The Status in EU Law of International Agreements Concluded by EU Member States

This Essay will, first, provide a general discussion on the status in Union law of agreements concluded by EU Member States. Second, brief discussions will follow on the specific nature of agreements concluded between the Member States inter se as well as on the special status of agreements concluded before the Member State concerned became a member of the Union. Third, the main part of this Essay will address different categories of agreements concluded by Member States in order to provide a more refined picture of the legal relevance of such agreements for Union law. The final Section will provide a summary and some basic conclusions

The EU and international dispute settlement

This article focuses on recent developments with regard to the mechanisms for international dispute settlement which the EU has accepted or in some instances promoted, or which in any case are of direct relevance for the EU. As a preliminary question, the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the compatibility of international dispute settlement mechanisms will be analysed. The article then provides an overview of such mechanisms included in multilateral and bilateral agreements concluded by the EU, with a particular emphasis on recent bilateral trade and cooperation agreements. The last parts of the article look at specific institutional problems such as the question of the representation of the EU before international dispute settlement mechanisms, and the special challenges posed by investment disputes and, in this context, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), including ISDS mechanisms in bilateral investment agreements concluded between the EU Member States

The European Court of Justice: Do all roads lead to Luxembourg? CEPS Policy Insights No 2019/03, February 2019

The increasing tendency to submit questions of great political and constitutional significance to the European Court of Justice prompts the question whether the Court has become the arbiter of all major problems facing the European Union today. In discussing recent trends in case law, Judge Allan Rosas observes that de Toqueville’s description of the importance of the US Supreme Court could apply to today’s European Court of Justice. That said, the Court can only deal with questions that have been specifically submitted to it. In this paper the author refers to the EU’s external relations, asylum and immigration, economic and monetary policy, citizenship, the rule of law in general, and Brexit, as cases that would probably not have come before the Court were it not for the Treaty of Lisbon. Other explanations for the more recent reliance on the Court may be the inability of the political process to resolve the thornier issues facing the EU, and the fact that the Court is considered by many to be one of the more effective EU institutions. Finally, the author stresses the need for the Court to honour its judicial mandate and to do everything it can to preserve its legitimacy, an objective also furthered by the depoliticised appointment of judges through the so-called 255 panel procedure

The European Union and Fundamental Rights/Human Rights: Vanguard or Villain?

The protection of fundamental rights and human rights in the European Union has witnessed several phases and fluctuations. In the early days of European integration, whilst it would be exaggerated to brand the then Communities a ‘villain,’ there was no explicit recognition of fundamental rights/human rights as being part of Community law. I hope it should have become clear by now that the Union does not fit particularly well into any of these two extremes. But by comparison to the other EU institutions, the Court of Justice has been somewhat of a forerunner, taking the first steps towards a fundamental rights system already in 1969 and contributing in many respects to its further development

When is the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights applicable at national level?

