Suchergebnisse

Defence date: 25 September 2014 ; Examining Board: Prof. Marise Cremona, EUI; Prof. Bruno de Witte, EUI; Prof. Eleanor Spaventa, University of Durham, UK; Prof. Christina Eckes, University of Amsterdam, NL ; This PhD thesis offers a critical overview of the instruments used for the attainment of objectives in the realm of the EU external human rights policy through bringing to the surface the implicit theoretical premises on which evaluation of the policy is performed. The analysis is based on the recent review of the whole policy area finalized with the adoption of the Strategic Framework and Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy (25 June 2012). In the course of this study three hypothesis are explored and given substance on the basis of selected examples from the toolbox: The existence of the assumption as to the required design of the EU external human rights policy is investigated on the basis of the critiques that can be traced in the literature of the subject. The thus identified underlying rule of law paradigm is subsequently used to scrutinize the creation, application, and judicial overview of the instruments used in the EU external human rights policy field. The exercise permits to uncover the features of toolbox's elements that are not given due consideration, should solely rule of law lens be used for the policy evaluation. Finally, the alternative means of analyzing the policy is offered creating the expanded list of benchmarks which build on new modes of governance theory and amount to an alternative framework through which the EU external human rights policy could be evaluated. In general terms, there are two conclusions to be drawn from the exercise performed by this study. Sensu largo, it demonstrates that on borderlines of legal systems, governance practices are reality. Therefore, their characteristic features should (and in recent practice are) be appreciated parallely to those of rule of law - especially at the stage of norm application. Sensu stricte, for the EU external human rights policy, the application of the governance paradigm allows for fuller appraisal of a policy finally paying dues to its unquestionable virtues, and pinpointing in the most solid manner its vices.

This Working Paper is a collection of contributions presented during the Workshop "Framework for Economic Development in EU External Relations" on 22nd and 23rd January 2010. The contributions explore various facets of what is known as economic development and what with time has incorporated many new aspects and developed links with other policy fields. Starting off with the traditional realm of the development policies - trade - the paper shifts to explore how the solely economic notion of development has been enhanced through the introduction of the concept of sustainable development, and how this concept was integrated into two policy areas - that of migration and human rights. Each of the contributors provides an in-depth analysis of a respective facet which build up a very complex picture of what economic development in EU external relations has become

This insightful and discerning book offers a fresh discourse on the functioning of national courts as decentralised EU courts and a new thematic for revising some older understandings of how national judges apply EU law. Organised into three key sections, the interdisciplinary chapters combine approaches and theories originating from law, political science, sociology and economics. The first section addresses issues relating to judicial dialogue and EU legal mandates, the second looks at the topic of EU law in national courts and the third considers national courts' roles in protecting fundamental rights in the area of freedom, security and justice. The analysis of each is enriched through diverse research methods such as case-law analysis, citation network analysis, interviews, surveys and statistics. With its new legal and empirical assessment covering the newest member states of the EU, National Courts and EU Law will hold strong appeal for scholars and students in the fields of EU law, social sciences and humanities. It will also be of use to legal practitioners interested in the issue of judicial application of EU law

Since its creation, European Union (hereinafter: 'the EU') has experienced various enlargements. In 1973, Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the EU. Greece became a Member in 1981 and was followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. Austria, Finland and Sweden accessed the EU in 1995. In 2004, ten Central and Eastern European Countries (hereinafter: 'the CEECs') became EU members. Finally, another two CEECs, i.e. Bulgaria and Romania, joined the EU on 1 January 2007. What impact did previous enlargements have on national systems of private law? It is an important question since there are ongoing accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey and also other countries (Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova) are interested in adhering to the EU. Not only these countries but also Russia has developed specific relationships with the EU which affect its private law system. Learning from previous experience may help structuring better pattern of Europeanization. But the broader question is whether the process of 'Europeanization' of private law in CEECs can be considered concluded with membership or 'regional policies' are needed to contextualize the implementation of EU law and to govern its spillovers. ; Table of Contents I. Introduction (Fabrizio Cafaggi and Lukasz Gorywoda) . 1 1. Staging of the Project . 4 2. The Scope of the Project . 4 3. Domains of the Project . 5 4. Institutional Approach.7 5. Diachronic and Synchronic Approach .8 6. Patterns of Europeanization of Private Law.9 6.1. Legal factors and diversity of obligations.10 6.2 Market-driven factors inducing adoption of EU-like legislation.15 6.3 Socio-economic and institutional factors.15 7. Patterns of Legal Europeanization of Private Law.16 8. Different Modes of Adoption of EU Legislation and General Principles.18 8.1 Europeanization of private law through legislation . 18 8.2 Modes of adoption through administrative agencies .18 8.3 Modes of adoption through judiciary.18 8.4 Modes of Europeanization: the role of private organizations.18 9. Differences in Sectors .18 10. Conclusions .18 II. Institutional Framework (Marise Cremona and Karolina Podstawa) . .20 1. The New Member States of Central and Eastern Europe. 20 1.1 Enlargement and pre-accession strategy. 20 1.2 'Europe' Association Agreements . 21 2. Candidates and Potential Candidates . 23 3. Western Balkans.24 3.1 Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs) .24 3.2 Potential candidate/candidate status and pre-accession.25 4. Turkey .27 4.1 The Association Agreement with Turkey.27 4.2 Turkey as a candidate State.29 5. The European Neighbourhood Policy.30 5.1 Partnership and Cooperation Agreements .30 5.2 The ENP framework .31 6. Russia .33 III. Consumer Law (Hans-W. Micklitz) .35 1. Four Reasons for Research.35 2. Continuity and Discontinuity .39 3. Modes of Implementation of Consumer Law .41 3.1 Legislative implementation.41 3.2 Via separate laws and/or via amendments of the civil law.42 3.3 Role and function of intermediaries in the implementation process. 42 4. Enforcement .43 4.1 Internal socio-economic and cultural factors .43 4.2 External factors .45 IV. Europeanization of Competition Law (Kati Cseres and Rozeta Karova) . 47 1. Introduction .47 2. Continuity v. Discontinuity.49 3. Modes of Implementation of the Acquis.52 3.1 Legislative implementation.52 3.2 Judicial implementation of the European competition case-law .58 4. Enforcement .59 4.1 Internal socio-economic factors .59 4.2 External factors .61 4.3 Private enforcement .64 5. Institutions .66 V. Securities Law (Olha O. Cherednychenko) .70 1. Introduction .70 2. Continuity vs. Discontinuity .73 3. Modes of Implementation .75 3.1 Implementation through legislature and executive .75 3.2 Implementation through judiciary and alternative dispute resolution boards. 77 4. Enforcement .78 4.1 Public enforcement .78 4.2 Private enforcement .79 5. Institutions .80 VI. Preliminary Conclusions (H.-W. Micklitz).82