scholarly journals Access to information as a tool of the prevention of corruption in EU institutions

2007 ◽  
Vol 59 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 433-462
Author(s):  
Srdjan Korac

The author analyses the impact of exercising the right to access to information and respecting of transparency for the prevention of corruption in the EU institutions. These two issues are the key principles of good governance and basic prerequisites for democratic participation, allowing citizens to effectively protect their fundamental rights and liberties through public scrutiny. The EU standards are assessed by comparison with the internationally recognized standards, and five indicators have been used: the scope of the right to access, the scope of exceptions, the administrative and appeal procedure, the protection of whistleblowers, administration performance openness and political will. The author wonders if the adopted regulations and rules of procedure are strict enough to prevent emergence of corruption and maladministration in the EU institutions.

European View ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 178168582110555
Author(s):  
Jan Czarnocki

The article explains the importance of the emerging movement for EU digital constitutionalism (EUDC), which reflects a Union-wide effort to address through regulation the challenges posed by digitalisation. The article outlines the core legislative acts that have been introduced by proponents of EUDC. It describes why EUDC is important for fundamental rights protection and European foreign policy, and how the ‘Brussels effect’ extends the impact of EUDC. It enquires into whether EUDC is sustainable, taking into consideration waning EU global influence and the need for economic growth. The EU needs to strike a balance between fundamental rights protection and economic growth. The proportionality principle is the right tool for this. A proportional approach should be followed in establishing a transatlantic digital accord with the US—an agreement on the basic principles governing the digital space. A more proportional approach will pave the way to such an agreement—giving EUDC a global scope.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 2057-2073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matej Avbelj

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the changing character of the European Union (“EU”) public order under the impact of security concerns. The EU public order has long been characterized by a tension between a more market-oriented, neo-liberal Union and a more socio-political Union. The former would be driven by the EU's four fundamental freedoms, whereas the latter would be achieved and safeguarded through the language and practice of fundamental rights. As other scholarly contributions to the issue have demonstrated, the relationship between fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights is anything but settled. It continues to be subject to many, sometimes potent, legal and political controversies. However, while the EU public order is still in pursuit of the right balance between economic freedoms and socio-political rights, it also has to reckon with another fundamental value: The value of security.


2019 ◽  
pp. 20-34
Author(s):  
ANCA-JEANINA NIȚĂ

Starting from the premise that information is the raw material of a democratic society, the present article aims to showcase the importance of the constitutional regulation of the right to information. Observing Article 31 of the Romanian Constitution and the infraconstitutional norms in the field of free access to information of public interest, which further develop the constitutional norm, this paper presents the content of the right to information and its limits. Moreover, some legal literature currents and the case law of the Constitutional Court of Romania are emphasized with regard to the restriction in the exercise of this right, under the conditions of Article 53 of the Constitution. Without detailing the complexity of the legal consequences that derive from declaring a state of emergency, there are identified the limits under which, in such cases, the restriction of some fundamental rights and liberties that can occur. In the current normative context, while insisting that exceptional measures must not find themselves outside the existing constitutional order, the present paper analyses the impact of Decree no. 195/2020 for declaring a state of emergency on the territory of Romania upon the right to information. The article emphasizes that the multiple social, economic and political consequences of such a crisis cannot be dissociated from their legal dimension, that the constitutional rigor of a correct information to the general public through media, both public and private, necessary irrespective of a state of emergency, is needed even more so under exceptional circumstances, where the fight against disinformation is by all accounts legitimate and required. At the same time, it is emphasized the requirement that a state of emergency isn’t used as a pretext for tighter governmental control over information release, for the amputation of the mechanism introduced by Law no. 544/2001 on the free access to information of public interest.


Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm

This chapter examines the democratic costs of constitutionalization by focusing on the European case. It first considers the interdependence of democracy and constitutionalism before discussing how constitutionalization can put democracy at risk. It then explores the tension between democracy and fundamental rights, the constitutionalization of the European treaties, and the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) two separate judgments regarding the relationship between European law and national law. It also assesses the impact of the ECJ’s jurisprudence on democracy, especially in the area of economic integration. The chapter argues that the legitimacy problem the EU faces is caused in part by over-constitutionalization and that the remedy to this problem is re-politicization of decisions with significant political implications.


2012 ◽  
pp. 475-511
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari

Law Although EU law has established a general framework concerning the fight against discriminations on the grounds of religion (namely as far as equal treatment in employment and occupation is concerned), the related ECJ case law is not very rich. This article tracks and evaluates the impact of the ECHR case law devoted to the freedom of religion on the interpretation and application of EU law concerning religion discriminations. It argues that the ECHR case law may contribute to identify the notion of ‘religion' which is relevant for EU law, while several arguments may be put forward against the application of the Strasbourg approach to the balancing between the right to quality based on religion and others human rights into the EU legal order.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.


Author(s):  
Ferran ARMENGOL FERRER

LABURPENA: Egonkortasuneko Mekanismo Europarrean (EME) baldintzapena nola aplikatzen den aztertuko dugu artikulu honetan, Europar Batasunaren esparruan aitortuta dauden oinarrizko eskubideen ikuspegitik. Horretarako, giza eskubideen alorrean nazioarteko hitzarmenak aplikatzearen alde egin duten jarrera doktrinalak hartu dira erreferentziatzat, Nazioarteko Diru Funtsak (NDF) eta nazioarteko beste finantza-erakunde batzuek garapen bidean diren herrialdeekiko operazioetan txertatu duten baldintzapenari muga jartzeko. Europar Batasunaren eremuan 2009-2010 urteetako zor publikoaren krisiari erantzuna emateko sortu diren organismoek eta, batez ere, EMEk (euro eremuan egonkortasuna ziurtatzeko organismoak,) ordea, egiturazko elementu gisa sartu dute baldintzapena haien operazioetan, NDFaren antzeko filosofia hartuta, hau da, zuhurtziaren bitartez lortu nahi dute hazkunde ekonomikoa, eta, horren ondorioz, oinarrizko eskubide batzuk ezin izan dira behar bezala gauzatu. Horrek mahai gainean jartzen du kontu bat, ea politika horiek bateragarri ote diren Europar Batasunaren helburu eta printzipioekin; hasiera batean «zuzenbidezko komunitatea» esamoldeaz definitu baitzuten EB, eta giza eskubideetan oinarrituta eraiki. Justizia Auzitegiak horri buruz idatzi zuen lehenengo epai —goiztiarrak— (Pringle epaiak), ordea, ez zuen zehaztu EMEren baldintzapenak Europar Batasunaren xede eta printzipioekin eta giza eskubideekiko errespetuarekin bat egiten ote duen. Hala ere, badirudi irizpide hori aldatzen ari dela, Ledra Advertising-en duela gutxi eman den epaiaren harira; izan ere, jabetzarako eskubideari dei egiteko atea ireki du, baldintzapena ezartzearen ondorioz eragindako kalteengatiko ordaina eskatzeari dagokionez. Hortaz, EME Europako Diru Funtsean eraldatuta bakarrik heldu ahalko zaie oinarrizko eskubideei, EME erkideko erakunde gisa eratzen bada, baldintzapenaren ondorio kaltegarriak geldiarazteari edo arintzeari begira. Are gehiago, Europako Diru Funtsean baldintzapena judizialki kontrolatzea erreferentea izan liteke nazioarteko beste finantza-erakunde batzuentzat. RESUMEN: El presente artículo analiza la aplicación de la condicionalidad en el Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad (MEDE) desde la perspectiva de los derechos fundamentales reconocidos en el ámbito de la Unión Europea. A tal efecto, se toman como referencia las posiciones doctrinales que han venido defendiendo la aplicación de los convenios internacionales en materia de derechos humanos como límite a la condicionalidad introducida por el FMI y otras instituciones financieras internacionales en sus operaciones con los países en desarrollo. Los organismos creados en el ámbito de la Unión Europea para dar respuesta a la crisis de la Deuda pública de 2009-10, y de modo singular el MEDE, organismo creado para garantizar la estabilidad de la zona euro, han introducido, sin embargo, la condicionalidad como un elemento estructural en sus operaciones, con una filosofía parecida