Wieloletnie ramy finansowe na lata 2014–2020. Wyzwanie dla Europy

2014 ◽  
pp. 82-101
Author(s):  
Marcin R. Czubala
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Euro Area ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Financial Framework ◽  
The Eu

The negotiations in the Council of the European Union and the draft budget for 2014–2020 approved by all of the Member States have shown a significant impact of the negative effects of the crisis and instability in the euro area on the next Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union. Therefore, in the context of the current political situation in Europe and because of the stated factors, the aim of this article is to conduct an in-depth analysis of the above-mentioned negotiations, to attempt to assess the approved budget, as well as to present the conclusions of these inquiries. The main stages of the development of the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014–2020 negotiations constitute the basis of the considerations, with a special focus on the two tracks of determining the draft budget in the Council of the European Union. The author also analysed the positions of the Community actors involved in the negotiations: the European Commission, the Presidency of the Council of the EU, the Member States, and the European Parliament. Finally, an attempt to assess the approved project was made. The choice of analysed issues has been made on the premise of significance, while an attempt of evaluation was based on the criteria of legitimacy and efficiency.

scholarly journals SOLIDARITY CHECK IN TIMES OF COVID-19. ANALYSIS OF THE EU APPROACH TOWARDS ITS CLOSEST NEIGHBOURS WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON MONTENEGRO

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Đurić ◽  
Bojana Lalatović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Member States ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
The Eu

Solidarity as one of the cornerstone values of the European Union has been once again seated on the red chair and intensively discussed within the European Union and broader. After the economic recession and migrant crisis that marked the last two decades, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has once again harshly tested the fundamental objectives and values of the European Union and the responsiveness and effectiveness of its governance system on many fronts. In April, 2020 several EU Member States were among the worst affected countries worldwide and this situation soon became similar in their closest neighbourhood. It put a huge pressure on the EU to act faster, while at the same time placing this sui generis community to the test that led to revealing its strengths and weaknesses. As it happened in the previous crises, the Union launched policies and various programmes that were meant to lessen the burden of the Member States and aspiring countries caused by the crises. The objectives of the mentioned soft law instruments that the EU adopted during the COVID-19 crisis has been not only to show that EU law is equipped to react to health and economic crises rapidly but to deliver its support in terms of solidarity to its Member States and its closest neighbours facing the unprecedented health and economic crisis. This article will explore the value and implication of the solidarity principle in times of Covid-19 in its various manifestations. A special focus will be on the financial and material aspects of the EU instruments created to combat the negative consequences of the pandemic and their further impact on shaping the solidarity principle within the EU system. While examining the character and types of these mechanisms a special focus will be placed on those available to Western Balkan countries, whereas Montenegro as the “fast runner” in the EU integration process will be taken as a case study for the purpose of more detailed analyses. One of the major conclusions of the paper will be that although the speed of the EU reactions due to highly complex structure of decision making was not always satisfying for all the actors concerned, the EU once again has shown that it is reliable and that it treats the Western Balkan countries as privileged partners all for the sake of ending pandemic and launching the socio-economic recovery of the Western Balkans. Analytical and comparative methods will be dominantly relied upon throughout the paper. This will allow the authors to draw the main conclusions of the paper and assess the degree of solidarity as well as the effectiveness of the existing EU instruments that are available to Montenegro and aimed at diminishing negative consequences of the crisis.

The Practices of ‘Splitting’ and ‘Common Accord’ Under Scrutiny: the European Parliament‘s Request for an Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the Istanbul Convention

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-486
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Samoilova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forms Of Violence ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With all eyes on the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, another pandemic has been growing in the shadows: violence against women. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention creates a legal framework in order to protect women against all forms of violence. Its ratification process, however, has faced considerable challenges, particularly in the Central and Eastern European Member States. This article discusses the basic elements of the Istanbul Convention, reflects on the ratification process in the EU and its Member States, and sets out the main legal issues raised in the European Parliament’s request for an opinion (A-1/19 of 22 November 2019) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Special focus is put on the choice of the correct EU legal basis and the practices of ‘splitting’ and ‘common accord’. This article argues that the European Parliament’s request for an opinion provides the perfect opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to further clarify the law and the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its Member States.

scholarly journals Challenges ahead for the European Union

Competitio ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Lamfalussy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Euro Area ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Heads Of Government ◽  
The Eu

It is a mild understatement that nowadays the EU is navigating in rough waters. Close to half of the member countries of the Euro area are in breach of their fiscal stability commitment – and some of them very substantially. Quite a few heads of government publicly criticise the ECB’s monetary policy. Germany and France are determined to water down the Bolkenstein directive on the implementation of a genuine single market for services (which amount to about two-thirds of the EU’s GDP), to which, incidentally, no major objections had been raised by the governments of the member states during the drafting stage. There is no agreement on the longer term EU budget. Only Ireland, the UK and Sweden accept the free movement of the residents of the ten countries which became members of the EU in May last year.

