12. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Crucial Component ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling.

13. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 463-495
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which Article 258 is relevant to the UK post-Brexit.

13. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 481-514
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which Article 258 is relevant to the UK post-Brexit.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Land Policy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Direct Discrimination ◽  
Quality Of Living

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.

scholarly journals Organizacja administracji ochrony środowiska w Polsce i Unii Europejskiej

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Maciej Jabłoński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Acquis Communautaire ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Eu

The organization of environmental protection in Poland and the European Union is a mutual connection of competencies and a correlation of systems and rights according to national and EU laws. The legal system of the EU is the result of decades of cooperation undertaken by the will of the Member States known as the acquis communautaire. EU law has primacy over national law, which in practice means that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of national law and EU law, the national law is deemed inapplicable and needs to be adjusted by the Member State.

scholarly journals EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Lane Scheppele ◽  
Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov ◽  
Barbara Grabowska-Moroz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Although compliance with the founding values is presumed in its law, the Union is now confronted with persistent disregard of these values in two Member States. If it ceases to be a union of Rule-of-Law-abiding democracies, the European Union (EU) is unthinkable. Purely political mechanisms to safeguard the Rule of Law, such as those in Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU), do not work. Worse still, their existence has disguised the fact that the violations of the values of Article 2 TEU are also violations of EU law. The legal mechanisms tried thus far, however, do not work either. The fundamental jurisprudence on judicial independence and irremovability under Article 19(1) TEU is a good start, but it has been unable to change the situation on the ground. Despite ten years of EU attempts at reining in Rule of Law violations and even as backsliding Member States have lost cases at the Court of Justice, illiberal regimes inside the EU have become more consolidated: the EU has been losing through winning. More creative work is needed to find ways to enforce the values of Article 2 TEU more effectively. Taking this insight, we propose to turn the EU into a militant democracy, able to defend its basic principles, by using the traditional tools for the enforcement of EU law in a novel manner. We demonstrate how the familiar infringement actions—both under Article 258 and 259 TFEU—can be adapted as instruments for enforcing EU values by bundling a set of specific violations into a single general infringement action to show how a pattern of unlawful activity rises to the level of being a systemic violation. A systemic violation, because of its general and pervasive nature, in itself threatens basic values above and beyond violations of individual provisions of the acquis. Certified by the Court of Justice, a systemic violation of EU law should call for systemic compliance that would require the Member State to undo the effects of its attacks on the values of Article 2. The use of Article 260 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) to deduct fines from EU funds due to be received by the troubled Member State would provide additional incentives for systemic compliance. We illustrate this proposed militant democratic structure by explaining and critiquing what the Commission and Court together have done to reign in the governments of Hungary and Poland so far and then showing how they can do better.

scholarly journals The Application of EU Law by Polish Courts. General Remarks on 15 Years of Experience

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-32
Author(s):  
Monika Domańska ◽  
Dawid Miąsik ◽  
Monika Szwarc
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Years Of Experience ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Minimum Requirements

The Court of Justice of the European Union operates on a case-by-case basis. This means that its decisions normally relate to specific problems occurring in a specific Member State. Consequently it is often hard to ‘translate’ this case law into the national legal system of a different Member State. Nevertheless the case law of the Court of Justice has consequences not only for the individual Member States. It also has harmonising effects. In this sense, the principles of primacy and of direct effect of EU provisions, as well as the obligation to interpret domestic law in conformity with EU law, operate as the minimum requirements which the legal systems of Member States must fulfil. Poland joined the European Union in May 2004. At that time the number of Member States increased to 25. The existence of avenues of judicial protection in the EU raised a number of questions from the very beginning. Now, after 15 years of experience it is time to consider the standard of application of EU law by Polish courts.

4. The Supremacy of EU Law and its Reception in the Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-72
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
General Question ◽  
The Political ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Questions And Answers

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 presents sample exam questions along with examiner’s tips, answer plans, and suggested answers about the supremacy of EU law and its reception in Member States. Both the legal arguments for supremacy and the political logic are often considered in establishing the reasoning for EU law supremacy. The first question concentrates on the reasons for EU law supremacy from the point of view of the Union and in the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU (or also abbreviated CoJ)). A general question about the exit process of a state by a Member State in the light of Brexit is included.

scholarly journals Social devolution and the impact of European Union Law: A critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-206
Author(s):  
Herwig Verschueren
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Coordination System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This article examines the extent to which EU law impacts on the relationship between the sub-national entities of a Member State where these sub-national entities have regulatory powers in the field of social protection. More specifically, it explores whether the criteria relied on in EU law for determining the scope of the circles of solidarity in the relationship between the Member States can also be applied in the context of the relations between the sub-national entities of regionalised Member States. It appears that EU law on the free movement of persons influences these matters, more specifically the European social security coordination system that determines to which national circle of solidarity a person migrating between Member States belongs. Indeed, in its judgment in the Flemish care insurance case, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) also applied these rules to some categories of persons in a cross-border situation between different regions of a single Member State. This article critically analyses this case law specifically in terms of respect for the regionalised identity of socially devolved Member States. It concludes that this kind of respect requires that in the context of the relations between sub-national entities of a regionalised Member State, the domestic constitutional rules determining the boundaries of circles of solidarity between these entities should, in all circumstances, have preference over the EU rules applicable between Member States.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Enhanced Cooperation and European Tax Law

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Heber
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Entire Group ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Cooperation Mechanism ◽  
The Law

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document