scholarly journals La independencia de Escocia en la Unión Europea : los efectos de la secesión de territorios en la UE entre política y derecho = The independence of Scotland in the European Union : the effects of territories’ secession within the EU between Law and Politics.

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (33) ◽  
pp. 69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto López Basaguren

Este trabajo analiza el problema de los efectos en el interior de la UE de la recesión de territorios en el seno de sus Estados miembros, en relación a la hipotética independencia de Escocia, en el supuesto de un apoyo mayoritario a la opción independentista en el referéndum que va a tener lugar el próximo 18 de septiembre de 2104. Frente a la convicción inquebrantable de los promotores de la independencia de que Escocia, tras la independencia, permanecerá en la UE, como Estado miembro de pleno derecho y que la modificación de un status es una cuestión interna, casi una mera formalidad, este trabajo analiza los problemas que plantea la pretención escocesa, en la UE, entre Derecho y Política.This paper’s aim is to analyze the effects the secession of territories in the Member States can have within the EU, regarding the hypothetical independence of Scotland in the case a majority of Scotish citizens would back that opinion in the referendum on September 18, 2014. Those who are promoting and independent Scotland are completely convinced that the territory will remain in the EU, as an independent Member State, and that it will reach this new status from within the EU. In their mind, that is an EU’s «internal» matter, which doesn’t need any special procedure, as far as it would be just little more than a formality. On the contrary, this paper analyzes the issues a proposal like this of Scotland encounter within the EU both in the fields of Law and Politics.

Author(s):  
Susanne K. Schmidt

The European Court of Justice is one of the most important actors in the process of European integration. Political science still struggles to understand its significance, with recent scholarship emphasizing how closely rulings reflect member states’ preferences. In this book, I argue that the implications of the supremacy and direct effect of the EU law have still been overlooked. As it constitutionalizes an intergovernmental treaty, the European Union has a detailed set of policies inscribed into its constitution that are extensively shaped by the Court’s case law. If rulings have constitutional status, their impact is considerable, even if the Court only occasionally diverts from member states’ preferences. By focusing on the four freedoms of goods, services, persons, and capital, as well as citizenship rights, the book analyses how the Court’s development of case law has ascribed a broad meaning to these freedoms. The constitutional status of this case law constrains policymaking at the European and member-state levels. Different case studies show how major pieces of EU legislation cannot move beyond case law but have to codify its principles. Judicialization is important in the EU. It also directly constrains member-state policies. Court rulings oriented towards individual disputes are difficult to translate into general policies, and into administrative practices. Policy options are thereby withdrawn from majoritarian decision-making. As the Court cannot be overruled, short of a Treaty change, its case law casts a long shadow over policymaking in the European Union and its member states, undermining the legitimacy of this political order.


Author(s):  
Cristina Contartese

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.


2020 ◽  
pp. 65-89
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Christian Lequesne

This chapter provides an overview of the European Union and its member states. It first explains why the member states matter in the EU before discussing the role of member states in the EU, with particular emphasis on three approaches to understanding member state-EU relations: intergovernmentalism, institutionalism, and governance approaches. It then examines the Europeanization of the member states as well as the domestic politics approach, which claims that it is impossible to understand the EU without considering domestic politics. It concludes by presenting the logic and structure of this volume: how the relationship between the EU and its member states will be portrayed in the chapters that follow.


Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses articles in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) that provide for actions that are brought directly before the Court. Under Articles 258 and 259 TFEU (ex Articles 226 and 227 EC), respectively, the European Commission and Member States may bring enforcement proceedings against a Member State in breach of Treaty obligations. Article 260 TFEU (ex Article 228 EC) requires compliance with the Court’s judgment. Article 263 TFEU (ex Article 230 EC) concerns judicial review of EU acts. The outcome of a successful action is annulment. Article 265 TFEU (ex Article 232 EC) provides for actions against the EU institutions for failure to act.


