted for the same ecological regions, but distributed over several countries. The different steps, from acceptance of a variety for trials, through the organization, the evaluation of parameters during the growing season, harvest modalities and data processing to the criteria for registration in Belgium are presented in the paper, followed by an analysis of the registration procedure in Belgium in comparison with other countries  Thereafter, a proposal is given for harmonization and international cooperation in the VCU testing of varieties adapted to comparable ecological regions of neighbouring countries and with the same crop exploitation and use of the final product. For these varieties it is important that nearly the same rules are used for the registration of VCU value. The basis for successful international cooperation is a good knowledge of the national systems, searching for similarities and finding a solution for differences.

scholarly journals Research, conservation and zoos: the EC Zoos Directive – a response to Rees

Oryx ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Wehnelt ◽  
Roger Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
European Country ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Conservation Measure ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Statutory Requirement ◽  
Set Up ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Rees (2005) states in his critical review of the EC Zoos Directive that ‘zoos have no incentive to undertake conservation research because they can legitimately ignore this requirement providing they carry out an alternative conservation measure. Zoos therefore can comply with the EU Zoos Directive by doing nothing.’ Zoo conservation took a major step forward when the Council of EC Environment Ministers agreed in 1998 to an EC Zoos Directive to strengthen the conservation role of zoos. The Directive came into force in 1999 and requires that all Member States set up national systems for the licensing and inspection of zoos. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 already implements many of the measures in the Directive, including the provision of proper accommodation and care for the animals, keeping up to date records, and taking appropriate measures to prevent escapes. But the requirements that zoos participate in conservation and education activities are new. Although many zoos already participate, the new legislation has made this a statutory requirement. Each European country is now responsible for enforcing the EU Directive with their national zoos. The Directive needs to be general because it applies to animal collections of very different sizes and structures. It cannot be expected that the Directive sets standards higher than is achievable for its smallest members.

scholarly journals Multilingual Legislation in the European Union. EU and National Legislative-Language Styles and Terminology

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Native Speakers ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Legislative Language ◽  
Language Styles ◽  
Multilingual Text ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

EU law is multilingual and multi-cultural. It is initially drafted in one language, now frequently English, often by non-native speakers and then translated into the other EU languages. Amendments may be proposed that are drafted in a different language. The result is a single multilingual text created in 23 language versions that are authentic within the context of the EU legal order. These circumstances have led EU legal language to develop its own terminology and legislative style as a separate genre. One question is to identify different national cultural drafting styles and traditions that lie behind the creation of EU legislative texts and terminology. The Member State traditions vary, yet they merge in the EU legislative texts. In order to assist in the understanding of EU legislative texts, it is useful to reflect on how they are constructed and the features and requirements lying behind their creation, interpretation and transposition. One approach is to consider a specific piece of EU text in a range of languages and consider how the text is reproduced in each language in terms of structure and terminology. Since the original draft is frequently made by non-native speakers and then translated into the other EU languages, which are bound by the structure of the base version, we obtain little information from it about divergent national linguistic and legislative methods. However, if the EU text is a directive which is transposed into national law, we should be able also to look at the national implementing legislation intended to implement the directive. The implementing texts are produced within the national legal context and, one assumes, aim at similar results, as laid down by the directive. Thus it could be expected that they should provide vehicles for study between the national systems and between each national system and the EU legal order. The paper explores these ideas to see where they lead.

scholarly journals Human rights during the mass introduction of artificial intelligence and robotic systems into public life

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (71) ◽  
pp. 609-620
Author(s):  
Dmitry Kuteynikov ◽  
Osman Izhaev ◽  
Valerian Lebedev ◽  
Sergey Zenin
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Life ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Robotic Systems ◽  
Social Credit ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Uk ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Purpose: This article considers legal approaches to implementing human rights during the mass exploitation of artificial intelligence and robotic systems in public life. Methods: Within the framework of this study, an emphasis is placed on the legal regulation of artificial intelligence systems and robotics used for remote biometric identification of a person and the creation of social credit systems. This study analyzes different models of legal regulation that are typical of certain countries and regions, including the UK, USA, China, and the EU. Results: In the UK, it is allowed to use real-time face recognition systems in public spaces but the set of scenarios and situations for their use is significantly limited by legislation and law enforcement. The legal regulation of these systems in each state is based on a constant dialogue between state and civil society. The use of artificial intelligence and robotic systems to create social credit systems is tested in some countries. Modern states have formed several approaches to the creation of such systems: some of them completely prohibit these systems, while others develop a technological and regulatory framework for the creation of national systems.

scholarly journals Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-175
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.

Appraisal of the Current Situation and Future Prospects

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Naômé
Keyword(s):  
Current Situation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

This chapter describes the characteristics of the ECJ appeal system, distinguishing it from comparable judicial remedies in national legal systems. One distinguishing feature is that it is a new remedy, created with a few rules that were not always clear. Lawyers working for the Court or pleading before it are not specialised in appeals and are influenced by national laws. Referral of a case back to the same judges as those who decided the quashed judgment is a possibility absent in many national systems. Judgments of the EU Courts have a specific style and content. The interpretation of EU law seems sometimes more important than a limited resolution of a dispute. The second section recalls the objectives underlying the creation of the Court of First Instance (General Court/GCEU) and assesses whether those objectives have been met as regards the ECJ’s caseload and the judicial protection of individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document