Развитие института взаимного признания и исполнения судебных решений в странах Европейского Союза

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 71-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Maystrovich ◽  
Elena Kucheryavaya
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Right

The free movement of judicial decisions on the territory of the European Union presupposes a high level of mutual trust between the judicial bodies of the Member States. From the citizens’ point of view, the key issue is the balance between the rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants, i.e. the right to access to justice (to sue) and the right to defence. Mutual trust between the judiciary can be built in various ways. Firstly, through the creation of a unified European procedure in the form of additional tools held before the adjudication and based on the general rules of procedure. Secondly, through sectoral harmonisation of procedural law within the framework of solving individual issues in accordance with a step-by-step approach. Thirdly, it is necessary to create common standards, in the form of principles and rules, regulations and directives. The Author in this article analyses the main ways of creating uniformity of norms applied in the territory of the European Union, the most suitable for the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. The process of legal development of the institution of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and its current status are considered.

scholarly journals Comentarios a la propuesta del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo del certificado verde digital. Protección de datos sanitarios y análisis ético jurídico

Bioderecho.es ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria María González Suárez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
The Right

Con motivo de la situación actual a la que nos enfrentamos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 se ha planteado en diversas ocasiones la implantación de un certificado verde digital. El 17 de marzo de 2021 la Comisión Europea presentó una propuesta de creación del certificado con el fin de facilitar el ejercicio del derecho a la libre circulación dentro de la Unión Europea durante la pandemia. Todo ello plantea diversas cuestiones jurídicas en cuanto a la protección de datos sanitarios, el derecho a la libre circulación y la eficacia y proporcionalidad de medidas que deben ser objeto de análisis tanto desde el punto de vista jurídico como del punto de vista ético ya que, en ciertas ocasiones la aplicación de medidas puede afectar al derecho a la igualdad de los ciudadanos. Due to the current situation we are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of a digital green certificate has been proposed on several occasions. On March 17, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal to create the certificate in order to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement within the European Union during the pandemic. All this raises various legal questions regarding the protection of health data, the right of free movement and the efficacy and proportionality of measures that must be analyzed from both the legal and ethical point of view since, on certain occasions the application of measures may affect the right of equality of citizens.

Free Movement and Discrimination: Evidence from Europe, the United States, and Canada

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
International Migration ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Good Test ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.

Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments

2019 ◽  
pp. 211-241
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Automatic Recognition ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Eu

The article covers a topic of an unconditional automatic recognition of foreign judgments within the European Union. Thus far, a different method in case of foreign judgments has been used. Certain regulations of the EU require exequatur and contain grounds for refusal of recognition and in certain regulations both the exequatur and grounds for refusal of recognition have been abolished. First, the paper deals with the principle of mutual trust (what mutual trust is and in what to trust). Subsequently, the article points out the differences between the principle of mutual trust and the principle of mutual recognition. Finally, it discusses the notion of automatic recognition in the context of free movement of judgments within the EU.

Access to Justice in Environmental Matters: Recent Developments

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Charles Poncelet
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Abstract The right of access to justice in environmental matters constitutes one of the three pillars enshrined by the Århus Convention to which the European Union is a Party. This article will examine a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the latter appears to play an important role in the implementation of this procedural right.

scholarly journals The Right to Liberty in European Union Law and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 215-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro MANCANO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Current Content ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractThis article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.

scholarly journals The Roots of Legal Problems Arising in the Course of Automatic Exchange of Information in Tax Matters Between the EU and Russia

