Italy has a long tradition of pervasive regulation of its national cultural heritage, including strict control over the export of cultural objects. In contrast to the lack of a definition of "national treasures" which affects EU law, Italian law has striven to achieve an effective definition of the terms "cultural heritage" and "cultural property", and even more to design specific identification rules for cultural objects. Nonetheless, the issues of definition and related protection on the one hand, and identification on the other, do not always go hand in hand in a legal framework which is made even more complex by the coexistence of two separate models of criminal law protection, as well as by the frequency of reforms, the most recent of which directly affected the export of cultural property. So how has the legal definition of "cultural property" changed over the years within the Italian legislation? How do the peculiarities in the construction of criminal offences "muddle" the overall picture? How much has the 2017 reform affected said definition? Finally, the question arises whether and how all this will possibly impact the gap between national and EU approaches to cultural "goods". These issues are the main focus of this article.
The purpose of this article is to provide a first comment to the new provisions on virtual currencies included in the European Union Directive 2018/843, amending Directive 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, known as Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The Directive requires States to include, among the obliged entities to respect anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing requirements, such as 'knowyour-customer', the 'providers engaged in exchange services between virtual currencies and fiat currencies.' To the big dilemma: 'to regulate or not to regulate' virtual currencies, including Bitcoins, the EU answered that yes, we must regulate. However, what is the meaning of regulating Bitcoins? After presenting what VC are and which challenges they pose to international law, I will argue that regulation is fundamental in order to avoid the exploitation of these currencies for the purposes of money laundering and terrorism financing, but that, at the same time, regulation as it was conceived at EU level might pose numerous challenges because it only concerns the moment in which the 'real' world meets the 'virtual' one, and is applicable only to the obliged entities that fall under the scope of the EU legal instrument.
The Court clarifies the concept of 'obvious procedural error' for the purposes of the European Union trade mark regulation which should lead EUIPO to revoke its own decision. The EUIPO's Board of Appeal's decisions in inter partes proceedings are revocable under art. 80, para.1 of Regulation n.207/2009, in case of a clear procedural mistake committed by the above Boards of Appeal. Any infringement of the obligation to state reasons, such as a failure to state reasons or an inadequate statement of reasons, constitutes a procedural error for the purposes of art. 80 para. 1. The legal error of the Board does not invalidate the decision under appeal, if the decision's is based on different legal principles.
The doctoral thesis aims to analyse the recent establishment of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) which constitutes the second pillar of the European Banking Union, entrusted by the European legislator with the mission to ensure an orderly resolution of failing banks and groups, with minimum impact on the real economy and public finances of the participating Member States. The objective of this research is to highlight the main consequences arising from the establishment of such a mechanism within the EU framework. To this purpose, attention is paid, on the one hand, to the compatibility between the SRM regulation and the EU subsidiarity principle and, on the other hand, to the main problems related to the field of judicial protection. Chapter I recalls the historical-legal evolutionary process leading to the establishment of the Banking Union. Chapter II focuses on the analysis of the main provisions of the SRM regulation, with particular regard to the organizational and functional aspects of the entire mechanism; to the relationship between the SRB and the NRAs; to the decision-making process and, finally, to the powers they have been assigned with by both the SRM regulation and the BRRD. Once highlighted the SRM "working context", analysis have been conducted in order to study the SRM regulation through the "legal filter" of the subsidiarity principle (Chapter III). In this regard, the latter has been connected to the provision of Article 114 TFEU and the agencification process, which, according to the doctrinal point of view, can be regarded as one of the latest concrete expression of the subsidiarity principle, if not even a way of legitimizing such a principle. On the basis of the the relevant case law, together with the specific and unique features of the banking resolution field and the powers the SRB has been entrusted with, conclusions have been drawn about the compatibility of the SRM regulation with the subsidiarity principle, although not traditionally understood. Moreover, the main purpose being also to get a preliminary understanding of the judicial protection's effectiveness within the SRM, Chapter IV is devoted to identifying and illustrating the issues and challenges to be faced by those subjects which will be affected by resolution decisions. From this perspective, analysis have been carried out having regard to the allocation of competences outlined in the SRM regulation, namely a complex administrative (and therefore judicial) machinery, most of the time involving interrelations between the European and the national level. Finally, Chapter V attempts to summarize the main blocks of the research and to draw general conclusion on the SRM-related topics.
