Same as European Union Law, that presents a new area of law and that it is still in progress, the Criminal Law EU, as part of thanks, of course, also it is developing, and we can freely say, just its doors are open to development within the Europe Union. Undoubtedly, the developments within the European Union have become imperative of time and the development of criminal law of the European Union. The development of this area, of course, is dictated by the development of European Law itself, or says the right, the European Union itself. Depending on it, the European Union will be such a supranational structure of what else is now, or will undergo changes and become a Federal State, or another form more unified, obviously, will change the legislation. Taking into consideration the importance of this area of law, and necessity, which is created for cooperation among states to combat organized crime, and especially terrorism, certainly in the near future we can have a Criminal Code European and a European code of Criminal Procedure, namely, a codification of European criminal field. The European Union continued on his journey, has evolved unification of his legislation, therefore, and has a reason to believe that the criminal justice field may be unique in the European Union. In this paper, it is discussed the development of European criminal law, starting with birth and its historical development, until the last treaty of the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon.
{"title":"European Criminal Law after the Lisbon Treaty, or Europeanization of European Law, under the Co-Responsibility of the Member States","authors":"Arif Riza, Fatmir Halili","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2850064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2850064","url":null,"abstract":"Same as European Union Law, that presents a new area of law and that it is still in progress, the Criminal Law EU, as part of thanks, of course, also it is developing, and we can freely say, just its doors are open to development within the Europe Union. Undoubtedly, the developments within the European Union have become imperative of time and the development of criminal law of the European Union. The development of this area, of course, is dictated by the development of European Law itself, or says the right, the European Union itself. Depending on it, the European Union will be such a supranational structure of what else is now, or will undergo changes and become a Federal State, or another form more unified, obviously, will change the legislation. Taking into consideration the importance of this area of law, and necessity, which is created for cooperation among states to combat organized crime, and especially terrorism, certainly in the near future we can have a Criminal Code European and a European code of Criminal Procedure, namely, a codification of European criminal field. The European Union continued on his journey, has evolved unification of his legislation, therefore, and has a reason to believe that the criminal justice field may be unique in the European Union. In this paper, it is discussed the development of European criminal law, starting with birth and its historical development, until the last treaty of the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115640950","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}
On October 11th 2011 the European Commission proposed a Common European Sales Law (CESL) for the European Union. One of the main aims of this optional instrument is to help businesses to avoid the complexity associated with dealing with multiple mandatory provisions of their customers’ home jurisdictions. In this study I used one of the datasets published by the European Commission to predict the characteristics of businesses that would have benefited from the introduction of the CESL. I also test whether the CESL would be an effective measure for addressing some of the legal barriers that the Commission intends to overcome. My results provide support for the Commission’s claim that the adoption of a Common European Sales Law would benefit some businesses and that it would allow them to improve their operations on the European internal market. However, the CESL may not be effective as a measure for overcoming all of the legal barriers that the Commission intended to address with its proposal.
{"title":"Who Would Use the Common European Sales Law? An Empirical Analysis of Cross-Border Consumer Contracts in the European Internal Market","authors":"A. Wulf","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2849047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2849047","url":null,"abstract":"On October 11th 2011 the European Commission proposed a Common European Sales Law (CESL) for the European Union. One of the main aims of this optional instrument is to help businesses to avoid the complexity associated with dealing with multiple mandatory provisions of their customers’ home jurisdictions. In this study I used one of the datasets published by the European Commission to predict the characteristics of businesses that would have benefited from the introduction of the CESL. I also test whether the CESL would be an effective measure for addressing some of the legal barriers that the Commission intends to overcome. My results provide support for the Commission’s claim that the adoption of a Common European Sales Law would benefit some businesses and that it would allow them to improve their operations on the European internal market. However, the CESL may not be effective as a measure for overcoming all of the legal barriers that the Commission intended to address with its proposal.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115051009","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}
Given the extent of soft law and interpretative guidance by bodies which are not courts, there is a need for further insight into interinstitutional communication between the EU and national levels. This contribution focuses upon the ‘diagonal’ relationship between the European Commission and national courts. It explores the impact of the Commission’s ostensibly non-binding interpretative guidance on national judicial decision-making. Applying the concepts of active and passive interpretation of EU law by the Commission to cases in national courts, it examines the relative interpretative roles of the Commission and the Court of Justice, and finds examples of both being employed. Through active interpretation it can be argued that the Commission oversteps its competence. However, the Commission also uses its role to ‘bootstrap’ the Court of Justice’s case law and further encourage compliance. The significance of soft law is viewed both from the ‘supply side’ of the European Commission, revealing its representation of the EU interest in context, and the ‘demand side’ of national courts as recipients.
