Origin, Objectives, and Content of the Directive

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati

This chapter provides an overview of the overall EU copyright harmonization project and explains the history of the 2019 EU Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (Directive 2019/790) and the place that it has within the broader EU copyright architecture. It recounts the copyright reform in Europe, which has been based on the harmonization at the EU level and modernization at the EU national level. It also stresses that EU harmonization has been prompted by internal market concerns and concerns regarding the overall competitiveness and appropriateness of the EU copyright regime. The chapter describes the field of copyright, wherein the process of Europeanization of national laws has resulted in their settlement to and convergence with EU law. It mentions the 1988 Green Paper by the Commission of the European Communities, which signaled the start of a more concrete discourse around copyright harmonization.

Author(s):  
D. A. Lebedeva ◽  
Yu. A. Shcheglov

This work scrutinizes modern bioethical concepts of the use of animals for scientific purposes, as well as legal aspects of its use. Initially, the authors present a brief excursion into the history of bioethics and then focus on the modern concept of ethical attitude to the animals used for scientific purposes. The authors analyze the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, as well as the EAEU acts and by-laws of the EAEU member states, and conclude that it is necessary to adopt a supranational act within the EAEU that will regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes in accordance with the principles of reduction, replacement and refinement.


2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica García Quesada

AbstractFailures of compliance with European Union (EU) directives have revealed the EU as a political system capable of enacting laws in a wide range of different policy areas, but facing difficulties to ensure their actual implementation. Although the EU relies on national enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with the EU legislation, there is scarce analysis of the differential deterrent effect of national enforcement in EU law compliance. This article examines the enforcement of an EU water directive, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, in Spain and the UK. It focuses on the existing national sanctions for disciplining actors in charge of complying with EU requirements, and on the actual use of punitive sanctions. The analysis shows that a more comprehensive and active disciplinary regime at the national level contributes to explain a higher degree of compliance with EU law. The article calls for a detailed examination of the national administrative and criminal sanction system for a more comprehensive understanding of the incentives and disincentives to comply with EU law at the national state level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 204-226
Author(s):  
Bertjan Wolthuis ◽  
Luigi Corrias

The chapter provides a Kantian reading of EU internal market law and the refugee crisis of 2015. The chapter argues that the EU should be viewed as a cosmopolitan union. The authors ask whether EU law, understood as positive cosmopolitan law, can be qualified as an extension of the legal condition, and whether it can be viewed as consistent with the other two parts of public law, especially with the freedom of EU member states which also depend on the possible connection to global, much less extensive, systems of positive cosmopolitan law such as migration law.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns

This chapter examines the European Union’s (EU’s) original decision to create a single market and the moves to complete the internal market—what became known as the single market programme—in the 1980s. The economic ideal of a common or single European market lies at the core of the EU. The decision to institute a drive to achieve a single internal market by the end of 1992 played a key role in the revival of European integration. The chapter first traces the development of internal market policy before discussing the record of implementation beyond 1992. It then considers recent policy developments in relation to the single market in the context of the Barroso (2005–14) and Juncker (2014–19) Commission presidencies. It also reviews the academic literature on the single market, focusing on the main explanations for its development and some key ideological or normative perspectives on its consequences, including political economy critiques.


2020 ◽  
pp. 294-322
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter explores the free movement of goods, which lies at the very heart of the internal market. The idea of the free movement of goods was the starting point that the EEC Treaty aimed for, and remains one of the greatest achievements of the EU to date. However, as with everything in EU law, there are a lot of legal rules underpinning a fairly straightforward concept. The Treaty contains two separate sets of provisions that address matters of taxation when it comes to trade in products. The first relates to border taxation, while the second relates to internal taxation. With regard to non-taxation issues, the primary issue is quantitative restrictions: situations where a Member State either blocks a specific volume of products from entering its market, or outlaws/bans a product altogether. The chapter then considers the exceptions to free movement of goods, and assesses how Brexit may impact on the free movement of goods between the UK and the EU.


