Part III The EU Resolution Regime, 11 Institutional and Cross-Border Issues

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gleeson Simon ◽  
Guynn Randall
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Single Resolution Mechanism ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Credit Institutions

This chapter examines how the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive is implemented in international and cross-border situations, both within the EU and between the EU and third countries. The BRRD requires each member state to recognize in their law the effect of resolution actions taken by other member states. This means that as regards foreign resolution action which purports to transfer assets located in their jurisdiction, or rights or liabilities governed by their law, or write-down or convert liabilities governed by their law or owed to creditors in their jurisdictions, their law must make provision for such transfers or conversions to take effect automatically and cannot be prevented, challenged, or set aside under their law. The chapter covers the scope of the Single Resolution Mechanism, cross-border branching, and the relevant changes to the Credit Institutions (Winding-Up) Directive.

scholarly journals Multilevel cooperation in the EU resolution of cross-border bank groups: lessons from the non-euro area Member States joining the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Smoleńska
Keyword(s):  
Euro Area ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Essential Condition ◽  
European Banking Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Single Resolution Mechanism ◽  
European Banking ◽  
Administrative Oversight ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCross-border banking presents a unique set of challenges in the EU from the perspective of arranging administrative oversight structures. Structuring cooperation between different EU and national authorities in a way which is conducive to trust-building and mutual engagement is an essential condition for overcoming disintegrative tendencies in the internal market. To assess how the existing EU arrangements fare in this regard in the context of EU resolution law, this article comparatively analyses the different models of multilevel administrative cooperation in the post-crisis EU framework. These are specifically the centralised model of the European Banking Union (Single Resolution Mechanism) and the relatively looser networked model of the resolution colleges. The multilevel cooperation under both models is nuanced given the distinct roles of the national resolution authorities, EU agencies and the differentiated status of non-euro area Member States in the EBU (Croatia, Bulgaria). The article’s findings allow to identify specific problems of constitutional nature pertaining to the accountability of administrative cooperation, equality of Member States and the implications of Meroni doctrine’s distortive effects.

Part V Legal and Conduct Risk in Interconnected Financial Markets, 19 ‘Brexit’

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Risks ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal risks raised by Brexit. These include change of law risk for financial markets and especially for institutions that wish to do cross-border business in the EU. For example, while the UK remains in the EU, financial institutions carrying on certain ‘regulated activities’ are afforded so-called ‘passporting’ rights pursuant to which, broadly, they can take advantage of the fact that they are established and appropriately authorised in one member state to do business in other member states, without the need for separate permissions or authorisations in those other states. If the UK leaves the EU, such passporting rights may be terminated unless the Brexit negotiation results in them being preserved in some way.

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

scholarly journals Russian-German initiative tackles infectious diseases

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
Collective Editorial team
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Member State ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
Transnational Cooperation ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

Transnational cooperation is often essential when dealing with infectious diseases, and one challenge facing European Union Member States is finding ways to collaborate with partners outside the EU. An example of one Member State doing just this is the Koch-Metschnikow-Forum (KMF).

scholarly journals The Effect of Enforceability

Lexonomica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Bettina Nunner-Krautgasser
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Performance Judgments ◽  
Austrian Law ◽  
The Eu

In this paper, the author focuses on the effect of enforceability, in particular in relation to Austrian law. However, insights into German and European law are also provided. Enforceability is an effect of a judgment which is basically only granted to performance judgments. Declaratory and constitutive decisions (with the exception of the decision on costs) are not enforceable as such. As a result, the order for performance contained in the judgment can be enforced by state coercive measures. Enforceability occurs upon termination of the performance period. Enforceability is neither a consequence of, nor necessarily coincides with, res judicata. The introduction of the Brussels Ia Regulation has fundamentally changed the system of enforcement of foreign decisions. Decisions given in the EU Member State and enforceable in that State are now enforceable in another Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability.

scholarly journals Cross-border approach to regions’ smart specialization: experience of the EU member states

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 36-48
Author(s):  
Olha Demedyuk ◽  
Khrystyna Prytula
Keyword(s):  
Regional Development ◽  
Recent Decade ◽  
Innovation Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Innovative Strategies ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Border Regions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Smart Specialization ◽  
The Eu