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 99-127
Author(s):  
Gennadi Tolstopyatenko ◽  
Stanislav Ageev
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Standards ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article is devoted to the roots of material and procedural legal problems arising in the course of the automatic exchange of information between the European Union (EU) and Russia. This matter is topical since automatic exchange of information is a method of cooperation between tax authorities from different countries that is new and rapidly developing. From our point of view, it is high time to discuss some of the legal problems that are inherent in automatic exchange of information. As far as we can see, the fundamental problems are: (1) th problem of choosing an appropriate legal basis for automatic exchange of information and (2) the problem of the international standards for automatic exchange of information developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) being implemented to differing extents in the national legislation of different countries. In this article we suggest ways of solving the aforementioned problems in order to make automatic exchange of information between the EU and Russia more comfortable at the intergovernmental level. The solution of these problems will help to concentrate on another issue – the problem of protecting taxpayers’ rights, primarily the right to confidentiality, which is beyond the scope of this article but still very important in the light of the enhancement of global tax transparency.

scholarly journals THE RECOGNITION OF EDUCATION AND QUALIFICATIONS IN THE GLOBAL COMPACT MARRAKECH

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Moška ◽  
Peter Plavčan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Member States ◽  
Language Courses ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Document

This text provides an overview of the international document on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular migration, alongside other international documents, in particular issued by the European Union, on the recognition of professional qualifications. Comments on the individual provisions of the document are also provided in connection with possible application practice. It is based on the current state of migration in Europe and the world, and explains the causes and consequences, details of migratory waves and the consequences of non-compliance with legal regulations by individual states in this area. In addition, the Global Compact is characterized, and the positive impacts and the requirements on important facts that are crucial for migrants in the receiving states are outlined. The negative impacts of migration in the social, economic and cultural spheres are also described. The text lists one of the 23 objectives of the Global Compact, namely the development of skills and the mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences. It highlights the risks of recognizing education and qualifications from the point of view of regulated and unregulated professions in the Member States of the European Union. This issue is governed by special regulations. Finally, the European Union Member States are recommended to focus on the actual employability of migrants on their labour markets by focusing on language courses for migrants, social assistance and, in particular, on organizing specialized courses for migrants to carry out specific activities in the field of specific occupations with employers in unregulated professions. Of course, the performance of regulated migrant professions is also proposed when meeting the requirements. Key words: global framework, migration, recognition of professional qualifications, international document.

scholarly journals Pojęcie współmałżonka w prawie unijnym – uwagi na tle orzeczenia w sprawie Coman (C‑673/16)

Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(66)) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Ewa Kamarad
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

The Term ‘Spouse’ in EU Law – Comments on the Judgment in the Coman Case (C‑ 673‑16) The paper concerns the judgment of 5 June 2018 issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Coman case (C‑673‑16), in which the Court for the first time defined the term ‘spouse’ for the purpose of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It discusses the consequences of the judgement and its relation to the traditional mechanisms of private international law and the EU principle of mutual recognition.

The evolving notion of mutual recognition in the CJEU’s case law on detention

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Caeiro ◽  
Sónia Fidalgo ◽  
João Prata Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Case Basis

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on detention and the possible evolution of the understanding of mutual recognition stemming therefrom. In the Lanigan, JZ, and Ognyanov decisions, the CJEU assimilated mutual recognition with the effectiveness of cooperation, which should be understood as maximum compliance with the issuing state’s interests. Arguably, this approach is detrimental to other important values, such as, for example, the rights arising from excessively long detention and a rational and meaningful approach to the enforcement of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment has detached mutual recognition from the exclusive protection of the issuing state and has turned it into a neutral governance principle. If mutual trust is not a given and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis through common objective parameters, the decisions deserving recognition may be uttered either by the issuing or the executing authority.

scholarly journals Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Marguery
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Fiction ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

This article contends that the presumption of mutual trust between the European Union Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, a failure of the latter can have detrimental effects on judicial cooperation and, especially, on the functions of punishment. In particular, mutual recognition and mutual trust create a bridge between the external limits of punishment (fundamental rights) and the internal limits to the functions of punishment (retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation). The non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights undermines the very social functions of punishment. Such a failure can only be prevented if the Member States and the European Union endeavour to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy with concerns for individuals at its very core.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document