The EU-UK Joint Report of December 2017 recognised the possibility for a differentiated Brexit that would allow Northern Ireland to maintain a special relationship with the EU. Such an arrangement could occur if addressing the challenge of the Irish border through the overall future EU-UK relationship proves impossible and if the specific technological solutions the UK proposes are deemed insufficient. Indeed, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the draft UK Withdrawal Treaty the EU published on 28 February 2018 codified such a ‘backstop option’. The present Independent Opinion suggests that the UK Withdrawal Agreement should recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland by providing for a special designated status. Such a status should be understood as a mutually agreed arrangement that will respect and protect the unique constitutional status of the region as provided by all three Strands of the Good Friday Agreement. In particular, the special designated status should respect the principle of consent and the right of self-determination by providing for a legal route for the reintegration of Northern Ireland into the EU. This status should protect the all-island economy by allowing for the participation of the region in the single market and/or the EU Customs Union (EUCU). This situation should not happen at the expense of weakening ‘East-West’ institutions, however (i.e. between the Republic of Ireland and the UK); in fact, their strengthening will be necessary in order to manage the tensions that Northern Ireland’s remaining in the single market and the EUCU would likely cause to its economic relationship with the rest of the UK.
{"title":"Report on a Special Designated Status for Northern Ireland Post-Brexit: An Independent Opinion Commissioned by the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) Group of the European Parliament","authors":"N. Skoutaris","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3161311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3161311","url":null,"abstract":"The EU-UK Joint Report of December 2017 recognised the possibility for a differentiated Brexit that would allow Northern Ireland to maintain a special relationship with the EU. Such an arrangement could occur if addressing the challenge of the Irish border through the overall future EU-UK relationship proves impossible and if the specific technological solutions the UK proposes are deemed insufficient. Indeed, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the draft UK Withdrawal Treaty the EU published on 28 February 2018 codified such a ‘backstop option’. The present Independent Opinion suggests that the UK Withdrawal Agreement should recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland by providing for a special designated status. Such a status should be understood as a mutually agreed arrangement that will respect and protect the unique constitutional status of the region as provided by all three Strands of the Good Friday Agreement. In particular, the special designated status should respect the principle of consent and the right of self-determination by providing for a legal route for the reintegration of Northern Ireland into the EU. This status should protect the all-island economy by allowing for the participation of the region in the single market and/or the EU Customs Union (EUCU). This situation should not happen at the expense of weakening ‘East-West’ institutions, however (i.e. between the Republic of Ireland and the UK); in fact, their strengthening will be necessary in order to manage the tensions that Northern Ireland’s remaining in the single market and the EUCU would likely cause to its economic relationship with the rest of the UK.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129359346","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}
The purpose of the present paper is to examine the salient features of the sanctioning system applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) against undertakings breaching their obligations. Outside the group of scholars engaged in researching the ECB, this topic has not attracted much attention and, therefore, there is considerable scope for original research. The paper considers the crucial issue of the ECB’s legal personality, traces how the ECB came to acquire, at different stages, the power to inflict sanctions on undertakings, and, from a critical point of view, examines the relevant legal acts which have been by the EU Council and of the ECB. The paper concludes with a number of suggestions and recommendations to consolidate the various legal acts and make the system more transparent.
{"title":"The Sanctioning System of the European Central Bank: Origins, Analysis, Comments And Some Suggestions","authors":"K. Magliveras","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3132940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3132940","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the present paper is to examine the salient features of the sanctioning system applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) against undertakings breaching their obligations. Outside the group of scholars engaged in researching the ECB, this topic has not attracted much attention and, therefore, there is considerable scope for original research. The paper considers the crucial issue of the ECB’s legal personality, traces how the ECB came to acquire, at different stages, the power to inflict sanctions on undertakings, and, from a critical point of view, examines the relevant legal acts which have been by the EU Council and of the ECB. The paper concludes with a number of suggestions and recommendations to consolidate the various legal acts and make the system more transparent.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126440266","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}
This paper examines the approach under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to profiling and (automated) decision-making as well as the corresponding legal and ethical implications. The definition of profiling under the GDPR is analysed in relation to different degrees of automation when it comes to decision-making based on the processing of personal or non-personal data. A two-step approach to profiling and decision-making, which can be found in the structure and wording of the GDPR, is described and analysed. It is argued that the use of this model helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted and how the two steps are interconnected. Furthermore, the two-step approach allows to identify various legal implications of profiling and the corresponding decision-making, such as those related to privacy and economic freedom. Further, the discussion of ethical aspects draws on two recent and controversial use cases. The first example deals with discriminatory effects that may result from profiling. The second one concerns opaque automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring. This ethical assessment is based on the ethical framework supplied by the wording of the GDPR.
