scholarly journals National Law or EU Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-191
Author(s):  
Georgi Mihaylov

Abstract The article examines cases of conflict between the national law of the EU Member States and European Union Law. There is an analysis of the legal advantage of EU law over national law or vice versa. Conclusions have been drawn that the national law should maintain its advantage when the reason for it is contained in the Constitution of the respective state.

Author(s):  
N. Mushak

The article investigates the concept of "safe third country" in the law of the European Union. The article analyzes a number of international legal instruments that define the content of the concept of "safe third country". The research provides the definition of "safe third country". In particular, the safe third country should be determined as the country whose territory a person is crossing through the territory of the state where such person is seeking for the asylum, with the ability of that person to apply for asylum and use proper and relevant procedures. In fact, the concept of "safe third country" is applied by the EU Member States only when it is safe to guarantee that foreigners will be able to use the fair asylum procedures on the territory through they passed, and such persons shall be provided the effective protection of their rights. The article also determines the cases of the concept application by the EU Member States. In particular, the competent authorities of the EU Member States are confident that the third country the following aspects should be guaranted: the life and liberty of the applicant are not at risk due to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social or political group; the principle of prohibition of expulsion under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951 shall be observed; the principle of prohibition of expulsion in case of violation of the right to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by international law is been respected; there is the possibility to apply for a refugee status and to receive protection under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951.


2020 ◽  
pp. 108-143
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis

This chapter examines the question of the relations between EU law and domestic law from the point of view of a political theory of the European Union. It is common to see EU law under ‘federalism’ or under a theory of ‘statism’. These two views are outlined at the start of this chapter by examining various arguments made for them. They are both rejected. The chapter defends a rival view, the ‘internationalist’ reading of the EU, according to which it is a branch of the law of nations. A careful look at the EU treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU shows that the EU endorses an internationalist model based on equality and reciprocity. The EU does not replace the relation between citizens and political power. It does not establish a new constitutional law that replaces the national ones. It is a new way of organizing the relations between the various member states whose equality it fully respects. The coherence of European Union law is therefore not provided by uniformity imposed by a single master or constitutional rule, but is given by the political coordination of the laws of the member states achieved under the treaties. Coherence is achieved because the member states have adopted similar, although not identical, constitutional principles.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Gruszczak

This article takes up in the form of an interdisciplinary legal and political analysis the issue of the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into European Union law and the national legal systems of the EU member states in the light of the concept of a hybrid system of territorial governance. Accordingly, the Schengen acquis stimulated the process of intersecting the interests of internal security and the protection of Member States’ borders with the supranational ideological imperative with regard to the principle of free movement of persons. The argument developed in this article is that the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into EU law consolidated hybridity of the legal and institutional construction of the EU after the Amsterdam Treaty as a result of the contradiction between the logic of political bargain at the intergovernmental level and the vertical spillover generated at the supranational level in the institutional and decision-making dimensions. The conclusions point to the emergence, as a result of “schengenisation”, of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, in which the principle of free movement of people brought about diversification of the states’ adaptation mechanisms in relation to the ideologically determined project of transformation of the system of management of the territory and borders within the European Union.


Author(s):  
Michèle Finck

This book explores the role and status of local and regional authorities (also referred to as ‘subnational authorities’ or ‘SNAs’) in European Union law. It highlights that SNAs’ status varies depending our constitutional imagination. The discussion is focused through two conceptions of the status of SNAs in relation to the EU: ‘the insider narrative’ and ‘the outsider narrative’. If we examine EU law through a formal legal lens, SNAs appear as outsiders, that is to say entities of a fundamentally different status from the Member States that at best entertain indirect relations to the Union. If the perspective adopted is of a functional nature, SNAs however emerge in a noticeably different light, namely as allies of the Union that have in many ways assumed functions analogous to the Member States’ and which are able to influence EU law’s substantive development. The monograph explores these two narratives and moreover identifies the reasons and consequences of their coexistence. The concepts of polycentricity, porosity, and neofunctionalism are used to illuminate the analysis.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 964-983 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Binder

