scholarly journals Marco comparado de la libertad religiosa en Europa

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Fernández-Coronado González
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Community ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Community Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sobre Todo ◽  
European Community Law

La consolidación de la Unión Europea como una unidad política y su estructuración jurídica ha planteado una seria de cuestiones importantes en los diversos campos del derecho. Este trabajo de investigación se centra en uno de esos ámbitos: el del Derecho de Libertad de Conciencia como objeto del Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado. La relevancia del tema reside en la existencia de una doble regulación jurídica de este derecho, no siempre coincidente: la de los Estados miembros de la Unión, que consideran esta cuestion como parte de su identidad, y la del Derecho Comunitario como derecho supranacional. Con este punto de partida, la posibilidad de lograr una armonización legislativa en la materia plantea indudables dificultades, sobre todo en la dimensión colectiva del Derecho de Libertad de Conciencia, pues el aspecto individual no plantea mayores problemas. La razón de esta dificultad se encuentra en el enorme peso de las religiones tradicionales en los distintos Estados, hecho que condiciona a menudo la legislación de los mismos, en perjuicio de la plena realización de esa libertad, sobre todo para las minorías religiosas, establecidas como consecuencia del pluralismo cultural fruto de la inmigración. El análisis de estos dos espacios jurídicos, Derecho de los Estados y Derecho Comunitario, permitirá valorar el alcance de una posible armonización legislativa con proyección de futuro.The consolidation of the European Union as a political entity and the articulation of a European Community Law raise certain relevant questions in different fields of law. This research focuses in a particular sphere: the freedom of conscience as object of Law and religion. The relevance of this issue is due to the existence of a double juridical regulation –not necessarily coincident– of the freedom of conscience: the European Union Member States regulations, which consider this subject as part of their respective identities; and the European Community Law regulation. As a result, the legislative harmonization of this subject faces important difficulties, especially as far as the collective dimension of the Right to freedom of conscience is concerned –the individual dimension does not raise major problems–. The referred difficulty is due to the enormous weight of the traditional and historic religions in the different States, which determine in many occasions their legislations. This has a detrimental effect on the secularity of the States, as well as on the rights of minority religious groups, which are the result, to a large extent, of the cultural pluralism arising from immigration. The analysis of these two juridical spaces –State laws and European Community Law– will allow us to assess the implications of a possible legislative harmonization in the future.

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Community ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
European Community Law

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No. 2) [1991] 1 AC 603, House of Lords. This case explored whether a United Kingdom court could suspend the effect of primary legislation where it was in conflict with European Community law. It necessarily raises questions about the nature and limits (if any) of parliamentary sovereignty, and for this reason remains relevant notwithstanding the UK’s departure from the European Union. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Enforcement of European environmental law - The European Parliament comments on the Commission’s report

elni Review ◽  
2008 ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
Sebastian Tusch
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Community ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
European Community Law

The European Commission publishes a yearly “Report on the Monitoring of the Application of Community Law in the Member States of the European Union”. The 2005 edition was reviewed by a member of the Parliament, namely Monica Frassoni, from Italy (Greens/EFA-IT). Her report has recently been adopted by a noteworthy resolution of the European Parliament. The resolution points out both the structural problems of enforcing European Community law and the disputable approach of the Commission during the last few years. The European Parliament recognises that European Community law is not being applied consistently. The Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) refer to the annual report of the Commission in which the infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission are listed. This report illustrates that the number of detected infringements decreased from 2709 (in 2003) to 2653 (in 2005). This drop by 56 infringements seems at first sight not to be significant. But this reported decrease of procedures happened despite the fact that the European Union increased the number of Member States from 15 to 25 in 2004. Against this background, the lower level in 2005 is indeed questionable. Basically, the enlargement of the European Union was expected to cause a significant increase of infringement procedures against the Member States. This applies in particular to new Member States whose legal systems had been – in terms of compliance with European law – divergent from those in the other Member States.

Five Forms of Uncertainty in European Community Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor C. Hartley
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Community Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Better Than ◽  
European Community Law

The purpose of this article is to consider uncertainty in European Community law. It will be argued that, for reasons inherent in the nature of the Community, EC legislation is generally less clear and more difficult to interpret than British legislation. Five reasons are put forward as to why this might be so. While always undesirable, uncertainty is perhaps to some extent tolerable where Community legislation gives rights to the individual against public authorities: an uncertain right may, after all, be better than no right at all. It is, however, intolerable where obligations are imposed on the individual. One situation in which this arises is where directives are adopted in the field of private law, a rapidly increasing area of Community legislation. These measures will form the main focus of this study, though our attention will not be confined to them. Before considering these matters, we must, however, set the stage by making some preliminary distinctions.

scholarly journals Desplazamiento transnacional laboral genuino y ley aplicable al contrato de trabajo = Genuine posting and the law applicable to the employment contract

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Gómez Abelleira
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Home Country ◽  
Practical Implication ◽  
Employment Law ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Resumen: La aplicación correcta de la Directiva 96/71 exige identificar el desplazamiento temporal genuino. A tal efecto, los criterios de la Directiva 2014/67 se muestran insuficientes. El artículo construye el concepto de desplazamiento genuino profundizando en los elementos definitorios del desplazamiento temporal: temporalidad, mantenimiento de la relación laboral con el empleador del Estado de establecimiento y vínculo con la prestación transnacional de servicios. La implicación práctica más importante es que las autoridades del Estado de desplazamiento pueden decidir la aplicación íntegra de su ley laboral cuando encuentran que el desplazamiento no es genuinos.Palabras clave: desplazamiento transnacional de trabajadores; ley aplicable al contrato de trabajo; libre prestación de servicios; derecho de la Unión Europea.Abstract: The right application of Directive 96/71 requires the identification of genuine posting. To this aim the criteria laid down by Directive 2014/67 are insufficient. The article frames the concept of genuine posting building upon the defining characteristics of posting: temporality, the maintenance of the employment relationship with the home country employer, and the link with the transnational provision of services. The main practical implication is that the authorities of the host country can impose the full application of its employment law when they find that the posting is not genuine.Keywords: posting of workers; law applicable to the individual employment contract; freedom to provide services; law of the European Union.

