MAIN DIRECTIONS OF ADAPTATION OF UKRAINIAN LEGISLATION TO EU LAW

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryna Kosinova ◽  
◽  
Daryna Tkach ◽  
Vladyslav Melnychenko ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Status ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Energy Community

The article is devoted to defining the essence and main directions of adaptation of the legislation of Ukraine to the law of the European Union. The meaning of the term "adaptation" and the peculiarities of its legislative consolidation are established. In addition, the peculiarities of the process of adaptation of the legislation of Ukraine to the acquis communautaire (acquis) are determined. The article analyzes the history of the idea of adapting the legislation of Ukraine to the law of the European Union through the prism of concluded international agreements, according to which Ukraine has undertaken to reform its own legislation. The essence and significance of the most important of them are clarified: Partnership and Cooperation Agreements between Ukraine and the European Communities and their Member States (PCA) of June 14, 1994, which became one of the main elements of creating an institutional mechanism for adaptation and regulatory framework. for the consistent and effective implementation of this important vector of legal reform; Association Agreements between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other, which has become the largest international legal instrument in the history of Ukraine and the largest international treaty with a third country ever concluded by the European Union. The article analyzes the main legal acts of national legislation on the implementation of the provisions of international agreements to bring the legislation of Ukraine in line with the EU acquis. The annual reporting is detailed, which details the activities of public authorities in each of the areas of adaptation. Based on this reporting, the article analyzes the fulfillment of Ukraine’s commitments and the status of their fulfillment in percentage terms. In addition, an assessment is made of the effectiveness of the activities of public authorities in taking measures to implement Ukraine’s commitments and identifies the main areas for improving their activities.

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.

Corruption and Integration – Does the Expansion of the European Union Represent a Risk Factor?

2004 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-320
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Hetzer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Contemporary History ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Historical Significance ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Administrative Structures ◽  
Second World

AbstractThe imminent entry of ten countries into the European Union is one of the greatest success stories in the contemporary history of the continent. Following the devastation of the Second World War and the political and economic paralysis during the ‘Cold War’ period the future holds promise of development opportunities of historical significance for twenty-five Member States. It must not be overlooked, however, that, due to the still prevalent differences in living standards, in income ratios and in administrative structures, the process of economic approximation is also not without risks. Among these is the tendency towards corruption. The expansion of the European Union can only succeed economically and politically if the dangers associated with corruption are minimized by far-sighted legislation and consistent implementation measures throughout Europe. This is true not only with respect to the new Member States.

scholarly journals Are traditional minority languages a bench marking for the rights of migrant languages in the European Union?

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-60
Author(s):  
Christopher Houtkamp ◽  
László Marácz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

In this paper a normative position will be defended. We will argue that minimal territorial minority language rights formulated in terms of the personality principle referring to traditional minority languages granted in the framework of the European Union (EU) are a benchmark for non-territorial linguistic rights. Although territorial minority languages should be granted collective rights this is in large parts of Europe not the case. Especially in the Central and Eastern European Member States language rights granted to territorial languages are assigned on the basis of personal language rights. Our argumentation will be elaborated on the basis of a comparative approach discussing the status of a traditional territorial language in Romania, more in particular Hungarian spoken in the Szeklerland area with the one of migrant languages in the Netherlands, more in particular Turkish. In accordance with the language hierarchy implying that territorial languages have a higher status than non-territorial languages both in the EUs and Member States’ language regimes nonterritorial linguistic rights will be realized as personal rights in the first place. Hence, the use of non-territorial minority languages is conditioned much as the use of territorial minority languages in the national Member States. So, the best possible scenario for mobile minority languages is to be recognized as a personal right and receive full support from the states where they are spoken. It is true that learning the host language would make inclusion of migrant language speakers into the host society smoother and securing a better position on the labour market. This should however be done without striving for full assimilation of the speakers of migrant languages for this would violate the linguistic rights of migrants to speak and cultivate one’s own heritage language, violate the EUs linguistic diversity policy, and is against the advantages provided by linguistic capital in the sense of BOURDIEU (1991).

