Report on food-borne outbreak reporting systems in place in the Member States of the European Union and on needs for information on food-borne outbreaks in the European Community

EFSA Journal ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 577r
Author(s):  
Author(s):  
Jens-Peter Schneider

The European Union has established a growing and increasingly complex legal framework for production, trade and consumption of energy during the last decades. In the beginning, the former European Communities played only a very limited role, as energy policy fell mainly into the competences of the Member States. Neither the Treaty on the European Community for Coal and Steel (1951) nor the EURATOM-Treaty (1957) limited the national competences to regulate the national energy mix or the structure of energy industries. A remnant of this former primacy of national competencies can be found in Article 192(2) TFEU.


2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Masser ◽  
Joep Crompvoets

This paper considers the experience of the implementation of the Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) as a case study of qualitative monitoring in building information infrastructures. It considers the nature of information infrastructures and possible approaches to qualitative monitoring in situations of this kind and describes the outcomes of two rounds of qualitative country reports prepared by the European Union national Member States in 2010 and 2013. The findings of the analysis highlight the great diversity of approaches developed by the participating countries and the complexity of the tasks involved as well as pointing to a number of areas of potential research on the implementation of information infrastructures.


2014 ◽  
Vol 708 ◽  
pp. 125-129
Author(s):  
Sebastian Kot ◽  
Beata Ślusarczyk

At present member states of the European Union apply a few different systems of collection of fares for riding individual types of roads. In spite of the fact that systems of collection of payments in each of member states are working on the same provisions included in Directive 1999/62/EC, amount of rates for riding roads in individual states develops on different level and is being determined on every state’s domestic legislation or regulations of individual roads’ private operators. In this article Authors presented cost analysis of using road infrastructure in chosen member states of the European Community creating a cost map of using road infrastructure in European road transport of goods.


1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Hippler Bello ◽  
Juliane Kokott ◽  
Frank Hoffmeister

Opinion 2/94, Accession of the Community to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 17 Hum. Rts. L.J. 51 (1996).European Court of Justice, March 28, 1996.On April 26, 1995, die Council of the European Union requested an opinion on whether accession of the European Community to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was compatible with the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Treaty). In its request, the Council of the European Union stated that no decision on opening negotiations could be taken before the Court pronounced on die compatibility of accession with the Treaty. The Council argued that, even though a text of the envisaged agreement did not yet exist, the legal issues regarding accession were sufficientiy clear for the Court to provide an advisory opinion. The Council made clear that accession should not have any effect on the reservations entered by member states, which would “continue to apply in the areas falling within national jurisdiction.” It also explained that the “Community would agree to submit to the machinery for individual petitions and inter-State applications; actions between the Community and its Member States would, however, have to be excluded in recognition of the monopoly conferred in such matters by Art. 219 of the EC Treaty on the Court of Justice.”


2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 529-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koji Takahashi

Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of Judgments in Civil Commercial Matters1 replaced the 1968 Brussels Convention on 1 March 2002 for Member States of the European union Except Denmark.2 This has given the European Community exclusive competence in matters relating to jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. As a result individual Member States can no longer freely ratify conventions which, in relation to specific matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments.3 This is reflected in the deletion of ‘or will be’ from the text of Article 71(1) of the Regulation,4 a phrase which previously found in the equivalent provision in the Brussels Convention.5


elni Review ◽  
2008 ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
Sebastian Tusch

The European Commission publishes a yearly “Report on the Monitoring of the Application of Community Law in the Member States of the European Union”. The 2005 edition was reviewed by a member of the Parliament, namely Monica Frassoni, from Italy (Greens/EFA-IT). Her report has recently been adopted by a noteworthy resolution of the European Parliament. The resolution points out both the structural problems of enforcing European Community law and the disputable approach of the Commission during the last few years. The European Parliament recognises that European Community law is not being applied consistently. The Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) refer to the annual report of the Commission in which the infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission are listed. This report illustrates that the number of detected infringements decreased from 2709 (in 2003) to 2653 (in 2005). This drop by 56 infringements seems at first sight not to be significant. But this reported decrease of procedures happened despite the fact that the European Union increased the number of Member States from 15 to 25 in 2004. Against this background, the lower level in 2005 is indeed questionable. Basically, the enlargement of the European Union was expected to cause a significant increase of infringement procedures against the Member States. This applies in particular to new Member States whose legal systems had been – in terms of compliance with European law – divergent from those in the other Member States.


Author(s):  
Søren Dosenrode

Europeanization refers to the mutual influence of the European Union (EU) and its member states, to interactions within and between member states driven by the EU, and to the effect of the EU on EU applicant states. It affects domestic politics, policy, and polity and therefore is relevant for citizens and businesses. Europeanization effects also raise an issue of legitimacy: who bears responsibility, the member states or the European Union? In the broadest sense, analysis of Europeanization began with the theories of regional integration in the 1950s, which explained what was to become the early 21st-century EU and how it began and developed—the making of a polity. In the narrow and more common use of the concept, studies of the effect of what was then known as the European Community began at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s under the name of “adaptation.” It was not until 1994 that Robert Ladrech used and defined the term “Europeanization” for analyzing the effect of the European Community on its member states. Thus, in its most encompassing sense, a complete typology of Europeanization includes five types, each with its own primary mechanisms at work: (a) meta-Europeanization, the processes whereby the member states that have created the EU have set the overall frame, that is, the EU; (b) downloading, which implies a pressure on EU member states’ policies and governmental structures to adapt to EU standards (but this does not lead to “uniformity,” as the member states have diverse histories and traditions); (c) uploading, whereby the member states contribute to the EU’s further development by making policy suggestions to the EU and its institutions; (d) cross-loading, whereby the EU creates frames for the member states to exchange best practices and experiences, with little or no involvement from the institutions; and (e) export Europeanization, whereby the EU makes potential members comply with the Union. In a narrow sense, Europeanization is about downloading, uploading, and cross-loading. Studies on Europeanization have contributed greatly to our understanding of how the EU works and how it influences its member states and vice versa (not to mention its influence on subnational actors as well as on interest organizations and neighboring countries). In the early 21st century, Europeanization studies expanded to policies that were previously not sufficiently considered: for instance, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Common Security and Defence Policy, and social movements.


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.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

The European Union was born as an international organization. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, although the European Court of Justice was eager to emphasize that the Union constitutes “a new legal order” of international law. With time, this new legal order has indeed evolved into a true “federation of States.” Yet how would the foreign affairs powers of this new supranational entity be divided? Would the European Union gradually replace the member states, or would it preserve their distinct and diverse foreign affairs voices? In the past sixty years, the Union has indeed significantly sharpened its foreign affairs powers. While still based on the idea that it has no plenary power, the Union’s external competences have expanded dramatically, and today it is hard to identify a nucleus of exclusive foreign affairs powers reserved for the member states. And in contrast to a classic international law perspective, the Union’s member states only enjoy limited treaty-making powers under European law. Their foreign affairs powers are limited by the exclusive powers of the Union, and they may be preempted through European legislation. There are, however, moments when both the Union and its states enjoy overlapping foreign affairs powers. For these situations, the Union legal order has devised a number of cooperative mechanisms to safeguard a degree of “unity” in the external actions of the Union. Mixed agreements constitute an international mechanism that brings the Union and the member states to the same negotiating table. The second constitutional device is internal to the Union legal order: the duty of cooperation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document