Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
如果您认为某些材料的数字出版侵犯了您的任何权利或(隐私)利益，请告知图书馆，说明您的理由。如有合法的投诉，图书馆将使资料无法访问和/或从网站上删除。请咨询图书馆:https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact，或致函:阿姆斯特丹大学图书馆，秘书处，Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, the Netherlands。我们会尽快与您联系。
{"title":"From the Board: Towards a Social Europe?","authors":"A. Schrauwen","doi":"10.54648/leie2018019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018019","url":null,"abstract":"Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87915365","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 CJEU’s judgment in Commission v. Ireland is not just another case concerning a national system of vehicle registration taxes. It is true that the object of the dispute was Ireland’s system of vehicle registration taxes and the way it was applied to vehicles leased in another Member State. The Court confirmed its earlier case law and considered the Irish system contrary to EU law because of a lack of proportionality. The court however went further, and expressly stated how the tax system should have been designed to be proportionate. This approach touches upon the exclusive competence of EU Member States in the designing of their national tax systems. Indeed, it raises the question whether the Court is simply protecting free movement rights or whether it is in fact harmonizing national tax systems through the application of its proportionality test.
{"title":"Towards a Court Mandated Harmonization of National Tax Rules Case 552/15, Commission v. Ireland","authors":"Yannis Schlüter","doi":"10.54648/leie2018024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018024","url":null,"abstract":"The CJEU’s judgment in Commission v. Ireland is not just another case concerning a national system of vehicle registration taxes. It is true that the object of the dispute was Ireland’s system of vehicle registration taxes and the way it was applied to vehicles leased in another Member State. The Court confirmed its earlier case law and considered the Irish system contrary to EU law because of a lack of proportionality. The court however went further, and expressly stated how the tax system should have been designed to be proportionate. This approach touches upon the exclusive competence of EU Member States in the designing of their national tax systems. Indeed, it raises the question whether the Court is simply protecting free movement rights or whether it is in fact harmonizing national tax systems through the application of its proportionality test.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76886857","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 African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) was launched on the 21 March 2018 with overwhelming support by African States. The FTA emerges against the backdrop of unsuccessful continental economic integration attempts, characterized by failed target-deadlines, multiplication of RTAs (the ‘spaghetti-bowl effect’) and political and governance issues. The AfCFTA re-arranges the African continental integration construct by employing a ‘top-down’ approach. This is a drastic departure from the ‘bottom-up’ structure championed by the African Economic Community (AEC) through Regional Economic Communities (RECs). This article examines the change in institutional framework adopted by the AfCFTA, the role that existing RECs have under the said Continental FTA, and aligns international instruments with legal provisions binding on Member States. The Article focuses on trade facilitation which took centre stage during the Doha Development Round. African States have embraced trade facilitation, the AfCFTA has followed suit and has cemented provisions in its Protocol on Trade in Goods. An overwhelming majority of AfCFTA Signatory States are WTO Members, and have also ratified the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (WTO TFA). The Article reconciles legal trade facilitation obligations of African Member States under the AfCFTA and the WTO TFA, and establishes the legal relationship between the AfCFTA and the WTO.
{"title":"The AfCFTA and Trade Facilitation: Re-Arranging Continental Economic Integration","authors":"Mbakiso Magwape","doi":"10.54648/leie2018021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018021","url":null,"abstract":"The African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) was launched on the 21 March 2018 with overwhelming support by African States. The FTA emerges against the backdrop of unsuccessful continental economic integration attempts, characterized by failed target-deadlines, multiplication of RTAs (the ‘spaghetti-bowl effect’) and political and governance issues. The AfCFTA re-arranges the African continental integration construct by employing a ‘top-down’ approach. This is a drastic departure from the ‘bottom-up’ structure championed by the African Economic Community (AEC) through Regional Economic Communities (RECs). This article examines the change in institutional framework adopted by the AfCFTA, the role that existing RECs have under the said Continental FTA, and aligns international instruments with legal provisions binding on Member States. The Article focuses on trade facilitation which took centre stage during the Doha Development Round. African States have embraced trade facilitation, the AfCFTA has followed suit and has cemented provisions in its Protocol on Trade in Goods. An overwhelming majority of AfCFTA Signatory States are WTO Members, and have also ratified the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (WTO TFA). The Article reconciles legal trade facilitation obligations of African Member States under the AfCFTA and the WTO TFA, and establishes the legal relationship between the AfCFTA and the WTO.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84466975","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 collaborative economy has recently arisen as a new phenomenon, disrupting some of the most consolidated acquisitions of the European Union’s internal market. At the national level, tribunals, legislatures and municipalities have to cope with new regulatory challenges for which old patterns are no longer suitable. Consumers and economic operators, in turn, are exploiting the countless opportunities the collaborative economy brings. Against this background, this article will be structured as follows. First, it will identify the constitutive elements of the collaborative economy, linking them to the completion of the EU digital single market in light of the judgments involving Uber recently delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Second, since the Italian Parliament has a legislative proposal in the pipeline aimed at boosting the collaborative economy and at regulating online platforms, this specific national experience will be taken as a model for a possible EU regulatory intervention. Third, taking stock of that element, this article will argue in favour of an EU legislative act in the form of a directive that would regulate at least the most controversial aspects of the collaborative economy. In conclusion, this article will forward the argument that such a directive would benefit both operators and consumers, enhancing transparency in online transactions as well as improving legal certainty.
