Suchergebnisse

Multilingualism shapes the European cultural identity as well as its legal system. Nonetheless, some aspects of the EU's plurilingual character do not simply represent a cultural enrichment, but are also of crucial importance in dealing with the exercise of European citizenship rights and may turn into practical hindrances to their full enjoyment. At the same time linguistic diversity in Europe is constantly increasing due to mobility and new immigration phenomena, and to the strengthening of individual and collective language rights (also linked to the protection of national linguistic minorities, such as, for instance, parity of languages, right to use one's own language in oral and written relationships with the public administration and with judicial authorities, etc.). This Deliverable aims to provide a systematic survey of the linguistic barriers arisen from the multilingual drafting of EU law, as well as from some national contexts with specific reference to the exercise of EU citizens' economic rights. From the latter perspective, the research will describe how a lack of a clear linguistic policy might transform the regulations of language use into barriers to the effectiveness of EU citizens' rights. The analysis is carried out from a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective and deals with, on the one hand, the linguistic obstacles affecting the main fields of survey on economic rights chosen by the project (professionals, consumer rights and IPR) and, on the other hand, some specific linguistic barriers autonomously highlighted by national reports as particularly challenging in a given Member States.

This special issue on the Covid-19 Pandemic in European Union: shortcomings and strengths of the EU legal system in selected policy domains begins with two contributions that deal with the uncertain health risks caused by Covid-19, the first one and the application of precautionary principle in practice, and the second one on the growing problem of 'onslaught of health disinformation'.The next two articles focus on the extent to which Covid-19 has impacted the cross-border mobility of people in the EU and the mobility of people within a Member State, and how this affects EU and national law.The special issue then turns to the socio-economic consequences of Covid-19, which are analysed from the perspective of vulnerable position of creditors in the event of insolvency, the perspective of the Eurozone and the models of solidarity upon which the EMU is based, and the perspective of the position of vulnerable workers and their social rights which are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.The extent to which private companies are involved in tackling the Covid-19 crisis and how EU competition law (should) respond(s) to this, is discussed in the contribution hereafter.Finally the special issue zooms in to a contribution on the principle of solidarity that – once again – plays a pivotal role in times of crises.

The identification of economic rights relates to the economic context in general (also referred to as 'economic phenomenon') on the one hand and to citizens' liberties on the other. Deliverable 5.1 is aimed at uncovering a definition of the concept 'economic rights', thereby identifying their specific nature. In each country economic rights deal with the regulation of the factors of production (labour and capital) and with limitations to private economic activities (business regulation), connected with their exploitation. More generally economic rights are concerned with property ownership and economic initiative. From these two main categories each legal system developed a broader list of rights connected to the economic phenomenon, focusing on market regulation, the protection of competition, and the interests linked to business (economic free initiative). Common trends in the historical evolution of the regulation of property and economic initiative have been observed across the Member States. From the industrial revolution to the more recent developments in the economies of the Member States, the need to protect citizens' social and economic interests can be characterized by different legal solutions, which are first described from a broader perspective (sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1) before turning to the different national experiences (2.3, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2). These trends have determined to what extent in the respective Member States the freedom of initiative, social protection within the economic production process and the post-industrial economy are, irrespective of the differences between the various legal systems, regulated in a similar fashion, i.e. by means of codification, through the incorporation in the constitution or by means of legislation; however, legal tradition and political background have informed the unique and country-specific enforcement of these rights within the Member States.

In this article we take managing migration and managing the gig economy as a prism through which to examine not only whether the phrase 'social market economy' has any real substance, but also whether it offers any guidance as to how the European Union (EU) may respond in the future. We argue that the language of 'social market economy', a concept drafted in the halcyon days prior to the financial and migration crises, serves only to highlight the gap between rhetoric and reality. We identify two main reasons for this, namely a lack of legal competence and a lack of political will. We then consider whether the objective of attaining a 'social market economy' can be operationalised in any way. In the light of the establishment of the European Social Pillar, we argue that it can, yet within certain limits. We conclude by arguing that the lack of clear communication by the EU, both of its successes and also of the limits on its powers, means that it receives little credit for the good it is able to do. It also unnecessarily raises expectations among the public about what it can achieve. This inevitably leads to the disappointment generated by unfulfilled expectations.

If we assume that market integration serves the interest of citizens in their capacity as consumers and optimizes consumer welfare, then the EU rules on free movement and competition could, according to Weatherill, be seen as a form of consumer policy.[1] Since national consumer protection law may impede free movement, which in itself is thus designed to advance the consumer interest, the European Court of Justice (hereafter: ECJ or Court), has developed its own notion of consumer interest.[2] This notion relates to the consumer's capacity to process information and make informed choices about available products and services, which is crucial for the market integration process. According to the case law of Court the consumer is considered an individual who can, if provided with the necessary information, make his own choices and defend his own interests. In GB-INNO-BM the Court held that "Article 28 (now Article 34 TFEU) cannot be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which denies the consumer access to certain kinds of information may be justified by mandatory requirements concerning consumer protection".[3] This is also referred to as the notion of 'reasonably circumspect consumer' considering the Court's perception "that most consumers are sufficiently robust and well-informed to take care of themselves in the market place".[4] Deliverable 5.4 looks into the rights of consumers in the Digital Single Market and into consumers' experiences in a number of Member States in the (cross-border) online purchase of goods and services. This Deliverable thus contributes to gaining more knowledge about the capacity of consumers to process information and make informed choices in the field of the digital single market. As this case study builds upon previous research carried out in the context of Work Package 5 and particularly on Deliverable 5.2, it does not, contrary to what is stated in the Description of Work (DoW) deal with the energy market. Deliverable 5.2 focussed on the following three ...