{"title":"Automated Processing of Personal Data for the Evaluation of Personality Traits: Legal and Ethical Issues","authors":"Klaus Wiedemann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3102933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102933","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the approach under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to profiling and (automated) decision-making as well as the corresponding legal and ethical implications. The definition of profiling under the GDPR is analysed in relation to different degrees of automation when it comes to decision-making based on the processing of personal or non-personal data. A two-step approach to profiling and decision-making, which can be found in the structure and wording of the GDPR, is described and analysed. It is argued that the use of this model helps understand how profiling and decision-making are conducted and how the two steps are interconnected. Furthermore, the two-step approach allows to identify various legal implications of profiling and the corresponding decision-making, such as those related to privacy and economic freedom. Further, the discussion of ethical aspects draws on two recent and controversial use cases. The first example deals with discriminatory effects that may result from profiling. The second one concerns opaque automated decision-making in the context of credit scoring. This ethical assessment is based on the ethical framework supplied by the wording of the GDPR.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132660276","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}
In Europe discussions about immigration policies have been wide-spread and heated ever since a flood of illegal immigrants have reached Europe’s shores and caused problems with labour markets, housing, fiscal, social and cultural institutions. Some commentators see the solution to some of these problems in the adoption of the Canadian model for the selection of immigrants. This paper contributes to this discussion by a description of current Canadian immigration policies and a discussion of the negative economic and social effects it has produced. It concludes with a presentation of reforms of the existing system that have been proposed and speculates why politicians have been unwilling to adopt any of these reforms.
{"title":"Canadian Immigration Policies: Blueprint for Europe?","authors":"H. Grubel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3084989","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3084989","url":null,"abstract":"In Europe discussions about immigration policies have been wide-spread and heated ever since a flood of illegal immigrants have reached Europe’s shores and caused problems with labour markets, housing, fiscal, social and cultural institutions. Some commentators see the solution to some of these problems in the adoption of the Canadian model for the selection of immigrants. This paper contributes to this discussion by a description of current Canadian immigration policies and a discussion of the negative economic and social effects it has produced. It concludes with a presentation of reforms of the existing system that have been proposed and speculates why politicians have been unwilling to adopt any of these reforms.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129357377","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}
German Abstract: In der Krise bedarf die Diskussion uber die Zukunft des Rechts der europaischen Integration einer intra- und interdisziplinaren Kontextualisierung. Dabei ist den Koordinaten Recht, Politik und Okonomie besonderes Augenmerk zu widmen. Kontextualisierung hat es mit Distanz zu tun. Damit ist jedoch nicht die Aquidistanz der Vogelperspektive gemeint, sondern eine reflexive Disziplinaritat, die Verortung erfordert und ermoglicht. Der nachfolgende Beitrag bundelt funf kurze Beobachtungen, die eine Kontextualisierung in diesem Sinne versuchen und dabei eine transdisziplinar europarechtliche Perspektive einnehmen. In diesen Beobachtungen geht es um das Verhaltnis von Politik und Recht, aber auch von Politik, Recht und Okonomie. Der Beitrag ist aus einem Kommentar zu Vortragen von Koen Lenaerts und Martin Nettesheim hervorgegangen, der im September 2016 an der Universitat Heidelberg gegeben wurde. English Abstract: In times of crisis, the debate about the future of the law of the European Union needs contextualisation -- contextualisation not from the equidistance of the bird’s eye view, but contextualization as an exercise of reflexive disciplinarity. This chapter provides five short reflections which aim at such contextualisation and deal with the interrelations between politics, law and economics. The contribution originated as a set of comments on lectures by Koen Lenaerts and Martin Nettesheim, held at the University of Heidelberg in September 2016.