The EU Whistleblower Directive and its Transposition: Part 1

2020 ◽  
pp. 203195252096909
Author(s):  
Simon Gerdemann ◽  
Ninon Colneric
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Regulatory Elements ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
European Union Legislation ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

On 16 December 2019, Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law entered into force (hereinafter: Whistleblower Directive; WBD). Based on a Commission proposal of 23 April 2018 and accompanied by an intensive policy debate, the final version of the Directive represents the most far-reaching piece of European Union legislation in the field of whistleblowing law to date, both in terms of depth and scope of regulation. The Member States of the European Union are now obliged to transpose the Directive’s provisions essentially by 17 December 2021. For most Member States, this will mark the first time they will adopt a comprehensive whistleblowing law. Hence, the transposition of the WBD will bring with it various challenges, but also multiple opportunities to improve the current legal framework and its practical implications, both of which are discussed in this two-part article series.  Part 1 of the series will first discuss the Directive’s background and the main regulatory elements, followed by an in-depth analysis of its material and personal scope as well as the general conditions for whistleblower protection.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

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.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Core of State Sovereignty and Boundaries of European Union's Identity in the Lissabon – Urteil

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-418
Author(s):  
Elisabetta Lanza
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Treaty Of Lisbon ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Federal Constitutional Court ◽  
German Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Eu

In the 2009 judgment dealing with the Treaty of Lisbon, the German Federal Constitutional Court urges to modify a domestic statute in order to guarantee the rights of the internal rule-making power and also provides a reasoning on the role of the European Union (EU) as an international organization, the principle of sovereignty and the relations between European Institutions and Bodies and the EU Member States. According to the German Court the Treaty of Lisbon does not transform the European Union into a Federal State (Staatsverband), but into a Confederation of States (Staatenverbund). In spite of the 1993 landmark judgment, the so-called “Maastricht Urteil”, the Court steps forward and focuses also the subject-matters that necessarily have to pertain to the Member States jurisdiction, the so-called “domain reserve”. The German Federal Constitutional Court decision on the Lisbon Treaty arouses the reflection on the core of State sovereignty and on the boundaries of the EU legal system and focuses on the force of the right to vote of every citizen, the basis of democracy.Furthermore, the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court highlights the well-known issue of the EU's identity and the balancing between EU democracy and Member State sovereignty. In the light of the German Constitutional Court statements, the present work aims to understand which could be actually the EU's identity and how could be approached “democratic deficit” of the EU.

The EU's Economic Cooperation with North Korea: The Possibility as a Useful Tool to Complement Korea-US Cooperation

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jong-Sue Lee
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Korean Peninsula ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Position ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The North ◽  
The Eu

North Korea conducted 2nd nuclear test on May 25, 2009. It made a vicious circle and continued military tension on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea regime got a question on the effectiveness of the six party talks and ‘security-economy exchange model’. In addition, the North Korea probably disappointed about the North Korea issue has been excluded from the Obama administration's policy position. So the dialogue or relationship recovery with the United States and North Korea through six-party talks or bilateral talks will be difficult for the time being. This paper examines the EU policy on North Korea. Based on the results, analyzes the EU is likely to act as a balancer on the Korean Peninsula. Through the procedure of deepening and expanding the economic and political unification, the EU utilizes their cooperative policies towards North Korea as an ideal opportunity to realize their internal value and to confirm the commonness within the EU members. The acceleration of the EU's unification, however, began to focus on human rights, and this made their official relationship worse. Yet, the EU is continuously providing food as wells as humanitarian and technological support to North Korea regardless of the ongoing nuclear and human rights issues in North Korea. Also, the number of multinational corporations investing in North Korea for the purpose of preoccupying resources and key industries at an individual nation's level has been increasing. The European Union has unique structure which should follow the way of solving the problem of member states like subsidiary principle. It appears to conflict between normative power of the European Union and strategic interests on member states. This paper examines if the European Union is useful tool to complement Korea-US cooperation in the near future.

scholarly journals How to tackle the growing problem of type 2 diabetes in the European Union?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
N M Mahrouseh ◽  
D W Njuguna ◽  
O A Varga
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
European Union ◽  
Communicable Diseases ◽  
Health Determinants ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Non Communicable Diseases ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background There is an alerting increase in the population affected by type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the European Union (EU) with significant socioeconomic burden. According to an estimation by the International Diabetes Federation, by 2030, the total number of diabetic patients will be 38 million in EU. The “screen and treat” strategies that predominantly applied in policies to prevent T2DM have not achieved significant success, as reported by a large systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2017. Although the member states of the EU have almost full responsibilities for actions in the field of health, the EU has to tackle non-communicable diseases by targeting health determinants and lifestyle mostly through non-binding policies. The goal of this work is to review the T2DM prevention policies in the EU and compare with tobacco policies, from a legal perspective. Methods Following the systematic search and screening of policies from EUR-lex, a content analysis was carried out by using MonQcle as publicly available legal text document analysis platform, by two coders. The search was limited for regulations, directives and white papers. Results Our data collection consisted of 19 documents including 10 regulations, 6 directives and 3 white papers with relevance to T2DM, covering the following topics: health infrastructure and services, informational policies, economic policies, environmental policies, command and control and social policies. The identified policies covered the time frame of 1972 to 2020. Diabetes was targeted as part of non-communicable diseases. None of the policies was legally binding addressing T2DM directly which is in sharp contrast to the tobacco control policies in the EU. Conclusions T2DM, in fact, is largely preventable. EU institutions should consider to reframe T2DM prevention strategies and consider applying a wide range of population-level legislative and innovative actions to prevent T2DM e.g. taxes on unhealthy food products. Key messages T2DM is a largely preventable disease, effective legal tools should be created and applied matching the scale of such public health problem. T2DM policies of the EU may be subject to change due to additional value of actions taken by the EU compared to that could have been achieved by member states alone.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document