In the recent decade, the EU Member States have been actively implementing the regional development policy based on innovative strategies of smart specialization. However, lately, European researchers have been paying increasing attention to the issues of regions’ capacity to overcome the boundaries of administrative units inside the country and abroad and to the need to consider regions in the context of their functioning among others, especially from the viewpoint of the growing role of their innovative networks in global value chains. That is why currently the EU is addressing the development of cross-border smart specialization strategies. The paper aims to study the European experience on the functioning of cross-border innovation systems and joint strategic planning of cross-border regions’ development based on smart specialization and to outline the opportunities to implement the EU experience of cross-border approach to smart specialization in cross-border regions of Ukraine with EU Member States. The paper analyzes the views of foreign researchers on the links between innovation systems in cross-border space that constitute the theoretical basis of the study of cross-border smart specialization strategies, namely regarding the dimensions and level of their development. The research of European scientists on cross-border innovation systems in specific cross-border regions is examined, in particular on Spanish-French and German-French borders. Directions of implementation of smart specialization projects in cross-border context under the EU programs and other EU instruments that support regions in cooperation for the elaboration of joint view of development with neighbouring economically, socially, culturally, and historically close regions are outlined. The experience and methodology of the first cross-border smart specialization strategy for Spanish and Portuguese regions are studied in detail. The opportunities to use the EU experience by several Western Ukrainian regions based on the joint smart specialization priorities with the neighboring EU states are outlined. For this purpose, 1) the RIS3 strategies of the regions of Poland and Romania adjoining Ukraine and Regional Development Strategies of respective Ukrainian regions were analyzed to detect similar smart specialization priorities; 2) the clusters in the mentioned regions were analyzed as main drivers of achievement of smart specialization goals to detect similar or complementary functioning areas.

scholarly journals Difference of application of VAT in EU member states during the supply of goods including installation

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
Petr David ◽  
Danuše Nerudová
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Member State ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Standard Methods ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

There still exist the differences in provision of VAT, in interpretation of VAT provisions and application of the rules in practice between the EU member states. Application of VAT during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state, both during the existence of establishment in the state of customer and also without it, is considered to be one from the problematic field. Other discrepancies are created by inclusion of the sub suppliers, who can come from other EU member state or from the same state as customer, to this transaction. Questions of VAT application during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state were processed by using standard methods of scientific work in the frame of five selected EU countries – Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Czech Republic.

Migration, Social Protection, and the (Re)Production of Inequalities in the European Union

2018 ◽  
pp. 134-153
Author(s):  
Thomas Faist
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Social Space ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Transnational Social Space ◽  
The Eu

Europe, and the European Union in particular, can be conceived as a transnational social space with a high degree of transactions across borders of member states. The question is how efforts to provide social protection for cross-border migrants in the EU reinforce existing inequalities (e.g. between regions or within households), and lead to new types of inequalities (e.g. stratification of labour markets). Social protection in the EU falls predominantly under the purview of individual member states; hence, frictions between different state-operated protection systems and social protection in small groups are particularly apparent in the case of cross-border flows of people and resources. Chapter 5 examines in detail the general social mechanisms operative in cross-border forms of social protection, in particular, exclusion, opportunity hoarding, hierarchization, and exploitation, and also more concrete mechanisms which need to be constructed bottom-up.

Regional-Cosmopolitan Constituent Power

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-86
Author(s):  
Markus Patberg
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Political Community ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The People ◽  
We The People ◽  
The Eu

This chapter deals with the question of whether the public narrative of ‘We, the people of Europe’, which claims constituent power for a cross-border demos composed of EU citizens, can be justified in terms of a systematic model. To that end, it draws on the political theory of regional cosmopolitanism, which holds that even though the EU is not a state, it has its own political community. The literature on regional cosmopolitanism offers two possible strategies of defending the idea of an EU-wide constituent power: a first-principles approach and a reconstructive approach. The chapter argues that only the latter proves viable, and then goes on to examine the merits of the model that it gives rise to. While regional-cosmopolitan constituent power plausibly responds to the fact that the EU has created a new group of addressees and authors of the law, it neglects the continuing importance of the member state peoples and fails to explain how an EU-wide constituent power could be reconciled with the compound and dependent nature of the EU polity.

scholarly journals European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Carl ◽  
James Dennison ◽  
Geoffrey Evans
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Member State ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Weak Sense ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Measures Of Inequality ◽  
The Eu

To date, most accounts of the UK’s vote to leave the EU have focussed on explaining variation across individuals and constituencies within the UK. In this article, we attempt to answer a different question, namely ‘Why was it the UK that voted to leave, rather than any other member state?’. We show that the UK has long been one of the most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, which we argue can be partly explained by Britons’ comparatively weak sense of European identity. We also show that existing explanations of the UK’s vote to leave cannot account for Britons’ long-standing Euroscepticism: the UK scores lower than many other member states on measures of inequality/austerity, the ‘losers of globalisation’ and authoritarian values, and some of these measures are not even correlated with Euroscepticism across member states. In addition, we show that the positive association between national identity and Euroscepticism is stronger in the UK than in most other EU countries. Overall, we conclude that Britons’ weak sense of European identity was a key contributor to the Brexit vote.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document