Euroopan unioni ja oikeusvaltio

Aineisto on Keskustakampuksen kirjaston digitoimaa ja kirjasto vastaa aineiston käyttöluvist

Aineellinen ja muodollinen oikeusvaltio-käsite ja jäsenvaltioiden keskinäinen luottamus Euroopan unionissa

This article advocates for a thick concept of rule of law, which refers to the idea that rule of law has both material and formal content. The controversial part seems to be the question of material content and whether it obscures the essential meaning of the rule of law as a requirement of legality. However, the material aspect of rule of law can be linked to the value-base of the European Union. For example, during its EU Presidency, Finland has strongly emphasized the significance of the value base and rule of law in Article 2 TEU for the development of the EU. Democracy, rule of law and human rights are connected together into a trinity where all the components form preconditions for the others.Oikeusvaltio-käsitteen analyysi EU-oikeuden kontekstissa ja arvio jäsenvaltioiden keskinäisen luottamuksen merkityksestäPeer reviewe

Observations about the Notification Procedure for State Aid, Notification for Legal Certainty, and the Standstill Clause in article 108(3) TFEU

The article concentrates on question, how and when state aids must be notified to Commission. This isuues was highly relevant and topical in the framework of the Finnish social and health care reform during the years 2018 and 2019 (PM Sipilä's government). In this reform the customer could be able to choose either the public or private sector as the provider of basic services, which caused problems concerning state aids and Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.Peer reviewe

Oikeusvaltio ja Brexit

Artikkelissa problematisoidaan se, kuinka Britanniassa on Brexitiin liittyen pohdittu sitä, tulisiko parlamenttia kuulla ennen EU:lle tehtävää eroilmoitusta. Samalla artikkelissa pohditaan, mitä oikeusvaltiollisuus englantilaisille merkitsee ja mitä se merkitsee manner-Euroopassa.In contemporary politics it is important to emphasize the parliamentary democracy, the separation of powers between the legislator, the executive and the judiciary as well as the rule of law. Such constitutional structures will in turn strengthen the protection of human and fundamental rights. Thus democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights are intertwined in a sense that each of them seem to entail the existence of the other two. Good governance is also inseparably interlinked to the democratization, the rule of law and respect for human rights. All these standpoints may seem to be basics of constitutional and administrative law, but yet they are relevant in today’s world of the so-called ’post-truth era’. And indeed the concept of rule of law has come to the fore in both political debates and academic studies. The importance of the rule of law can be illustrated by referring to the debate in the UK, whether the UK government can trigger the Article 50 procedure without an act of the Parliament on grounds of the royal prerogative. Currently we know that the UK government cannot do that on grounds of the Supreme Court ruling of 24 January 2017Peer reviewe

