Pringle v. Ireland (E.C.J.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 803-828
Author(s):  
Susan Power

On November 27, 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) issued a landmark decision on the question of the compatibility of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty with European Union law. The Court ruled on the following issues related to the permanent bailout fund: the validity of Decision 2011/199/EU adopted by the European Council to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEFU) in accordance with the simplified revision procedures; whether the European Council exceeded its competence by using the simplified revision procedure under Article 48(6) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to establish the stability mechanism in violation of the treaties; the compatibility of the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) with the treaties founding the European Union; and whether Decision 2011/199/EU encroached on the competence of the Union to coordinate economic and monetary policies of the Member States.

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph W. Herrmann

In the judgment Pringle v. Ireland, the full Court of Justice of the European Union (Court or ECJ) upheld the validity of the decision of the European Council enabling the simplified amendment of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union(TFEU). In its Decision 2011/199/EU, the Council had provided for the establishment of a permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM) by those member states of the European Union (Union or EU) that had adopted the euroas their common currency and legal tender. The Court also found in this judgment that those member states had not violated EU law by negotiating and concluding the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM Treaty). The Court based the latter finding on the long-awaited clarification of the scope and content of the TFEU’s “no-bailout clause” (Art. 125(1)), which had been the subject of intense controversies among legal scholars, in particular in Germany.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter-Augustijn Van Malleghem

The reference from the Irish Supreme Court seeking a preliminary ruling in the Pringle case concerns the compatibility of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism (hereinafter ESM Treaty or ESMT) with European Union (EU) law. The Irish Supreme Court was concerned with the legal significance of Council Decision 2011/199, which amended the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by inserting a third paragraph in Art 136 TFEU. The new Art 136(3) provides that the Member States whose currency is the euro, may establish a mechanism such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) so long as that mechanism is only activated when indispensable to safeguarding the stability of the euro area as a whole, and only if the financial assistance is made subject to strict conditionality. But, because Decision 2011/199 has not yet been ratified by all Member States, the TFEU has not yet been amended. The ESMT nevertheless entered into force at the end of September 2012, and the ESMT commenced its operations in December 2012.


Author(s):  
Alessandra Silveira ◽  
Sophie Perez Fernandes

A SAGA TARICCO CONTINUA: ENTRE IDENTIDADE CONSTITUCIONAL DO ESTADO-MEMBRO E NÍVEL MAIS ELEVADO DE PROTEÇÃO DOS DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS – ONDE FICA A EFETIVIDADE DO DIREITO DA UE?  THE TARICCO SAGA CONTINUES – BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL NATIONAL IDENTITY AND HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, WHERE DOES EFFECTIVENESS OF EU LAW STAND?  Alessandra Silveira*Vivian Lacerda Moraes**  RESUMO: Em setembro de 2015, o Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia detalhou, no acórdão Taricco, o alcance das obrigações dos Estados-Membros no combate à fraude fiscal lesiva dos interesses financeiros da União. Aquele Tribunal voltará brevemente a pronunciar-se sobre a interpretação firmada no referido acórdão, pois a compatibilidade da solução aí fixada foi questionada à luz de um princípio supremo da ordem jurídico-constitucional de um Estado-Membro – no caso, o princípio da legalidade dos delitos e das penas, cuja desconsideração seria suscetível de vulnerar a identidade constitucional da República Italiana. Neste contexto, importa aferir: i) o que integra a identidade constitucional dos Estados-Membros, ii) quem tem competência para a definir, ii) qual o alcance dessa definição para o direito da União Europeia. É o que as Autoras pretendem desvendar neste texto, a partir de um caso de estudo pendente no Tribunal de Justiça – qual seja, o caso M.A.S. e M.B. – no âmbito do qual o referido Tribunal foi chamado a esclarecer as implicações jurídico-constitucionais do caso Taricco.  PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Interconstitucionalidade. Identidade Constitucional. Nível de Proteção mais Elevado dos Direitos Fundamentais. Efetividade do Direito da UE. ABSTRACT: In September 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union detailed the scope of the obligations of the Member States in combating tax fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union in the Taricco judgment. The Court will briefly rule again on the interpretation given in that judgment, since the compatibility of the solution set out therein was called into question in the light of a supreme principle of the legal and constitutional order of a Member State - in this case, the principle of legality in criminal matters, the disregard of which would allegedly be liable to infringe the constitutional identity of the Italian Republic. In that context, it is important to assess: i) what constitutes the constitutional identity of the Member States, ii) who is competent to define it, ii) what is the scope of that definition in the light of European Union law. This is what the Authors intend to unveil in this text, from a case study pending before the Court of Justice - that is, the case M.A.S. and M.B. - in which the Court was called upon to clarify the legal and constitutional implications of the Taricco case. KEYWORDS: Interconstitutionality. Constitutional Identity. Highest Level of Protection of Fundamental Rights. Effectiveness of EU Law.  SUMÁRIO: Notas Introdutórias. 1 O caso Taricco – ou em que medida o combate à fraude fiscal ajusta a proteção dos direitos fundamentais num contexto de interconstitucionalidade. 2 O caso M.A.S. e M.B. – ou da necessária separação de águas entre identidade constitucional e nível mais elevado de proteção dos direitos fundamentais no sistema jurídico da União Europeia. Notas Conclusivas. Referências. * Doutora em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal. Professora da Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Diretora do Mestrado em Direito da União Europeia da Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Diretora do Centro de Estudos em Direito da União Europeia (CEDU) da Universidade do Minho, Portugal. ** Mestre em Direito da União Europeia pela Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Professora da Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Investigadora do Centro de Estudos em Direito da União Europeia (CEDU) da Universidade do Minho, Portugal. 


