scholarly journals The Electronic Seal as a Solution to Prove the Intent of a Legal Entity

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 59-70
Author(s):  
Laura Kask
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Electronic Environment ◽  
Formal Requirement ◽  
Legal Meaning

Because the digital environment does not recognise national borders and with transactions increasingly taking place across them, an electronic environment that affords interoperability is important for the competitiveness of the European Union. Debate about whether the identification of individuals in the digital environment should be a norm and obligation or, instead, the digital environment should be available as a form of expression of our privacy and anonymity has not waned. Although legal entities act through natural persons, solutions are available whereby a natural person’s e-signature may be replaced in an electronic environment by an electronic seal, or e-seal, of a legal entity. Although the general requirements related to e-seals were established in Estonian legislation already in 2009 and on EU level with the eIDAS Regulation in 2016, the legal meaning of an e-seal has remained unclear in most EU countries, even Estonia, where the uptake of such solutions is widespread. In light of this context, the article examines in which cases the e-seal of a legal entity could be equal in legal meaning to a hand-written signature or an e-signature of a natural person. Thus, the article addresses challenges visible in Estonian and EU-level legal acts that have left the legal meaning of the e-seal unclear. As some EU member states have declared a legal meaning for e-seals divergences among the regulatory approaches examined lead to issues that erode interoperability and the mutual recognition of e-seals in cross-border transactions, both of which would be expected from a genuine digital single market. From the examples of other Member States, a recommendation that the Estonian legislator amend the private-law acts is offered, with recommended wording that should eliminate the gaps in law. In private-law transactions, non-compliance with the form requirements provided by law or agreed upon between the parties generally results in the nullity of the transaction. According to the law currently in force, failure to comply with a requirement for a hand written signature (written form) or with equivalent requirements connected with electronic form as provided for by law constitutes non-compliance with a formal requirement. Should the Estonian legislation be changed in accordance with the suggestions presented, paying attention to its level when using the e-seal remains crucial. At the same time, it is important to take into account the purpose of the formal requirement, the actual intention of the parties, and the principle of good faith when deciding on the consequences, whether of the current law or of potential changes. When one is using a tool other than the parties' agreement (be it an e-signature or an e-seal), it is important to consider the purpose of the agreement if wishing to determine the parties' actual intention and analyse the legal entity's behaviour and, hence, whether the transaction has been performed.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction Collisions In The Criminal Proceedings Of European Union Member States

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-105
Author(s):  
Raimundas Jurka ◽  
Jolanta Zajančkauskienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Member States ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

Abstract Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

Fundamental Rights and the Transformation of Governance in the European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 133-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier de Schutter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

It has been argued in many places, and in different forms, that the establishment between the EU Member States of an internal market, and now of an area of freedom, security and justice, requires the European Union to legislate in the field of fundamental rights, either in order to avoid a form of regulatory competition between the Member States or in order to ensure mutual trust allowing for mutual cooperation between judicial, police and administrative national authorities. ‘Negative integration’, in the form of the lowering of barriers to the movement of goods, services, persons and capital, or in the form of mutual recognition of judicial decisions or exchange of information between national authorities, should thus be followed with, or compensated by, ‘positive integration’, in the form of the setting of common standards applicable throughout the EU Member States. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, moreover, provides the baseline from which to act, since it represents a set of values which all the Member States have agreed to consider as fundamental. The question (so it would seem) is now that of implementing the Charter, by using the legal bases provided for in the treaties to the fullest extent possible.

Institute of Licensing of Economic Activities in the EU Countries: Lessons for Ukraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1839
Author(s):  
Olena R. ZELDINA ◽  
Yevheniia V. AVERIANOVA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the licensing systems of economic activity, which are enshrined in the national legislation of such countries of the European Union as Germany, Great Britain and Poland. The authors identify the situation inherent in licensing systems of the above-mentioned EU member states and substantiates the expediency of using these provisions in further reforming of the licensing system of economic activity in Ukraine. The legislation of the European Union aimed at regulating the implementation of certain activities across the whole of the EU, and legislation relating to rules for the mutual recognition of permits and qualifications of specialists in EU member states was analyzed.

scholarly journals LEGAL APPROACHES TO THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ROBOTS REGULATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-128
Author(s):  
T. S. Zaplatina
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Ethical And Legal Issues ◽  
The Eu

This article is devouted to the analises of legal approaches to the regulation of artifi cial intelligence in the European Union and its member states. The European Union, Austria, France and Germany legal regulation analysis shows that at that moment there is no single approach regarding the legal regulation of artifi cial intelligence and robots. So, current legal rules are not fully applicable in the scope of contractual liability, that creates need for the adoption of new eff ective standards meeting modern technological achievements and innovations. There is important role of ethical and legal issues associating with risks in the fi eld of human rights and fundamental freedoms, issues developing ethical principles in artifi cial intelligence algorithms. The single legal European approach will help to avoid fragmentation of the EU Member States legislation and will expand the possibilities of mutual recognition in the cross-border use of robots and robotic systems.

