Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221116229
H. Verschueren
In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court’s restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court’s implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.
{"title":"The right to social assistance for economically inactive migrating Union citizens: The Court disregards the principle of proportionality and lets the Charter appease the consequences","authors":"H. Verschueren","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221116229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221116229","url":null,"abstract":"In a new case on the right to social assistance for inactive migrating Union citizens, the CJEU delivered a judgment in which it confirmed its restrictive interpretation of the relevant primary and secondary Union law. At the same time, however, it invoked the EU Charter to appease the consequences of that. This case note critically analyses the Court’s restrictive application of the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU and Article 24 Directive 2004/38/EC. It also comments on the Court’s implicit refusal to apply the principle of non-discrimination of Article 18 TFEU to a migrating Union citizen who has acquired a right of residence in the host country solely on the basis of the national law of that Member State. Further, it examines the role ascribed by the Court in this case to the Charter. The conclusion is that this judgment risks jeopardizing a number of fundamental basic principles of Union law while leaving a number of questions open.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"483 - 498"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44554905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221130493
C. Cauffman
Since Akzo, it is settled case law of the Court of Justice that, in public enforcement cases, the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company, in particular where, although having a separate legal personality, that subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company, having regard in particular to the economic, organizational and legal links between those two legal entities. In such a case, the parent company and its subsidiary form a single economic unit and therefore a single undertaking; this enables the Commission to address a decision imposing fines to the parent company without having to establish its direct involvement in the infringement. The Court of Justice also recognized that, under certain conditions, a parent
{"title":"Case C-882/19 Sumal SL v. Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL","authors":"C. Cauffman","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221130493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221130493","url":null,"abstract":"Since Akzo, it is settled case law of the Court of Justice that, in public enforcement cases, the conduct of a subsidiary may be imputed to the parent company, in particular where, although having a separate legal personality, that subsidiary does not decide independently upon its own conduct on the market, but carries out, in all material respects, the instructions given to it by the parent company, having regard in particular to the economic, organizational and legal links between those two legal entities. In such a case, the parent company and its subsidiary form a single economic unit and therefore a single undertaking; this enables the Commission to address a decision imposing fines to the parent company without having to establish its direct involvement in the infringement. The Court of Justice also recognized that, under certain conditions, a parent","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"499 - 519"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46786654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221116227
V. Raposo
The features of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demand a new form of contact tracing performed by digital means: digital contact tracing. However, this mechanism raises several issues in light of relevant European regulations, particularly in terms of personal data protection and privacy. The challenge is to have a digital contact tracing model that efficiently and speedily alerts people to potential infection, so they can get tested and isolated as necessary, but that also complies with European legal standards. This paper will address two main issues. First, it will analyse digital contract tracing and its different features from the perspective of data protection and privacy, seemingly the main concern in this domain. Secondly, the paper will analyse the loopholes and benefits of digital contact tracing in the European context, focusing on the tension between privacy, individual liberties and public health to address its legitimacy.
{"title":"‘I’m right behind you’: Digital contact tracing under European law","authors":"V. Raposo","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221116227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221116227","url":null,"abstract":"The features of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demand a new form of contact tracing performed by digital means: digital contact tracing. However, this mechanism raises several issues in light of relevant European regulations, particularly in terms of personal data protection and privacy. The challenge is to have a digital contact tracing model that efficiently and speedily alerts people to potential infection, so they can get tested and isolated as necessary, but that also complies with European legal standards. This paper will address two main issues. First, it will analyse digital contract tracing and its different features from the perspective of data protection and privacy, seemingly the main concern in this domain. Secondly, the paper will analyse the loopholes and benefits of digital contact tracing in the European context, focusing on the tension between privacy, individual liberties and public health to address its legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"434 - 450"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44975603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221130182
Tomi Tuominen, Mirva Salminen, Kirsi-Maria Halonen
In a liberalized market economy, states tend to purchase supplies required for producing publicly funded services, such as healthcare, from the markets instead of producing them themselves. The availability of critical supplies thus becomes a question of supply-side availability and supply chain management, and therefore their availability is conceptualized in terms of security of supply. The European Union's security of supply policy has focused on energy and security and defence. Security has primarily been sought from the markets, while the purpose of EU law has been to establish these markets and to guarantee their functioning. During the COVID-19 pandemic the European Union has sought to secure the availability of medical supplies by relying on a variety of internal market measures: free movement law, State aid law, competition law and public procurement law have all been used in this effort. Collectively these measures have aimed at securing the functioning of the markets and thus the availability of necessary supplies. Following the crisis, the European Union is now adopting a broader policy perspective to security of supply. However, this is still carried out mainly through internal market competences and by relying on the markets as the source of security.