Il traffico di beni culturali è un fenomeno complesso che solo in tempi relativamente recenti ha cominciato a essere percepito e affrontato dalla comunità internazionale come un problema propriamente criminale. L'Italia, per converso, ha una lunga tradizione di controllo, anche penale, sulla circolazione di opere d'arte e antichità, ma il sistema sconta alcune risalenti criticità nonché un modello protezionistico di marca spiccatamente nazionalista ormai arretrato rispetto agli impulsi provenienti dalle fonti internazionali, in particolare negli ultimi anni. Dopo ripetuti tentativi abortiti di riforma sistematica dei reati contro il patrimonio culturale, il legislatore è recentemente tornato sul tema con un disegno di legge che, anche in ragione degli obblighi internazionali cui dovrebbe dare attuazione, sembra avere reali prospettive di adozione. Il saggio, dopo una breve introduzione circa le specificità empirico-criminologiche di questo fenomeno criminoso e la più recente evoluzione della normativa internazionale ed europea in materia, si propone di offrire una ricognizione critica delle principali fattispecie volte a reprimere i diversi segmenti del traffico di beni culturali, de jure condito e de jure condendo. Uno specifico approfondimento è dedicato al delitto di esportazione illecita, tradizionale presidio dell'integrità del patrimonio culturale nazionale, ai nodi irrisolti della relativa disciplina e alle potenziali ricadute pratiche della prospettata riforma. ; Cultural property trafficking is a complex phenomenon which, however, has only recently started to be perceived and tackled as a proper criminal problem by the international community. Italy, on the other hand, has a very long tradition of strict regulation of cultural property circulation, including by making extensive use of penal provisions. At the same time, however, Italian criminal law in this field also suffers from some long-standing shortcomings as well as, more recently, from a certain obsolescence of its traditionally protectionist approach, which remains mostly focused on the national heritage in a time when international inputs towards a more solidaristic approach to the protection of the cultural heritage of all humankind are growing. After a series of failed attempts at reform, a draft law is now pending in Parliament which appears likely to achieve adoption in a few months, also due to international obligations Italy has to comply with. The purpose of said reform proposal is a comprehensive review and 'codification' of felonies against cultural heritage. After an introduction to the criminological peculiarities of traffic in cultural property and to the recent evolution of international legislation on this subject, the essay will analyze the main criminal offences aimed at preventing and punishing the many links in the trafficking chain, including by discussing proposed changes. Special attention will be paid to the felony of unlawful export, traditionally conceived as an advanced layer of protection for the integrity of the national cultural heritage, to its present as well as foreseeable shortcomings, and to the possible practical consequences of the intended reform.
The judgment of 5 May 2020 of the Zweiter Senat of the Bundesverfassungsgericht is manifestly inappropriate from a legal point of view as it expresses the German constitutional judge's claim to assess the legality of the ECB's decisions and the correctness of reasoning of the CJEU in Weiss. The judges are using the principle of proportionality to assess the correct application of the principle of conferral in a way that is simply impossible to follow and thus objectively arbitrary. Furthermore, the judges make a very questionable use of the principle of democracy and of economic analysis in assessing the correctness of the ECB's PSPP program. The judgement is extremely dangerous by ultimately questioning the application of EU law in a Member State and encourages other courts and Member States' governments to do the same. The judges' reasoning is the glaring demonstration of a form of "cultural bullying" which particularly emerges in the reasoning carried out on proportionality. ; La sentencia del 5 de mayo de 2020 del Zweiter Senat del Bundesverfassungsgericht, es manifiestamente inadecuada del punto de vista jurídico, en la medida en que expresa la pretensión del juez constitucional alemán de evaluar la legalidad de las decisiones del BCE y la corrección argumental del TJUE en Weiss. Los jueces alemanes manejan el principio de proporcionalidad para evaluar la correcta aplicación del principio atribución. Además, los jueces hacen un uso muy cuestionable del principio de democracia y del análisis económico para evaluar la corrección del programa PSPP del BCE. La sentencia es extremadamente peligrosa al cuestionar en última instancia la aplicación del Derecho de la UE en un Estado miembro y alienta a otros tribunales y a los gobiernos de los Estados miembros a hacer lo mismo. El razonamiento de los jueces es la demostración flagrante de una forma de "acosamiento cultural" que aflora especialmente en el razonamiento realizado sobre la proporcionalidad.