Organ Transplantation and European Community Law: The Case of Non-Residents

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Haase-Kromwijk ◽  
Frans du Pré ◽  
Bernard Cohen
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Its Region ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Community Law ◽  
International Solidarity ◽  
Quantitative Descriptive ◽  
European Community Law ◽  
Restrictive Policy ◽  
Donor Organs

Objectives: The role of the European Union in influencing health care policies in member states is of increasing importance. The Eurotransplant Foundation is an organization which provides donor organs to the most suitable transplant recipients. It covers a region of five countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands). As there is a severe shortage of donor organs within its region, registration of so-called non-resident patients on the waiting lists aggravates this shortage. Could European Community law, especially rules on competition, limit Eurotransplant's freedom to introduce a restrictive policy on non-residents? If so, could participating transplant centres or patients initiate legal action against Eurotransplant to stop the execution of such a policy? Methods: Quantitative descriptive data on organ donation and use by the Eurotransplant Foundation during 1994 and 1995, by residents and non-residents. Analysis on basis of economic and legal framework. Results: Solidarity between potential donors and potential recipients is organized in a different manner in an organization such as Eurotransplant as compared to a national organization under national law. National regulations may introduce a restrictive policy for the acceptance of non-resident patients. Eurotransplant — as a matter of its own policy — has to consider international solidarity. The scope of the non-resident issue is dealt with, and it is explained why it is considered to be a problem. On the basis of a discussion of the economic and the legal framework for a non-resident policy, an answer to the question is suggested. Conclusion: It might be possible for Eurotransplant to introduce a restrictive policy on the admission of non-residents without violating the European Community Treaty.

The Union is the direct successor to the three communities that were set up in the 1950s by six European States. Just as over time the references to the three Communities became one reference to the ‘European Community’, now the supranational organisation that is referred to has grown since 1992 and the general name by which it is known is no longer the European Community, but the European Union. Clearly the Union is a much larger entity than the Community, as can be seen from the list of the three areas covered by the Union set out above. But the idea of a large Union had always been within the documents setting up the European Community. The Community remains intact—but as one of three spheres of activity. However, concentrated within the Community are the lawmaking powers of the Union. The Union was established by the Treaty of Maastricht 1992 and the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 (both formally called the Treaty on European Union (TEU)). The same institutions that had served the three Communities were enlarged to serve the Union. The Treaty of Nice in 2000 made further steps towards altering aspects of the institutions of the Union to be ready for enlargement of the number of Member States who were to become part of the Union from 2004. In coming years, the nature of the Union will become increasingly streamlined as it grows in size. The Treaty of Nice reached major agreement on the simplification of the voting procedures for the enactment of secondary legislation, and declared adherence to the Union’s proposed Charter on Fundamental Rights. The terms of reference for the next inter-governmental conference on the Union will consider the simplification of the founding treaties into one new treaty. There are therefore more changes ahead that will affect law students! For all public intents and purposes, there is now only the Union. The official website http://europa.eu.int only refers to European Union and within its legal pages speaks of European Union law. However, it remains true to say that to use that term is technically incorrect. The Union has no law making powers outside those conferred by the founding treaties of the Community, so the appropriate phrase is Community law or European Community law (EC law), not Union law. The next section will deal with the basic consideration of the historical development of the European Community and European Community law. It will lay out the treaties of importance and note the different types of law, and the mechanisms for Community law having an effect within the legal systems of Member States. The legal systems of the Member States are often referred to by the term ‘domestic law’, a metaphoric use of ‘domestic’ linking it to ‘home’. The courts in Member States tend to be referred to by two phrases: ‘domestic courts’, or ‘national courts’. As already noted, whilst much smaller than the ever-growing Union, the Community contains the law making powers of the Union, and therefore it determines its legislative competency. The next section will also attempt to draw attention to areas where name changes have lead to confusion. Despite the wholesale use of the term ‘European Union’ it is useful to deal with name changes incrementally by going back to the creation of the Community and tracing its development into the Union. Those matters chosen for discussion are those most likely to be problematic and necessary to properly understand from the perspective of legal method.

2012 ◽  
pp. 145-145
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Community ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Name Changes ◽  
Law Making ◽  
European Community Law

European Community—Maastricht Treaty—delegation of power to international organizations under Danish Constitution—right to democracy—power of Danish courts to review acts by Community organs

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard H. Oxman ◽  
Sten Harck ◽  
Henrik Palmer Olsen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
European Community ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Vital Importance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Ec Law

Decision Concerning the Maastricht Treaty. 1998 Ugeskrift for Retsvaesen, H 800.Supreme Court of Denmark, April 6, 1998.In this case the Danish Supreme Court decided that the ratification and the incorporation into Danish law of the Maastricht Treaty creating the European Union are consistent with the Danish Constitution of 1953. It also reserved the right for Danish courts to review Community decisions for consistency with the Act on Denmark's accession to the EC Treaty. This decision is of vital importance to Denmark's relationship to the European Community (EC) and to the claims of direct effect and priority of EC law over national constitutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document