{"title":"The European Union's responses to the COVID-19 crisis: How to fight a pandemic with the internal market.","authors":"Tomi Tuominen, Mirva Salminen, Kirsi-Maria Halonen","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221130182","DOIUrl":"10.1177/1023263X221130182","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a liberalized market economy, states tend to purchase supplies required for producing publicly funded services, such as healthcare, from the markets instead of producing them themselves. The availability of critical supplies thus becomes a question of supply-side availability and supply chain management, and therefore their availability is conceptualized in terms of security of supply. The European Union's security of supply policy has focused on energy and security and defence. Security has primarily been sought from the markets, while the purpose of EU law has been to establish these markets and to guarantee their functioning. During the COVID-19 pandemic the European Union has sought to secure the availability of medical supplies by relying on a variety of internal market measures: free movement law, State aid law, competition law and public procurement law have all been used in this effort. Collectively these measures have aimed at securing the functioning of the markets and thus the availability of necessary supplies. Following the crisis, the European Union is now adopting a broader policy perspective to security of supply. However, this is still carried out mainly through internal market competences and by relying on the markets as the source of security.</p>","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"451-467"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9606637/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47499769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221130238
A. Duval
In Luxembourg, in early July, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard two cases, commonly known as the ISU and European Super League cases, which have the potential to upend the way in which many sports are governed and international competitions organized. The hearing room was packed with a large (for legal proceedings, but small in sporting standards) audience of journalists, lawyers, civil servants, sports administrators and academics (myself included). This was an exceptional sight as the attention of the sports/football community is rarely turned to Luxembourg and the CJEU probably had not witnessed this level of interest from the media and the wider public since the Bosman hearing in 1995. At the same time, it is also the first instance in which a sporting case has been referred to the Grand Chamber, a sign that the Court itself deemed them deserving of specific attention and careful deliberation by a wide spectrum of members of the Court. Furthermore, both cases will be blessed with an Opinion of Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, which, coincidentally, will be released on ‘Bosman day’ (15 December 2022). What is at stake in these cases? Both are challenging the legitimacy and capacity of international federations (IFs) to regulate their sports and organize international sporting competitions. In practice, most European sports are governed primarily through a regulatory pyramid constituted of private associations. An IF (often, though not always, based in Switzerland) sits at the apex, such as the International Skating Union (ISU) or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and regulates the international dimension of a particular sport through rules and decisions imposed onto its members – the national associations – and its members’ members – the clubs and/or the athletes. These IFs are often acting as (almost natural) monopolies on the
{"title":"Playing the final in Luxembourg: The Court of Justice and the future of transnational sports governance","authors":"A. Duval","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221130238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221130238","url":null,"abstract":"In Luxembourg, in early July, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard two cases, commonly known as the ISU and European Super League cases, which have the potential to upend the way in which many sports are governed and international competitions organized. The hearing room was packed with a large (for legal proceedings, but small in sporting standards) audience of journalists, lawyers, civil servants, sports administrators and academics (myself included). This was an exceptional sight as the attention of the sports/football community is rarely turned to Luxembourg and the CJEU probably had not witnessed this level of interest from the media and the wider public since the Bosman hearing in 1995. At the same time, it is also the first instance in which a sporting case has been referred to the Grand Chamber, a sign that the Court itself deemed them deserving of specific attention and careful deliberation by a wide spectrum of members of the Court. Furthermore, both cases will be blessed with an Opinion of Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, which, coincidentally, will be released on ‘Bosman day’ (15 December 2022). What is at stake in these cases? Both are challenging the legitimacy and capacity of international federations (IFs) to regulate their sports and organize international sporting competitions. In practice, most European sports are governed primarily through a regulatory pyramid constituted of private associations. An IF (often, though not always, based in Switzerland) sits at the apex, such as the International Skating Union (ISU) or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and regulates the international dimension of a particular sport through rules and decisions imposed onto its members – the national associations – and its members’ members – the clubs and/or the athletes. These IFs are often acting as (almost natural) monopolies on the","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"409 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47861399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263x221105714
C. Mak
The role of companies in adequately addressing the social and economic questions of our times has caught the attention of the European legislature and of EU Member States alike. On 23 February 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, which aims to ‘ advance the green transition and protect human rights in Europe and beyond ’ . 1 The proposed rules require businesses to integrate due diligence in their policies, to make sure they identify and prevent potential adverse impact of their activities on human rights and the environment 2 and to bring actual infringe-ments to an end. 3 This EU initiative complements national laws such as the French Corporate Duty of Diligence Law, 4 the Italian Due Diligence Laws 5 and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law. 6 Moreover, the presentation of the proposed Directive runs in parallel to
{"title":"Corporate sustainability due diligence: More than ticking the boxes?","authors":"C. Mak","doi":"10.1177/1023263x221105714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x221105714","url":null,"abstract":"The role of companies in adequately addressing the social and economic questions of our times has caught the attention of the European legislature and of EU Member States alike. On 23 February 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, which aims to ‘ advance the green transition and protect human rights in Europe and beyond ’ . 1 The proposed rules require businesses to integrate due diligence in their policies, to make sure they identify and prevent potential adverse impact of their activities on human rights and the environment 2 and to bring actual infringe-ments to an end. 3 This EU initiative complements national laws such as the French Corporate Duty of Diligence Law, 4 the Italian Due Diligence Laws 5 and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law. 6 Moreover, the presentation of the proposed Directive runs in parallel to","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"301 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48877888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-29DOI: 10.1177/1023263x221098050
L. Bracken
The legal recognition of LGBTQI+ parent families differs considerably across Europe and is a matter that is largely outside of the remit of EU law. This creates difficulties for LGBTQI+ parent families who cross European borders as legal parent-child relationships established in one Member State may not be recognized in another, resulting in limping legal parentage. In the case of V.M.A. v. Stolichna obshtina, the CJEU found that where one EU Member State recognizes the legal parentage of same-sex parents, all other EU Member States must also recognize those parent-child relationships for the purpose of free movement. This article examines the significance and limitations of the decision.
