The Evolving Role of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities: Some Comments on the Changes Agreed at Nice as they Affect the Judicial Architecture of the Community courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 139-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Forwood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Irish Republic ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

The draft treaty agreed at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference (“IGC”) has had a very mixed press throughout the European Union, even if not all of the criticisms have been entirely justified. Its rejection by voters in the Irish Republic in the referendum on 7 June 2001 appears, according to most commentators, to have been motivated by a wide range of concerns, only some of which relate directly to what was actually agreed at Nice. Whilst this rejection has certainly added to the impression that the Nice Treaty itself is inherently flawed, there are however some aspects of the Treaty of Nice which are undoubtedly very positive, and which should be relatively uncontroversial, even to those most sensitive to the development of the Union. Not the least of these are the provisions that will create the possibility of far-reaching improvements to the present system of Community courts in Luxembourg, and to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (“CFI”) in particular.

The Evolving Role of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities: Some Comments on the Changes Agreed at Nice as they Affect the Judicial Architecture of the Community courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 139-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Forwood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Present System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Irish Republic ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

The draft treaty agreed at the Nice Intergovernmental Conference (“IGC”) has had a very mixed press throughout the European Union, even if not all of the criticisms have been entirely justified. Its rejection by voters in the Irish Republic in the referendum on 7 June 2001 appears, according to most commentators, to have been motivated by a wide range of concerns, only some of which relate directly to what was actually agreed at Nice. Whilst this rejection has certainly added to the impression that the Nice Treaty itself is inherently flawed, there are however some aspects of the Treaty of Nice which are undoubtedly very positive, and which should be relatively uncontroversial, even to those most sensitive to the development of the Union. Not the least of these are the provisions that will create the possibility of far-reaching improvements to the present system of Community courts in Luxembourg, and to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (“CFI”) in particular.

Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

scholarly journals Speciális régiótípusok az Európai Unió regionális egyenlőtlenségeiben

2021 ◽  
Vol 145 (4) ◽  
pp. 300-316
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Regional Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Border Regions ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Specific Support ◽  
Geographical Elements ◽  
European Regional Policy ◽  
European Regional

n the regional policy of the European Union, the importance of regional typologies linked to specific geographical elements has varied over the past decades. This article shows that since the 1990s the role of these specific regional typologies, and thus of regional characteristics, in European regional policy has been declining. However, the analysis of a wide range of socio-economic data reveals that some types of regions (sparsely populated regions, outermost regions, external border regions) are in a particularly unfavourable socio-economic situation, while others may need specific support not at European but at macro-regional level (for example, the coastal regions of the Mediterranean). The article concludes that, although the value of GDP per capita is indeed only marginally explained by the different regional typologies, broadening the concept of underdevelopment and recognising macro-regional challenges could be a priority for the European Union.

Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-906 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
External Observer ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts

Even if an external observer who takes an interest in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities may not have such an impression at first sight, comparative law plays a central role in the activities of these courts. It means much more than simply looking at solutions given to certain problems in the legal orders of the Member States. As a former president of the Court of Justice rightly observed, recourse to comparative law is for the Court of Justice essentially a method of interpretation of Community law itself.1 For the Court of Justice and the CFI (below often referred to as ‘Community judge’ or ‘Community courts’), it is one method amongst other methods of interpretation of the law (such as literal, exegetic, historical, systematic interpretation) and it constitutes a tool for establishing the law.2

Modernising the Community Courts

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 37-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Community Courts ◽  
Made In

A purist might say that the judicial architecture of what is now the European Union was first altered by the 1957 Convention on Certain Institutions Common to the European Communities. That Convention set up a single Court of Justice with jurisdiction under the three Community Treaties which had by then been signed. However, the 1957 Convention should probably be regarded as the last brick in the original edifice, which was to remain unchanged for nearly 30 years. Although the Court started to express concern about its capacity to cope with its workload in the 1970s, the Member States did not respond until 1986, when provision for a court of first instance was made in the Single European Act. That reform marked the beginning of a period of rapid change in the judicial architecture of the Union.

TERRITORIAL COHESION POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU REGIONAL SECURITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Territorial Cohesion ◽  
Interregional Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.

The promotion of security sector reform strategies: Comparing the roles of the European Union and Canada

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Vandemoorteele
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Security Sector Reform ◽  
Security Sector ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Common Policy

This article analyzes the role of the European Union (EU) and Canada in the promotion of Security Sector Reforms (SSR) activities in two regional organizations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The concept of SSR seeks to address the effective governance of security in post-conflict environment by transforming the security institutions within a country in order for them to have more efficient, legitimate and democratic role in implementing security. Recent debates within the EU have led to the adoption of an SSR concept from the Council and a new strategy from the European Commission on the SSR activities. Within the framework of the ESDP, the EU has positioned itself as a leading actor, in this domain, including in its crisis management operations. On the other hand, Canada, through its whole-of government and human security programs has also been an important actor in the promotion of SSR activities. Yet, even though several international organizations (including the United Nations, the OSCE and NATO) are effectively doing SSR activities on the ground, there does not exist a common framework within any of these organizations despite the role of the EU and Canada. As such, it is surprising to found no global common policy for SSR while this approach is precisely holistic in its foundations. Taking these elements into consideration, this paper analyzes two specific aspects : a) the absence of a common policy framework within international organizations and b) the major differences between the approaches of the OSCE and NATO in the domain of SSR and the implications for the EU and Canada’ roles.   Full extt available at: https://doi.org/10.22215/rera.v3i2.186

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document