European View ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
Theodore Pelagidis ◽  
Michael Mitsopoulos

The need for ‘more Europe’ stands out today in an international environment that is contaminated by populism, authoritarianism and demagogy. Consequently, when confronting political radicalism, the domains that the EU should henceforth concentrate on in a positive way must be specified, explaining practically and with pragmatism the reasons for ‘more Europe’. In particular, the EU must deliver concrete benefits that citizens can see in their daily lives, but, at the same time, it has to give them more democratic control over their representation in EU bodies and in the way EU law is shaped and implemented. To accept such progress, the EU must first recognise the critical flaws in its current economic and political architecture, before proceeding to adopt policies that will adequately restore the dynamism of the European dream, leading to a more efficient and just EU. More democracy will help gather support, and ensure renewed progress towards a closer Union in which the single market is meaningfully deepened.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 889-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Biondi ◽  
John Dumay ◽  
David Monciardini

Purpose Motivated by claims that the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IRF) can be used to comply with Directive 2014/95/EU (the EU Directive) on non-financial and diversity disclosure, the purpose of this study is to examine whether companies can comply with corporate reporting laws using de facto standards or frameworks. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopted an interpretivist approach to research along with current regulatory studies that aim to investigate business compliance with the law using private sector standards. To support the authors’ arguments, publicly available secondary data sources were used, including newsletters, press releases and websites, reports from key players within the accounting profession, public documents issued by the European Commission and data from corporatergister.com. Findings To become a de facto standard or framework, a private standard-setter requires the support of corporate regulators to mandate it in a specific national jurisdiction. The de facto standard-setter requires a powerful coalition of actors who can influence the policymakers to allow its adoption and diffusion at a national level to become mandated. Without regulatory support, it is difficult for a private and voluntary reporting standard or framework to be adopted and diffused. Moreover, the authors report that the <IRF> preferences stock market capitalism over sustainability because it privileges organisational sustainability over social and environmental sustainability, emphasises value creation over holding organisations accountable for their impact on society and the environment and privileges the entitlements of providers of financial capital over other stakeholders. Research limitations/implications The authors question the suitability of the goals of both the <IRF> and the EU Directive during and after the COVID-19 crisis. The planned changes to both need rethinking as we head into uncharted waters. Moreover, the authors believe that the people cannot afford any more reporting façades. Originality/value The authors offer a critical analysis of the link between the <IRF> and the EU Directive and how the <IRF> can be used to comply with the EU Directive. By questioning the relevance of the compliance question, the authors advance a critique about the relevance of these and other legal and de facto frameworks, particularly considering the more pressing needs that must be met to address the economic, social and environmental implications of the COVID-19 crisis.


Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena

Este artículo es un estudio relativo a la tutela judicial de los Derechos Fundamentales cuando se aplica Derecho de la Unión en el ámbito interno, y a cuáles son los principales problemas con los que se topa el Juez nacional que aplica el Derecho de la Unión al llevar a cabo dicha función protectora. El trabajo, dicho de forma más concreta, se centra en el examen de una serie de recientes y decisivas resoluciones jurisdiccionales, dictadas tanto por parte del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como por parte del Tribunal Constitucional Español, que analizan problemas y señalan soluciones relativas a esas cuestiones, además de mostrar cuál es la evolución y el estado de la situación al respecto. Se trata de resoluciones que abordan cuestiones de fondo, como, por ejemplo: ¿hasta qué punto es posible utilizar estándares nacionales de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales en situaciones conectadas con el Derecho de la Unión o con su aplicación, en lugar de utilizar el sistema de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea? Y asimismo, resoluciones que atienden a cuestiones de dimensión más procesal como la de dirimir hasta qué punto tiene autonomía el Juez nacional a la hora de plantear una petición prejudicial (se entiende a la hora de tutelar derechos reconocidos por normas de la Unión) en relación a las normas procesales nacionales.This article deals with the judicial protection of fundamental rights when EU Law is applied at national level and the main problems national judges have to deal with when applying EU Law as protectors of rights. More precisely, the work is focused on the examination of some recent and decisive judicial decisions, both by the European Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court which analyze the problems and address the solutions to those questions besides showing the evolution and current situation in that regard. They are decisions that deal with the merits as for example to which extent it might be possible to use national standards of protection of fundamental rights in situations connected to EU Law or to its application instead of using the system of protection of EU human rights. Likewise, they are decisions which handle with more procedural questions as for example to what extent national judges are autonomous to file a preliminary question (it is understood that when it comes time to protect rights acknowledged by the EU) relative to national procedural rules.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document