Mixed Agreements: The EU Law Fundamentals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joni Heliskoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Whatever terminology one might wish to employ to describe the form of integration constituted by the European Union and its Member States, one fundamental attribute of that arrangement has always been the division, as between the Union and its Member States, of competence to conclude international agreements with other subjects of international law. Today, the fact that treaty-making competence—as an external facet of the more general division of legal authority—is divided and, to some extent, shared between the Union and its Member States is reflected by some of the opening provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Notwithstanding the changes to the scope and nature of the powers conferred upon the Union, resulting from both changes to primary law and the evolution of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the basic characteristics of the conferment as an attribution of a limited kind has always been the same; there has always existed a polity endowed with a treaty-making authority divided between and, indeed, shared by, the Union and its Member States. In the early 1960s mixed agreements—that is, agreements to which the European Union

Twenty Years of CJEU Jurisprudence on Citizenship

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-834
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot ◽  
Ngo Chun Luk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Symbiotic Relationship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constant Friction ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

The history of the European Union has been fraught with constant friction between the sovereignty of the Member States and the supranational powers of the Union, with the Union gaining terrain in fields of law traditionally belonging to the Member States. Despite this tension, certain legal fields are steadfastly asserted as belonging to the Member States. Notably, Member States regulate the grounds of the acquisition and loss of nationality. The Treaty of Lisbon highlights that the nationality of Member States is scarcely governed by European Union law, if at all. The sole provision governing the relationship between Member State nationality and Union law, i.e., Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stresses the primacy of Member State nationality.Reality, however, is often not as simple as such a cursory reading implies. European Union citizenship, once a mere complementary facet of the national citizenships, has transformed into an institution in its own right, forming a symbiotic relationship between the Member State nationality and the European Union.

scholarly journals La eficacia entre particulares de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea a la luz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia

2017 ◽  
pp. 361
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Binding Capacity ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Knowing That ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

La finalidad principal de este trabajo es analizar la eficacia vinculante de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea en las relaciones entre particulares. Una vez apuntada brevemente la capacidad vinculante de la misma en relación al poder público (eficacia vertical), sea de la Unión o de los Estados miembros (cuando aplican Derecho de la Unión), el artículo se centra en la descripción de las diversas posiciones y argumentos en torno a la eficacia inter privatos de la Carta, esto es, a su capacidad para vincular (directa o indirectamente) a los particulares (eficacia horizontal). Puestos a ello, estas líneas se adentran, asimismo, en señalar una de las principales cuestiones a las que se enfrenta en la actualidad la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia en esta materia. Esto es, si la conexión de un derecho de la Carta con una Directiva, o su concreción en la misma, viene a fortalecer su eficacia vinculante horizontal (sabiendo que, por definición, éstas carecen de tal eficacia en las relaciones entre particulares) o invocabilidad, una cuestión que se está planteando en relación con los derechos de igualdad (particularmente, con la no discriminación) y con los derechos de solidaridad de la Carta.The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the binding effectiveness of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relationships between individuals. After explaining briefly its binding capacity in relation to public authorities (vertical efficacy), either in the Union or in the Member States (when applying Union law), the article focuses on the description of the various positions and arguments about the inter privatos effectiveness of the Charter, that is, its ability to bind or constrain (directly or indirectly) individuals (horizontal effectiveness). In that respect, these lines also aim at one of the main issues the Court’s case-law is currently facing in this area: whether the connection of a Charter right with a Directive, or its realization in it, strengthens its horizontal binding effectiveness (knowing that, by definition, these rights lack of efficacy in the relationships between individuals), or its invocability, an issue that is being raised in relation to the Charter’s rights of equality (particularly, non-discrimination) and of solidarity.

The EU as guarantor of environmental protection in Germany

elni Review ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 17-24
Author(s):  
Thomas Ormond
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Law And Policy ◽  
Main Instrument ◽  
Energy Community ◽  
The Eu

In recent years it has become fashionable again among politicians and publicists across Europe to practice ‘Brussels bashing’ and make the EU responsible for many ills of globalisation and modern society. This applies in particular to the field of environmental law. The European Union has been active in the field of environmental protection since the 1970s, i.e. since a time when there was no Union yet but a European Economic Community (EEC), a European Coal and Steel Community and a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The EEC Treaty of 1957 did not know the term ‘environmental protection’ and for the next decades did not contain any explicit legislative competence for this subject matter. The main instrument of EU environmental policy is the directive. In the European context it means a framework law, as proposed by the EU Commission and adopted by the Council and the European Parliament, which the Member States have to transpose within certain deadlines into their national law, and specify and implement by their authorities into practice. The directive is binding as regards the objective (the result to be achieved) but leaves the choice of form and methods to the national authorities. It is estimated that 80% of current environmental law in Germany (as well as probably in other Member States) is determined by the European Union. The author of this article presents his thoughts on how the EU shapes Member State environmental law and policy, highlighting inter alia “innovation from Brussels” such as EIA, access to environmental information and climate protection, as well as the systematic and risk-based approach as hallmark of EU legislation.

scholarly journals European Union citizenship: The acquisition of nationality and the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document