{"title":"The European Commission's Interpretative Guidance and National Courts","authors":"Kathryn Wright","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2895043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2895043","url":null,"abstract":"Given the extent of soft law and interpretative guidance by bodies which are not courts, there is a need for further insight into interinstitutional communication between the EU and national levels. This contribution focuses upon the ‘diagonal’ relationship between the European Commission and national courts. It explores the impact of the Commission’s ostensibly non-binding interpretative guidance on national judicial decision-making. Applying the concepts of active and passive interpretation of EU law by the Commission to cases in national courts, it examines the relative interpretative roles of the Commission and the Court of Justice, and finds examples of both being employed. Through active interpretation it can be argued that the Commission oversteps its competence. However, the Commission also uses its role to ‘bootstrap’ the Court of Justice’s case law and further encourage compliance. The significance of soft law is viewed both from the ‘supply side’ of the European Commission, revealing its representation of the EU interest in context, and the ‘demand side’ of national courts as recipients.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124212305","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 : 2016-08-17DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-32174-5_5
G. Tsagas
{"title":"The Regulatory Powers of the European Supervisory Authorities: Constitutional, Political and Functional Considerations","authors":"G. Tsagas","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-32174-5_5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32174-5_5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116570463","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 contribution is devoted to the study of legal order of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). It is done through the analysis of similarities and differences of the EAEU legal order with those of the European Union (EU). It is argued that the notion ‘EU acquis’ has been extended beyond the EU and has been exported to legal orders of other international organizations. It poses the question whether the notion ‘acquis’ can have the same meaning within the legal order of the EAEU. On the one hand, some institutional similarities between the EAEU and the EU as well as the dynamic nature of the EAEU legal order give us a ground to apply the notion ‘acquis’ with regard to the EAEU in order to describe the political and legal heritage of the integration projects within the post- Soviet area. On the other hand, considerable differences between the EU and the EAEU legal systems (different degrees of supranationality, weak role of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, and strictly normative understanding of the definition of the ‘Union Law’ in the EAEU Treaty) bring into question the relevance of the notion of the ‘EAEU acquis’. Analysis of the notion ‘EAEU acquis’ encourages a discussion about the necessity to revisit its narrow scope towards inclusion of fundamental concepts of common values, founding principles like rule of law and non-discrimination and direct effect.
{"title":"On Similarities and Differences of the European Union and Eurasian Economic Union Legal Orders: Is There the ‘Eurasian Economic Union Acquis’?","authors":"R. Petrov, P. Kalinichenko","doi":"10.54648/leie2016014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2016014","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution is devoted to the study of legal order of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). It is done through the analysis of similarities and differences of the EAEU legal order with those of the European Union (EU). It is argued that the notion ‘EU acquis’ has been extended beyond the EU and has been exported to legal orders of other international organizations. It poses the question whether the notion ‘acquis’ can have the same meaning within the legal order of the EAEU. On the one hand, some institutional similarities between the EAEU and the EU as well as the dynamic nature of the EAEU legal order give us a ground to apply the notion ‘acquis’ with regard to the EAEU in order to describe the political and legal heritage of the integration projects within the post- Soviet area. On the other hand, considerable differences between the EU and the EAEU legal systems (different degrees of supranationality, weak role of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, and strictly normative understanding of the definition of the ‘Union Law’ in the EAEU Treaty) bring into question the relevance of the notion of the ‘EAEU acquis’. Analysis of the notion ‘EAEU acquis’ encourages a discussion about the necessity to revisit its narrow scope towards inclusion of fundamental concepts of common values, founding principles like rule of law and non-discrimination and direct effect.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129774173","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}
S. Lucchini, Jacques Moscianese, Irene de Angelis, Fabrizio Di Benedetto
• States has traditionally faced banking crisis through the so-called bail-out tool: public resources have been used for a long time in order to rescue banks, putting the burden on taxpayers. • Since the beginning of the crisis, the European Commission (Commission) has adopted special State aid rules for the rescue of banks, providing guidance on the use of bail-out principles but without any precise exit strategy. • In order to reduce public support to banks, the Banking Communications and the new Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive introduced the bail-in (or burden-sharing) tool, putting the burden of bank rescue on shareholders and subordinated creditors while minimising the burden on taxpayers. • On July 2016, the European Court of Justice, in the Kotnik case, declared the compatibility with European Union Law of burden-sharing measures, which however must comply with the general principle of proportionality, especially with regard to subordinated creditors.
