{"title":"The Micro Level: Insights from Specific Policy AreasForging Links between Legal Orders","authors":"E. Denza","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW025","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"589-603"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73788477","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}
{"title":"Constitutionalism, Resistance, and Openness: Comparative Law Reflections on Constitutionalism in Postnational Governance","authors":"Giuseppe Martinico","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"24 1","pages":"318-340"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86012257","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 is not the first in addressing the relationship between international and EU law. In fact, and as also noted in the Introduction to this Special Issue, ever since Van Gend & Loos the ‘autonomy’ of the Union (by then the Community) proved to be a source of theoretical debates on the issue.1 Studies focused on the ways in which international law was received in the Union’s legal order (often applying domestic constitutional analogies involving terms such as monism and dualism), or they addressed the hierarchical position of international law among other norms (often concluding that it was placed somewhere between primary and secondary law). In other words, most studies so far have focused on the effects of international law on and in the EU and the question to what extent the EU could be said to be bound by international norms.2
{"title":"The Meso Level: Means of Interaction between EU and International Law: Flipping the Question: The Reception of EU Law in the International Legal Order","authors":"R. Wessel","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW019","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is not the first in addressing the relationship between international and EU law. In fact, and as also noted in the Introduction to this Special Issue, ever since Van Gend & Loos the ‘autonomy’ of the Union (by then the Community) proved to be a source of theoretical debates on the issue.1 Studies focused on the ways in which international law was received in the Union’s legal order (often applying domestic constitutional analogies involving terms such as monism and dualism), or they addressed the hierarchical position of international law among other norms (often concluding that it was placed somewhere between primary and secondary law). In other words, most studies so far have focused on the effects of international law on and in the EU and the question to what extent the EU could be said to be bound by international norms.2","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":"533-561"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90154561","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}
{"title":"Community Trade Mark Regulation: A Commentary by Gordian N. Hasselblatt (ed)","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"732-733"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72890403","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}
{"title":"The Micro Level: Insights from Specific Policy AreasThe Relationship between EU Law and International Law in the Field of Human Rights","authors":"C. Tomuschat","doi":"10.1093/yel/yew023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"209 1","pages":"604-620"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76204133","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}
{"title":"Coherence in EU Competition Law by Wolf Sauter","authors":"Despoina Mantzari","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"35 1","pages":"725-726"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73177322","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}
{"title":"The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a Binding Instrument—Five Years Old and Growing by Sybe de Vries, Ulf Bernitz and Stephen Weatherill","authors":"Tobias Lock","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"720-724"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82398529","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}
Opinion 2/13, by which the CJEU declared incompatible with the EU treaties the long-negotiated draft agreement on EU accession to the ECHR, came as a shock to many observers. Yet, the relation between the ECJ and the ECtHR has a glorious past, and can continue to have a bright future. While the dust kicked up by Opinion 2/13 settles, the article takes a step back and puts the ruling of the CJEU in a wider context. It recalls the long-standing historical relations between the CJEU and the ECtHR, and discusses the possible scenarios that may open up in the future. In particular, it claims that, even in the aftermath of Opinion 2/13, a virtuous competition between the CJEU and the ECtHR can have beneficial effect for the protection of fundamental rights, as evidenced by the case of judicial review of targeted UN sanctions. At a time of increasing frustration and preoccupation on the relation between the CJEU and the ECtHR, the article strikes a note of optimism, suggesting that the interaction between the two European supranational courts can still play a positive role for fundamental rights in Europe.
{"title":"The Past, Present and Future of the Relation between the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights","authors":"F. Fabbrini, J. Larik","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW002","url":null,"abstract":"Opinion 2/13, by which the CJEU declared incompatible with the EU treaties the long-negotiated draft agreement on EU accession to the ECHR, came as a shock to many observers. Yet, the relation between the ECJ and the ECtHR has a glorious past, and can continue to have a bright future. While the dust kicked up by Opinion 2/13 settles, the article takes a step back and puts the ruling of the CJEU in a wider context. It recalls the long-standing historical relations between the CJEU and the ECtHR, and discusses the possible scenarios that may open up in the future. In particular, it claims that, even in the aftermath of Opinion 2/13, a virtuous competition between the CJEU and the ECtHR can have beneficial effect for the protection of fundamental rights, as evidenced by the case of judicial review of targeted UN sanctions. At a time of increasing frustration and preoccupation on the relation between the CJEU and the ECtHR, the article strikes a note of optimism, suggesting that the interaction between the two European supranational courts can still play a positive role for fundamental rights in Europe.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"11 1","pages":"145-179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88668876","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}
{"title":"The Meso Level: Means of Interaction between EU and International Law: Customary International Law as a Source of EU Law: A Two-Way Fertilization Route?","authors":"T. Konstadinides","doi":"10.1093/YEL/YEW020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/YEL/YEW020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"55 1","pages":"513-532"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88302457","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 task of creating a ‘common’ market is one of the central tasks of many unions. When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the 1787 US Constitution, there was little argument that the new Union had to become an economic union.1 And the objective to create a common market lay equally at the heart of the original European Union. The 1957 Rome Treaty was to establish a European Economic Community, whose central aim was the creation of a European ‘common market’.2 This market was primarily a common market in goods, but the Rome Treaty was equally committed to ‘the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital’.3 In order to create a common market in goods, the European Treaties thereby made a fundamental distinction between regulatory barriers and fiscal barriers to intra-state trade. While the former were to be negatively removed by Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),4 fiscal barriers were subject to a different constitutional regime. And a closer look back at the US constitutional order also reveals that the Supreme Court, too, has ‘long subjected taxation to other limits and has long treated taxation differently from other kinds of regulation’.5 This differential treatment here partly stemmed—as in the case of the European Union—from the text of the US Constitution itself; yet, even for provisions that equally captured regulatory as well as fiscal charges, a fiscal ‘exceptionalism’ soon developed.
{"title":"Tax Barriers to Intra-Union Trade: American ‘Federalism’, European ‘Internationalism’?","authors":"R. Schütze","doi":"10.1093/yel/yew013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/yew013","url":null,"abstract":"The task of creating a ‘common’ market is one of the central tasks of many unions. When the Philadelphia Convention drafted the 1787 US Constitution, there was little argument that the new Union had to become an economic union.1 And the objective to create a common market lay equally at the heart of the original European Union. The 1957 Rome Treaty was to establish a European Economic Community, whose central aim was the creation of a European ‘common market’.2 This market was primarily a common market in goods, but the Rome Treaty was equally committed to ‘the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital’.3 In order to create a common market in goods, the European Treaties thereby made a fundamental distinction between regulatory barriers and fiscal barriers to intra-state trade. While the former were to be negatively removed by Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),4 fiscal barriers were subject to a different constitutional regime. And a closer look back at the US constitutional order also reveals that the Supreme Court, too, has ‘long subjected taxation to other limits and has long treated taxation differently from other kinds of regulation’.5 This differential treatment here partly stemmed—as in the case of the European Union—from the text of the US Constitution itself; yet, even for provisions that equally captured regulatory as well as fiscal charges, a fiscal ‘exceptionalism’ soon developed.","PeriodicalId":41752,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Yearbook of European Law & Policy","volume":"12 1","pages":"382-409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74588470","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：