Fundamental Rights and the Transformation of Governance in the European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 133-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier de Schutter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

It has been argued in many places, and in different forms, that the establishment between the EU Member States of an internal market, and now of an area of freedom, security and justice, requires the European Union to legislate in the field of fundamental rights, either in order to avoid a form of regulatory competition between the Member States or in order to ensure mutual trust allowing for mutual cooperation between judicial, police and administrative national authorities. ‘Negative integration’, in the form of the lowering of barriers to the movement of goods, services, persons and capital, or in the form of mutual recognition of judicial decisions or exchange of information between national authorities, should thus be followed with, or compensated by, ‘positive integration’, in the form of the setting of common standards applicable throughout the EU Member States. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, moreover, provides the baseline from which to act, since it represents a set of values which all the Member States have agreed to consider as fundamental. The question (so it would seem) is now that of implementing the Charter, by using the legal bases provided for in the treaties to the fullest extent possible.

Doing Everything You Can, but Not (yet) Getting it Right: Challenges to Brussels' Great Expectations for Water Quality1

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franca Angela Buelow
Keyword(s):  
Water Status ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Eu Water Framework Directive ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Great Expectations ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Water ◽  
Improve Water Quality ◽  
Governance Architecture

To arrive at a good status of all European water bodies is the main objective of the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD). Since its adoption in 2000, the policy has fundamentally changed the institutional, procedural and organizational structures of Member States' water management, leading to an Europeanization of national legislation and decision-making structures. The case of WFD implementation in Schleswig-Holstein is an example of the policy's highly innovative governance architecture that unfortunately is not (yet) able to take that one last hurdle: to improve water quality and establish a good water status across EU Member States by 2015 or 2027.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

scholarly journals European Regional Inequalities: The Other Face of Development

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Celeste Perrucchini ◽  
Hiroshi Ito
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Capita Income ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Per Capita Income ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita

Empirical evidence suggests an overall convergence in terms of GDP and per capita income occurring among the European Union (EU) Member States. Nevertheless, economic inequalities have been increasing at the regional level within European Union countries. Through the review of relevant literature, this study analyzes the increasing inequalities from an economical point of view, focusing on Italy and the UK as examples. First, a general overlook of the empirical evidence of the GDP and per capita income at national and sub-national levels will be presented. Second, an explanation of the possible causes of the results will be proposed through the use of economical and sociological theories. The findings of this research might uncover the relative inefficacy of EU Cohesion policies and point towards the necessity for deeper and more thoughtful measures to continue the convergence of Member States while preserving internal equilibria. This paper ends with discussions for the future directions of the EU.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Development Progress in EU Member States in the Context of Building Renovation

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (14) ◽  
pp. 4209
Author(s):  
Rita Remeikienė ◽  
Ligita Gasparėnienė ◽  
Aleksandra Fedajev ◽  
Marek Szarucki ◽  
Marija Đekić ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Co2 Emissions ◽  
Renewable Energy Sources ◽  
Investment Efficiency ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Energy Usage ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The main goal of setting energy efficiency priorities is to find ways to reduce energy consumption without harming consumers and the environment. The renovation of buildings can be considered one of the main aspects of energy efficiency in the European Union (EU). In the EU, only 5% of the renovation projects have been able to yield energy-saving at the deep renovation level. No other study has thus far ranked the EU member states according to achieved results in terms of increased usage in renewable sources, a decrease in energy usage and import, and reduction in harmful gas emissions due to energy usage. The main purpose of this article is to perform a comparative analysis of EU economies according to selected indicators related to the usage of renewable resources, energy efficiency, and emissions of harmful gasses as a result of energy usage. The methodological contribution of our study is related to developing a complex and robust research method for investment efficiency assessment allowing the study of three groups of indicators related to the usage of renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and ecological aspects of energy. It was based on the PROMETHEE II method and allows testing it in other time periods, as well as modifying it for research purposes. The EU member states were categorized by such criteria as energy from renewables and biofuels, final energy consumption from renewables and biofuels, gross electricity generation from renewables and biofuels and import dependency, and usage of renewables and biofuels for heating and cooling. The results of energy per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Greenhouse gasses (GHG) emissions per million inhabitants (ECO2), energy per capita, the share of CO2 emissions from public electricity, and heat production from total CO2 emissions revealed that Latvia, Sweden, Portugal, Croatia, Austria, Lithuania, Romania, Denmark, and Finland are the nine most advanced countries in the area under consideration. In the group of the most advanced countries, energy consumption from renewables and biofuels is higher than the EU average.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document