scholarly journals Considerations on the European Companies and holdings

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1167-1177
Author(s):  
Roxana Maria Chirieac
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law System ◽  
System A ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Transnational Companies ◽  
Full Capacity ◽  
Set Up ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

AbstractIn a political and economical climate that one might qualify as troubled, and on the background of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and therefore no longer offering the city of London as a light tax haven for the companies that don’t undergo transactions of economical substance on its territory, one might question the survival of transnational companies across the European Union. In this context, we thought of analysing the European companies, their history and their present day formation as well as their administration. The idea that one might carry out their activity throughout the European Union, using a simpler and lighter form of company, the idea that the administration of such company is easier and one doesn’t have to comply to the national legislation of each member state is indeed appealing. But what of the success of this regulation? Is the procedure indeed as simple as it was thought out to be, and if so, are the natural and moral persons using it to its full capacity? Also, on the other hand, what of the holding institution, generated by the common law system, a lot longer ago, which allows one to administer various companies in various states through a company that is located anywhere in the world. How are holdings incorporated, how are they administered and is this institution still in use in the European Union, considering the fact that one might set up a European company as a holding?

scholarly journals Life in London on the Eve of Brexit – Polish Migrants’ Reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (3 (181)) ◽  
pp. 167-187
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Winiecka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Scientific Program ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Social ◽  
Polish Migrants ◽  
The City ◽  
Depth Interviews

London is home to the largest community of Polish migrants in Great Britain. The multicultural and superdiverse character of the city frequently – though not always – helps newly-arrived inhabitants to settle and decide to stay for longer or for ever. In 2016 there was a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union. It was a moment when many migrants (re)considered their presence and their position in the society of the United Kingdom. One of the largest affected groups of migrants were the Poles. The purpose of this article is to present the situation of Polish migrants on the eve of Brexit, from the perspective of life in a multicultural and superdiverse city – London. The spectre of Brexit has brought out social tensions, detectible to varying degrees depending on the social character of the place of residence in question. In this article I have tried to answer the question: To what extent have the social mood and the social status of migrants in their own perception changed due to Brexit in the context of London’s multiculturalism and superdiversity? The article was based on 25 in-depth interviews with Polish migrants living in London. The research was realised within the framework of the scientific program: “The process of the social (re)adaptation of Polish migrants in London when facing Brexit – change and redefinition of social status from an intragroup perspective” (Miniatura 2, NCN Register No.: 2018/02/X/HS6/02300). Interviews were carried out at the end of April and the beginning of May, and in October 2019.

Euratom and Brexit: Could the United Kingdom Maintain One Foot in the European Union? Current Scenarios and Future Prospects of British withdrawal from the EAEC

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-151
Author(s):  
Andrea Circolo ◽  
Ondrej Hamuľák
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Independent Solution ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Energy Community ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The paper focuses on the very topical issue of conclusion of the membership of the State, namely the United Kingdom, in European integration structures. The ques­tion of termination of membership in European Communities and European Union has not been tackled for a long time in the sources of European law. With the adop­tion of the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), the institute of 'unilateral' withdrawal was intro­duced. It´s worth to say that exit clause was intended as symbolic in its nature, in fact underlining the status of Member States as sovereign entities. That is why this institute is very general and the legal regulation of the exercise of withdrawal contains many gaps. One of them is a question of absolute or relative nature of exiting from integration structures. Today’s “exit clause” (Art. 50 of Treaty on European Union) regulates only the termination of membership in the European Union and is silent on the impact of such a step on membership in the European Atomic Energy Community. The presented paper offers an analysis of different variations of the interpretation and solution of the problem. It´s based on the independent solution thesis and therefore rejects an automa­tism approach. The paper and topic is important and original especially because in the multitude of scholarly writings devoted to Brexit questions, vast majority of them deals with institutional questions, the interpretation of Art. 50 of Treaty on European Union; the constitutional matters at national UK level; future relation between EU and UK and political bargaining behind such as all that. The question of impact on withdrawal on Euratom membership is somehow underrepresented. Present paper attempts to fill this gap and accelerate the scholarly debate on this matter globally, because all consequences of Brexit already have and will definitely give rise to more world-wide effects.

The Law & Politics of Brexit: Volume II

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Financial Settlement ◽  
The Eu

This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.