{"title":"State Aid and the Banking System in the Financial Crisis: From Bail-Out to Bail-In","authors":"S. Lucchini, Jacques Moscianese, Irene de Angelis, Fabrizio Di Benedetto","doi":"10.1093/JECLAP/LPW071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JECLAP/LPW071","url":null,"abstract":"• States has traditionally faced banking crisis through the so-called bail-out tool: public resources have been used for a long time in order to rescue banks, putting the burden on taxpayers. • Since the beginning of the crisis, the European Commission (Commission) has adopted special State aid rules for the rescue of banks, providing guidance on the use of bail-out principles but without any precise exit strategy. • In order to reduce public support to banks, the Banking Communications and the new Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive introduced the bail-in (or burden-sharing) tool, putting the burden of bank rescue on shareholders and subordinated creditors while minimising the burden on taxpayers. • On July 2016, the European Court of Justice, in the Kotnik case, declared the compatibility with European Union Law of burden-sharing measures, which however must comply with the general principle of proportionality, especially with regard to subordinated creditors.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130770702","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 conclusion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) constitutes a priority and key component of the new external trade policy of the European Union (EU) and an immediate follow-up to several years of regulatory cooperation between the two global trade powers. In an era of megaregionals, services in the only area where significant negotiating traction exists at the bilateral and multilateral level. From an EU viewpoint, services is a key sector in these negotiations. As expected, the EU Commission, backed by the EU executive, has advanced an ambitious agenda and conditional offer to the US, hoping for further liberalization on the two sides of the Atlantic. Importantly, these negotiations are expected not only to generate additional liberalization, but should also reshape the regulatory philosophy as far as the regulation of trade in services is concerned. Against this backdrop, this article offers a critical account of the current TTIP negotiations relating to trade in services from an EU perspective. When needed, the article draws parallels with other EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
{"title":"Negotiating Services Liberalization within TTIP - The EU External Trade Policy at Crossroads","authors":"Panos Delimatsis","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2801524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2801524","url":null,"abstract":"The conclusion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) constitutes a priority and key component of the new external trade policy of the European Union (EU) and an immediate follow-up to several years of regulatory cooperation between the two global trade powers. In an era of megaregionals, services in the only area where significant negotiating traction exists at the bilateral and multilateral level. From an EU viewpoint, services is a key sector in these negotiations. As expected, the EU Commission, backed by the EU executive, has advanced an ambitious agenda and conditional offer to the US, hoping for further liberalization on the two sides of the Atlantic. Importantly, these negotiations are expected not only to generate additional liberalization, but should also reshape the regulatory philosophy as far as the regulation of trade in services is concerned. Against this backdrop, this article offers a critical account of the current TTIP negotiations relating to trade in services from an EU perspective. When needed, the article draws parallels with other EU Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132812162","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 : 2016-06-06DOI: 10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198791621.003.0003
Peter L. Lindseth
Legitimacy is a protean concept in law and politics. In general terms, legitimacy refers to the manner in which social and political actors experience a system of governance as worthy of their acceptance, loyalty, and respect. In this way, legitimacy can provide a degree of stability and durability to forms of social organization and rule. But how actors in fact experience a system may well shift not only by social or political context but also over time. Moreover, although these shifts may at times appear obvious, they are often perceptible only in the slow evolution of the system itself. Legitimacy thus presents an analytical challenge to anyone interested in the relationship between legal and political change and its socio-political, socio-cultural underpinnings.This chapter reflects on this challenge in relation to the evolving role of national parliaments (NPs) in EU governance. The emergence of the EU over the last six and a half decades presents a fascinating case study in legal and political change in which varying conceptions of legitimacy have played a crucial role. This chapter explores how those conceptions have manifested themselves in EU public law with regard to NPs, an undertaking that requires us to confront the variable nature of legitimacy in more theoretical depth. That is the objective of Part I of this chapter, focusing on notions of democratic, constitutional, legal, and technocratic legitimacy, culminating in a discussion of what this chapter calls mediated legitimacy in modern administrative governance. Part II then explores how the theory of mediated legitimacy might illuminate the historical evolution of national parliamentary scrutiny in EU affairs. The conclusion to the chapter, in keeping with the aims of the volume as a whole, reflects on the broader question of ‘resilience’ and ‘resignation’ of NPs in the process of European integration going forward.