The judgment of 5 May 2020 of the Zweiter Senat of the Bundesverfassungsgericht is manifestly inappropriate from a legal point of view as it expresses the German constitutional judge's claim to assess the legality of the ECB's decisions and the correctness of reasoning of the CJEU in Weiss. The German judges are using the principle of proportionality to assess the correct application of the principle of conferral in a way that is "simply completely unintelligible and thus objectively arbitrary" — to use their own qualification of the CJEU's reasoning. Furthermore, the judges make a very questionable use of the principle of democracy and of economic analysis in assessing the correctness of the ECB's PSPP program. The judgement is extremely dangerous by ultimately questioning the application of EU law in a Member State and it encourages other courts and Member States' governments to do the same. The German judges' reasoning is the glaring demonstration of a form of "cultural dominance" which particularly emerges in the reasoning carried out on proportionality.
The well known judgment of the German Constitutional Court in the "Weiss" case has been widely criticized under EU law, mainly because of its being in contrast with a preliminary ruling rendered by the European Court of Justice in 2018. At variance with these criticisms, it is here submitted that such a judgment brings well into focus some institutional ambiguities of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU); namely, the powers (more and more) exercised by the European Central Bank (ECB) in the field of macroeconomic regulation and control, in spite of (its) not being provided with political legitimacy. Seen in this perspective, the "Karlsruhe" judgment objectively looks as aimed at restoring a more balanced relationship between different institutional EMU actors, in accordance with their different degree of political legitimacy. Finally, both the role so far (i.e., starting from the "whatever it takes") played from the ECB and the respective roles played by the German Constitutional Court and the German Government in closing this affair are construed as symptoms of the current imbalances of the European integration process.
Il presente lavoro si propone di analizzare l'adozione delle cd. forme associative comuni nell'attuale quadro del diritto dell'Unione Europea, volgendo particolare attenzione agli aspetti legati al diritto di stabilimento delle società all'interno dell'Unione, alla loro capacità di mobilità, e alle conseguenti implicazioni sul fenomeno della cd. concorrenza "verticale" ed "orizzontale" fra ordinamenti. Il presente studio si concentra in via preliminare sulla mobilità delle società "nazionali" e sui problemi connessi al loro riconoscimento nello spazio europeo, per poi soffermarsi sui modelli societari comuni introdotti all'interno dell'ordinamento comunitario, ovverosia il Gruppo Europeo di Interesse Economico (GEIE), la Società Europea (SE), la Società Cooperativa Europea (SCE), la proposta di regolamento (poi ritirata) circa la Società Privata Europea (SPE) e la più recente proposta di direttiva relativa alle società a responsabilità limitata con un unico socio (SUP). La ricerca analizza i tratti costitutivi di ciascuno dei predetti modelli associativi, introdotti nel tentativo di ovviare alle difficoltà incontrate dai privati in seno alle proprie società nazionali in situazioni legate allo spostamento e in generale alla mobilità delle società stesse, in primis in fase di trasferimento della sede. Infatti, se in astratto il diritto di stabilimento garantito dal Trattato è pieno, nella pratica esso incontra numerosi ostacoli che ne rendono complessa l'attuazione. Sul punto, si è cercato di evidenziare come gli ostacoli alla capacità di mobilità societaria derivino principalmente dalle diversità esistenti tra le legislazioni sostanziali emanate a livello nazionale in materia societaria, nonché tra le varie norme di conflitto adottate dagli Stati membri in riferimento alle società. Si vedrà quindi come, in casi di trasferimento transfrontaliero della sede sociale, ciascuno Stato membro utilizzi i propri criteri di collegamento e, di conseguenza, una legge applicabile alla fattispecie di volta in volta differente. Non a caso, dati gli interessi dei vari Stati, quando una società intende "uscire" dal proprio ordinamento, non le è in genere consentito di operare un semplice trasferimento, ma le viene richiesto di cessare la propria attività e, successivamente, ricostituirsi nello Stato di destinazione. Al riguardo, non si potrà comunque tralasciare di evidenziare come gli organi comunitari abbiano in verità "lasciato cadere" la possibilità di fornire una più dettagliata disciplina in materia, abbandonando in un certo qual modo la proposta di direttiva sul trasferimento transfrontaliero della sede sociale. Con riferimento a ciascun modello associativo comune, vengono analizzati, in particolare, la procedura di costituzione, gli assetti di governance, comprensivi dell'organizzazione e del funzionamento degli organi di amministrazione e degli organi di controllo societario, e le cd. situazioni patologiche della vita delle società, anche nell'ottica di tutela dei creditori, con specifico riferimento