{"title":"The Collaborative Economy Legal Conundrum: A Way Forward Through Harmonization","authors":"M. Inglese","doi":"10.54648/leie2018022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018022","url":null,"abstract":"The collaborative economy has recently arisen as a new phenomenon, disrupting some of the most consolidated acquisitions of the European Union’s internal market. At the national level, tribunals, legislatures and municipalities have to cope with new regulatory challenges for which old patterns are no longer suitable. Consumers and economic operators, in turn, are exploiting the countless opportunities the collaborative economy brings. Against this background, this article will be structured as follows. First, it will identify the constitutive elements of the collaborative economy, linking them to the completion of the EU digital single market in light of the judgments involving Uber recently delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Second, since the Italian Parliament has a legislative proposal in the pipeline aimed at boosting the collaborative economy and at regulating online platforms, this specific national experience will be taken as a model for a possible EU regulatory intervention. Third, taking stock of that element, this article will argue in favour of an EU legislative act in the form of a directive that would regulate at least the most controversial aspects of the collaborative economy. In conclusion, this article will forward the argument that such a directive would benefit both operators and consumers, enhancing transparency in online transactions as well as improving legal certainty.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73328199","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 Istanbul Lojistik decision is the first preliminary ruling on the Association Council Decision no 1/95 (ACD 1/95). On the basis of this judgment, it is submitted that, via Article 66 of ACD 1/95, not only the prohibition on custom duties and charges having equivalent effect, but also the prohibition on discriminatory or protective internal taxation and the prohibition on quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect under ACD 1/95 will have the same meaning with their equivalents under EU internal market law. Besides, it is predicted that future questions might arise on whether an applicant may use the principle of state liability with ACD 1/95, whether the lack of agricultural products within the scope of EU – Turkey Customs Union will pose a problem, and whether cases where it is hard to decide that either goods or services is the applicable freedom of movement will cause problems.
{"title":"Revealing the Potential of the EU Turkey Customs Union: Case C-65/16, Istanbul Lojistik, 19 October 2017, ECLI:EU: C:2017:770","authors":"İlke Göçmen","doi":"10.54648/leie2018016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018016","url":null,"abstract":"The Istanbul Lojistik decision is the first preliminary ruling on the Association Council Decision no 1/95 (ACD 1/95). On the basis of this judgment, it is submitted that, via Article 66 of ACD 1/95, not only the prohibition on custom duties and charges having equivalent effect, but also the prohibition on discriminatory or protective internal taxation and the prohibition on quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect under ACD 1/95 will have the same meaning with their equivalents under EU internal market law. Besides, it is predicted that future questions might arise on whether an applicant may use the principle of state liability with ACD 1/95, whether the lack of agricultural products within the scope of EU – Turkey Customs Union will pose a problem, and whether cases where it is hard to decide that either goods or services is the applicable freedom of movement will cause problems.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76310808","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 Invisible Core of Values in the European Integration Project","authors":"","doi":"10.54648/leie2018012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018012","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87547942","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 European Union Court of Justice has ruled that Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources does not oblige Member States to authorize imports, via their interconnected national gas networks, of biogas satisfying the sustainability criteria in that directive and intended for use as biofuel. The Court had been asked whether that provision, adopted on the basis of internal market harmonization (pursuant to what is now Article 114 TFEU), obliges Member States to accept sustainable biogas imported via the network of interconnected national gas pipelines and, in the negative, whether that provision breaches the EU free movement of goods rules. The judgment, implicitly exploring the contours of competence as well as ‘exhaustive’ harmonization (in this case, in the economically sensitive renewable energy context), is emphatic of the characteristic symbiosis of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ integration in the internal market.
