Between the medium and the minimum options to regulate mutual recognition of confiscation orders

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 432-445
Author(s):  
Ariadna H. Ochnio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Policy Option ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
European Union Level ◽  
Side Door ◽  
Asset Recovery

The proposal for a regulation on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders is aimed at solving the problems of criminal asset recovery in cross-border cases. The policy option adopted is in fact an alternative to a deeper harmonization of national confiscation systems, accordingly the Member States may view it as an attempt to impact their internal legal systems by the so-called side door, with the mutual recognition principle and the idea of combatting terrorism being, respectively, the key and password to unlock It. If this strategy is successful, it can be anticipated that it will become in the future a model for regulation of non-confiscation issues at the European Union level for which deeper harmonization has proved too difficult. Among the four regulatory options discussed in the legislative process, there are good reasons in support of an evolutionary approach, which is reflected in the option referred to as the ‘minimum’, based on the use of the legal form of a directive.

scholarly journals CROSS–BORDER MERGERS – THE CONCEPT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION INTO THE LEGAL ORDER OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC CEZHRANIČNÉ ZLÚČENIE ALEBO SPLYNUTIE

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-60
Author(s):  
Jarmila Lazíková ◽  
Lucia Belková ◽  
Zuzana Ilková ◽  
Jana Ďurkovičová
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Central Administration ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Registered Office

Abstract Cross-border mergers are regulated by the Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on crossborder mergers of limited liability companies. This article deals with the issue of cross-border mergers of limited liability companies within the internal market of the European Union, more precisely it analyzes the question of the concept of a cross-border merger under the European Union law and its implementation into the national legal order of the Slovak Republic. The legal definition of a cross-border merger under the European Union law comprises three key conditions that must be met cumulatively: cross-border merger is applicable only for a business company formed in accordance with the law of an EU Member State, having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community, and at the same time business company must be in an eligible legal form and a cross-border element must be given.

scholarly journals Ar egzistuoja palankesnės teisės ieškojimo galimybės bankroto bylose?

Teisė ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 74 ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Laura Kirilevičiūtė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
European Union Level ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

Tarptautinio bankroto bylų jurisdikcijos klausimus Europos Sąjungos lygiu reguliuoja 2000 m. gegu­žės 29 d. Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1346/2000 dėl bankroto bylų. Jame įtvirtintas vienas tarptauti­nę jurisdikciją tarptautinio bankroto bylose nulemiantis kriterijus – pagrindinių turtinių interesų vieta. Straipsnyje siekiama atsakyti į klausimą, ar pasirinktu reguliavimu yra pasiektas šio reglamento vienas iš tikslų – panaikinti teisines prielaidas galimybei bylos šalims perkelti turtą arba teismo procesą iš vienos valstybės narės į kitą ieškant palankesnės teisinės padėties. Tuo tikslu analizuojami jurisdikcijos klausimų reguliavimo ypatumai, sudarantys prielaidas palankesnės teisinės padėties ieškojimo galimybei. Jurisdiction of cross-border insolvency proceedings in the European Union level is regulated by Coun­cil regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings. It establishes one criterion, the place of main interests, for determining international jurisdiction in cross-border insolvency proce­edings. The article deals with the question, whether one of the aims of this Regulation, the aim to elimi­nate background for seeking to obtain a more favourable legal position by transferring assets or judicial proceedings from one Member State to another, is reached by the chosen regulation. For this purpose, peculiarities of regulating of jurisdiction, which form background for possibility to seek a more favoura­ble legal position, are analysed.

TERRITORIAL COHESION POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU REGIONAL SECURITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Territorial Cohesion ◽  
Interregional Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.

Dochodzenie roszczeń ze sprzedaży towarów w obrocie międzynarodowym na obszarze UE. Zagadnienie jurysdykcji

2016 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Agata Michalska-Olek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Way

The article aims to show the possible ways of judicial redress for claims resulting from sales of goods especially including the issue of jurisdiction and application of the provisions of national law or the provisions of Community law. In the article the provisions of the Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters as well as the provisions of regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council were widely discussed. The author discusses in particular the issue related to cross-border contracts for the sales-of-goods within the European Union. Part of the deliberations concerns judicial rulings, in particular judicial decisions issued in cases in which the court shall consider the issue of jurisdiction of its own motion. In the conclusion of the article it is stated that the choice between the national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of other states will depend on the terms of agreement between the parties as well as the documents related to the transaction, in particular consignment notes (CMR), and the EXW clauses – such a formulation means that the parties agreed to the way of delivery of goods according to the commercial (Incoterms) clauses, determining in such a way the issue of jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Cross-border mobility in European countries: associations between cross-border worker status and health outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Nonnenmacher ◽  
Michèle Baumann ◽  
Etienne le Bihan ◽  
Philippe Askenazy ◽  
Louis Chauvel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Labour Force ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Health Index ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Border

Abstract Background Mobility of workers living in one country and working in a different country has increased in the European Union. Exposed to commuting factors, cross-border workers (CBWs) constitute a potential high-risk population. But the relationships between health and commuting abroad are under-documented. Our aims were to: (1) measure the prevalence of the perceived health status and the physical health outcomes (activity limitation, chronic diseases, disability and no leisure activities), (2) analyse their associations with commuting status as well as (3) with income and health index among CBWs. Methods Based on the ‘Enquête Emploi’, the French cross-sectional survey segment of the European Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), the population was composed of 2,546,802 workers. Inclusion criteria for the samples were aged between 20 and 60 years and living in the French cross-border departments of Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg. The Health Index is an additional measure obtained with five health variables. A logistic model was used to estimate the odds ratios of each group of CBWs, taking non-cross border workers (NCBWs) as the reference group, controlling by demographic background and labour status variables. Results A sample of 22,828 observations (2456 CBWs vs. 20,372 NCBWs) was retained. The CBW status is negatively associated with chronic diseases and disability. A marginal improvement of the health index is correlated with a wage premium for both NCBWs and CBWs. Commuters to Luxembourg have the best health outcomes, whereas commuters to Germany the worst. Conclusion CBWs are healthier and have more income. Interpretations suggest (1) a healthy cross-border phenomenon steming from a social selection and a positive association between income and the health index is confirmed; (2) the existence of major health disparities among CBWs; and (3) the rejection of the spillover phenomenon assumption for CBWs. The newly founded European Labour Authority (ELA) should take into account health policies as a promising way to support the cross-border mobility within the European Union.

Moving Beyond Procedure

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 784-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMIE KREPPEL
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Decision Procedures ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Legislative Influence

This article examines the influence of the European Parliament (EP) within the legislative process of the European Union. Although debate over the impact of the cooperation and co-decision I procedures continues, this article argues that, in part, the current theoretical debate is a false one that has caused many of the other important variables that affect EP legislative influence to be ignored. This article briefly revisits the current debate, then proceeds to an analysis of the success of more than 1,000 EP amendments under the cooperation and co-decision procedures. This evidence suggests that numerous other variables, such as internal EP unity and type of amendment made, have a significant impact on EP success, even controlling for procedure. In addition, this comparison points out some empirical differences between the two procedures that have been largely ignored in the theoretical debate but that nonetheless have a significant impact of EP success and merit further study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document