The Commission of the European Union (EU) sees intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as incompatible with the overall structure of European Union law. Against this background, certain Member States have started to terminate their treaties. Also, some of the new Member States have, in their role as Respondents in intra-EU BIT arbitrations, asserted inter alia that the intra-EU BITs had been automatically terminated upon their accession to the EU and that BIT provisions were inapplicable because of the operation of EU law. This contribution deals with these questions from a treaty law perspective and examines the alleged conflict between EU law and intra-EU BITs in investment cases as well as the consensual termination of intra-EU BITs, including the sunset clauses incorporated therein. It argues that if intra-EU BITs are already ‘in action’, their protection usually persists. On the other hand, investors enjoy only limited protection when States agree to terminate an intra-EU BIT by consent.


Author(s):  
Aleksei Sorbale ◽  

This study analyzes 25,516 cases of violation of the European Union law by 28 Member States from 1993 to 2018. I strive to outline the national level determinants of differentiation in the pool of member countries by the total number of the EU law violations. As a key method of analysis, logistic regression is used, where factors of GDP per capita (PPP), polarization of the parliament, fragmentation of the party system, regional strategies and quality of governance are used as country attributes. The analysis demonstrates that all country attributes are significantly related to all four quartiles of the outcome, which rank member states depending on the number of violations during the period under review: from the smallest share of violated directives (Q1) to the largest share of violated directives (Q4). The results of the study demonstrate the empirical relevance of the theoretical perspective of “worlds of compliance” formulated by G. Falkner et al. (2007) for the categorization of EU member states in their reactions to the compliance efforts of the EU.


Author(s):  
Bruno De Witte ◽  
Thibault Martinelli

This chapter deals with legal instruments that formally speaking are not EU legal acts, but whose function is so intimately linked to the EU legal order that they can be called ‘quasi-instruments of EU law’. These are treaties concluded between all of the EU Member States (complementary agreements) or between only a selected number of them (partial agreements), in close connection with the operation of the European Union. Such international ‘side agreements’ have lately become rather prominent and controversial, particularly in the context of the euro crisis. The chapter discusses the variety of reasons for the adoption of those instruments, as well as the questions of legitimacy and compatibility with EU law which they raise.


Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 37-46
Author(s):  
V. Yu. Slepak

The article deals with some features of the systems of revision of decisions made in the compliance with the results of procurement procedures in the EU Member States in the light of the requirements of EU law. In particular, the author investigates the EU law requirements applied to bodies reviewing decisions in the context of the need to determine the balance between the principle of procedural autonomy of the European Union member States (Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union) and the principles of efficiency and equivalence (derived from jurisprudence interpreting Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union). Also, the paper analyzes the problems arising while determining the applicant’s locus standi, since an excessively narrow interpretation of the notion “interest in obtaining a relevant contract” may serve as an unreasonable restriction for the access to the procedures of reviewing and, more generally, access to justice. The author explores the issues of applying such grounds in order to exclude the procurement participant from the number of bidders on the ground of “commission of a significant violation of the rules of professional activity” in the understanding of EU restrictive measures applied to managers of the procurement participant. There may be situations when the actions of the sole executive body result in the application of restrictive measures and that may be considered as evidence of the commission of a fundamental violation of rules of professional activity; the article considers standings that both confirm this thesis and indicate an excessively broad interpretation of this rule. On the one hand, the European Court of Justice has affirmed that organs of governance, especially the sole executive bodies, have a decisive influence and effective control over business activity to such an extent that their actions can be regarded as actions of the company also with regard to issues of liability. On the other hand, restrictive measures themselves do not, by their nature, constitute a measure of liability. However, the question of whether national authorities have the right to reassess the conclusions of the EU Council with regard to challenging the bidding results remains open.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document