5. An End to the Possibilities -- on Horizontal Liability in Laval and the Limits of Judicial Rights Protection6. Horizontal Effects of Private Rights Vested by Union Law on Damages to be Paid by Another Private Party: The Laval Case as Model; Part III. The Constitutional Dimension of Fundamental Rights; 7. The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights after Lisbon; 8. Competing Rights?; Conference Report. The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the European Union after Lisbon; Index.

The UU team, Dr. Hanneke van Eijken and Professor Sybe de Vries, in coordination with the CEU research group (Dr. Marie-Pierre Granger and Dr. Orsolya Salát), has prepared a synthetic report, which provides a critical overview of the civil rights of EU citizens and third-country nationals in selected Member States (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and Ireland). The analysis carried out for Deliverable 7.1 focuses on the recognition and scope of civil rights of EU citizens and third-country nationals by national, European and international law. The national reports reveal that the main sources of civil rights in the different countries are the national constitutions and specific national legislation, the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter. In substantial terms, the civil rights are quite similar and entail, for instance, the freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, freedom of association and assembly. The scope and recognition of civil rights in the countries assessed is nonetheless dependent on the national legal system and its openness to international and European civil rights. The application of the EU Charter is increasing in national case law. The ECHR seems, however, to be the main source of reference for international civil rights by national courts. Awareness of the civil rights in the EU Charter could thus be improved. A particular difficulty with the Charter is that it is only applicable within the scope of EU law, with the consequence national courts may be inclined to rely on the ECHR when in doubt as to whether the EU Charter is applicable to a specific national case. In terms of barriers to citizenship, it seems that, as a preliminary conclusion, the recognition of civil rights is much dependent on national legal systems and that judicial practice show a preference to refer to the ECHR over the EU Charter. There are, however, signs that this is slowly changing. In most countries, the ...

The Covid-19 pandemic has had major socio-economic consequences, particularly for critical workers such as healthcare workers, seasonal workers and platform workers in their social rights enjoyment. This article analyses how EU law could protect social rights in times of Covid-19, with a specific focus on the possibilities and limits of the EU Charter in times of crisis for these certain categories of EU workers. The potential of EU legal instruments to protect vulnerable workers' social rights is limited both by the limited legislative competences in the social policy field and the limited scope of application of the EU Charter. Furthermore, social rights enshrined in the Charter are often formulated as principles, which means they cannot be invoked directly in court, but need to be elaborated in legislation. Nevertheless, the EU could further strengthen the potential of social rights in the EU legal order through harmonisation of social standards in two ways. First, by harmonisation of social rights using the legal bases in the Treaty. Secondly, by implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights effectively and by improving application of the EU Charter at national level, both by clarifying and broadening horizontal direct effect as by increasing application of the EU Charter by national policymakers and the judiciary and raising awareness.

The Covid-19 pandemic has had major socio-economic consequences, particularly for critical workers such as healthcare workers, seasonal workers and platform workers in their social rights enjoyment. This article analyses how EU law could protect social rights in times of Covid-19, with a specific focus on the possibilities and limits of the EU Charter in times of crisis for these certain categories of EU workers. The potential of EU legal instruments to protect vulnerable workers' social rights is limited both by the limited legislative competences in the social policy field and the limited scope of application of the EU Charter. Furthermore, social rights enshrined in the Charter are often formulated as principles, which means they cannot be invoked directly in court, but need to be elaborated in legislation. Nevertheless, the EU could further strengthen the potential of social rights in the EU legal order through harmonisation of social standards in two ways. First, by harmonisation of social rights using the legal bases in the Treaty. Secondly, by implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights effectively and by improving application of the EU Charter at national level, both by clarifying and broadening horizontal direct effect as by increasing application of the EU Charter by national policymakers and the judiciary and raising awareness.

• Hypothesis: if the legislations of the Member States concerning life events increasingly differ, the EU citizenship and the civil rights are clearly prejudiced. • Purposes: study of the lack of harmonisation of EU Law, the disparities of the national legislations and the effects and impact of them on EU citizenship and the free movement of persons. • Methodology: case study. Each case is initiated with a short background explaining the subject and scope of the topic and the aims of the research. On the other hand, each case includes model cases in order to illustrate the standard practices, which are used as an example in order to explain the solutions of each Law and to include leading cases of each country. Starting from these assumptions, the staff of the different countries submitted a national report, whose paragraphs have been almost literally incorporated in order to enhance the transparency of the research project. • Topics: regarding the lack of harmonisation of EU Law, the disparities of the national legislations and the effects and impact of them on EU citizenship and the free movement of persons, it is convenient to select the following life events: filiation, forenames and surnames and marriage, accompanied by a final and transversal topic relating to the circulation and recognition of documents on civil status. • Scope: the selection of countries in order to inform on these topics is based on the following grounds: countries of Central Europe, such as Belgium and The Netherlands, with a very consolidated experience in EU citizenship as founders of the EEC; countries of the South of Europe, such as Spain, which has a Latin tradition in Family Law; countries of the East of Europe, namely Hungary, as more recent members of the EU; and countries of the North of Europe, such as Denmark, whose position is very interesting as this country is not a member of the EU space of freedom security and justice. • Conclusions: adoption of Private International Law acts by the EU; mitigation of barriers to the ...