Iso-Britannian EU-kansanäänestys ja Brexit

After the Brexit referendum in 23 June 2016 both the EU and the UK were led to a political turmoil on account of the winning of the Leave campaign. The withdrawal procedure should be triggered by the UK Government, but in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements. The main constitutional problem related to the competence of the Government to trigger the Article 50 TEU procedure to withdraw from the EU without any Act of Parliament beforehand. The judiciary had to solve this constitutional and political dilemma. The High Court of Justice ruled in 3 November 2016 that the Government does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 TEU and thus the UK Parliament is needed to accept the notification, but this interpretation was controversial. Namely, the Belfast High court ruled later in November 2016 that neither the UK Parliament in London, nor the Northern Ireland assembly, had to be asked for their consent before the UK government triggers the Article 50 procedure. The High Court in London took it for granted that once the Article 50 procedure is triggered, it can’t be stopped, whereas the High court in Belfast did not agree on this. In December 2016 the case was heard in the UK Supreme Court, which delivered its ruling in 24 January 2017. The key questions related to the interpretation of the royal prerogative and the status of the devolved legislatures in the context of Brexit. As regards the prerogative powers the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of 8 to 3 that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 procedure without an authorizing Act of Parliament. What comes to the role of the devolved legislatures the Supreme Court ruled that they do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. This controversy partly explains the delay to launch the withdrawal of the UK. Other reasons for the delay are more political and relate to the obscurity of the political will. The UK has to decide, what it tries to achieve in the negotiations for the future relationship with the EU. In this article a few models are explored, but the models provide only speculative value at the moment. The emphasis is on clarifying the possible ‘hard Brexit’ and ‘soft Brexit’ and reversed Greenland options. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyse the situation and the options that are open or could have been open for the UK rather than advocate any over another. In other words, it does not try to place any option over another and it does not aim to advocate what should happen next.Artikkelin tarkoituksena on taustoittaa sitä kehitystä, joka johti Britannian Brexit kansanäänestykseen sekä selvittää, millaisia ratkaisuvaihtoehtoja EU:n ja Britannian tulevien kauppasuhteiden osalta on nähtävissä.After the Brexit referendum in 23 June 2016 both the EU and the UK were led to a political turmoil on account of the winning of the Leave campaign. The withdrawal procedure should be triggered by the UK Government, but in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements. The main constitutional problem related to the competence of the Government to trigger the Article 50 TEU procedure to withdraw from the EU without any Act of Parliament beforehand. The judiciary had to solve this constitutional and political dilemma. The High Court of Justice ruled in 3 November 2016 that the Government does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 TEU and thus the UK Parliament is needed to accept the notification, but this interpretation was controversial. Namely, the Belfast High court ruled later in November 2016 that neither the UK Parliament in London, nor the Northern Ireland assembly, had to be asked for their consent before the UK government triggers the Article 50 procedure. The High Court in London took it for granted that once the Article 50 procedure is triggered, it can’t be stopped, whereas the High court in Belfast did not agree on this. In December 2016 the case was heard in the UK Supreme Court, which delivered its ruling in 24 January 2017. The key questions related to the interpretation of the royal prerogative and the status of the devolved legislatures in the context of Brexit. As regards the prerogative powers the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of 8 to 3 that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 procedure without an authorizing Act of Parliament. What comes to the role of the devolved legislatures the Supreme Court ruled that they do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. This controversy partly explains the delay to launch the withdrawal of the UK. Other reasons for the delay are more political and relate to the obscurity of the political will. The UK has to decide, what it tries to achieve in the negotiations for the future relationship with the EU. In this article a few models are explored, but the models provide only speculative value at the moment. The emphasis is on clarifying the possible ‘hard Brexit’ and ‘soft Brexit’ and reversed Greenland options. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyse the situation and the options that are open or could have been open for the UK rather than advocate any over another. In other words, it does not try to place any option over another and it does not aim to advocate what should happen next.Peer reviewe

Kiista oikeusvaltion käsitteen merkityksestä ja EU:n arvopohjasta

Tekstissä pohditaan ajankohtaisia EU:n oikeusvaltio-ongelmia etenkin Puolassa ja Unkarissa sekä pohditaan oikeusvaltio-periaatteen sisältöä

Oikeusvaltio ja oikeusvarmuus Euroopan unionissa

In this article the EU concepts of rule of law and legal certainty are studied from the perspective of legal theory and EU law. The rule of law and legal certainty are both underlying principles of Western societies. They are neither defined in any paragraph of national laws nor in international treaties. Both are principles, which comprise various more precise principles from the perspective of their scope of application. The rule of law is both normative and legal cultural principle, which illustrates the legal system of an active civil society in the European context. Legal certainty, in turn, relates especially to the demand of predictability in legal decision-making, which is one of the elements of the rule of law as well. Both the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty have formal and substantive meaning, which can be illustrated by referring to the Article 2 TEU according to which the rule of law requires liberal democracy and the protection of human rights

Some Observations on the Equality and National Identity of Member States and the Principle of the Rule of Law

The purpose of this article is to discuss from a legal perspective the status of small Member States like Finland in the EU, the national identity of Member States, and especially why it is important in the EU to emphasise the rule of law.The purpose of this short text is to discuss from a legal perspective the status of small Member States like Finland in the European Union, the national identity of Member States, and especially the reason why it is important in the EU to emphasize the rule of law. Equality among the Member States and the respect for the national identities of Member States are both stated in Article 4(2) TEU, so I have reviewed these issues first in their dedicated paragraphs. I have also discussed the values of the EU, the concept of the rule of law, and the effects of the observance of the rule of law on the equality of the Member States.Peer reviewe

Huomioita valtiontukien notifiointimenettelystä, oikeusvarmuusilmoituksesta ja täytäntöönpanokiellosta SOTE-asiassa

Non peer reviewe