Whilst the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which became part of binding primary EU law on 1 December 2009, constitutes an important codification and clarification of fundamental rights as they exist in the European Union, the field of application of the Charter is limited in a significant way: the Charter only applies when EU law is at stake. When national courts and authorities in the EU Member States are confronted with problems of purely national law, they are not obliged to apply the Charter but should instead rely on the national constitutional Bill of Rights as well as the international human rights instruments which are binding on the Member State in question. The borderline between EU law and national law is not always easy to establish in a concrete case. This article discusses theoretical and practical problems arising out of the application and interpretation of Article 51(1) of the Charter, according to which the Charter is addressed to the Member States ‘only when they are implementing Union law’. It is suggested to adopt a pragmatic case-by-case approach, asking oneself if there is another norm of Union law than a Charter provision which is directly relevant to a case in concreto. If the answer is yes, also the Charter should be applied, supposing that there is a Charter provision which could influence the outcome of the case. If the answer is in the negative, national courts and authorities are only obliged to apply national law, including the constitutional Bill of Rights and the international human rights obligations of the Member State concerned.Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartija (toliau – Chartija) nuo 2009 m. gruodžio 1 d. tapo Europos Sąjungos (toliau – ES) privalomos pirminės teisės dalimi. Nors Chartija kodifikuoja ir aiškina Europos Sąjungoje garantuojamas pagrindines teises, tačiau Chartijos taikymas yra gana reikšmingai apribotas. Chartija taikoma tik tuo atveju, kai grėsmė kyla ES teisės normoms. Kai valstybių narių nacionaliniai teismai ir kitos institucijos susiduria vien tik su nacionalinės teisės problemomis, jos neprivalo taikyti Chartijos nuostatų, bet turėtų remtis nacionalinėmis konstitucinėmis normomis, kurios garantuoja pagrindinių žmogaus teisių apsaugą, bei tarptautinėmis žmogaus teisių sutartimis, pagal kurias valstybė narė yra prisiėmusi įsipareigojimus. Tačiau konkrečiose situacijose ne visada yra paprasta atskirti ES ir nacionalinės teisės taikymo sritis. Šiame straipsnyje analizuojamos teorinės ir praktinės problemos, kylančios taikant ir aiškinant Chartijos 51(1) straipsnį, pagal kurį Chartijos nuostatos yra skirtos valstybėms narėms tik „tais atvejais, kai šios įgyvendina Sąjungos teisę“. Siūloma laikytis pragmatiško požiūrio ir vertinti kiekvieną situaciją atskirai. Todėl turėtų būti analizuojama, ar konkrečioje byloje, be Chartijos nuostatų, dar galima taikyti ir kitas ES teisės normas. Jei atsakymas yra teigiamas, tai tokioje byloje turėtų būti taikoma ir Chartija, preziumuojant, kad Chartijoje įtvirtintos nuostatos gali būti reikšmingos bylos baigčiai. Jei atsakymas yra neigiamas, nacionaliniai teismai ir kitos institucijos turėtų taikyti nacionalinius teisės aktus bei tarptautines sutartis, garantuojančias pagrindines žmogaus teises ir laisves

Lymph node reactivity and microvessel density in neck metastases of unknown primary squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: neoangiogenesis and the immune response are important mechanisms in metastasis development. AIM: to evaluate lymph node reactivity and microvessel density in neck metastasis of occult primary squamous cell carcinoma considering their histological and clinical variables. STUDY DESIGN: retrospesctive case-series. METHOD: 19 patients with neck metastasis of occult primary squamous cell carcinoma who underwent neck dissection between 1983 and 2000 were selected. The lymph nodes were reevaluated on the type of reactivity in both the cortical and paracortical areas, and the metastasis were assessed as to grade, desmoplasia, necrosis and microvessel density (CD34). The relationship between histological and clinical variables was evaluated. RESULTS: the median microvessel density was 91 vessels/mm2, varying from 28 to 145. Paracortical hyperplasia was more common in patients below 55 years of age (90% x 44%, p= 0.05), but there was no relationship between reactivity patterns and microvessel density with prognosis. The disease-free survival was 52% in 3 years, being similar in both groups, with higher or lower microvessel densities. CONCLUSION: microvessel density in neck metastasis of occult primary squamous cell carcinoma had a great individual variability. It wasn t possible to establish the relationship between microvessel density and the clinical or histological variables studied.INTRODUÇÃO: A neoangiogênese e a resposta imunológica são mecanismos importantes no desenvolvimento das metástases. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a reatividade linfonodal e a densidade microvascular nas metástases cervicais de carcinoma epidermóide com tumor primário oculto, considerando a sua relação com outras variáveis histológicas e clínicas. TIPO DE ESTUDO: Série de casos, retrospectiva. CASUÍSTICA E MÉTODO: 19 pacientes submetidos a esvaziamento cervical entre 1983 e 2000. Os linfonodos foram reavaliados quanto ao tipo de reatividade, considerando a área cortical e paracortical. Nas metástases foi avaliado o grau de diferenciação, desmoplasia, necrose, e densidade microvascular (CD34). Foi estabelecida a relação entre as diferentes variáveis histológicas e clínicas, incluindo o estadiamento e a evolução dos pacientes. RESULTADOS: A densidade microvascular apresentou mediana de 91 vasos/mm2, variando de 28 a 145. A reatividade paracortical foi mais freqüente nos pacientes com menos de 55 anos (90% x 44%, p= 0,05). A sobrevida livre de doença foi de 52% em 3 anos, sendo similar entre os pacientes com maior ou menor densidade microvascular tumoral. CONCLUSÕES: A densidade microvascular nas metástases de tumor primário oculto apresenta grande variação individual. Não foi possível estabelecer relação entre a densidade microvascular e as variáveis clínicas e histológicas estudadas.Hospital HeliópolisCentro Universitário PositivoEscola Paulista de MedicinaUNIFESP, EPMSciEL