{"title":"National Parliaments and Mediated Legitimacy in the EU: Theory and History","authors":"Peter L. Lindseth","doi":"10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198791621.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780198791621.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Legitimacy is a protean concept in law and politics. In general terms, legitimacy refers to the manner in which social and political actors experience a system of governance as worthy of their acceptance, loyalty, and respect. In this way, legitimacy can provide a degree of stability and durability to forms of social organization and rule. But how actors in fact experience a system may well shift not only by social or political context but also over time. Moreover, although these shifts may at times appear obvious, they are often perceptible only in the slow evolution of the system itself. Legitimacy thus presents an analytical challenge to anyone interested in the relationship between legal and political change and its socio-political, socio-cultural underpinnings.This chapter reflects on this challenge in relation to the evolving role of national parliaments (NPs) in EU governance. The emergence of the EU over the last six and a half decades presents a fascinating case study in legal and political change in which varying conceptions of legitimacy have played a crucial role. This chapter explores how those conceptions have manifested themselves in EU public law with regard to NPs, an undertaking that requires us to confront the variable nature of legitimacy in more theoretical depth. That is the objective of Part I of this chapter, focusing on notions of democratic, constitutional, legal, and technocratic legitimacy, culminating in a discussion of what this chapter calls mediated legitimacy in modern administrative governance. Part II then explores how the theory of mediated legitimacy might illuminate the historical evolution of national parliamentary scrutiny in EU affairs. The conclusion to the chapter, in keeping with the aims of the volume as a whole, reflects on the broader question of ‘resilience’ and ‘resignation’ of NPs in the process of European integration going forward.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128740515","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}
João Félix Pinto Nogueira, Francisco Alfredo Garcia Prats, W. Haslehner, Volker Heydt, E. Kemmeren, G. Kofler, M. Lang, P. Pistone, Stella Raventos-Calvo, Isabelle Richelle, A. Rust, Rupert Shiers
This article deals with the decision taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Miljoen and others (Joined Cases C-10/14, C-14/14 and C-17/14), in respect of which the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on 17 September 2015, following the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen of 25 June 2015. The cases concern the taxation of dividends received by individual and corporate non-resident taxpayers. They answer several questions in respect of the appropriateness of levying dividend withholding taxes, such as the need to allow for an offset against ordinary income tax, the deductibility of related costs and the relevance of an offset granted by a tax treaty. After illustrating the factual background, parties' arguments and the ECJ's decision, this Opinion Statement will focus on issues that the ECJ has left open.
{"title":"Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2016 on the Judgment of 17 September 2015 of the Court of Justice of the EU in the Combined Cases C-10/14, Miljoen, C-14/14, X, and C-17/14, Société Générale, on the Dutch Dividend With-holding Tax","authors":"João Félix Pinto Nogueira, Francisco Alfredo Garcia Prats, W. Haslehner, Volker Heydt, E. Kemmeren, G. Kofler, M. Lang, P. Pistone, Stella Raventos-Calvo, Isabelle Richelle, A. Rust, Rupert Shiers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3644461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3644461","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the decision taken by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Miljoen and others (Joined Cases C-10/14, C-14/14 and C-17/14), in respect of which the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered its decision on 17 September 2015, following the Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen of 25 June 2015. The cases concern the taxation of dividends received by individual and corporate non-resident taxpayers. They answer several questions in respect of the appropriateness of levying dividend withholding taxes, such as the need to allow for an offset against ordinary income tax, the deductibility of related costs and the relevance of an offset granted by a tax treaty. After illustrating the factual background, parties' arguments and the ECJ's decision, this Opinion Statement will focus on issues that the ECJ has left open.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129278506","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 a seminal ruling of 1961, the Court held that what is now Article 36 TFEU is directed only to “eventualities of a non-economic kind”. The basis for this principle, which governs all four freedoms, is simple: if restrictions were generally permitted on economic grounds, the internal market would be wholly undermined. Although this principle has been slightly eroded over recent decades as the four freedoms have been applied to increasingly sensitive sectors, the only clearly established, consistent and unambiguous departure from it relates to health care. In other fields, particularly social law, the case law is bedevilled with ambiguity and contradictions, no doubt because the Court is fully aware of the continuing central importance of the principle.
{"title":"When, If Ever, Can Restrictions on Free Movement Be Justified on Economic Grounds?","authors":"Peter Oliver","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2782389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782389","url":null,"abstract":"In a seminal ruling of 1961, the Court held that what is now Article 36 TFEU is directed only to “eventualities of a non-economic kind”. The basis for this principle, which governs all four freedoms, is simple: if restrictions were generally permitted on economic grounds, the internal market would be wholly undermined. Although this principle has been slightly eroded over recent decades as the four freedoms have been applied to increasingly sensitive sectors, the only clearly established, consistent and unambiguous departure from it relates to health care. In other fields, particularly social law, the case law is bedevilled with ambiguity and contradictions, no doubt because the Court is fully aware of the continuing central importance of the principle.","PeriodicalId":401648,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law: EU eJournal","volume":"257 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124220167","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：