scholarly journals Legitimizing pre-emptive data surveillance under the EU law: the case of the PNR Directive

2021 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-127
Author(s):  
Julia Wojnowska-Radzińska
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Data Surveillance ◽  
Surveillance Practice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the PNR Directive as pre-emptive data surveillance practice. The 2016/681 Directive regulates the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data in the EU for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. It obliges airlines to hand national authorities passengers’ data for all flights from third countries to the EU and vice versa, but Member States can also extend it to ‘intra-EU’ ones (i.e. from an EU country to one or more other EU countries), provided that they notify the EU Commission. Thus, PNR Directive affects all passengers who arrive in the territory of one Member State originating from a third country, or who depart from a Member State’s territory to a non-EU country, including any transfer or transit flights. Using PNR data, the individual is profiled and encoded in terms of degrees of risk.

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.

scholarly journals Goods in Transit and Intellectual Property Under the EU Law and Caselaw of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Radim Charvát
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper addresses the issue whether customs authorities of Member States are entitled to suspend or detain goods in transit (i.e., products directing from one non- Member State to another non-Member State through the EU) and the evolving case-law of the Court of Justice related to this matter. Prior to the judgment in Philips and Nokia cases, a so-called manufacturing fiction theory was applied by some Member State courts (especially Dutch courts). According to this theory, goods suspended or detained by customs authorities within the EU were considered to be manufactured in the Member State where the custom action took place. In the Philips and Nokia judgments, the Court of Justice rejected this manufacturing fiction theory. But the proposal for amendment to the Regulation on Community trade mark and the proposal of the new Trademark directive, as a part of the trademark reform within the EU, go directly against the ruling in the Philips and Nokia cases and against the Understanding between the EU and India.

scholarly journals Member State nationality under EU law – To be or not to be a Union Citizen?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2098607
Author(s):  
Lorin-Johannes Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The question of who ought to be regarded as Union citizen is a central but not an easily answered question. Drawing on an analysis of the ECJ’s case-law and the underlying constitutional set up of Union citizenship, this article argues that the notion of nationality in EU law is based on a jurisdictional conception that builds on the idea of a genuine link and a territorial link with the EU. Relying on this understanding the article assesses the peculiar cases of Germany, the UK and Denmark, establishing not only if and how Member States can reconfigure the meaning of their nationality under EU law but also highlighting that the notion of nationality as a peremptory marker for Union citizenship is defined within the constitutional realm of EU law. The understanding that Member States are free to define their nationality within EU law, hence, is a misplaced overstatement of sovereignty. Against this backdrop the last part of the article turns to the case of Latvian non-citizens, arguing that Latvian non-citizens, who are generally not regarded as Union citizens, have been Union citizens all along.

Implementacja polityk unijnych w Polsce i pozostałych krajach członkowskich, z perspektywy kryzysu w UE

2015 ◽  
pp. 70-89
Author(s):  
Renata Mieńkowska
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Economic Crisis ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Implementation Challenges ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
The Eu

In the article the author analyses the most important challenges of implementation of the EU policies in the member states during the EU economic crisis. The main aspects analysed in the article are: major problems faced by the EU member states in the context of the crisis regarding implementation of the EU law, changes in the mechanisms of implementation, challenges for the Eurozone in a time of crisis, comitology procedures and their meaning during the crisis. The article contains recommendations regarding implementation of the EU law for decision-makers on both the EU and member state levels.

Part II Investor-State Arbitration in the Energy Sector, 9 ECT and European Union Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bermann George A
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

This chapter also looks at issues that typically arise in Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) cases. In particular, it explores those cases in which respondent states have made use of EU law in mounting a jurisdictional or substantive defence under the ECT. First, regarding EU law as a jurisdictional defence, the chapter looks both at intra-European BIT cases and intra-European ECT cases. Regarding the latter, the chapter addresses, among other things, the critical question of whether the ECT is applicable to disputes between an EU member state and a national of another EU member state, or whether such application is precluded by an implicit ‘disconnection clause’ under the ECT, as argued by the EU Commission. Second, regarding EU law as a substantive defence, the chapter analyzes scenarios in which EU law arguably requires conduct, on the part of a member state, that the ECT itself forbids, or vice versa.

scholarly journals Organizacja administracji ochrony środowiska w Polsce i Unii Europejskiej

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Maciej Jabłoński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Acquis Communautaire ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Eu

The organization of environmental protection in Poland and the European Union is a mutual connection of competencies and a correlation of systems and rights according to national and EU laws. The legal system of the EU is the result of decades of cooperation undertaken by the will of the Member States known as the acquis communautaire. EU law has primacy over national law, which in practice means that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of national law and EU law, the national law is deemed inapplicable and needs to be adjusted by the Member State.