alla disciplina di scioglimento e liquidazione. Di pari passo, il presente lavoro si propone di approfondire la pratica di trasferimento di sede realizzata tramite fusione, situazione che – diversamente dal trasferimento di sede tout court – pare essere circondata da un minor numero di problemi, anche in virtù della direttiva 2005/56/CE relativa alle fusioni transfrontaliere e della giurisprudenza della Corte (ad es., caso Sevic), che hanno fornito un efficace ed esaustivo quadro regolatore. La ricerca contiene, poi, una digressione circa la giurisprudenza emanata dalla Corte in materia, a partire dai casi Daily Mail, Centros, Überseering, Inspire Art, fino a giungere alla decisione nel caso Cartesio, che ha aperto nuovi problemi interpretativi rispetto alla problematica del trasferimento, limitando in qualche modo la scelta del diritto applicabile, mettendo in luce gli ulteriori sviluppi dei principi giurisprudenziali in punto di diritto di stabilimento espressi nei casi National Grid e Vale Építési. Quest'ultimo profilo comporta, inoltre, un esame circa la natura del fenomeno di cd. concorrenza fra ordinamenti giuridici: infatti, il cittadino europeo, che si trova a cospetto di differenti ordinamenti giuridici all'interno dei quali inserire la propria società, potrebbe optare per una scelta (i) in fase di costituzione della società o (ii) anche successivamente, durante la "vita" della società stessa. Tuttavia, come si è evidenziato, la seconda situazione si attuerebbe tramite la procedura di trasferimento di sede, che però risulta problematica. Le varie imprese sono pertanto chiamate a scegliere l'ordinamento a cui sottoporsi già in fase di costituzione, andando così a collocare gli ordinamenti stessi su un piano reciprocamente competitivo. La ricerca, peraltro, non verte solamente sul fenomeno di concorrenza orizzontale (tra i vari Stati membri), ma anche su quello di concorrenza verticale (fra gli Stati membri e l'Unione), in quanto intende verificare in che modalità e in che misura, fino al momento in cui si scrive, siano stati utilizzati i predetti modelli associativi comuni da parte degli operatori. La citata analisi sulla concorrenza fra ordinamenti a livello europeo include, infine, un approfondimento circa il medesimo fenomeno in atto negli Stati Uniti, dove il sistema concorrenziale fra i 50 Stati vige ormai da più di un secolo, e mira ad evidenziarne ambiti di uniformità e differenze rispetto al modello europeo. Tra queste ultime, viene attribuito particolare peso all'assenza di modelli societari di tipo federale negli Stati Uniti, cui va di pari passo la costante scelta di specifici Stati storicamente "favorevoli" alla costituzione di entità societarie – su tutti il Delaware – che risultano particolarmente appetibili per i privati, anche grazie all'istituzione di sofisticate infrastrutture giudiziarie che vedono la presenza di tribunali altamente specializzati, competenti a dirimere controversie nella sola materia societaria. ; The work aims at examining the adoption of the so called "harmonized corporate vehicles" in the European Union, with particular attention to the legal issues connected with the right and freedom of establishment of companies within the EU, their capacity of cross-border mobility and consequent implications on the phenomenon of "vertical" and "horizontal" state competition. The work preliminarily focuses on the mobility of national companies, as well as on problems connected with their recognition in the European area, and then examines each of the harmonized corporate vehicles introduced in the EU, i.e., the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), the European Company (SE), the European Cooperative Company (SCE), the Proposal of a European Regulation on the European Private Company (SPE) withdrawn by the Commission in 2013 and the Proposal for a Directive on the Single-member Private Limited Liability Company (SUP) issued in 2014. The research examines the corporate features of each harmonized vehicle, which were introduced with a view to remedy the difficulties usually encountered by business operators and national companies in circumstances of cross-border mobility, in particular while transferring the corporate seat. In fact – on one hand – the right of establishment granted by the European Treaty is full, but – on the other hand – the exercise of such right in concrete is quite difficult. In this respect, the work tries to outline that the obstacles to corporate mobility are mainly due to the diversities existing among material legislations adopted by the Member States in the corporate field, as well as to the different rules of private international law adopted by the Member States over companies. Attention is also paid to the different criteria used by the Member States to regulate cross-border transfers of the seat, which fact usually triggers the application of different applicable laws. The work examines, for each of the abovementioned vehicles, the issues connected with their incorporation, governance (including the structure and organization of managing and audit bodies), dissolution and liquidation, also paying attention to the profiles of protection of creditors. The work also explores the situation of transfer