The Lack of Coherence in the European Union’s Approach to Noncommunicable Disease Prevention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amandine Garde
Keyword(s):  
Disease Prevention ◽  
Noncommunicable Disease ◽  
The Other ◽  
Policy Area ◽  
Effective Prevention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Cancer Plan ◽  
The One ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the extent to which the European Union's (EU) and its Member States have addressed the growing rates of non–communicable diseases (NCDs) through the development and implementation of effective prevention policies. After discussing the powers that the EU derives from the EU Treaties to address the main commercial determinants of health through the adoption of EU–wide harmonizing rules, it compares the EU regulatory response to tobacco on the one hand, and unhealthy diets and alcohol on the other. It then reflects on the role that the EU Court of Justice has played in the prevention of NCDs in Europe, before concluding with a few remarks on what the future may hold in this policy area now that the new EU Commission in post has announced its ‘Beating Cancer Plan’ and its ‘Farm to Fork Strategy’.

The “Polemical” Spirit of European Constitutional Law: On the Importance of Conflicts in EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1343-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Martinico
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Cautious Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Recently, scholars have argued of the necessity of going beyond “judicial dialogues” and “conflict-and-power” approaches to the analysis of the role of national Constitutional Courts in the Union. On the one hand, there are risks connected to a “too welcoming an approach by national constitutional courts to EU law”; on the other hand, it is possible to criticize both the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and some national Constitutional Courts for other, less cooperative, decisions. I share this cautious approach for many reasons, and primarily because the preliminary ruling mechanism does not exhaust all the possible means of communication between constitutional courts and the CJEU. For instance, what Komárek calls “parallel references” can serve, in some circumstances, as a technique of alternative (or hidden) dialogue, that has favored a sort of “remote dialogue” over the years. My sole point of disagreement with this scholarly position is over the role of conflicts in this scenario. Whilst Komárek seems to confine conflicts to phenomena of mere resistance or to “‘cold’ strategic considerations,” in this work I am going to adopt a much broader idea of conflict, which goes beyond mere “conflicts and power games.”

‘But the Last Word Is Ours’: The Monopoly of Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Light of the Investment Court System

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 1187-1220
Author(s):  
Francisco de Abreu Duarte
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article develops the concept of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the analysis of the case study of the Investment Court System (ICS). By providing a general framework over the criteria that have been developed by the Court, the work sheds light on the controversial principle of autonomy of the European Union (EU) and its implications to the EU’s external action. The work intends to be both pragmatic and analytical. On the one hand, the criteria are extracted as operative tools from the jurisprudence of the CJEU and then used in the context of the validity of the ICS. This provides the reader with some definitive standards that can then be applied to future cases whenever a question concerning autonomy arises. On the other hand, the article questions the reasons behind the idea of the monopoly of jurisdiction of the CJEU, advancing a concept of autonomy of the EU as a claim for power and critiquing the legitimacy and coherence of its foundations. Both dimensions will hopefully help to provide some clarity over the meaning of autonomy and the monopoly of jurisdiction, while, at the same time, promoting a larger discussion on its impact on the external action of the EU.

scholarly journals The Principles of Article 102(c) TFEU in Cases of Non-exclusionary Secondary Line Discrimination on Grounds Other than Nationality Case Comment to the Judgment of EU Court of Justice of 19 April 2018 Meo-Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia (C-525/16)

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
pp. 269-278
Author(s):  
Jan Szczodrowski
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Secondary Line ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Although the instances of application of Article 102(c) TFEU can hardly be described as rare, to date it has been applied to essentially two sets of diverging situations, namely to discrimination on grounds of nationality on the one hand, and other forms of discrimination on the other. While there is a relatively high number of instances of the former category of applications, and the criteria of the application of Article 102(c) TFEU to such situations seem straightforward, fewer cases exist in which Article 102(c) TFEU was applied to non-exclusionary secondary line discrimination on grounds other than nationality, and the criteria of application are arguably less clear. The judgment in case C-525/16 MEO represents a significant, yet not a revolutionary step in its interpretation. While in some respects, it may be seen as bringing some novelty (for example, the delineation of the respective scopes of application of Article 102(b) and Article 102(c) TFEU), in others (that is, the notion of competitive disadvantage), it rather confirms the principles which have been previously established. Arguably, the Court’s teaching on the elements which the competition authorities and courts across the EU may have at their disposal to establish the existence of competitive disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 102(c) TFEU, is open to various interpretations. Yet it does to a certain extent shape the toolkit that these authorities and courts may have at their disposal and leaves some room for reasonable welfare related arguments.

The Juncker Commission

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Damage Control ◽  
Political Leadership ◽  
The Other ◽  
Integration Policy ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Institutional Profile ◽  
The One ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

The primary goal of this book is to trace the European Commission’s strategies of dealing with the politicisation of EU legislation. In a case study on President Jean-Claude Juncker's term of office, the authors of this volume analyse how the EU Commission set and advanced certain political priorities between 2014 and 2019. The analysis focuses on the ten political priorities which the Juncker Commission retained in all of its annual work programmes from its inception onwards, starting with its self-proclaimed role as a ‘political commission’. However, this study’s assessment of the ‘politicisation’ of integration policy is ambiguous: On the one hand, the Juncker Commission deliberately adopted politicised issues and tried to use them as opportunities for political leadership as well as to hone its own institutional profile. On the other hand, controversies and crises repeatedly forced the EU Commission to resort to damage control. With contributions by Matthieu Bertrand, Christoph Bierbrauer, Grigoriani Bougatsa, Sarah Gansen, Sanni Kunnas, Andreas Marchetti, Katarzyna Nowicka, Thomas Panayotopoulos, Dominique Roch, Martin Selmayr, Katherine Simpson, Robert Stüwe, Henri De Waele, Liska Wittenberg.