scholarly journals CJEU Achmea Judgment and What Comes Next. Some Reflections on the Potential Implications of the CJEU Judgment (C-284/16)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-138
Author(s):  
Przemysław Domagała
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Practical Solution ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

In the judgment of 6.03.2018 (Achmea case, C-284/16), CJEU ruled that treaty clauses that allow investor from one of the Member States to bring proceedings against another Member State before an arbitraltribunal outside the EU judicial system are irreconcilable with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU when such tribunal may be called on to interpret or apply EU law. This principle is applicable to EU trade or investment agreements (FTAs and IIAs), since they are part of EU law, and to BITs, FTAs and IIAs, since they contain explicit or implicit referrals to municipal (EU) law. In intra-EU relations, such a conflict of norms must be solved according to customary international law codified in the VCLT. According to this law, TFEU would prevail as lex superior and, in the case of Poland and many other Member States, as lex posterior. In intra-EU relations, TFEU prevails ex proprio vigore, i.e. without the need to terminate intra-EU BITs. However, such termination is highly desirable, not only for reasons of clarity, but also because arbitral tribunals and extra-EU courts are not bounded by the ECJ’s ruling. In the case of agreements with non-Member States, the incompatibilities referred to in the Achmea judgment must be eliminated by renegotiation or formal termination (Article 307 (2) TFEU). In the case of the BITs, the latter seems to be the only practical solution.

scholarly journals EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Lane Scheppele ◽  
Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov ◽  
Barbara Grabowska-Moroz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Although compliance with the founding values is presumed in its law, the Union is now confronted with persistent disregard of these values in two Member States. If it ceases to be a union of Rule-of-Law-abiding democracies, the European Union (EU) is unthinkable. Purely political mechanisms to safeguard the Rule of Law, such as those in Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU), do not work. Worse still, their existence has disguised the fact that the violations of the values of Article 2 TEU are also violations of EU law. The legal mechanisms tried thus far, however, do not work either. The fundamental jurisprudence on judicial independence and irremovability under Article 19(1) TEU is a good start, but it has been unable to change the situation on the ground. Despite ten years of EU attempts at reining in Rule of Law violations and even as backsliding Member States have lost cases at the Court of Justice, illiberal regimes inside the EU have become more consolidated: the EU has been losing through winning. More creative work is needed to find ways to enforce the values of Article 2 TEU more effectively. Taking this insight, we propose to turn the EU into a militant democracy, able to defend its basic principles, by using the traditional tools for the enforcement of EU law in a novel manner. We demonstrate how the familiar infringement actions—both under Article 258 and 259 TFEU—can be adapted as instruments for enforcing EU values by bundling a set of specific violations into a single general infringement action to show how a pattern of unlawful activity rises to the level of being a systemic violation. A systemic violation, because of its general and pervasive nature, in itself threatens basic values above and beyond violations of individual provisions of the acquis. Certified by the Court of Justice, a systemic violation of EU law should call for systemic compliance that would require the Member State to undo the effects of its attacks on the values of Article 2. The use of Article 260 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) to deduct fines from EU funds due to be received by the troubled Member State would provide additional incentives for systemic compliance. We illustrate this proposed militant democratic structure by explaining and critiquing what the Commission and Court together have done to reign in the governments of Hungary and Poland so far and then showing how they can do better.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE TREATIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 160-163
Author(s):  
Sevil Aliheydar Damirli ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

As in any community, coexistence and cooperation only works if it is well organized. In the EU, there are EU bodies for this purpose. We all know that living together of different members can often lead to a dispute. In the European Union, the subject of dispute can not only be the violation of primary law, but also the violation of secondary community law. In order to better understand the important role of the Commission in the EU, we examine in this paper its composition and Tasks. We know that the European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every EU activity is based on treaties that have been accepted by all EU Member States on a voluntary and democratic basis. A contract is a binding agreement between the EU member states. It sets out the objectives of the EU, the rules governing the EU institutions, the decision-making process and relations between the EU and its Member States. Therefore it is important to adhere to these treaties to carry out community policy. According to Art. 258 and 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, actions for breach of contract can be filed against a Member State by the EU Commission or another Member State (1, Art.258-259). For the European Commission, as the «Guardian of the Treaties», this option is a particularly important instrument of power politics that it can use against member states' governments that do not recognize or do not comply with the norms of Community law. In practice, the infringement procedures requested by the Commission are of particular importance for ensuring compliance with Community law by the Member States. In no other area does the Commission have so much power and independence against the Member States. Now we should take a closer look at the EU institution and especially the EU Commission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document