of the seat abroad through merger: this option, in fact, differently from the "typical" transfer of the seat, appears to be less difficult, mainly due to the application of Directive No. 2005/56 on cross-border mergers and also in light of the case-law of the EU Court of Justice (e.g., Sevic case), which have provided for an efficient and exhaustive regulative framework. The research includes a specific chapter on the case-law developed by the EU Court of Justice with regard to corporate transnational mobility, focusing on the Daily Mail, Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art case-law, until the Cartesio decision – which has brought some new interpretative problems on practices of transfer of the seat by limiting the choice of applicable law – and including the most recent decisions issued by the Court in National Grid and Vale Építési cases. The latter profile then triggers an analysis of the state competition phenomenon: the European citizen, in fact, can choose among different jurisdictions to incorporate his company either during the incorporation procedure or after incorporation, by transferring the corporate seat. The second option, however, appears to be quite problematic. Operators are thus required to choose the jurisdiction to incorporate their companies at the very beginning, by posing Member States in mutual competition. In this respect, anyway, the work not only outlines the presence of a "horizontal" competition (involving the different Member States), but also stresses on the presence of a "vertical" competition (involving the Member States and the EU), to verify if and how the harmonized European vehicles have been used by business operators and entrepreneurs so far. The analysis of state competition at a European level includes a digression on the long-standing competition existing in the U.S. among the 50 States, to highlight similarities and discrepancies between the European and the American model. In the last chapter, particular attention is paid to the absence of "federal corporate models" in the U.S. and to the choice of specific States which were generally deemed favorable to incorporations (e.g., Delaware) thanks to a sophisticated legislative and judiciary infrastructure implemented over years.
La crisi migratoria ha manifestato le debolezze di Dublino III e la fallacia della solidarietà europea, quale principio alla base del Sistema Comune Europeo di Asilo. Di conseguenza, le istituzioni europee si sono concentrate maggiormente sulla 'dimensione esterna' dell'UE, attraverso accordi che esternalizzino il controllo migratorio verso Paesi terzi, impedendo ai migranti irregolari di raggiungere i confini europei. Il contributo analizza gli effetti di questa cooperazione: la creazione di una pre-frontiera in un Paese, come la Tunisia, dove vengono impiegate pratiche illegali. In particolare, la prima parte del contributo esamina i rapporti tra Ue e Tunisia, storicamente 'paese di transito'. La seconda parte mostra, da un lato, come l'Europa sia consapevole delle violazioni dei diritti umani, ma prediliga l'obiettivo di proteggere i propri confini e, dall'altro, che la Tunisia non ha adottato una disciplina di legge organica sull'asilo, per cui l'UNHCR è l'unica autorità che decide in merito alle richieste di asilo e protezione internazionale. Emerge, peraltro, un quadro complessivo, in cui il diritto interno tunisino e i rapporti internazionali, nonché le pratiche illegali adottate in Tunisia stanno limitando le operazioni dell'UNHCR. Attraverso l'esame di alcune questioni rilevanti, l'ultima parte propone alcuni spunti per modificare lo status quo: un approccio umanitario alla condizione dei rifugiati; il ripensamento di Dublino III, superando il principio del 'first-entry country'; la ridefinizione, attraverso precisi parametri, del concetto di 'Paese terzo sicuro'. ; The migration crisis has manifested not only Dublin III weaknesses, but also a breakdown of the European solidarity, as the inspiring principle of the Common European Asylum System. Consequently, European institutions promote the EU 'external dimension'. The main goal is to establish agreements, which externalize the migration-control to third countries, preventing irregular migrants from reaching European borders. The article focuses on some effects of this cooperation, connected to the creation of a pre-frontier-country, Tunisia, where illegal practices are employed. To explain this, the first section analyses the relations between EU and Tunisia, historically a 'transit country'. The second section shows, on one side, how Europe is relying on violations of human rights to protect its borders and, on the other side, that Tunisia has not enacted an asylum law system, so that the UNHCR is the sole authority deciding asylum requests. Furthermore, an overall picture emerges in which Tunisian domestic law and international reports, illegal practices adopted in Tunisia are limiting UNHCR operations. By examining some relevant issues, the last part proposes some suggestions: a humanitarian approach to refugees' statuses; the rethinking of Dublin III, passing by the 'first-entry country' principle; the redefinition, through precise parameters, of 'third safe country' concept.
