scholarly journals A magyar kiegészítő nyugdíjpillér elemei és értékelése az EU elvárásainak szemszögéből

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-20
Author(s):  
Judit Barta

The structure, the current role, and the individual elements of the Hungarian supplementary pension scheme are presented in this study. As a Member State, it is important to follow the running courses related to the pension scheme and the supplementary pension scheme in the European Union (EU) as well as the problems declared and the answers given in the EU, which are also outlined in this paper.

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-191
Author(s):  
Christopher Walsch

Abstract This article explores whether a new east‑west divide exists in the enlarged European Union by analysing national discourses on European integration in the Visegrad Four (V4) states. Two V4 foreign policy legacies form the basis of analysis: the “Return to Europe” discourse and the discourses around the reconstruction of the historical self. The article gives evidence that the V4 countries share sovereignty in external policies and thus have a distinct European orientation. V4 national‑conservative governments hold sovereigntist positions, however, in policy areas that they consider falling exclusively within the realm of the member state. Comparison with Western European member states gives evidence that the post-1945 paradigm changes were more profound than those of post-1989 ones of Eastern Europe. This historic legacy can explain the more integrationist orientations in Western Europe. The article concludes that behaviour of the individual V4 state seems to be of greater importance for each member than collective V4 group action. Finally, the article gives an outlook on ways in which solidarity between the Western and Eastern halves of the EU can be exercised in an ideologically diverging Union.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Maciej Etel

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?


Author(s):  
Markus Patberg

This chapter presents an institutional proposal for how citizens could be enabled—in the dual role of European and national citizens—to exercise constituent power in the EU. To explain in abstract terms what an institutional solution would have to involve, it draws on the notion of a sluice system, according to which the particular value of representative bodies consists in their capacity to provide both transmission and filter functions for democratic processes. On this basis, the chapter critically discusses the proposal that the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) should transform itself into an inter-parliamentary constitutional assembly. As this model allows constituted powers to continue to operate as the EU’s de facto constituent powers, it cannot be expected to deliver the functions of a sluice system. The chapter goes on to argue that a more convincing solution would be to turn the Convention of Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union into a permanent constitutional assembly composed of two chambers, one elected by EU citizens and the other by member state citizens. The chapter outlines the desirable features of such an assembly and defends the model against a number of possible objections.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

This chapter describes the direct enforcement of European law in the European Courts. The judicial competences of the European Courts are enumerated in the section of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) dealing with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter discusses four classes of judicial actions. The first class is typically labelled an ‘enforcement action’ in the strict sense of the term. This action is set out in Articles 258 and 259 TFEU and concerns the failure of a Member State to act in accordance with European law. The three remaining actions ‘enforce’ the European Treaties against the EU itself. These actions can be brought for a failure to act, for judicial review, and for damages.


2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 83-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Forwood

AbstractThis chapter aims to explore some challenges that are likely to arise in the context of the UK’s present and future relationships with the EU. Three aspects come under scrutiny, namely the global opt-out available for the UK in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the contemplated 2017 referendum on whether the UK should remain an EU Member State. The chapter stresses not only the importance of restoring objectivity in the debates surrounding these issues, but also the necessity of taking due account of the uncertainties that these processes unavoidably entail as to their end results for both the UK and Scotland.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Marta Miedzińska

The foundations and the operating framework of the institutions of the European Union and its Member States are determined by legal acts established at the EU level. The legal bases at the EU level contain key standards in the scope of protection of the financial interests of the European Union and are the main determinants for the individual EU countries when their legal institutions create legal bases at the national level. The aim of this article is to present the main legal basis for the protection of the financial interests of the European Union at the EU level, which will help to examine the impact of these provisions on detecting irregularities and fraud in the EU.


2000 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 847-875 ◽  
Author(s):  
József Böröcz

A series of diplomatic exchanges has recently unfolded between the Hungarian government and the Commission of the European Union. The stakes are historic for the Hungarian side. Hungary formally applied for full membership in the European Union on March 31, 1994, the first country to announce such intentions among the successor states of the former Soviet bloc. Two years later, the Commission sent a lengthy questionnaire about the “state of the applicant” to all—by then, ten—central and east European applicant states. The Hungarian side filed its comprehensive response three months after the receipt of the questionnaire. The Commission waited until all responses were in and acknowledged the Hungarian answer in a document, issued another year later, whose purpose was to determine whether to recommend that the EU Council should start negotiations with the individual candidate countries about full membership.


2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Vincents Olsen ◽  
Christian F. Rostbøll

The Lisbon Treaty from 2009 introduced the possibility for individual member states to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on the basis of a unilateral decision. In June 2016 the United Kingdom decided to leave the EU invoking article 50 of the treaty. But is withdrawal democratically legitimate? In fact, the all-affected principle suggests that it is undemocratic for subunits to leave larger political units when it adversely affects other citizens without including them in the decision. However, it is unclear what the currency of this affectedness is and, hence, why withdrawal would be undemocratic. We argue that it is the effect of withdrawal on the status of citizens as free and equal that is decisive and that explains why unilateral withdrawal of subunits from larger units is democratically illegitimate. Moreover, on the ‘all-affected status principle’ that we develop, even multilaterally agreed withdrawal is undemocratic because the latter diminishes the future ability of citizens to make decisions together regarding issues that affect their status as free and equal. On this basis, we conclude that it is undemocratic for a member state such as the United Kingdom to withdraw from the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document