Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This edited volume aims to reveal the Janus-faced character of federalism in the European Union. Federalism appears in two main forms in the EU. On the one hand, numerous formerly unitary Member States have embarked on a path towards a (quasi-)federal governance structure. On the other hand, the EU itself is sometimes qualified as a federal system. Significantly, the concept of federalism has a very different, even opposite, connotation in both contexts. When associated with Member State reform, federalism is regarded as a technique for accommodating autonomy claims of sub-state nations. By contrast, when federalism is used as a label for the EU itself, it is conceived as a far-reaching way of integrating the nations of Europe. This dual appearance of federalism in the EU context is central to the structure of the book. The first collection of essays addresses the question whether the EU may be described as a federal system, and whether it can learn from existing federations. In the second set of contributions, the attention shifts to domestic federalisation processes, more particularly to the impact of these processes on EU law and vice versa

Constitutional law -- European Union countries. --- European federation. --- European Union countries -- Politics and government. --- European Union. --- European federation --- Constitutional law --- Government - Non-U.S. --- Law, Politics & Government --- Government - Europe --- Constitutional limitations --- Constitutionalism --- Constitutions --- Limitations, Constitutional --- Public law --- Administrative law --- Federation of Europe --- Pan Europa movement --- Paneuropean federation --- United States of Europe (Proposed) --- Federal government --- Regionalism (International organization) --- Interpretation and construction --- E.U. --- E-books --- European Union countries --- Politics and government.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie bestaat uit het Hof van Justitie, het Gerecht en het Gerecht voor ambtenarenzaken. Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie is sinds het Verdrag van Nice ingedeeld in kamers. Deze kamerstructuur was het gevolg van een toename aan bevoegdheden voor het Hof en de territoriale uitbreiding van de Unie. Het Hof van Justitie diende structurele veranderingen ondergaan om te beantwoorden aan de aanzienlijke werklast, die de veranderingen van het Unielandschap met zich meebracht. De uniformiteit van het Unierecht speelt een belangrijke rol in de Europese Unie. De Unie bestaat uit 28 lidstaten met verschillende nationale rechtsorden, die allen vertegenwoordigd zijn in het Hof van Justitie. Bij de indeling van het Hof in kamers bestond de vrees dat de rechtspraak niet langer eenvormig zou zijn en dat de lidstaten niet meer in gelijke mate door hun rechters vertegenwoordigd zouden worden. De wetgever heeft bij de structurele hervormingen veel aandacht gehad voor het bewaren van de uniformiteit van het Unierecht. Zo zijn er waarborgen ingebouwd, zodat de rechters de uniforme rechtspraak zouden behouden. In deze thesis zal ik onderzoeken wat de invloed van de indeling in kamers is op de uniformiteit van het Unierecht, of de voorziene waarborgen voldoende zijn om de uniformiteit te bewaren en wat de andere gevolgen zijn van de kamerstructuur op de rechtspraak. Zo zal ik evalueren of de kamerstructuur een gepaste oplossing was voor de snelle afwikkeling van procedures voor het Hof van Justitie.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In recent years, the European Union has been confronted with numerous and serious problems in all aspects of its activities. In the field of human rights law, the Mediterranean migration crisis has been the most alarming issue that has knocked on Europe's door since the Treaty of Lisbon. An imperfect framework on asylum matters, combined with diverging views among the EU Member States on how to combat the unprecedented migratory waves from the Middle East and Africa to Europe, has paralyzed the Union until now. Inaction has so far translated into violations of the human rights of thousands of asylum seekers, which is incongruent with the EU's asylum policy as well as with its pledge to protect individual rights and freedoms enshrined in international instruments, including the very EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Consequently, this paper examines the current position of international and European refugee law in an attempt to identify their gaps and weaknesses, which are responsible for the unsuccessful tackling of the migration crisis by the EU. In addition, concrete suggestions to remedy this situation constitute the core of the paper. In particular, we suggest the drawing-up of a provisional regulation, which will broaden the definition of refugee and will establish a functioning allocation mechanism specifically for Syrian, Iraqi, Nigerian and Eritrean asylum seekers. What is more, we recommend that the Union begin negotiating international agreements with the countries from which the vast majority of asylum seekers in Europe are hailing from, wherever and whenever that is possible. In doing so, the EU will be providing asylum seekers with a dignified way to arrive in Europe, while also taking the first steps in addressing the roots of the migration crisis, in other words the widespread destabilization and disregard for fundamental rights in certain countries of the world. Therefore, the present paper qualifies both as a thesis and as a policy-making project.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Reverse discrimination occurs when a Union citizen in a purely internal situation is treated less favourably compared with a Union citizen who is in a cross-border situation. According to settled case law of the European Court of Justice, reverse discrimination is not a difference in treatment that is prohibited by European Union law and thus it is left to the Member States to decide individually whether or not reverse discrimination is acceptable.PART I analyses the issue of reverse discrimination from a Union perspective. In particular, it is examined whether reverse discrimination continues to fall within the scope of application of Member State law or whether it falls within the ambit of Union law. Moreover, the interpretation of the purely internal situation doctrine is discussed on the basis of the ECJ's case law.PART II discusses reverse discrimination from the perspective of five Member States. The Member States under analysis are Belgium, France, Italy, Germany and Austria. The focus lies on the ground(s) on which the national authorities make their assessment of reverse discrimination in order to decide whether or not to allow a stricter treatment of purely internal situations.PART III analyses specific situations of reverse discrimination in a federally structured Member State. These complex cases are discussed from the perspective of both Union law and Belgian and German law.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the duty of sincere cooperation, or loyalty, was considered, under Article 5 EEC Treaty (Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community) or Article 10 EC Treaty (Treaty Establishing the European Community), only as a duty on the Member States and the concept of mutual respect was ignored. The duty of loyalty, in simple terms, was on the Member States to do everything they could to fulfil a Union task and to do nothing that would hinder the attainment of that task. When the concept of mutual respect was introduced into Article 4(3) of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), the provision governing the duty of loyalty, there was unfortunately no confirmation in that article about the scope and application of the duty of loyalty, given the Union was now also subject to it. In order to understand what the scope and application of the duty of loyalty is in the post-Lisbon era, one must consider the rules laid down by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) prior to it, but not merely in the area of parallel competence as the Court’s judgments in that area were influenced by previous cases concerning other areas of competences. The findings of this paper are that the duty of sincere cooperation in the area of shared competences was, at its most lenient, a duty of the Member State to inform the Union of its intention to negotiate, conclude and ratify an agreement with a third country and, at its most stringent, a duty to remain silent when the Member State had informed the Union of its intention to act but the Union has ignored that notification and commenced its own action. It was found that in holding the duty of loyalty to be a duty of silence, the principle of mutual respect was not considered by the ECJ. Had it, the ECJ may have held the Union breached the duty of sincere cooperation, subject to subsidiarity, and there to be no duty of silence. Turning to the application of sincere cooperation in a parallel competence, it has been advocated that the duty of sincere cooperation is a duty of silence. The finding of this paper is that the duty of sincere cooperation applies to a parallel competence but the notion of a duty of silence cannot be applied as that implies that the duty of pre-emption is applicable to a parallel competence. The Treaties exclude pre-emption in a parallel competence. The duty is instead on the Member State to obtain the prior informed consent of the Union before it binds it by unilateral action. A failure to do so interferes with the respective spheres of competence that allows for parallel action. This is seen in practice where the Member State would bind the Union by unilaterally suspending an agreement that was fulfilling the Union objective of delivering development aid to a third country.