{"title":"Recognition of LGBTQI+ parent families across European borders","authors":"L. Bracken","doi":"10.1177/1023263x221098050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x221098050","url":null,"abstract":"The legal recognition of LGBTQI+ parent families differs considerably across Europe and is a matter that is largely outside of the remit of EU law. This creates difficulties for LGBTQI+ parent families who cross European borders as legal parent-child relationships established in one Member State may not be recognized in another, resulting in limping legal parentage. In the case of V.M.A. v. Stolichna obshtina, the CJEU found that where one EU Member State recognizes the legal parentage of same-sex parents, all other EU Member States must also recognize those parent-child relationships for the purpose of free movement. This article examines the significance and limitations of the decision.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"399 - 406"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45921512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-27DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221096027
J. Gruyters
Since the beginning of the 1990s, EU initiatives have sought to gradually harmonize the activities of institutions for retirement provisions (‘IORPs’). However, thirty years later, multiple barriers to entry remain. This article will identify the current state of play, by adopting a twofold approach towards supplementary pensions in a context of EU internal market law. First, we will assess the process of negative integration of several pension policy tools in light of the free movement case law (in particular, the free provision of services). During this study, the focus will be on mechanisms of compulsory membership and collective bargaining in the field of occupational pensions. Second, we will analyse the most important legislative constraints of supplementary pension services at EU level, with an emphasis on secondary internal market law. We argue that, despite the effort of respecting national autonomy in social policy, positive integration has led to several spillovers. Finally, the article will highlight the most significant obstacles, and conclude by discussing the general attitude of EU internal market law towards supplementary pensions and social policy in general.
{"title":"The internal market for supplementary pensions: A long and winding road","authors":"J. Gruyters","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221096027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221096027","url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of the 1990s, EU initiatives have sought to gradually harmonize the activities of institutions for retirement provisions (‘IORPs’). However, thirty years later, multiple barriers to entry remain. This article will identify the current state of play, by adopting a twofold approach towards supplementary pensions in a context of EU internal market law. First, we will assess the process of negative integration of several pension policy tools in light of the free movement case law (in particular, the free provision of services). During this study, the focus will be on mechanisms of compulsory membership and collective bargaining in the field of occupational pensions. Second, we will analyse the most important legislative constraints of supplementary pension services at EU level, with an emphasis on secondary internal market law. We argue that, despite the effort of respecting national autonomy in social policy, positive integration has led to several spillovers. Finally, the article will highlight the most significant obstacles, and conclude by discussing the general attitude of EU internal market law towards supplementary pensions and social policy in general.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"375 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42792742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-26DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221096026
P. Popelier, Monika Glavina, Federica Baldan, Esther van Zimmeren
While public trust in the judicial system has been extensively explored in the US, this has been less common in Europe. The purpose of this paper is therefore to launch a research agenda on trust in courts. This is based on an overview of the empirical studies on trust/distrust in courts in Europe, which are assessed critically in light of the trust literature. We connect the concept of multilevel governance in which the EU operates to the concept of multilevel trust, which concerns the interrelations between interpersonal trust, interorganizational trust and system trust. Furthermore, we add structure to the existing literature on trust in and within courts in Europe by categorizing it into two main categories: (i) studies that focus on trust in courts within one (national or European) legal system and (ii) those that explore the interaction of trust in and between courts at different levels of governance (multilevel governance). We further examine whether different relational and institutional aspects of trust in courts, their drivers, dynamics and effect, as well as the recent trend of specialization in court systems have been sufficiently covered in the literature.
