European Union Civil Service Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Bradley
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Family Law ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Title X ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The One

The civil service law of the European Union governs the legal relationships between Union institutions and agencies, on the one hand, and their staff and a number of categories of persons who may have rights under the EU Staff Regulations or equivalent instruments, on the other hand. These latter include in particular former staff in receipt of pensions or other benefits, family members of (former) staff who have a claim on the Union as a result of their links with the staff member, and candidates for competitions and contractual posts. It is EU law in a relatively pure form, in that neither national law nor the Member State authorities (administrative or political) play any significant part in its application, except Member State governments in their role as Union legislators within the Council, and occasionally national courts called upon to apply EU staff law in national disputes, for example in tax or family law matters. Despite its material content, European Union civil service law is also relatively impervious to the influence of EU social protection law adopted in favour of workers generally under Title X of Part Three TFEU (Social policy), subject to a small number of exceptions, such as minimum

scholarly journals The Court of Justice, the National Courts, and the Controversy over the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of the Constitutionality of Law in the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Roman Kwiecień
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The One

The paper addresses the issue of a judicial forum entitled to resolve conflicts between European Union law and national constitutional rules. First and foremost, the issue is discussed under the old primacy/supremacy of EU law controversy. The author seeks to answer whether the national law, including constitutional rules, of a Member State can be ineffective owing to being contradictory to EU law. If so, by whom can national laws be held ineffective? In other words, which of the two judicial fora (national and European) have the last word in these conflicts or who is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of law within the European legal space? The author argues that legal reasoning should reconcile, on the one hand, the specificity of the EU’s unique legal order and effective application of its provisions and, on the other hand, the international legal status of the Member States and their constitutions. This approach leads to the conclusion that there is no ultimate judicial arbiter within the European legal space.

Preliminary References

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Broberg ◽  
Niels Fenger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
National Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeal

A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from the national court of a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Union to give an authoritative interpretation of an EU act or a decision on the validity of such an act. In this situation, the Court of Justice does not function as a court of appeal that rules on the outcome of the main proceedings before the referring court: it makes judgment neither on the facts in the main proceedings nor on the interpretation and application of national law. Moreover, in principle it does not itself pronounce on the concrete application of EU law in the main proceedings before the referring court. Finally, while a preliminary ruling is normally given in the form of a judgment, the ruling is addressed to the referring court and not to the parties to the main proceedings. Only the referring court’s subsequent decision can be enforced against those parties. The preliminary reference procedure is therefore an expression of the interplay and allocation of tasks between national courts and the Court of Justice.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

scholarly journals Effectiveness of EU law and protection of fundamental rights - in search of balance in the context of the ne bis in idem principle

2019 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
Monika Szwarc
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Full Effect ◽  
Article 50

The article undertakes the current and important issue of balancing between the Member States’ obligations to ensure effectiveness of EU law and to respect fundamental rights, taking as an example the ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The recent case law of the CJEU in Di Puma, Garlsson and others and Menci is analysed. These rulings exemplify the growing importance of the issue of how to balance the two obligations in a situation when the repression undertaken by a Member State in order to ensure the full effect of EU law may infringe a fundamental right provided for in the Charter. The main objective is thus to formulate proposals on how to balance these interests, as well as to define their consequences for national courts.

scholarly journals Towards a European Health Union: What Role for Member States?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-765
Author(s):  
Mary GUY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Healthcare ◽  
National Healthcare System ◽  
European Health ◽  
The One

Calls for a European Health Union apparently challenge long-standing beliefs that national healthcare system organisation is a Member State competence. Interaction between Member State and European Union (EU) levels therefore fundamentally requires reflection in the design, overall structure and legal basis of any European Health Union. Article 168(7) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides the current version of the seemingly limited EU competence with regards to national healthcare system organisation and has received surprisingly little attention thus far. On the one hand, within the wider EU health competence ‘web’, Article 168(7) TFEU constrains EU adoption of measures incentivising Member States to use particular treatments or to increase intensive care units in response to COVID-19. On the other hand, Article 168(7) TFEU is challenged by the perceived influence of Country-Specific Recommendations issued in the context of the European Semester on national health policies. This opinion piece provides an original assessment of Article 168(7) TFEU to argue that Treaty change to redress the balance between EU and Member State competence regarding national healthcare systems may be uncalled for given both the flexibility afforded by the provision and the complexity and diversity of Member State healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Restrictions on European Union Citizens’ Freedom of Movement and Residence in the Country on Grounds of Public Policy, Public Security and Public Health

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Algis Junevičius ◽  
Rasa Daugėlienė
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe free movement of persons is one of the most successful European Union projects, serving as a majorly important factor promoting the European integration processes. The adoption of the Treaty on the European Union and the creation of EU citizenship implemented significant changes: the status of EU citizens and their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States can no longer be interpreted in the way it was before the adoption of the Treaty on the European Union. There are no requirements for EU citizens within the Treaty to pursue professional or independent activities or to work under an employment contract in order to access provided rights. However, the right of free movement is not unlimited. The administrations of the Member State governments are authorized to impose restictions on the free movement of citizens. In the light of these facts, this article examines exceptions in the field of free movement of persons and indentifies concepts of public policy, public security and public health. Special attention is given to so-called rule limitation of restrictions and to the mechanism of protection against expulsion from the country. The article concludes by saying that the institutions of Member State governments have the right to evaluate threats within the territory of the country and to decide on the content of public security by themselves. However, their discretion can not be used as an instrument to treat the conduct of other Member State citizens in a worse way than that of their own local citizens.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-254
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is a former member state of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, i.e. the treaties; secondary legislation, including regulations and directives; and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts, or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that member states are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage. The Withdrawal Act 2018 includes the key provisions for EU law in the UK post-Brexit.

6. The law and institutions of the European Union (EU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
National Courts ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Supranational Institutions

The UK is currently a Member State of the European Union (EU). The EU is administered by several supranational institutions including: the European Council; the Council of the European Union; the European Commission; the European Parliament; and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The main sources of EU law are primary legislation, ie the treaties, secondary legislation, including regulations and directives, and the case law of the CJEU. Where EU law and national law conflict, EU law is supreme. EU law may have direct effect, i.e. be enforceable by individuals before national courts or indirect effect, where national courts are obliged to interpret national legislation and case law, so far as possible to conform with a relevant directive. State liability for breaches of EU law means that Member States are obliged to compensate individuals for consequent loss or damage.

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.

Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee: Judicial Challenges to Renewable-Energy Support Schemes in Europe

Climate Law ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Talus
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Past ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The One ◽  
Economic Considerations

The past few years have witnessed a surge of judicial activity relating to renewable energy in the European Union. Several renewable-energy disputes have come before dispute-settlement bodies, such as the Court of Justice of the European Union, wto bodies, investment-dispute tribunals, and national courts. Behind these disputes is often a tension between, on the one hand, state- or European Union-level regulations seeking to promote renewable energy and achieve climate-policy objectives, and, on the other, economic considerations related to investor protection and free movement of goods.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document