scholarly journals Technology Transfer in the EU: Exporting Strategically Important ICT Solutions to Other EU Member States

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anni Säär ◽  
Addi Rull
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Member State ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The fast development of ICTs pose new challenges to the European Union and its Member States. Every EU country has its own policies regarding technology transfer, ownership of state e-services, and the possibilities how the state-owned or licensed e-service could be exported. Taking into account the free movement of goods, the EU has created a platform to cooperate and export IT solutions. However, the lack of preparedness of infrastructures, legislation and stakeholders for cross-border exchanges poses a threat to IT transfer and should be taken into consideration in the EU as well. In the coming decades the number of outsourced ICT solutions, strategically important ICT solutions, public services and critically important information exchange platforms developed on behalf of the states, will grow exponentially. Still, digital development is uneven across the EU, they grow at different speeds and the performance is quite splintered. There are legal provisions which are outdated and therefore impede technological cooperation and export of IT solutions. A Member State may restrict the ICT licensing based on national security and policy reasons and the ownership of intellectual property might pose a threat to technology transfer or further development of the IT solution. There are examples of strategically important export of ICT solutions, the experience at which can be expanded to cover other EU Member States. Strong collaboration would enable mutual learning from past experiences along with the opportunities for better use of technology. Parallels can be drawn with military technology transfers, as the policies and legal framework was first developed and mostly used with them.This introduces a question of what are the conditions for exporting strategically important ICT solutions from one Member State to another, given that there is no common legal framework developed yet, and who should decide whether to transfer or not?

Country-by-Country Reporting and Other Financial Transparency Measures Affecting the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 132-157
Author(s):  
Petr Janský ◽  
Andres Knobel ◽  
Markus Meinzer ◽  
Tereza Palanská ◽  
Miroslav Palanský
Keyword(s):  
Information Exchange ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Virgin Islands ◽  
Cayman Islands ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Automatic Information ◽  
Financial Secrecy ◽  
The Eu

The EU faces large amounts of financial secrecy supplied to it by secrecy jurisdictions. In this chapter, we use the Bilateral Financial Secrecy Index to quantify which jurisdictions supply most secrecy to EU Member States. The chapter assesses the progress of two recent EU policy efforts to tackle financial secrecy: automatic exchange of country-by-country reporting (CbCR) data and black and grey list of non-cooperative jurisdictions. It is found that 34 per cent of the financial secrecy faced by the EU is supplied by other Member States, whose a priori exclusion from the blacklisting exercise reveals its fundamental flaw. Further 13 per cent is supplied by the EU’s dependencies, mainly the UK’s Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Guernsey. The jurisdictions that supply the most secrecy not covered by automatic information exchange of CbCR data are the British Virgin Islands, United States, and Curacao. Finally the chapter discusses policy recommendations that stem from our analysis.

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

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.

The (Rebuttable) Presumption of the European Union Member States as ‘Safe Countries’ under the Dublin Regulation

2012 ◽  
pp. 240-255
Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Dublin Regulation ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

Disaster Strikes: Regulatory Barriers to the Effective Delivery of International Disaster Assistance within the EU

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Williams ◽  
Justine N. Stefanelli
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Natural Disasters ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Assistance ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Disaster Assistance ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article considers the European Union's legal framework and its ability to facilitate – or hinder – international assistance for natural disasters occurring within the European Union. At a time when the frequency and severity of natural disasters in the EU appears to be increasing, and when it is more likely that affected EU Member States are required to seek assistance from outside their borders, or even outside the EU, it is important to ensure that international assistance is able to reach its intended target. Member State domestic legal frameworks may delay, obstruct or prevent international assistance from reaching those in need, often due to a failure to consider the special situation of disasters when drafting, interpreting and applying legislative regimes. For example, immigration, customs, food and transport laws may not contain sufficient exemptions for emergency personnel, materials and goods, and domestic licensing requirements and quality standards may prevent a nation from accepting assistance. At the same time, there is a need to ensure that any assistance accepted by an affected Member State is subject to appropriate quality standards without unduly impeding the delivery of assistance.

scholarly journals The Anti-Circumvention Procedure in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsolt Kokoly
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Member States ◽  
Audiovisual Media ◽  
Video Sharing ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Media Services ◽  
The Eu

