scholarly journals Law, Public Interest and Interpretation: Prolegomena of a Normative Framework on Administrative Discretion in the EU

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Mendes
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals The Attorney General, Politics, and the Public Interest. Contributions to an Evolving Constitutional Convention

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Constitutional Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Normative Framework

Abstract The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

20. Mergers (1): introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 852-870
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Acquisition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
National Governments ◽  
Key Industries ◽  
The Eu

This chapter briefly discusses the subject of merger control. Merger control is an important component of most, though not all, systems of competition law. Merger control has been under particular scrutiny in recent years, partly as a result of the rapid development of digital technologies and the emergence of powerful digital platforms. Separately there has been a certain backlash against the trend towards the globalisation of markets, and national governments, as well as the EU, have considered whether controls over the foreign acquisition of key industries are required, and whether the basic test of merger control – would a merger be harmful to competition? – should be supplemented by broader provisions enabling ‘the public interest’ to be taken into account. Against this background, the chapter begins by explaining what is meant by a ‘merger’ or ‘concentration’, the term used by the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It then proceeds to describe the different effects of mergers between independent firms from within and different production levels, the proliferation of systems of merger control, why firms merge, and the purpose of merger control. The final section of the chapter deals with how to design a system of merger control when a country decides, as a matter of policy, to adopt one.

Governments and Activities in the Public Interest

2019 ◽  
pp. 154-177
Author(s):  
Sijbren Cnossen
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
The Self ◽  
African Countries ◽  
The Public ◽  
African Experience ◽  
The Eu

Chapter 11 discusses the EU legacy of taxing public bodies, illustrated by the African experience. The EU’s out-of-scope approach is bedevilled by distortions arising from the self-supply bias, the investment disincentive, and, somewhat more remotely, unfair competition vis-à-vis the private sector. Outside Africa, countries with VAT have addressed these issues differently. Various EU countries and Canada, for example, have designed input tax refund mechanisms to eliminate the self-supply bias and the investment disincentive. Still other countries, such as New Zealand, tax governments and activities in the public interest in full and have thus come to terms with the unfair competition issue, too. A concluding section summarizes the characteristics and effects of the various approaches and attempts to formulate a recommendation for African countries.

Realizing the EU Social Market Economy through Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 231-246
Author(s):  
Vanessa Mak
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
Social Market Economy ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Social Market ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Opening Up ◽  
The Eu

This concluding chapter asserts that a case can be made for a strong legal pluralist theory of lawmaking in European private law. It takes a discursive approach, focusing on some aspects that require further consideration. The chapter considers how, and to what extent, the regulation of offline transactions is affected by the perceived shift towards legal pluralism. In addition, the chapter assesses which risks are posed to the instrumental-normative framework by political, economic, and social divides in the EU. Finally, the chapter closes with a reflection on the connections that could be made between certain fields such as citizens' rights as workers or in relation to environmental protection, opening up vistas for further research on lawmaking in European private law.

Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Lam ◽  
Güneş Ünüvar
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article scrutinizes the investment chapters in the new EU Free Trade Agreements from a transparency perspective. The article examines the claims that the dispute settlement mechanisms in the new treaties are sufficiently participatory and more transparent than their predecessors. Procedural standards related to confidentiality of proceedings shall be analysed in the context of existing transparency safeguards in investment arbitration. In addition to procedural guarantees of transparency, the article examines relevant substantive rules affecting participatory aspects of dispute settlement. Furthermore, the article discusses forum-shopping strategies of the parties in the field of investment-related disputes, including internal forum-shopping and parallel proceedings using different procedural mechanisms. In this context, lessons from other fields such as international commercial arbitration related to transparency (in cases in which public interest is present) are highlighted. The proposal for the establishment of an integrated, multilateral court for investment cases is also invoked.

The normative framework of the EU’s commitment to human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-116
Author(s):  
Chiara Altafin ◽  
Karin Lukas ◽  
Manfred Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
The Eu

The chapter presents and assesses the various normative layers—domestic, European, regional, international—on which the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to human rights is built. It analyses the interaction of EU primary law, general principles of law derived from constitutional traditions of Member States, and international human rights law, including relevant regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, and the Istanbul Convention. It is contended that, despite an impressive and pioneering normative framework on human rights, the EU currently faces a number of challenges that call for a strong stance on human rights realisation in all areas of its competence and influence. Enduring deficiencies in the relevant normative framework include the absence of a fully fledged EU competence to legislate in the area of human rights protection and the application of ‘double standards’ in the EU’s approach to human rights internally and externally, leading to a deep divide between internal and external policies guided by starkly different logics. Further areas of concern include the difficulties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights implementation in view of EU institutions and Member States’ competencies, which have become particularly apparent in the EU’s response to the Eurozone crisis and the arising tensions between EU and Member States’ austerity measures, as well as the uneven nature of the EU and Member States’ human rights obligations with regard to the international legal framework, leading to gaps and overlaps.