The Member States of the European Union combines a study of individual member states with an examination of the broader process of Europeanization. Examining both sides of this crucial relationship, this text provides a useful guide to EU member state relations. This third edition has been updated to summer 2019 and includes chapters on eight member states from different geographical regions and dates of accession. These are followed by seven thematic chapters on the Europeanization of structures, actors, and processes within the pre-Brexit EU 28. The Member States of the European Union helps understanding the influence of Member States in the EU but also the impact the EU has on the domestic institutions, politics, and policies of each member state.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Maciej Jabłoński

The organization of environmental protection in Poland and the European Union is a mutual connection of competencies and a correlation of systems and rights according to national and EU laws. The legal system of the EU is the result of decades of cooperation undertaken by the will of the Member States known as the acquis communautaire. EU law has primacy over national law, which in practice means that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of national law and EU law, the national law is deemed inapplicable and needs to be adjusted by the Member State.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Lane Scheppele ◽  
Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov ◽  
Barbara Grabowska-Moroz

Abstract Although compliance with the founding values is presumed in its law, the Union is now confronted with persistent disregard of these values in two Member States. If it ceases to be a union of Rule-of-Law-abiding democracies, the European Union (EU) is unthinkable. Purely political mechanisms to safeguard the Rule of Law, such as those in Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU), do not work. Worse still, their existence has disguised the fact that the violations of the values of Article 2 TEU are also violations of EU law. The legal mechanisms tried thus far, however, do not work either. The fundamental jurisprudence on judicial independence and irremovability under Article 19(1) TEU is a good start, but it has been unable to change the situation on the ground. Despite ten years of EU attempts at reining in Rule of Law violations and even as backsliding Member States have lost cases at the Court of Justice, illiberal regimes inside the EU have become more consolidated: the EU has been losing through winning. More creative work is needed to find ways to enforce the values of Article 2 TEU more effectively. Taking this insight, we propose to turn the EU into a militant democracy, able to defend its basic principles, by using the traditional tools for the enforcement of EU law in a novel manner. We demonstrate how the familiar infringement actions—both under Article 258 and 259 TFEU—can be adapted as instruments for enforcing EU values by bundling a set of specific violations into a single general infringement action to show how a pattern of unlawful activity rises to the level of being a systemic violation. A systemic violation, because of its general and pervasive nature, in itself threatens basic values above and beyond violations of individual provisions of the acquis. Certified by the Court of Justice, a systemic violation of EU law should call for systemic compliance that would require the Member State to undo the effects of its attacks on the values of Article 2. The use of Article 260 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) to deduct fines from EU funds due to be received by the troubled Member State would provide additional incentives for systemic compliance. We illustrate this proposed militant democratic structure by explaining and critiquing what the Commission and Court together have done to reign in the governments of Hungary and Poland so far and then showing how they can do better.


Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Christian Lequesne

This chapter provides an overview of the European Union and its member states. It first explains why the member states matter in the EU before discussing the role of member states in the EU, with particular emphasis on three approaches to understanding member state–EU relations: intergovernmentalism, institutionalism, and governance approaches. It then examines the Europeanization of the member states as well as the revival of domestic politics approaches, which claim that it is impossible to understand the EU in light of its politicization during the 2010s. It concludes by presenting the logic and structure of this volume: how the relationship between the EU and its member states will be portrayed in the chapters that follow.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 160-163
Author(s):  
Sevil Aliheydar Damirli ◽  

As in any community, coexistence and cooperation only works if it is well organized. In the EU, there are EU bodies for this purpose. We all know that living together of different members can often lead to a dispute. In the European Union, the subject of dispute can not only be the violation of primary law, but also the violation of secondary community law. In order to better understand the important role of the Commission in the EU, we examine in this paper its composition and Tasks. We know that the European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every EU activity is based on treaties that have been accepted by all EU Member States on a voluntary and democratic basis. A contract is a binding agreement between the EU member states. It sets out the objectives of the EU, the rules governing the EU institutions, the decision-making process and relations between the EU and its Member States. Therefore it is important to adhere to these treaties to carry out community policy. According to Art. 258 and 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, actions for breach of contract can be filed against a Member State by the EU Commission or another Member State (1, Art.258-259). For the European Commission, as the «Guardian of the Treaties», this option is a particularly important instrument of power politics that it can use against member states' governments that do not recognize or do not comply with the norms of Community law. In practice, the infringement procedures requested by the Commission are of particular importance for ensuring compliance with Community law by the Member States. In no other area does the Commission have so much power and independence against the Member States. Now we should take a closer look at the EU institution and especially the EU Commission.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document