Recent challenges in the EU business sector also comprise the revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (the new text in force since December 2018), the main media policy tool of the EU which establishes the legal framework for a convergent media landscape that comprises linear, non-linear audiovisual media services and, recently, also video-sharing platforms (VSPs) and user-generated content. One of the novelties in the revised text of the AVMSD is the new set of legal provisions enshrined in Art. 4 referring to the anti-circumvention procedure, a phenomenon the European media landscape has long been familiar with (i.e. broadcasters from another Member State circumventing the stricter rules of the target Member State). The need for a more transparent and efficient regulation originated in the practical difficulties of applying (pre-revision) Art. 4 by national regulating authorities (NRAs) as in many cases providers of audiovisual media services falling under another Member State’s jurisdiction refused to comply with their stricter rules or did not show any willingness to collaborate. The burden of proving the existence of circumvention or the evidence base to identify has proved to be a particularly difficult task for NRAs. The amended text of the AVMSD extends the power of the Member States to trigger the anti-circumvention procedure based on reasonable cause rather than the former requirement to prove the intention of circumvention by the provider. Also, the new set of provisions allows Member States to have circumvention reasonably established. Another novelty in the anti-circumvention procedure is the mandatory opinion that is to be requested by the European Commission from the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services(ERGA). The paper proposes to discuss the evolution of anti-circumvention measures in the two versions of the AVMSD as well as the projected effect on the phenomenon of circumvention of stricter rules on the new provisions.

Visa Policy in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelena Dzankic
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Gradual Evolution ◽  
The Common ◽  
Visa Policy ◽  
The Eu

Most European Union (EU) Member States participate in the common visa regime, even though there is no common visa policy applicable to all of them. The visa policy explored here covers the Schengen Area (including EU Member States and other countries, as well as EU countries that are still outside the Schengen). The Schengen Area does not include two EU Member States—the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland—that have opted out from the EU’s visa policies and operate a common travel area between them. Furthermore, the common visa policy in the EU is related to the issuance of short-term visas, while visas of longer duration and residence permits remain in the national domain. Against this background, the visa policy of the EU has four relevant aspects. First, the gradual evolution of the Schengen Area has been driven not only by political developments within the EU and its Member States, but also by broader global developments (e.g., the fall of communism). Second, the consolidation of the internal and external aspects of the visa policy in the EU took place through the growth of the Schengen acquis. Third, visa liberalization has become one of the most powerful tools for policy diffusion beyond the EU’s borders. Finally, securitization of migration has had a strong impact on the EU’s visa policy, particularly in the domains of information exchange and police cooperation.

scholarly journals Considerations on the Infringement Procedure against Romania

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crina Mihaela Verga ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Comparative Methods ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
The Eu

This paper is a study of the infringement procedure, as it is regulated at EU level. Thus, we first analyze the existing legal framework on the matter. The implementation of this procedure in various Member States of the European Union and its consequences are then presented. Last but not least, the article refers to a series of aspects regarding the fields in which the procedure was directed against Romania since its integration into the EU. The purpose of the essay is to present in detail Romania's situation regarding the violation of EU’s law.Thus, a comparative presentation throughout time of the number of such proceedings launched against the Romanian state was made.A relevant case in which Romania was tried and convicted was also presented in detail.The large number of cases launched in 2021 highlights the delays registered by Romania on the matter. The measures ordered by the Romanian government through the elaborated the Annual Transposition Plan-2021must be carefully and systematically implemented. Romania could also consider and effectively apply the examples of good practice from the other EU’s member states. The historical and the comparative methods used in this presentation reveal both the similarities between the application of this procedure in the EU Member States under review as well as the differences and its succession in time. The article is important not only for the scientists, but also for the practitioners to dispose all the necessary measures that are required.

scholarly journals The European Union and Education for Democratic Citizenship

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Grimonprez
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
Quality Education ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Competence ◽  
The Eu

The study makes an analysis of the legal framework which Member States must take into account when designing their policies on citizenship education. The Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education of the Council of Europe and the international right to education are read in conjunction with EU law. Suitable content for the EU dimension in mainstream education is explored. A method for objective, critical and pluralistic EU learning is proposed, based on the Treaties and on case teaching (stories for critical thinking). Member States are invited to take more action to ensure quality education. The EU has the legal competence to support the EU dimension in education. In the present state of EU law, quality education is no longer conceivable without an EU dimension incorporated in various key competences. At present the author works at the implementation of the ideas developed in the book as an Affiliated Senior Researcher at Leuven University (Case4EU-project in Belgium and other EU Member States).

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