4. EU Law: Sources, Forms, and Law-Making

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):  
Nigel Foster

This chapter examines the EU’s legal system. 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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 94-139
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

This chapter examines the EU’s legal system. 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):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax

This chapter will catalogue the multiple ways in which human rights penetrate the EU legal order and the different functions they play qua (internalised/’Europeanised’) ‘fundamental rights’, both as standards of validity and as means of interpretation of EU acts. The main preoccupation is to identify the sources of fundamental rights obligations, retrace their origin and overall significance within the EU legal system, and determine the rules relevant to their interpretation and application. The ‘integrated’ or ‘cumulative standards’ approach will be developed against this background. According to this method, the precise level of protection that Charter rights afford will be determined by reference to Articles 52 and 53 thereof, taking the ECHR, other ‘international obligations common to the Member States’ (Recital 5 CFR), and any relevant ‘autonomous requirements’ of EU law into account. Drawing on post-Lisbon case law, it will be shown how any other approach fails to ensure compliance with all relevant requirements simultaneously. This technique will inform assessments in chapters of Part II.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 308-340
Author(s):  
Gloria Fernández Arribas

The Kimberley Process represents a new method of international cooperation between subjects of international law. It was named by its creators as a process, setting it apart from international organizations, and leading too to its consideration as informal international law-making or soft law. In this study we shall analyze the extent to which the Kimberley Process falls into these categories. Our main task, however, is to compare it to formal international organizations, with a view to establishing whether what really has been created is an institutionalization process that is like an international organization, but with a different name. To do this, we will analyze with reference to the Kimberley Process the various respective fields of international organizations, such as founding agreement, membership, structure, decision-making process and legal order.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1006-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bast

AbstractThe present paper concerns procedural guarantees in immigration proceedings, thus addressing the broader question of the role of the general principles of EU law in respect of administrative decision-making. The main assertion is that certain requirements of procedural due process are recognized in EU law as fundamental rights. They must therefore be observed by Member State authorities when decisions significantly affecting the legal position of a person are taken, provided that the decision is at least partly determined by EU law. The relevant immigration proceedings involve measures related to the termination of residence as well as decisions related to denial or loss of a particular legal status. In effect, the actual scope of application of the EU's administrative fundamental rights is determined by the actual scope of activity of the European legislator. The author concludes that even a relatively ‘shallow’ harmonization of laws can lead to a ‘deep’ reshaping of the domestic legal order, by becoming a Trojan Horse for fundamental rights heretofore alien to some national immigration regimes.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Weiß

Treaty of Lisbon – Fundamental Rights Charter – European Convention on Human Rights – Partial incorporation of Convention in Charter – Incorporation of Charter into EU law with Lisbon – Questions of loss of autonomy for the EU legal order – Gain in direct effect of Convention in EU member states


2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herwig C.H. Hofmann ◽  
C. Mihaescu

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – Multiple sources of fundamental rights in the EU legal system – Non-hierarchical, pluralistic understanding of their interrelationship – Case study: the right to good administration – Difficulties in defining the scope of the right to good administration under the Charter and that of the right to good administration as a general principle of EU law – Adoption of a pluralistic understanding of the EU fundamental rights’ sources allows for a clarification and improved understanding of the individual's rights in the EU legal system


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4 (1)) ◽  
pp. 55-73
Author(s):  
Joanna Ryszka

The principle of proportionality in the EU legal order applies, among others, to actions taken by Member States in the situation where they are willing to use, permitted by the EU law, derogation from its provisions, in particular – in the area of internal market freedoms. Derogation from those freedoms will not be justified if it is not absolutely necessary. National regulations must therefore be proportionate to the objective that these restrictions are to protect. With respect to the free movement of persons, as an example of these goals, the protection of fundamental rights could be mentioned. It is vitally important for the realization of an internal market due to the existence of interesting interactions occurring between them and specific ways of applying the principle of proportionality when they collide with each other.


2021 ◽  
pp. 108-139
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco

This chapter discusses the EU system’s sources of law covering: primary legislation, secondary Union legislation and other sources of law, including ‘soft law’. It also discusses the legislative procedures, decision-making procedure of the Commission and legislative powers and implied powers. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danai Petropoulou Ionescu ◽  
Mariolina Eliantonio

The increased recourse to soft law by the European Union (EU) as a flexible solution to complex social and policy issues has raised several questions about the democratic legitimacy of decision-making at the EU level. With the aim to provide a normative direction for future empirical assessment of EU soft law, this article explores the democratic credentials that EU soft law measures should fulfil to ensure their legitimacy. Drawing from the intersections of liberal, republican and deliberative conceptions of democracy, this article proposes four democratic legitimacy standards for the evaluation of soft law measures in practice: parliamentary involvement, transparency, participatory quality and reviewability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document