Die europäische Rechtsgemeinschaft vor den Herausforderungen von Vertiefung und Erweiterung. Vortrag auf dem Kölner Symposium "50 Jahre Römische Verträge" am 13. April 2007

Sowohl hinsichtlich einer weiteren Vertiefung der europäischen Integration, als auch hinsichtlich einer erneuten Erweiterung der Gemeinschaft herrscht derzeit Skepsis in der europäischen Bevölkerung vor. Die Bürger wollen von den europäischen Institutionen überzeugt werden. Dazu kann die Verwirklichung öffentlich erklärter Ziele und die Beschäftigung mit sozialpolitischen Problemen dienen. Im Kontext des Erweiterungsprozesses sind insbesondere der richtige Umgang mit unterschiedlichen Voraussetzungen und Werten in den Mitgliedstaaten, sowie die Funktionsfähigkeit der Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen essentiell. Der Gerichtshof kann einen überzeugenden Beitrag leisten. Er hat aktuell den Integrationsanspruch der Supranationalität zu wahren und muss zu Grundsatzfragen persönlicher Freiheit und effektiver Terrorismusbekämpfung Stellung nehmen. Im Alltag beschäftigt sich seine Rechtsprechung schwerpunktmäßig mit Maßnahmen zur Verwirklichung des Binnenmarktes. Einige konkrete Entwicklungen im Bereich der Liberalisierung von Telekommunikations- und anderen Dienstleistungen, im Steuerrecht und im Entsenderecht werden dargestellt. Ebenfalls Gegenstand der aktuellen Rechtsprechung sind die Integrationsvorhaben zur Verwirklichung des Raumes der Freiheit, der Sicherheit des Rechts, insbesondere Probleme der gegenseitigen Anerkennung von Rechtsnormen. Ferner sind Fragen zu Kompetenzen und Handlungsformen nach dem Unionsvertrag von großer institutioneller Bedeutung. Nicht zuletzt um die Akzeptanz seiner Rechtsprechung zu wahren, muss der Gerichtshof neben der Integration auch den Schutz der mitgliedstaatlichen Identität und der Souveränität der Einzelstaaten verfolgen und weiter ausformen

Values and the Rule of Law: Foundations of the European Union – An Inside Perspective from the ECJ

Let us remember what has been written, ratified and set into force with the Treaty of Lisbon. The preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights starts out by stating: "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values." And it goes on: "Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice." Even if a cynic might have considered these words to be merely a lip service unlikely to disturb the power-play European governments were so eagerly engaged in, the Charter nonetheless became the supreme law of the land and the preferred tools of the trade of a rather awkward species of beings, already of bad repute for relying on the mere wording of legal acts, and even worse, for taking rights seriously: judges - in particular those of the European Court of Justice.   &nbsp

Good Governance in the Hands of the Judiciary: Lessons from the European Example

It is certainly well observed that the subject matter of good governance, by its mere terminology, constitutes a fairly recent evolution which has been, notably in the 1990’s, closely linked to the idea of giving a new impetus to development policy, in particular in Sub-Saharan Africa. The new terminology has received widespread interest which has made the political call for good governance a central feature of development policy[1] ever since it has been put on the international agenda by a World Bank study in 1989.[2] Despite a rising number of critics claiming this concept to be without any substance and asking whether it would be new after all,[3] the idea of good governance has flourished ever since and has certainly evolved into a transnational concept of political leadership, a real leitmotiv for a common approach to the way how our global village should be governed.[4] The incredible success story of the striving for good governance is, in my view, due to three cumulative aspects which certainly contributed a great deal to the general agreement that good governance is a concept without proper alternative: Firstly, the concept of good governance is self-evident. It needs nothing else but common sense[5] to be understood: Entrepreneurs will not invest in unstable countries and people, whether entrepreneurs or not, will not wish to live there, if they can afford to go elsewhere.[6] Secondly, the concept of good governance is sufficiently vague to absorb a great variety of political preferences as well as substantive differences. Its flexibility is most certainly the reason why it has met so little resistance and found so much support. And thirdly, it was issued at the right point in time when public opinion was profoundly marked by the experience of the revolutionary force of glasnost and the general inability of corrupt regimes around the world to meet today's challenges.[7]   &nbsp

Impact of primary kidney disease on the effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease: secondary analyses of the EMPA-KIDNEY trial

Background: The EMPA KIDNEY trial showed that empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary composite outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death in patients with chronic kidney disease mainly through slowing progression. We aimed to assess how effects of empagliflozin might differ by primary kidney disease across its broad population. Methods: EMPA-KIDNEY, a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, was conducted at 241 centres in eight countries (Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the UK, and the USA). Patients were eligible if their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 20 to less than 45 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or 45 to less than 90 mL/min per 1·73 m2 with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) of 200 mg/g or higher at screening. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 10 mg oral empagliflozin once daily or matching placebo. Effects on kidney disease progression (defined as a sustained ≥40% eGFR decline from randomisation, end-stage kidney disease, a sustained eGFR below 10 mL/min per 1·73 m2, or death from kidney failure) were assessed using prespecified Cox models, and eGFR slope analyses used shared parameter models. Subgroup comparisons were performed by including relevant interaction terms in models. EMPA-KIDNEY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03594110. Findings: Between May 15, 2019, and April 16, 2021, 6609 participants were randomly assigned and followed up for a median of 2·0 years (IQR 1·5–2·4). Prespecified subgroupings by primary kidney disease included 2057 (31·1%) participants with diabetic kidney disease, 1669 (25·3%) with glomerular disease, 1445 (21·9%) with hypertensive or renovascular disease, and 1438 (21·8%) with other or unknown causes. Kidney disease progression occurred in 384 (11·6%) of 3304 patients in the empagliflozin group and 504 (15·2%) of 3305 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·62–0·81]), with no evidence that the relative effect size varied significantly by primary kidney disease (pheterogeneity=0·62). The between-group difference in chronic eGFR slopes (ie, from 2 months to final follow-up) was 1·37 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (95% CI 1·16–1·59), representing a 50% (42–58) reduction in the rate of chronic eGFR decline. This relative effect of empagliflozin on chronic eGFR slope was similar in analyses by different primary kidney diseases, including in explorations by type of glomerular disease and diabetes (p values for heterogeneity all >0·1). Interpretation: In a broad range of patients with chronic kidney disease at risk of progression, including a wide range of non-diabetic causes of chronic kidney disease, empagliflozin reduced risk of kidney disease progression. Relative effect sizes were broadly similar irrespective of the cause of primary kidney disease, suggesting that SGLT2 inhibitors should be part of a standard of care to minimise risk of kidney failure in chronic kidney disease. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and UK Medical Research Council