The Making of a President: The European Parliament and the Confirmation of Jacques Santer as President of the Commission

1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Hix ◽  
Christopher Lord
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
European Elections ◽  
Shared Meanings ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
The One ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT AND THE MAASTRICHT TREATY attempted to balance two principles of representation in their redesign of the institutional structures of the European Union: the one, based on the indirect representation of publics through nationally elected governments in the European Council and Council of Ministers; the other, based on the direct representation of publics through a more powerful European Parliament. There is much to be said for this balance, for neither of the two principles can, on its own, be an adequate solution at this stage in the development of the EU. The Council suffers from a non-transparent style of decision-making and is, in the view of many, closer to oligarchic than to democratic politics. On the other hand, the claims of the European Parliament to represent public sentiments on European integration are limited by low voter participation, the second-order nature of European elections and the still Protean nature of what we might call a transnational European demos. The EU lacks a single public arena of political debate, communications and shared meanings; of partisan aggregation and political entrepreneurship; and of high and even acceptance, across issues and member states, that it is European and not national majority views which should count in collective rule-making.

scholarly journals Territoriality Beyond the State: The EU’s Territorial Claims and the Search for Their Legitimacy

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-672
Author(s):  
Josef Weinzierl
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Political Community ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Level ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

AbstractQuite a few recent ECJ judgments touch on various elements of territorial rule. Thereby, they raise the profile of the main question this Article asks: Which territorial claims does the EU make? To provide an answer, the present Article discusses and categorizes the individual elements of territoriality in the EU’s architecture. The influence of EU law on national territorial rule on the one hand and the emergence of territorial governance elements at the European level on the other provide the main pillars of the inquiry. Once combined, these features not only help to improve our understanding of the EU’s distinctly supranational conception of territoriality. What is more, the discussion raises several important legitimacy questions. As a consequence, the Article calls for the development of a theoretical model to evaluate and justify territoriality in a political community beyond the state.

Eliminating ‘Aesthetics’ from Copyright Law: The Aftermath of Cofemel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koray Güven
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Applied Art ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The One ◽  
Works Of Applied Art ◽  
Functionality Doctrine ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The recent Cofemel judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union extended the European Union’s (EU) originality criterion (i.e. the author’s own intellectual creation) to the realm of works of applied art. The Court excluded ‘aesthetically significant visual effect’ as a condition of copyright protection. It was condemned as subjective and incompatible with the EU originality criterion. The decision may signal a shift in several national copyright laws, under which requirements relating to ‘aesthetics’ are laid down as a condition to acquire protection. This article will demonstrate that the ‘aesthetics criterion’, as it emerged historically and has been employed in national copyright laws, is associated with a different meaning than it conveys at first glance. The aesthetics criterion designates the elbow room remaining to the author after functional constraints have been taken into account, and thus represents a form of the functionality doctrine in the domain of copyright law. However, to some extent it also excludes – though not uniformly – commonplace designs from the scope of copyright protection. Against this background, this article suggests that the aesthetics criterion can arguably be reconciled with the EU originality criterion. The aesthetics criterion represents a balance struck between the need for copyright protection in the field of applied arts, on the one hand, and competition, on the other. In order not to upset this careful balance, a robust application of the EU originality criterion is advocated, precluding protection not only to functionality, but also to commonplace creations.

scholarly journals The European Union's policy on human rights and Chinese sovereignism: The case of Xinjiang

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The One ◽  
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.

scholarly journals Dilemmas about the scope of the Act on Prevention of Domestic Violence from a human rights perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (4/2019) ◽  
pp. 193-206
Author(s):  
Darko Simović
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Other ◽  
Effective Prevention ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The One

The adoption of the Act on Prevention of Domestic Violence was driven by the creation of a more effective legal framework for the protection of victims of domestic violence, and, therefore, also by the alignment of the legal system of the Republic of Serbia with international obligations. The main novelties include multi-sectoral cooperation and primarily preventive nature of the law. However, from its very adoption, it has been pointed to its noticeably repressive character, as well as to provisions with potentially harmful impacts. Hence, this paper represents a contribution to the discussion on the importance and scope of the solutions provided for in the Act on Prevention of Domestic Violence. On the one hand, it points to major novelties intended to contribute to a more effective prevention of domestic violence. On the other hand, it questions the constitutionality and appropriateness of some of the legal solutions, arguing that, in particular respects, the lawmaker had to use a wiser and more subtle approach to conceptualising the provisions of this law.

The EU after Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-109
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fiscal Federalism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Horizons ◽  
The One ◽  
Unanimous Approval ◽  
Amendment Procedure ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the European Union after Brexit and articulates the case for constitutional reforms. Reforms are necessary to address the substantive and institutional shortcomings that patently emerged in the context of Europe’s old and new crises. Moreover, reforms will be compelled by the exigencies of the post-Covid-19 EU recovery, which pushes the EU towards new horizons in terms of fiscal federalism and democratic governance. As a result, the chapter considers both obstacles and opportunities to reform the EU and make it more effective and legitimate. On the one hand, it underlines the difficulties connected to the EU treaty amendment procedure, owing to the requirement of unanimous approval of any treaty change, and the consequential problem of the veto. On the other hand, it emphasizes the increasing practice by Member States to use intergovernmental agreements outside the EU legal order and stresses that these have set new rules on their entry into force which overcome state veto, suggesting that this is now a precedent to consider.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document