Dealing with a zombie in EU law: the regulatory procedure with scrutiny

Annotation to Joined Cases T-261/13 and T-86/14 Netherlands v. Commission, EU:T:2015:67

Public interest litigation in Scotland

No abstract available

Protective expenses orders and public interest litigation

This article concerns the practice of excluding or limiting the liability in expenses of public interest litigants, a comparatively recent development in the United Kingdom legal systems. Such orders are called protective expenses orders (PEOs) in Scotland and protective costs orders (PCOs) in England and Northern Ireland, and in all three jurisdictions have been developed by the judges in the exercise of the wide discretion they have traditionally enjoyed in relation to awards of expenses. During 2013, new rules of court on PEO/PCOs were adopted in all three jurisdictions applying specifically to public interest environmental law litigation. This article provides an analysis of PEOs in Scotland in the light of the introduction of the new rules for environmental cases and of the English experience

The constitutional consequences of financial crisis and the use of emergency powers. flexibility and emergency sources

Analisys of transformation of norms and sources (i.e. Constituttions) during periods of crisis and emergenc

Freedom, solidarity and healthcare in the European Union

Freedom, solidarity and healthcare in the European Unio

Enforcement Actions under EU Law: The New Member States. EIPA Working Papers 2007

Through the infringement procedure, provided for by Article 226 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), the Commission can stimulate Member States to comply effectively with their obligations under Community law. In cases of non-compliance, the Commission may bring Member States before the Court of Justice of the EC (ECJ). Indeed, the Commission may use this possibility because it is the "guardian of the Treaty" and has to ensure the proper application of Community law, in line with Article 211 TEC. The White Paper on European Governance published by the Commission in 2001 emphasises that the primary responsibility for applying Community law lies with national administrations and courts in the Member States. Therefore, the primary objective of enforcement actions against Member States is to monitor their compliance and to respond to cases of non-compliance. However, through adequate exercise of its discretion and improved cooperation with Member States, the Commission aims to encourage them to comply voluntarily with Community law as quickly as possible. Furthermore, under the current Commission's strategic objectives for the period 2005-2009, prompt and adequate transposition and vigorous pursuit of infringements are considered critical to the credibility of European legislation and the effectiveness of policies. The infringement procedure is of crucial importance to the new Member States and of high relevance to the candidate countries that have applied for accession to the EU. On the one hand, they have to adopt the whole acquis upon accession with only few transitional periods granted in a limited number of areas. New Member States have already submitted a large number of transposition notifications to the Commission. On the other hand and despite their huge efforts, new Member States experience considerable difficulties in implementing directives and other EC legislative instruments. The process of implementation is a challenging stumbling block for all new Member States. This paper will focus on the recent and main trends in the application of enforcement actions against new Member States, not only taking an empirical angle (infringements by Member States and by sectors) but also involving analytical reasoning. This analysis serves to present the fundamentals and relevance of the infringement procedure in the framework of the enlarged European Union (the object of the first part of this paper) where administrations of the new Member States will have to adopt this new way of thinking and of implementing know-how (addressed in the second part) while acquiring a better understanding of the principal characteristics of the EC/EU's legal system (direct effect, supremacy, indirect effect, state liability) and of the EC's general principles of law. Therefore, the second part of the paper will also focus on justifications deemed acceptable by the ECJ and others that are considered inadmissible. New Member States have to adjust to the requirements of the acquis (possibilities of opting out are not included in the Accession Treaties) and this obligation applies to all independent state institutions (including the judiciary where reforms represent a prerequisite for accession by some candidate countries). Efficient further implementation of the acquis and adequate understanding of the infringement procedure will facilitate new Member States' (and candidate countries') integration in the EU and, eventually, make their accession a success

Dalsze rozważania na temat ‘Brexitu’

On June 23rd, 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) held an EU-Referendum which resulted in a vote in favor of withdrawing from the European Union (EU). However, in a post-referendum reality, several constitutional issues have become apparent. On one hand, it is not certain whether the Prime Minister, under the royal prerogatives, can trigger Art. 50 of the EU Treaty. On the other hand, the scope of Westminster’s approval must still be determined. It is believed that the judiciary will end up in a constitutional crisis, especially the Supreme Court. At the very least, the suspension of ‘Brexit’ procedures is causing uncertainty on both sides i.e. UK and EU. This paper will pose some of the essential questions being discussed on the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision over ‘Brexit’ in December of 2016/January of 2017.W referendum przeprowadzonym 23 czerwca 2016 r. Brytyjczycy opowiedzieli się za opuszczeniem instytucjonalnych struktur Unii Europejskiej. Jakkolwiek w nieodległym czasie okazało się, że podjęta decyzja skutkować będzie szeregiem wątpliwości o konstytu-cyjnej proweniencji. Z jednej strony, zastrzeżenia związane są z zakresem kompetenc-ji premiera. Spór prawny odnosi się do oceny dopuszczalności samodzielnej notyfikacji instytucjom europejskim zamiaru wyjścia z UE (art. 50 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej). Z drugiej strony, ewentualny zakres zgody parlamentu nie jest jasny i wymaga dalszej analizy. Stąd też nieocenioną rolę w tonizowaniu sporu kompetencyjno-konstytucyjnego w Zjednoczonym Królestwie przypisać należy sądownictwu. Dalsze wstrzymanie proce-dury opuszczenia UE jest, bowiem niekorzystne tak dla Zjednoczonego Królestwa, jak również dla UE. Stąd też w niniejszym artykule dokonano przeglądu pytań i wątpliwoś-ci, które wymagają uwagi w przededniu wyroku Sądu Najwyższego w sprawie Brexit

VAT and the EC Internal Market: The Shortcomings of Harmonisation

From the outset, turnover taxes have played a fundamental role in the European integration process. Harmonisation of these taxes was perceived an integral part of achieving a common market, and for this reason it was given priority. Over forty years since the introduction of a common VAT system, VAT is usually regarded as a broadly harmonised tax. Paradoxically, however, it is precisely this high level of harmonisation which seems to have allowed the preservation of some aspects of VAT law which constitute an obstacle to the establishment of the EC internal market. The aim of this paper is to highlight the shortcomings of harmonisation within the VAT area, and namely how harmonisation has prevented the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from applying the EC Treaty provisions to the field of VAT, resulting in the maintenance of laws which could arguably be regarded as contrary to the EC internal market and as restrictions to the fundamental freedoms