{"title":"Krise des Europarechts, Europarecht in der Krise: Recht, Politik und Ökonomie (Crisis of European Law, European Law in Crisis: Law, Politics and Economics)","authors":"A. Kemmerer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3050433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3050433","url":null,"abstract":"German Abstract: In der Krise bedarf die Diskussion uber die Zukunft des Rechts der europaischen Integration einer intra- und interdisziplinaren Kontextualisierung. Dabei ist den Koordinaten Recht, Politik und Okonomie besonderes Augenmerk zu widmen. Kontextualisierung hat es mit Distanz zu tun. Damit ist jedoch nicht die Aquidistanz der Vogelperspektive gemeint, sondern eine reflexive Disziplinaritat, die Verortung erfordert und ermoglicht. Der nachfolgende Beitrag bundelt funf kurze Beobachtungen, die eine Kontextualisierung in diesem Sinne versuchen und dabei eine transdisziplinar europarechtliche Perspektive einnehmen. In diesen Beobachtungen geht es um das Verhaltnis von Politik und Recht, aber auch von Politik, Recht und Okonomie. Der Beitrag ist aus einem Kommentar zu Vortragen von Koen Lenaerts und Martin Nettesheim hervorgegangen, der im September 2016 an der Universitat Heidelberg gegeben wurde. \u0000English Abstract: In times of crisis, the debate about the future of the law of the European Union needs contextualisation -- contextualisation not from the equidistance of the bird’s eye view, but contextualization as an exercise of reflexive disciplinarity. This chapter provides five short reflections which aim at such contextualisation and deal with the interrelations between politics, law and economics. The contribution originated as a set of comments on lectures by Koen Lenaerts and Martin Nettesheim, held at the University of Heidelberg in September 2016.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":" 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132094870","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 : 2017-08-21DOI: 10.5040/9781509912841.ch-007
N. Boeger
The state traditionally procures from either market actors or charitable providers. If it buys from the market, the tendering process is subject to national and European public procurement law, but if it buys exclusively from charities, some exemptions apply—either as a result of special sectoral regimes, or in order to preserve the constitutional role given to these entities in some jurisdictions. But distinctions have become more complex as new forms of non-charitable enterprise emerge that combine a social mission with an entrepreneurial vision. These organisations are entrepreneurial in the same way as traditional businesses, but also committed to accounting for their impacts (positive and negative) on their stakeholders, internal and external, which sets them up to generate societal value rather than exclusively shareholder value. These commitments are embedded in the business, in binding procedural/structural mechanisms that are stronger than mere undertakings by management to ensure corporate social responsibility (CSR). This chapter considers the benefits for the state in procuring from these value-led enterprises, compared to procuring from traditional shareholder corporations. Contracting from them enables the state to establish longer-term relationships for the provision of public goods and services by entrepreneurial actors that will fill gaps in underspecified procurement contracts in line with their commitments to societal value rather than exploit them exclusively to generate shareholder value. Consequently, public contracts can be left more open and their performance demands be less carefully managed and policed because the state can rely on the value-led enterprise’s procedural/structural commitments. In terms of the economy more widely, these relationships with value-led enterprises enable the state to nurture a particular form of capitalism and of enterprise that is more sustainable as it requires less external control than the shareholder corporation because of the internally embedded procedural commitments of the value-led enterprise. Given this is not the dominant form of capitalism now, many value-led enterprises struggle to get a foothold in markets (including public service markets) that are dominated by the shareholder corporation. The chapter consider how the state can resort to public procurement as a way of nurturing these alternative enterprise forms, and in doing so, transform the current, dominant form of capitalism.
