scholarly journals From social regulation of competition to competition as social regulation: transformations in the socioeconomic governance of the European Union

2017 ◽  
pp. 53-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios Roumpakis ◽  
Theo Papadopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Social Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wage Setting ◽  
Regulatory Changes ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
New Procedures ◽  
The Eu

This chapter studies the character of contemporary socioeconomic governance in the EU. It draws on empirical evidence capturing the type and extent of regulatory changes in the fields of industrial relations, corporate governance, and the coordination of macro-economic policy in the EU. The effects of these changes are long term, cumulative, and mutually reinforcing and should be seen as integral elements of a relatively coherent project to establish a form of transnational polity in Europe that privileges competition as its regulatory rationale. Indeed, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been institutionally prioritising market freedoms and competition over labour rights, and especially the right to collective action in an emerging transnational regulatory field in the EU. Meanwhile, the new procedures of European macro-economic coordination construe national wage setting, collective bargaining institutions, and, more generally, social policy as adjustment variables serving primarily the purpose of promoting or restoring member states' economic competitiveness.

Taricco principles beyond Taricco

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuffrida
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Alleged Incompatibility ◽  
The Eu

This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (‘ Taricco II’) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

scholarly journals Visa Refusals to Foreign Scientists Participants in Megascience Experiments, other Scientific Events and the Right to Appeal: New in the ECJ Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 160-172
Author(s):  
A. O. Chetverikov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Initial Content ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Court Practice

The paper analyzes the provisions of the legislation and the latest court practice of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regulating the procedure for refusing to issue Schengen visas and other migration permits necessary for foreign scientists to participate in experiments using unique European mega-science facilities, as well as in other scientific events in the EU. The first section "Visa refusal and the right to appeal it in the EU: Historical and comparative legal aspects" examines the formation and initial content of the EU rules on the rationale and appeal of the refusal of Schengen visas, starting with the Schengen agreements of the 1980s and before the adoption of the 2009 EU Visa Code. The second section "Right to appeal against refusal of Schengen and equivalent visas" is devoted to the rules of the 2009 EU Visa Code regarding visas for short-term stays (up to 90 days within a period of 180 days), amended and supplemented by the 2017 EU Court of Justice prejudicial decision as in the case of "El Hassani" regarding the recognition of foreigners’ right to judicial appeal against a visa refusal and, in a broader context, "the right to a fair and adequate consideration of their application" for a visa. The subject of the third, final section "The right to appeal the refusal of visas for long-term stay and residence permits" are the provisions of the latest ECJ court practice (judgment in the case of "M.A." of 10.03.2021), which made it possible to challenge in the courts of the EU Member States refusals to issue even those migration permits that are issued in accordance with national law.

scholarly journals Impartiality in the EU Asylum Procedure

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-356
Author(s):  
Pieter van Reenen
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Asylum Procedures Directive stipulates that asylum applications are examined ‘impartially’ by the national authorities. This paper explores the meaning of the term impartiality in administrative settings in EU asylum law focussing on three levels: the Common European Asylum System, the administrative organisational level and the level of the individual immigration officer. CEAS does not provide for a definition of impartiality. The article connects impartiality to the right to good administration as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It includes jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the approach of the EU Ombudsman and EASO in its scope. These sources provide more concrete aspects of impartiality. The article is finalized with recommendations for a code of conduct.

scholarly journals From the Mediterranean to the Baltic: the problem of implementing the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum

Baltic Region ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
Vadim V. Voynikov
Keyword(s):  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Majority Voting ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The 2015 migration crisis significantly affected the EU’s area of freedom, security, and justice and challenged the cohesion and solidarity of the European Union. Although the crisis is past its peak, it is not over yet: problems and challenges associated with it persist. One of them is the lack of a common approach among member states to the implementation of the principle of solidarity in the EU area of immigration and asylum. This work aims to consider the legal and political aspects of the implementation of the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in the area of immigration and asylum. This study relies on the works of Russian and international experts in European integration and European law and on the analysis of EU regulations. There are two dimensions to the implementation of the princi­ple of solidarity: the political and legal ones. The legal perspective provides certain clarity to the issue. According to the European Court of Justice, this principle is binding: it is capable of imposing the legal obligation of solidarity. However, as to the political perspective, mem­ber states have not been able to reach compromise. Although it is possible to introduce a permanent relocation mechanism using qualified majority voting, the Council usually seeks consensus. In this situation, the goal of the EU is not to ensure the right decision but rather to create conditions for it to be implemented by all the member states.

Labour Rights as Human Rights: Implications for Employers’ Free Movement in an Enlarged European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 357-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ec Law ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the legal status of labour rights as human rights within the European Union (EU) and the implications that this may have for free movement provisions under European Community (EC) law. This is not by any means a new subject for analysis and reflection, but has been of particular concern since the fifth enlargement of the EU which commenced in 2004. It is in this context that we have witnessed significant litigation before the European Court of Justice concerning the scope of the right to strike, and widespread protest concerning the adoption of a new Directive on Services in the Internal Market.

scholarly journals The Paradox between the European Pillar of Social Rights and EU Economic Governance: Spanish Reforms to Wage-Setting Institutions and the Working Poor

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-50
Author(s):  
Sergio Canalda Criado
Keyword(s):  
Working Poor ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wage Setting ◽  
Fair Wages ◽  
The Right ◽  
Eu Economic Governance ◽  
Country Specific ◽  
The Eu