Oikeusvaltiollisuus Euroopan unionissa ja Suomessa

Hankkeessa on selvitetty oikeusvaltion käsitettä, merkitystä ja sitä koskeviin rikkomuksiin puuttumista Euroopan unionin (EU) oikeuden näkökulmasta. Selvitys on laadittu kontekstuaalisen lainopin menetelmin. Selvityksessä katsotaan, että oikeusvaltiollisuus on EU-oikeudessa asetettu sitova velvoite, joka on ymmärrettävä laajemmassa unionin arvoihin pohjautuvassa asiayhteydessä, ja joka velvoittaa unionia sekä jäsenvaltioita sisällöltään samansuuntaisena. Selvityksen perusteella oikeusvaltion kunnioittaminen vaikuttaa olennaisesti EU:n toimintaedellytyksiin, erityisesti viranomaistoimien vastavuoroiseen tunnustamiseen perustuvilla sääntelyaloilla. EU-oikeus mahdollistaa puuttumisen oikeusvaltiorikkomuksiin jälkikäteisesti erityisesti poliittisluonteisen sanktiomenettelyn, ehdollisuusasetuksen sekä rikkomusmenettelyn kautta sekä etukäteisesti erityisesti tiettyjen rahoitusohjelmien välityksellä. EU:n ulkosuhteissa oikeusvaltio määritellään lähtökohtaisesti samoin kuin unionin sisäisessä toiminnassa, mutta EU ei voi yksin määrittää oikeusvaltio-käsitteen sisältöä globaalisti. Suomen oikeusvaltiotilanne on kansainvälisessä vertailussa varsin hyvä; ongelmat liittyvät lähinnä oikeusturvan saatavuuteen. Selvityksessä ei ole arvioitu kotimaista oikeusvaltiotilannetta tyhjentävästi, mutta on lopuksi nostettu esiin eräitä Suomea koskevia EU-oikeuteen liittyviä ajankohtaisia oikeusvaltion ongelmia. Julkaisu on läpikäynyt ulkopuolisen tieteellisen arvioinnin.Tämä julkaisu on toteutettu osana valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimussuunnitelman toimeenpanoa. (tietokayttoon.fi) Julkaisun sisällöstä vastaavat tiedon tuottajat, eikä tekstisisältö välttämättä edusta valtioneuvoston näkemyst

Rättstat, Europeiska unionen och Finland

I projektet har rättsstaten som begrepp granskats samt dess betydelse och ingripanden mot kränkande av den ur EU-rättens (Europeiska unionen) synvinkel. Undersökningen har gjorts med kontextuella rättsvetenskapliga metoder. I undersökningen ser vi att rättsstatsprincipen är en bindande förpliktelse i EU-rätten, som bör förstås i ett bredare sammanhang som har sin grund i unionens värderingar och som förpliktar unionen samt medlemsstaterna innehållsmässigt i samma riktning. Enligt undersökningen påverkar respekterandet av rättsstatsprincipen väsentligt EU:s verksamhetsförutsättningar, speciellt på de regleringsområden som grundar sig i myndighetsåtgärders ömsesidiga erkännande. Enligt EU-rätten kan man i efterhand ingripa i rättsstatsöverträdelser, speciellt med hjälp av sanktionsförfaranden av politisk natur, villkorlighetsförordningen samt överträdelseförfaranden samt på förhand med hjälp av särskilt angivna finansieringsprogram. I fråga om EU:s yttre förbindelser definieras rättsstaten i princip på samma sätt som i verksamheten inom unionen, men EU kan inte globalt ensam definiera innehållet i rättsstatsbegreppet. Finlands rättsstatssituation är rätt bra i internationell jämförelse; problemen hör närmast till tillgången på rättsskydd. Den inhemska rättsstatssituationen har inte uttömmande utvärderats i undersökningen, men i slutet har vissa aktuella rättsstatsproblem som berör EU-rätten och som gäller Finland lyfts fram. Publikationen har genomgått en extern vetenskaplig utvärdering.Den här publikation är en del i genomförandet av statsrådets utrednings- och forskningsplan (tietokayttoon.fi). De som producerar informationen ansvarar för innehållet i publikationen. Textinnehållet återspeglar inte nödvändigtvis statsrådets ståndpunkt