{"title":"Public Procurement and Business for Value: Looking for Alignment in Law and Practice","authors":"N. Boeger","doi":"10.5040/9781509912841.ch-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509912841.ch-007","url":null,"abstract":"The state traditionally procures from either market actors or charitable providers. If it buys from the market, the tendering process is subject to national and European public procurement law, but if it buys exclusively from charities, some exemptions apply—either as a result of special sectoral regimes, or in order to preserve the constitutional role given to these entities in some jurisdictions. But distinctions have become more complex as new forms of non-charitable enterprise emerge that combine a social mission with an entrepreneurial vision. These organisations are entrepreneurial in the same way as traditional businesses, but also committed to accounting for their impacts (positive and negative) on their stakeholders, internal and external, which sets them up to generate societal value rather than exclusively shareholder value. These commitments are embedded in the business, in binding procedural/structural mechanisms that are stronger than mere undertakings by management to ensure corporate social responsibility (CSR). This chapter considers the benefits for the state in procuring from these value-led enterprises, compared to procuring from traditional shareholder corporations. Contracting from them enables the state to establish longer-term relationships for the provision of public goods and services by entrepreneurial actors that will fill gaps in underspecified procurement contracts in line with their commitments to societal value rather than exploit them exclusively to generate shareholder value. Consequently, public contracts can be left more open and their performance demands be less carefully managed and policed because the state can rely on the value-led enterprise’s procedural/structural commitments. In terms of the economy more widely, these relationships with value-led enterprises enable the state to nurture a particular form of capitalism and of enterprise that is more sustainable as it requires less external control than the shareholder corporation because of the internally embedded procedural commitments of the value-led enterprise. Given this is not the dominant form of capitalism now, many value-led enterprises struggle to get a foothold in markets (including public service markets) that are dominated by the shareholder corporation. The chapter consider how the state can resort to public procurement as a way of nurturing these alternative enterprise forms, and in doing so, transform the current, dominant form of capitalism.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131061411","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}
This article revisits the antitrust treatment of unilateral conduct in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes in EU, with particular focus on the landmark CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE and the way it has affected subsequent developments before national courts. It illustrates that while the Court in Huawei significantly improved legal certainty both for SEP holders and their potential licensees, it also left open a number of crucial questions affecting everyday’s licensing practice. First, it is not entirely clear whether the liability of an SEP holder presupposes leveraging by a vertically integrated firm or can also arise in purely vertical or horizontal relationships. Secondly, the safe harbor procedure formulated in the judgment begs important questions concerning burden of proof and portfolio licensing, which have given rise to divergent interpretations. It follows that the space remains wide open for competing national and even regional approaches to the rights and obligations of SEP holders, calling for further European harmonization - be it judicially, legislatively, or administratively through the European Commission. In support for the latter measures, the article illustrates the limited remit of EU private international law rules in preventing the forum shopping which is likely to unfold as a result of a fragmented landscape for the resolution of SEP disputes.
{"title":"The Legal Framework for SEP Disputes in EU Post-Huawei: Whither Harmonization?","authors":"N. Zingales","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3017102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3017102","url":null,"abstract":"This article revisits the antitrust treatment of unilateral conduct in Standard Essential Patent (SEP) disputes in EU, with particular focus on the landmark CJEU judgment in Huawei v ZTE and the way it has affected subsequent developments before national courts. It illustrates that while the Court in Huawei significantly improved legal certainty both for SEP holders and their potential licensees, it also left open a number of crucial questions affecting everyday’s licensing practice. First, it is not entirely clear whether the liability of an SEP holder presupposes leveraging by a vertically integrated firm or can also arise in purely vertical or horizontal relationships. Secondly, the safe harbor procedure formulated in the judgment begs important questions concerning burden of proof and portfolio licensing, which have given rise to divergent interpretations. It follows that the space remains wide open for competing national and even regional approaches to the rights and obligations of SEP holders, calling for further European harmonization - be it judicially, legislatively, or administratively through the European Commission. In support for the latter measures, the article illustrates the limited remit of EU private international law rules in preventing the forum shopping which is likely to unfold as a result of a fragmented landscape for the resolution of SEP disputes.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"166 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131580550","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}
It is important to distinguish between economic and non-economic public services, as the latter services are not subject to EU competition law and Member States are free to regulate them. EU competition law is applicable to public services having an economic nature, with a certain degree of derogation available under Article 106 (2) TFEU. Article 106 TFEU has also become the legal basis of market liberalisation, with the Commission fostering the liberalisation process by adopting the concept of universal services. The Commission has also used competition law enforcement to support the liberalisation process in the EU.