The Fight against Terrorism, Fundamental Rights and the EU Courts: The Unsolved Conundrum

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 269-295
Author(s):  
Eva Nanopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public Security ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
The Eu

AbstractUsing the example of anti-terrorism measures, this chapter looks at the difficulties experienced by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in reconciling the conflicting demands of fundamental rights protection and public security. It shows that under the current arrangements, the CJEU cannot have regard to information which has not gone through a proper adversarial hearing, even in cases where disclosure of the relevant information will jeopardise the public interest. The chapter thus envisages the possibility for reform. It examines, in particular, the special advocate procedure and the sort of difficulties that its transposition in the EU context would give rise to.

scholarly journals EnTIRE: Mapping Normative Frameworks for EThics and Integrity of REsearch

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Evans ◽  
Marc van Hoof ◽  
Laura Hartman ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
Bert Gordijn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Educational Materials ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
Responsible Conduct ◽  
Further Development ◽  
The Eu

Background: The areas of Research Ethics and Research Integrity (RE+RI) are rapidly evolving. In the EU and internationally, new legislation, codes of conduct and good practices are constantly being developed. New technologies (e.g. gene editing), complex statistical methods (e.g. biostatistics), pressure to publish and obtain grants, and growing emphasis on stakeholder driven science (e.g. public-private partnerships) increase the complexity of conducting science. In this complex and dynamic environment, researchers cannot easily identify the correct rules and best tools for responsible conduct of research. This also increasingly constitutes a challenge for RE+RI experts. Aim: Our aim is to create a platform that makes the normative framework governing RE+RI easily accessible, supports application in research and evaluation, and involves all stakeholders in a participatory way, thus achieving sustainability. The platform will foster uptake of ethical standards and responsible conduct of research, and ultimately support research excellence and strengthen society’s confidence in research and its findings. Vision: Our vision is that in order to make the normative framework governing RE+RI accessible, a dynamic online Wiki-platform, owned by the community of RE+RI stakeholders, is needed. The value of this platform will lie in the availability of practical information on how to comply with EU, national and discipline-specific RE+RI standards and legislation, including information on rules and procedures, educational materials, and illustrative cases and scenarios. Adopting open science (open source and open data) approaches, the platform will be easy to use, by applying novel techniques for data collection and comparison, enabling users to navigate quickly and intuitively to appropriate content. In order to keep the platform up-to-date and sustainable, it will be based upon active involvement of the RE+RI community, and will contribute to further development of this community by providing a podium for reflection and dialogue on RE+RI norms and practices. Objectives: EnTIRE’s work packages (WP) will: undertake an in-depth stakeholder consultation across EU countries exploring RE+RI experiences and practices in order to define the boundaries of data to be collected, and developing a mapping structure adapted to user needs (WP 2); assemble the relevant normative elements, including RE+RI rules and procedures, educational materials, and illustrative casuistry, and identify relevant institutions across EU countries (WP 3-5); develop a user-friendly Wiki-platform and online resources to foster and facilitate responsible research practices and to promote compliance amongst European researchers with RE+RI standards and pertinent legislation and regulations (WP 6); and foster further development of the RE+RI community, that will support the platform and be supported by it, will keep the information up-to-date, disseminate the project’s findings and develop innovative strategies for maintaining the platform and building relationships to relevant organisations for further dissemination, including sustainable funding (WP 7). Relevance to the work programme: The proposed project responds directly to the core requirement of call SwafS-16-2016 to ‘provide a dynamic mapping of the RE+RI normative framework which applies to scientific research conducted in the EU and beyond’. Our proposal does this by using a participatory approach, stimulating knowledge transfer regarding codes and regulations, resources and institutions, and cases, by applying innovative ICT solutions and open science approaches, and by further developing a community of active users, to enable sustainability after the end of the project.

The EU Public Interest Clinic and Wikimedia Present: Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Lobert ◽  
Bianca Isaias ◽  
Karel Bernardi ◽  
Giuseppe Mazziotti ◽  
Alberto Alemanno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
The Eu

22. Mergers (3): UK

2021 ◽  
pp. 959-1018
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Test Section ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
One Stop ◽  
Control Section ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Reference Section ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses UK law on the control of mergers. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the domestic system of merger control. Section 3 explains the procedure of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) when determining whether a merger should be referred for an in-depth ‘Phase 2’ investigation and when deciding to accept ‘undertakings in lieu’ of a reference. Section 4 describes how Phase 2 investigations are conducted and Section 5 discusses the ‘substantially lessening competition’ (‘SLC’) test. Section 6 explains the enforcement powers in the Enterprise Act 2002, including the remedies that the CMA can impose in merger cases. The subsequent sections discuss various supplementary matters, such as powers of investigation and enforcement. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the merger control provisions work in practice and a brief account of the provisions on public interest cases, other special cases and mergers in the water industry. The withdrawal by the UK from the EU means that many mergers that were subject to a ‘one-stop shop’ under EU law are now subject to investigation in the UK as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document