The regulation on GMO products is a highly controversial field, because of different levels of competences and governance involved and due to the presence of conflicting interests. For this reason, the legal framework on food safety and scientific innovation in agriculture represents an interesting case study on multilevel governance. Moreover, GMO regulations are strictly connected to scientific progress and research, requiring an integration of different fields of expertise, such as law-maker, scientific experts and stakeholders. The paper takes into account the possible ways of legislative intervention, analyzing risks and benefits of the balancing between the need to guarantee food safety and the promotion of scientific development.
This paper aims to analyze how the so-called 'new generation' European Union trade agreements can impact sustainable development policy of third countries, verifying whether such agreements are endowed with effective instruments that guarantee the implementation of the international commitments assumed with the aim to improve environmental and labour standards. In this sense, the presence of a specific dispute resolution instrument for the chapter on "Trade and Sustainable Development", distinct from the one provided for the commercial part, on one hand highlights the relevance of the differentiated treatment granted to such issues. On the other hand, it also denotes the fragility of a system based solely on cooperation, which does not provide for the direct imposition of any type of sanction. Given this scenario, the purpose of this study is to reflect on the limitations and potential of 'new generation' trade agreements concerning the promotion of sustainable development in third countries and the possible ways to overcome the challenges inherent in building an economical sustainable society.
The article explores the reasons why the EU should ratify the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, adopted in 2011, and the consequences the ratification may entail. In thefirst part, I will make a few remarks on the main provisions of the Convention, which must be considered as the most advanced system of protection of women from violence at the international level in force for the time being, and Iwill comment on the current status of EU gender equality policies. In thesecond part, starting from the European Commission roadmap regarding the EU accession to the Convention (October 2015), and the proposal for a Council decision on the signing of the Convention (March 2016), the Iwill analyse the legal bases for the ratification of the Convention by the EU, and the possible impact this treaty may have on EU policies. I arguefirst that the legal basis of the decision of the Council concluding the agreement cannot be limited to Articles 82 to 84 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), but should be extended to – at least – Articles 19 and 168 TFEU. I will then explore the impact of the Convention on future policies of the EU, also providing a comparison with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which constitutes the first international treaty on human rights ratified by the European Union. Secondly, I will contend that one of the provisions of the Convention, namely Article 30(2), which requires States to compensate victims of violence who have sustained 'seriousinjury or impairment of health',has direct effect. ; The article explores the reasons why the EU should ratify the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, adopted in 2011, and the consequences the ratification may entail. In the first part, I will make a few remarks on the main provisions of the Convention, which must be considered as the most advanced system of protection of ...
Abstract The appointment of judges to supranational and international courts has long been a neglected area of sovereign activity. However, the growing role and significance of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), by now one of the most significant players within the European political and constitutional space, demands reforms which also affect its architecture. The creation of the advisory panel under article 255 TFUE, whose task is to provide the Council with opinions on candidates suitability, it could be considered one of the most interesting novelties introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. Indeed, the panel is definitely a way to improve judicial independence and proficiency but also a means to centralize judicial selection process at the supranational level. we argue that panel activity is much more influential than the modesty of its formal powers let suppose. After a deep analysis on judicial selection procedures for the ECJ, we underline the strength and the weakness points of the new panel 255. This study let us to believe that the new panel is an important step forward a stronger European integration. In the second part, adopting a comparative approach, we propose some judicial selection models for supranational and international courts. In this way, the thesis contextualizes art.255 TFUE within a general trend present at a comparative level. Finally the thesis offers a critical reading of art.255 TFUE analyzing some important cross-cutting issues concerning independence, transparency, democracy and diversity in judicial nominations. To this extent, this doctoral thesis shows how judicial selection procedures may have important substantial implications: especially with regard to ECJ legitimacy.
The dilemma is where does the International tax policy stand between the edge of new exchange of information and the edge of any other tax solution of equivalent effect or, to put it in another way around, where does the International tax justice stand between the Machiavellian pragmatism to challenge fundamental principles, on one hand, and the deliberative democracy, eventually in a transnational perspective, promoted by Jurgen Habermas, on the other hand. AEOI seems an irreversible trend and none of the countries involved wants to give the impression to suspect on the fairness or effectiveness of its democratic development. The OECD is pressing quite hard on the accelerator, as the last recommendation on the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information demonstrates: the advantage of standardization is process simplification, higher effectiveness and lower costs for all stakeholders concerned. A proliferation of different and inconsistent models would potentially impose significant costs on both government and business to collect the necessary information and operate the different models.