The European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR) was announced as a new platform for advancing social policy in the European Union. Among the principles and rights enshrined in the EPSR, the Commission has included the right of workers to be paid fair wages. However, in the context of EU Economic Governance, the EU country-specific recommendations steer national wage-setting institutions in the opposite direction. The outcomes sought by EU Economic Governance and the EPSR thus produce a paradox. This paper presents the Spanish case as an example of this paradox. More specifically, it assesses the reforms the Spanish Government made to minimum wage rules and the collective bargaining system during the financial crisis. In the end, all those reforms have led to wage stagnation and devaluation, causing an increasing number of working poor. El Pilar Europeo de Derechos Sociales (EPSR) fue presentado como una nueva etapa en la dimensión social de la Unión Europea. Entre los principios y derechos consagrados en la EPSR, la Comisión incluyó el derecho de los trabajadores a un salario justo. Sin embargo, en el contexto de la gobernanza económica de la UE, las Recomendaciones a los países de la UE llevan a las instituciones nacionales de fijación de salarios en la dirección contraria. Por lo tanto, los resultados buscados por la nueva gobernanza de la Unión Europea y el EPSR producen una paradoja. Este artículo toma el caso español como ejemplo de dicha paradoja. Más concretamente, evalúa las reformas adoptadas por el Gobierno español durante la crisis con respecto al salario mínimo y al sistema de negociación colectiva, las cuales han llevado a una moderación o una devaluación de los salarios, favoreciendo el aumento de la pobreza laboral.

scholarly journals A Tale of Two Europes: European Regions from Berlin to Lisbon

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
W. John Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Regional Governance ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Regional Governments

One of the lesser noted elements of the Lisbon Treaty (and Treaty on a Constitution for Europe that preceded it), was the limited but significant influence that Europe's regions were able to exert of the process. Regional successes at Lisbon included the inclusion of local and regional levels into the concept of subsidiarity and the right of the Committee of Regions (CoR) to challenge the Commission before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This regional renaissance came as something of a surprise as although the early 1990s had seen the brief flowering of the concept of the “Europe of Regions”, these hopes were to prove short lived. Even as regional governments in western Europe were flexing their political muscles, the European Union (EU) was looking to expand into areas where sub-national regional governance was weak or non-existent. This weakening of the regional tier, combined with the ineffective nature of EU regional access, particularly the Committee of Regions, led to disenchantment with the European project and turned some regional governments from Europhiles to mild sceptics. However, as the regional successes at Lisbon confirm, Europe's regions are back. This paper traces the rise and fall of the regional tier with particular reference to the changing nature of the expanded EU. As the paper explores, the expansion to the east has changed the very nature of the regional level with the eastern European Member States developing very limited forms of regional governance. In fact, the limited regional successes achieved at Lisbon obscures a continuing paradox within the EU. Although there continues to be pressure for greater regional involvement at the European level, the regional level is not a pan-European phenomenon. It is largely driven by autonomous “legislative” regions, which are a feature of western European states alone. This paper concludes by briefly examining this imbalance and its consequences in a post-Lisbon Europe.

Revisiting the Role of the EU Judiciary as the Stronghold for the Protection of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism

Global Jurist ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Riccardi
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article revisits the response of the European Union (EU) to the challenges posed by anti-terrorist smart sanctions regimes to fundamental rights, vis-à-vis recent legal developments. Following the Kadi saga, many authors defined the EU judicature as the bastion of the rule of law against executive powers. From the perspective of the Council of the EU, instead, Kadi caused a tremor. The EU courts did not only declare that anti-terrorist sanctions could be reviewed: they also affirmed that such review is in principle full, thus extended to all information substantiating sanctions, irrespective of whether covered by secrecy. In this respect, the European Court of Justice established that it is a task of the judiciary to accommodate security considerations militating against the disclosure of intelligence in court and the right to a fair trial. However, through legal instruments adopted in late 2016, the EU seems to be backing off from these settled principles. To test such assumption, the article proceeds in three steps. Firstly, it outlines the contours of the UN Security Council anti-terrorist sanctions regime, pinpointing the characteristics that make such regime problematic with respect to fair trial rights. Secondly, it surveys the development of EU courts’ case-law on secret evidence. Thirdly, it investigates whether the new legal instruments adopted by EU institutions adhere to the principles enshrined in said EU courts’ decisions, or rather represent a departure from consolidated due process rights.

scholarly journals Economic challenges and success in the post-COVID era: A CAGE Policy Report

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Crafts ◽  
Emma Duchini ◽  
Roland Rathelot ◽  
Giulia Vattuone ◽  
David Chambers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Widespread Agreement ◽  
Epochal Change ◽  
Major Reform ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

In 2008 there was an expectation of major reform to social and economic structures following the financial crisis. The European Union (EU) referendum of 2016, and the UK’s subsequent exit from the EU in 2020, was also signalled as a turning point that would bring about epochal change. Now, in the waning of the coronavirus pandemic, we are experiencing a similar rhetoric. There is widespread agreement that the pandemic will usher in big changes for the economy and society, with the potential for major policy reform. But what will be the long-term impacts of the pandemic on the UK economy? Is the right response a “new settlement” or is some alternative approach likely to be more beneficial? This report puts forward a new perspective on the pandemic-related changes that could be ahead. The central theme is assessing the viability of epochal reform in policymaking. There seems to be a relentless desire for making big changes; however, there is arguably not enough recognition of how current settings and history can hold back these efforts. Foreword by: Dame Frances Cairncross, CBE, FRSE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document