Correctional oversight bodies’ resources and protections across the European Union: Are their hands tied?

2021 ◽  
pp. 174889582098696
Author(s):  
Eva Aizpurua ◽  
Mary Rogan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Independence ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
Protection Mechanisms ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
International Instruments

Oversight bodies play a critical role in upholding human rights standards in prison. Several international instruments require states to establish independent forms of prison oversight and to give them the powers they need to conduct their work. Resources are central to the effectiveness and independence of oversight bodies. Of equal importance is the ability of prison oversight bodies to offer protections against reprisals for those who choose to speak to them and for their own staff. In this article, we provide results from the first survey of prison oversight bodies in the European Union and the United Kingdom, focusing on the resources and protections which prison oversight bodies in these states have to enable them to conduct their work. Our results suggest the need to strengthen the financial independence of prison oversight bodies, with slightly less than half of the bodies having their own budget to monitor prisons. Bodies which had their own budgets had a greater number of staff members and a greater variety of professional backgrounds among their members, likely influencing their ability to fulfil their mandate. Our results also point to the need to develop further protection mechanisms against reprisals for those who speak with inspectors as well as for staff from prison oversight bodies.

scholarly journals European Union One Health Country Visits as Driver to Combat on Antimicrobial Resistance

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s222-s222
Author(s):  
Pita Spruijt ◽  
Paul Bergervoet ◽  
Robbin Westerhof ◽  
Merel Langelaar ◽  
Marie-Cécile Ploy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Antimicrobial Resistance ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
One Health ◽  
Competent Authority ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Review System ◽  
Set Up

Background: In 2016, the European Union adopted unanimously Council Conclusions on the next steps to combat antimicrobial resistance under a One Health approach. To implement some of the provisions laid down in the Council Conclusions, a European Joint Action on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and Healthcare-Associated Infections (HCAI) or EU-JAMRAI was set up, gathering 44 partners. Methods: As part of EU-JAMRAI, 13 participating European countries set up a country-to-country peer review system to evaluate each other’s national action plans (NAPs). This review system entailed a self-assessment, strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats (SWOT) analysis, and country visits. All steps were executed with representatives from both the human and the veterinary domains (One Health approach). Special attention was given to supervision and the way supervision can enhance the implementation of guidelines on AMR, both at the policy level and within healthcare institutions. Results: Despite differences in the stage of developing and implementing NAPs, all 13 countries are working on NAPs. In this process, country visits function as a moment to exchange best practices and to provide an outsider’s point of view. At the end of 2019, 13 country-to-country visits had taken place, resulting in tailor-made recommendations for each country. These recommendations were shared with the competent authority. An example is a country that used the recommendation to improve infection prevention as an immediate reason to get the topic on the agenda of the Ministry of Health. During the country visits, intersectoral participation was perceived as desirable, but in some cases it was challenging to arrange. For some highly relevant topics, it has been recognized that discussion should take place on a European level. Examples of such topics include supervision, infection prevention guidelines, funding, surveillance, and regular audits of antibiotic prescriptions for physicians including feedback loops. Conclusions: Peer review is a cooperative and friendly working method compared to common audits. The country visits function as an agenda setting tool to get or to keep AMR on the political agenda and presenting the most relevant topic(s) to address for each country.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Joint bodies in the European Union's international agreements: Delegating powers to the European Commission in EU external relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 146511652110273
Author(s):  
Markus Gastinger ◽  
Andreas Dür
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Principal Agent ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Voting Rule ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Set Up

In many international agreements, the European Union sets up joint bodies such as ‘association councils’ or ‘joint committees’. These institutions bring together European Union and third-country officials for agreement implementation. To date, we know surprisingly little about how much discretion the European Commission enjoys in them. Drawing on a principal–agent framework, we hypothesise that the complexity of agreements, the voting rule, conflict within the Council, and agency losses can explain Commission discretion in these institutions. Drawing on an original dataset covering nearly 300 such joint bodies set up by the European Union since 1992, we find robust empirical support for all expectations except for the agency loss thesis. Our findings suggest that the European Commission is the primary actor in the implementation of many of the European Union's international agreements, allowing it to influence EU external relations beyond what is currently acknowledged in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document