scholarly journals The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: An institution built on sand?

2015 ◽  
pp. 171-174
Author(s):  
Brian O’Reilly
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Direct Involvement ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
European Public ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

The European Union has traditionally had a limited role in the area of criminal justice enforcement. Many other areas of EU law involve detailed legislation and direct involvement, but in relation to criminal law the EU has thus far been limited to a coordinating and harmonising role. There are, for example, certain minimum standards set on the national definitions of some serious criminal offences, and an attempt has been made to harmonise the types and level of sanctions applicable to certain offences, but when it comes to actually prosecuting these crimes the Member States still reign supreme. In Ireland, the job of prosecuting criminal offences in the Courts falls ultimately on the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This could be set to change, however, as a regulation is currently (slowly) working its way through the EU legislature that would set up a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which could effectively ...

The Limitations of the Harmonisation of Criminal Law in the European Union Protected by Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-334
Author(s):  
Kaie Rosin ◽  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Matters

Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu give Member States the possibility to suspend the legislative procedure of eu criminal law. Article 82(3) allows that kind of emergency brake mechanism for the process of adopting minimum standards for harmonising rules of criminal procedure enhancing judicial cooperation in criminal matters and Article 83(3) for establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. A Member State can only use the emergency brake clause when the proposal for the directive would affect the fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. This prerequisite deserves a closer analysis, therefore the aim of this article is to interpret the meaning of tfeu articles 82(3) and 83(3) to better understand the limitations of the harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union.

scholarly journals European Public Prosecutor's Office: New Actor in EU Criminal Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-172
Author(s):  
Dominika Becková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Public ◽  
Financial Interests ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The European Public Prosecutor's Office was established under enhanced cooperation in 2017, as a new body in the institutional system of the European Union.  The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office changes the EU criminal law in a significant way, as it is the first body of the European Union, which will undertake its own investigations of criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the EU, carry out acts of prosecution and exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States.

scholarly journals The Relationship between EU Law and Fundamental Principles of Estonian Substantive Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 174-182
Author(s):  
Kaie Rosin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Although the EU lacks explicit competence to harmonise national principles of criminal law, there are many ways in which EU law and national criminal law are interconnected on a level deeper than mere minimum standards adopted from directives. The article analyses these intersections between EU law and fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law, explaining how the principles of criminal law recognised and interpreted in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exhibit the capacity to affect fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law. The article focuses on five principles specific to substantive criminal law, which are derived from the fundamental principles of the Estonian Constitution and have equivalents in human-rights law: the principle of legality of criminal law, the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, proportionality, ultima ratio, and the principle of individual guilt. The analysis demonstrates that the relationship between EU law and the various principles of substantive criminal law is not uniform because the principles of substantive criminal law are not developed evenly at European Union level.

scholarly journals Foreign direct investments screening in EU law at the time of the crisis caused by the pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-374
Author(s):  
Mirjana Radović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Foreign Direct Investments ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Member States ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Eu

The European Union is generally open to inward foreign direct investments (FDI). However, over recent years there is a rising trend in screening of inward FDI from third countries in the Member States. As a result, the Regulation (EU) 2019/452 on screening of foreign direct investments was enacted. In this paper the author, firstly, explains the reasons for a change in treatment of inward FDI from third countries within the Member States and the EU itself. The second part of the paper contains an analysis of the legal framework for FDI in the EU, in order to determine the possibility of their restrictions through national legislations. Special attention is given to the FDI-Screening Regulation and its minimum standards for national screening mechanisms. Finally, the author examines how the COVID-19 pandemic affects the treatment of FDI in the EU and concludes that the current crisis has contributed to further expanding the scope and importance of their screening and control.

A Union of Peoples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavlos Eleftheriadis
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rival Theory ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The Eu

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,

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.

scholarly journals TOWARDS MINIMUM PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES FOR THE DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE EU

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1017-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens van Puyenbroeck ◽  
Gert Vermeulen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Democratic Rule ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Eu

A critical observer would not deny that the practice of European Union (‘EU’) policy making in the field of criminal law in the past decade since the implementation of the Tampere Programme has been mainly repressive and prosecution-oriented.1 The idea of introducing a set of common (minimum) rules, guaranteeing the rights of defence at a EU-wide level, has not been accorded the same attention as the introduction of instruments aimed at improving the effectiveness of crime-fighting. What does this mean for the future of EU criminal policy? Will the EU succeed in the coming years in developing an area where freedom, security and justice are truly balanced? According to several authors, to date the EU has evolved in the opposite direction. As one observer put it:[I]f Procedural Criminal Law arises from the application of Constitutional Law, or indeed if it may be described as “a seismograph of the constitutional system of a State”, then as a consequence the Procedural Criminal Law of the European Union shows the extent of the Democratic Rule of Law, of the existence of a true “Rechtsstaat”, within an integrated Europe. This situation may be qualified as lamentable, as the main plank of the EU's criminal justice policy relates to the simplification and the speeding up of police and judicial cooperation—articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty of the EU—but without at the same time setting an acceptable standard for fundamental rights throughout a united Europe.2

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.

scholarly journals Polish “Entrepreneur” and EU “Undertaking”: Multilingualism and Differences in Legal Identification

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Precise Determination ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Legal Identification ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Union and its member-states’ involvement in the economic sphere, manifesting itself in establishing the rules of entrepreneurs’ functioning – their responsibilities and entitlements – requires a precise determination of the addressees of these standards. Proper identification of an entrepreneur is a condition of proper legislation, interpretation, application, control and execution of the law. In this context it is surprising that understanding the term entrepreneur in Polish law and in EU law is not the same, and divergences and differences in identification are fundamental. This fact formed the objective of this article. It is aimed at pointing at key differences in the identification of an entrepreneur between Polish and EU law, explaining the reasons for different concepts, and also the answer to the question: May Poland, as an EU member-state, identify the entrepreneur in a different way than the EU?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document