{"title":"Public Services and EU Competition Law","authors":"A. Tóth","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3011433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3011433","url":null,"abstract":"It is important to distinguish between economic and non-economic public services, as the latter services are not subject to EU competition law and Member States are free to regulate them. EU competition law is applicable to public services having an economic nature, with a certain degree of derogation available under Article 106 (2) TFEU. Article 106 TFEU has also become the legal basis of market liberalisation, with the Commission fostering the liberalisation process by adopting the concept of universal services. The Commission has also used competition law enforcement to support the liberalisation process in the EU.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127070180","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 : 2017-06-30DOI: 10.4337/9781786434630.00010
Kati Cseres, A. Outhuijse
EU competition law is enforced parallel by the EU Commission and 28 national competition authorities (NCAs) in a multi-level governance system composed of EU and national procedural laws. Regulation 1/2003 established the European Competition Network (ECN) in order to coordinate parallel proceedings between the Commission and the NCAs. This chapter analyses the shared enforcement of EU competition law from the perspective of political and judicial accountability. The chapter focuses on the accountability of the Commission, the NCAs and the ECN in their role of/as main actors of the shared enforcement. Two jurisdictions are used to illustrate the role and powers of the NCAs: the Netherlands and Hungary. After analysis of the powers and roles of the three respective actors (the Commission, the NCAs and the ECN) of parallel enforcement, section 3 examines judicial and political accountability and section 4 concludes.
{"title":"Parallel Enforcement and Accountability: The Case of EU Competition Law","authors":"Kati Cseres, A. Outhuijse","doi":"10.4337/9781786434630.00010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434630.00010","url":null,"abstract":"EU competition law is enforced parallel by the EU Commission and 28 national competition authorities (NCAs) in a multi-level governance system composed of EU and national procedural laws. Regulation 1/2003 established the European Competition Network (ECN) in order to coordinate parallel proceedings between the Commission and the NCAs. This chapter analyses the shared enforcement of EU competition law from the perspective of political and judicial accountability. The chapter focuses on the accountability of the Commission, the NCAs and the ECN in their role of/as main actors of the shared enforcement. Two jurisdictions are used to illustrate the role and powers of the NCAs: the Netherlands and Hungary. After analysis of the powers and roles of the three respective actors (the Commission, the NCAs and the ECN) of parallel enforcement, section 3 examines judicial and political accountability and section 4 concludes.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130699561","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}
In his seminal 1944 book “The Great Transformation”, Polanyi describes the rise and fall of liberal capitalism during the long 19th century. Many have realized that Polanyi has a lot to tell about the European Union in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The paper begins with an overview of Polanyi’s historiography of the failure of 19th century liberal capitalism and his account of the four elements that helped liberal capitalism thrive, while precipitating its collapse - the idea of the self-regulating market, the gold standard, international peace, and liberal constitutionalism. Thereafter, the paper describes the particular transformations that these four elements underwent in the course of European integration and after the financial crisis, with a particular focus on the case law of the Court of Justice. The paper argues that their current constellation has a destructive potential that exceeds the economic dimension of the Union and might pave the way for a much greater failure, one that might defeat Europe’s greatest success: the establishment of peace. Ultimately, the paper assesses current reform proposals in light of these insights and makes a number of proposals for re-embedding the economy in society.
{"title":"The Great Recurrence - Karl Polanyi and the Crises of the European Union","authors":"Matthias Goldmann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2971073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2971073","url":null,"abstract":"In his seminal 1944 book “The Great Transformation”, Polanyi describes the rise and fall of liberal capitalism during the long 19th century. Many have realized that Polanyi has a lot to tell about the European Union in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The paper begins with an overview of Polanyi’s historiography of the failure of 19th century liberal capitalism and his account of the four elements that helped liberal capitalism thrive, while precipitating its collapse - the idea of the self-regulating market, the gold standard, international peace, and liberal constitutionalism. Thereafter, the paper describes the particular transformations that these four elements underwent in the course of European integration and after the financial crisis, with a particular focus on the case law of the Court of Justice. The paper argues that their current constellation has a destructive potential that exceeds the economic dimension of the Union and might pave the way for a much greater failure, one that might defeat Europe’s greatest success: the establishment of peace. Ultimately, the paper assesses current reform proposals in light of these insights and makes a number of proposals for re-embedding the economy in society.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132446888","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：