Abstract: the article analyzes the features of the responsibility of official representatives of the Member States and European Union personnel on the example of particular institutions of the European Union. Four of the seven institutions of the European Union were included in the analysis, namely: the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Union. The article examines the provisions of a number of EU legal acts on the responsibility of representatives of member states and EU personnel, in particular Treaty on the European Union of 1992, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union of 1957, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 2000, Act concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 1976, Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union of 2007, Statute for members of the European Parliament of 2005, Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules of Procedure of the European Council, Rules of Procedure of the Council, Rules of Procedure of the European Commission. As a result of the analysis of these acts of primary and secondary law of the European Union, it was possible to reveal a number of features of the responsibility of member states representatives in particular institutions of the European Union and personnel of the European Union individual institutions. Such features in the article include: attachment of political, administrative, disciplinary and financial responsibilities in the analyzed acts of European Union law and the absence in them of a direct indication of the possibility to put these categories of persons under criminal responsibility; a differentiated approach, which in most cases shows itself in various types, forms and mechanisms for the realization of the responsibility of official representatives of the European Union Member States and personnel of European Union institutions; realization within the institute of responsibility of the Member States representatives and personnel of EU institutions a balanced approach based on the sphere and volume of functions performed by such an individual.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bridgette K. McLellan

<p>European Union citizenship was established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Intended to fall within the exclusive prerogative of the Member States, it soon became clear that the autonomy of Member States to determine matters relating to nationality would be restricted by the ever-expansive reach of the European Court of Justice. As such, the European Court of Justice transformed the law on citizenship in the 2010 case of Rottmann where measures affecting or depriving the rights conferred and protected by the European Union were held to fall within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. While Rottmann affirmed the law as to the deprivation of European Union citizenship, it left unanswered the question whether the acquisition of nationality also falls within the scope of European Union law. This paper aims to identify and analyse the law arising post-Rottmann to determine whether the acquisition of nationality could fall within the scope of European Union law. It shall then analyse whether fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of proportionality, could be applied in order to regulate the conditions imposed by Member States in relation to the acquisition of nationality.</p>


Author(s):  
Bernhard Schima

Article 232 EC Should the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, in infringement of the Treaties, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement established. This Article shall apply, under the same conditions, to bodies, offices and agencies of the Union which fail to act.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
María Simón Razquin

El pasado día 19 de enero de 2019, los representantes de todos los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea firmaron una carta declarando nulos los Acuerdos Intercomunitarios de Protección Recíproca de Inversiones: Con este documento, los gobiernos muestran su respaldo a la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 26 de marzo de 2018 en el asunto Achmea, que había declarado la incompatibilidad de la cláusula de arbitraje incluida en el Tratado Bilateral de Inversiones celebrado en 1991 entre el Reino de los Países Bajos y la República Federal Checa y Eslovaca con el Derecho de la Unión Europea. Los 28 Estados siguen, así, las directrices de la Comisión Europea en su Comunicación de julio de 2018, que declaró la incompatibilidad de estos Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión intra-UE con el Derecho de la Unión. El presente trabajo tiene como objeto realizar un análisis del contenido de la mencionada sentencia, así como de sus consecuencias tras aquella declaración de los Estados miembros y de la Comunicación de la Comisión, con especial hincapié en su incidencia en el arbitraje de inversión en nuestro país. On January 19th, 2019, the representatives of all the Member States of the European Union signed a letter declaring invalid the Inter Communitary Agreements on Reciprocal Investment Protection, supporting the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26 of March 2018 in the Achmea case, which had announced the incompatibility of the arbitration clause included in the Bilateral Investment Treaty concluded in 1991 between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic with the European Union Law. The 28 States follow the guidelines of the European Commission in its Communication of July 2018, which declared the incompatibility of intra-EU BITs with the European Union law. This paper aims to analyze the content of the aforementioned judgment, as well as its consequence and those of the declaration of the Member States and the Communication of the Commission, with special emphasis on its impact on our country´s investment arbitration.


De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktoriya Mingova ◽  

The interaction between the national constitutional jurisdictions of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union raises questions that often cannot be answered unequivocally. The focus of this debate is, of course, on the fundamental question of whether European Union law takes primacy over national constitutions. This study presents the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on the establishment of the principle of autonomy of EU law in relation to the internal law of the Member States in its development, since it is precisely the positions it adopts that allow the Court of Justice to derive the principle of primacy over ‘any provision of internal law’ as a logical and natural consequence of the unique nature of EU law. On the other hand, since this integration activity of the Court of Justice is not the result of a conscious activity of the Member States, legitimated by their constitutions, the inevitable question arises of whether the results of the activity in question do not clash with the main task of the constitutional courts ‒ to ensure a coherent and uniform application of the law within the national legal order and above all in accordance with the constitution. The case law of the constitutional courts of the Member States presented in this study leads to the conclusion that they regard autonomy as a relative characteristic, which is why they reject the principle of absolute primacy of European Union law over constitutional rules. It seems that no constitutional court could abdicate its role as a court of ‘last word’ in this respect.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document