{"title":"A research agenda for trust and distrust in a multilevel judicial system","authors":"P. Popelier, Monika Glavina, Federica Baldan, Esther van Zimmeren","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221096026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221096026","url":null,"abstract":"While public trust in the judicial system has been extensively explored in the US, this has been less common in Europe. The purpose of this paper is therefore to launch a research agenda on trust in courts. This is based on an overview of the empirical studies on trust/distrust in courts in Europe, which are assessed critically in light of the trust literature. We connect the concept of multilevel governance in which the EU operates to the concept of multilevel trust, which concerns the interrelations between interpersonal trust, interorganizational trust and system trust. Furthermore, we add structure to the existing literature on trust in and within courts in Europe by categorizing it into two main categories: (i) studies that focus on trust in courts within one (national or European) legal system and (ii) those that explore the interaction of trust in and between courts at different levels of governance (multilevel governance). We further examine whether different relational and institutional aspects of trust in courts, their drivers, dynamics and effect, as well as the recent trend of specialization in court systems have been sufficiently covered in the literature.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"351 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45265335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221097648
R. Kelemen
Never underestimate the European Commission’s willingness to appease Europe’s pet autocrats. While the EU has made an impressive show of unity in standing up to the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin in response to his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, EU leaders continue to refuse to stand up to the softer autocrats in their own ranks. The capacity of the von der Leyen Commission (and of Commissions before it) to contrive excuses for refusing to enforce the EU rule of law norms that all Member States have committed to respect is something awesome to behold. The excuses keep changing, but the procrastination and appeasement are consistent. Over the past decade we have seen successive Commissions draw – sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly – on an impressive panoply of excuses for their failure to defend the rule of law more robustly. These have included: lacking the necessary ‘tools’ to defend rule of law, needing to allow more time for ‘dialogue’ with backsliders, having to produce reports on rule of law in all Member States to show all were being treated equally, waiting for critical ECJ rulings and waiting for the resolution of a major crisis that must take priority over defending the rule of law – first it was the eurozone crisis, then the refugee crisis, then Brexit and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. To be clear, all of these excuses were bogus: the EU had robust tools in place to defend rule of law all along and the creation of new tools was mostly used as excuse to delay action; producing toothless reports on rule of law in all Member States was pointless, and scofflaws claimed they were treated unequally in any case; suspending the application of EU regulations pending the outcome of ECJ rulings (i.e. in annulment actions such as Cases C-156/21 Hungary v. Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v. Parliament and Council) is unlawful, and political crises are no excuse for suspending law enforcement. Indeed, it is deeply ironic that while Ukrainians are fighting and dying to defend democracy and the rule of law, the Commission is using the crisis as an excuse to abandon the defence of those very values.
{"title":"Appeasement, ad infinitum","authors":"R. Kelemen","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221097648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221097648","url":null,"abstract":"Never underestimate the European Commission’s willingness to appease Europe’s pet autocrats. While the EU has made an impressive show of unity in standing up to the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin in response to his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, EU leaders continue to refuse to stand up to the softer autocrats in their own ranks. The capacity of the von der Leyen Commission (and of Commissions before it) to contrive excuses for refusing to enforce the EU rule of law norms that all Member States have committed to respect is something awesome to behold. The excuses keep changing, but the procrastination and appeasement are consistent. Over the past decade we have seen successive Commissions draw – sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly – on an impressive panoply of excuses for their failure to defend the rule of law more robustly. These have included: lacking the necessary ‘tools’ to defend rule of law, needing to allow more time for ‘dialogue’ with backsliders, having to produce reports on rule of law in all Member States to show all were being treated equally, waiting for critical ECJ rulings and waiting for the resolution of a major crisis that must take priority over defending the rule of law – first it was the eurozone crisis, then the refugee crisis, then Brexit and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine. To be clear, all of these excuses were bogus: the EU had robust tools in place to defend rule of law all along and the creation of new tools was mostly used as excuse to delay action; producing toothless reports on rule of law in all Member States was pointless, and scofflaws claimed they were treated unequally in any case; suspending the application of EU regulations pending the outcome of ECJ rulings (i.e. in annulment actions such as Cases C-156/21 Hungary v. Parliament and Council and C-157/21 Poland v. Parliament and Council) is unlawful, and political crises are no excuse for suspending law enforcement. Indeed, it is deeply ironic that while Ukrainians are fighting and dying to defend democracy and the rule of law, the Commission is using the crisis as an excuse to abandon the defence of those very values.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"177 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44251164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：