a la del FMI, es decir, conseguir el crecimiento económico a partir de la austeridad, con lo que se ha visto perjudicado el ejercicio de diversos derechos fundamentales. Ello plantea la cuestión de la compatibilidad de tales políticas con los objetivos y principios de la Unión Europea, definida en su día como «Comunidad de Derecho» y fundada sobre los valores de los derechos humanos. La primera —y temprana— sentencia dictada al respecto por el Tribunal de Justicia (sentencia Pringle) dejó, sin embargo, en el aire la cuestión de la compatibilidad de la condicionalidad del MEDE con los objetivos y principios de la Unión Europea y el respeto de los derechos humanos. Parece, no obstante, que este criterio tiende a modificarse a partir del reciente fallo en Ledra Advertising, que ha abierto la puerta a invocar el derecho de propiedad para ser indemnizado por los daños causados por la aplicación de la condicionalidad. Con todo, será a partir de la transformación del MEDE en el Fondo Monetario Europeo, si éste se constituye como institución comunitaria, como puede hacerse efectiva la invocación de los derechos fundamentales para frenar o mitigar los efectos perjudiciales de la condicionalidad. Más aún, el control judicial de la condicionalidad en el FME podría servir como referente para otras instituciones financieras internacionales. ABSTRACT: This article analyses the application of conditionality within the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) from the perspective of the fundamental rights recognized within the EU. To this end, we take as a reference the doctrinal positions that have been defending the application of international conventions on human rights as a limit to the conditionality introduced by the IMF and another financial international institutions in their operations with developing countries. The public agencies created within the EU in order to meet the demands of the public debt crisis of 2009-10, and specifically the ESM, a body created to guarantee the Euro zone’s stability, have nonetheless introduced the conditionality as a structural element in their operations, with a philosophy comparable to that of the IMF, i.e. to achieve economic growth from austerity, thus impairing the exercise of several fundamental rights. That raises the question of compatibility of those policies with the objectives and principles of the EU, defined one day as a «community of law» and founded upon the values of fundamental rights. The first —and early— judgement delivered on this ground by the European Court of Justice (Pringle case) left nevertheless in the air the compatibility of the conditionality of ESM with the objectives and principles of the EU and with the respect to human rights. It seems however that this criteria tends to be modified by the recent judgment Ledra Advertising that opened the door to invoke the right to property in order to be compensated by damages caused as a consequence of conditionality. Even so, it will be after the transformation of the ESM into an European Monetary Fund, if this is constituted as a Community institution, that invoking fundamental rights shall be effective in order to stop or mitigate the adverse effects of conditionality. What is more, the judicial control over conditionality within the EMF might serve as a reference for other international financial institutions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 177-229
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister ◽  
Geert De Baere ◽  
Thomas Ramopoulos

This chapter provides an overview of the sanctions that are available to the EU in the conduct of its foreign policy. First, it focuses on EU restrictive measures or sanctions analysing the applicable provisions and procedure for their adoption under the EU Treaties before making a systematic presentation of the different regimes adopted by the Union and their link to UN sanctions. The chapter also delves into the large corpus of case law on the compliance of sanctions with fundamental rights, in particular procedural rights, such as the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection, and substantive rights, such as the right to carry out an economic activity and right to property. A section is also dedicated to the constantly developing case law on actions for damages from sanctions. Sanctions adopted by the Union within the framework of cooperation and association agreements for the violation of certain essential elements of these agreements are also analysed. Lastly, a discussion of the specific case of the blocking statute, an autonomous measure adopted to counter extraterritorial effects of legislation and actions of third states, which was recently updated, forms part of this chapter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document