The EU Whistleblower Directive and its Transposition: Part 2

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252096909
Author(s):  
Simon Gerdemann ◽  
Ninon Colneric
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public Disclosures ◽  
The Eu ◽  
General Conditions

The Whistleblower Directive of 2019 is by far the European Union’s most important piece of whistleblowing legislation to date, covering a remarkably broad range of regulatory fields and subjects. After Part 1 of this two-part article series, which mostly focused on the Directive’s scope and general conditions for whistleblower protection, Part 2 will analyse its provisions on public disclosures and the various measures for protection and support that Member States are required to implement. Following this discussion, the article will then turn to some of the most pressing legislative questions each Member State will have to answer before the deadline for transposition passes on 17 December 2021.

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 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.

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.

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.

Identifying the (dis)placement of ‘new’ Member State social interests in the posting of workers: the case of Latvia

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-153
Author(s):  
Zane Rasnača
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Market Structure ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Member States ◽  
New Member States ◽  
Social Standards ◽  
Social Interests ◽  
The Eu

Social and economic interests of ‘new’ and ‘old’ Member States along centre and periphery axis – Judicial and legislative developments concerning the posting of workers – Continuous deepening of the divide between centre and periphery – Lack of placement of new Member States’ social interests at the EU level – The need to place social interests firmly in the EU (internal market) structure – Developing meaningful common social standards to mitigate the centre/periphery divide

Subsidiarity breeds contempt

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-181
Author(s):  
David Fernández Vítores
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Member State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Defensive Strategies ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Eu

When the principle of subsidiarity was introduced into Community law in 1992, it was hailed as a triumph of diversity over the previous uniformity of an excessively centralised European Union. It was generally believed to be an infallible way to preserve the cultural and linguistic heritage of each Member state, as it meant that responsibility for the design and implementation of educational, cultural and linguistic policies lay with the Member States. However, this transfer is not producing the desired results. On the contrary, it is helping to consolidate a monolingual tendency already observed in the EU since the United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973. In this context, the article examines the defensive strategies based on subsidiarity adopted by France and Germany and briefly assesses the outcome of these strategies.

Internal Market Preventive Controls of National Technical Standards and eir Impact on Environmental Measures

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-272
Author(s):  
Nicolas de Sadeleer
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Technical ◽  
Environmental Measures ◽  
National Environmental ◽  
Technical Rules ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWith a view to overcoming the shortcomings of “negative harmonisation”, the EU lawmaker has been adopting different directives requiring the Member States to notify to the Commission their draft regulations setting technical standards before their enactment. The aim of this article is to shed the light on two internal market preventive procedures: Directive 98/34 on the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulation and Regulation 764/2008/EC relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State. In particular, the paper assesses the manner in which the directive and the regulation are likely to impinge on the enactment of national environmental measures.

Responding through transposition: public Euroskepticism and European policy implementation

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Member State ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Policy ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Directives ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

Do public attitudes concerning the European Union affect the speed with which member states transpose European directives? It is posited in this article that member state governments do respond to public attitudes regarding the EU when transposing European directives. Specifically, it is hypothesized that member state governments slow transposition of directives when aggregate public Euroskepticism is greater. This expectation is tested using extended Cox proportional hazard modeling and data derived from the EU’s legislative archives, the official journals of EU member states, and the Eurobarometer survey series. It is found that member state governments do slow transposition in response to higher aggregate public Euroskepticism. These findings have important implications for the study of European policy implementation, as well as for our understanding of political responsiveness in the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document