{"title":"A Very Specific and Exhaustive Harmonization of Energy from Renewable Sources: C-549/15, E.ON Biofor Sverige AB v. Statens Energimyndighet [2017] ECLI:EU:C:2017:490","authors":"I. Maletić","doi":"10.54648/leie2018017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018017","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union Court of Justice has ruled that Article 18(1) of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources does not oblige Member States to authorize imports, via their interconnected national gas networks, of biogas satisfying the sustainability criteria in that directive and intended for use as biofuel. The Court had been asked whether that provision, adopted on the basis of internal market harmonization (pursuant to what is now Article 114 TFEU), obliges Member States to accept sustainable biogas imported via the network of interconnected national gas pipelines and, in the negative, whether that provision breaches the EU free movement of goods rules. The judgment, implicitly exploring the contours of competence as well as ‘exhaustive’ harmonization (in this case, in the economically sensitive renewable energy context), is emphatic of the characteristic symbiosis of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ integration in the internal market.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91091680","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 ECJ had to define the Member States’ room of manoeuvre on the delicate matter of non-harmonised technical rules, in the case at hand the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals present in food supplements. Even though the EU legislator has developed a mutual recognition framework to avoid technical barriers to trade, businesses like Noria still faced them. In order to tackle the negative consequences of the different perceptions of appropriate standards and safety level between the Member States, the ECJ retained its well-established case law on administrative due process and human health derogation under Article 36 TFEU. Oddly, the Court did not exploit a useful legal tool – the Mutual Recognition Regulation – for disciplining Member States in their recourse of the ‘genuine risk to public health’ derogation. Is the omission of the Regulation unintentional or is it the proof of mutual recognition framework’s failure?
{"title":"Mutual Recognitions Failure in the Light of Free Movement of Food Supplements: Judgment of the CJEU, 27 April 2017, Noria Distribution SARL (Case C-672/15)","authors":"B. Jan","doi":"10.54648/leie2018018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018018","url":null,"abstract":"The ECJ had to define the Member States’ room of manoeuvre on the delicate matter of non-harmonised technical rules, in the case at hand the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals present in food supplements. Even though the EU legislator has developed a mutual recognition framework to avoid technical barriers to trade, businesses like Noria still faced them. In order to tackle the negative consequences of the different perceptions of appropriate standards and safety level between the Member States, the ECJ retained its well-established case law on administrative due process and human health derogation under Article 36 TFEU. Oddly, the Court did not exploit a useful legal tool – the Mutual Recognition Regulation – for disciplining Member States in their recourse of the ‘genuine risk to public health’ derogation. Is the omission of the Regulation unintentional or is it the proof of mutual recognition framework’s failure?","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82537229","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}
EU Education policy is ‘an a priori very lightly Europeanized policy area’ (Alex Warleigh-Lack & Ralf Drachenberg, Spillover in a Soft Policy Era? Evidence from the Open Method of Coordination in Education and Training, 18(7) J. Eur. Pub. Pol’y 1000 (October 2011)), belonging to the weakest type of Union competence, and of all EU policies, it is the one most strongly influenced by open method of coordination (OMC) (Sacha Garben, The Future of Higher Education in Europe: The Case for a Stronger Base in EU Law, LEQS Paper No. 50/2012, 13 (July 2012)), a policy instrument known for its ‘soft’ character. Yet there is a tension between the soft education policy competence and the soft measure of OMC employed in its framework. EU soft competences are generally explained by Member States’ reluctance to attribute competences to the EU in sensitive policy areas, but the soft instruments used in these areas nevertheless ensure compliance, while evading and bypassing competence and decision-making constraints. This general finding, made clear with the help of fiscal federalism and public choice approaches to EU education policy is also relevant in areas of (exclusive) EU legislative competence where soft instruments are used (such as customs policy). The present article tries to shed light on the various manifestations of softness and their ambivalent relationship with the help of the fiscal federalism and the public choice approach.
{"title":"Soft Structure vs. Soft Measure: Fleshing Out the Tension in EU Education Policy","authors":"Láncos Petra Lea","doi":"10.54648/leie2018014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2018014","url":null,"abstract":"EU Education policy is ‘an a priori very lightly Europeanized policy area’ (Alex Warleigh-Lack & Ralf Drachenberg, Spillover in a Soft Policy Era? Evidence from the Open Method of Coordination in Education and Training, 18(7) J. Eur. Pub. Pol’y 1000 (October 2011)), belonging to the weakest type of Union competence, and of all EU policies, it is the one most strongly influenced by open method of coordination (OMC) (Sacha Garben, The Future of Higher Education in Europe: The Case for a Stronger Base in EU Law, LEQS Paper No. 50/2012, 13 (July 2012)), a policy instrument known for its ‘soft’ character. Yet there is a tension between the soft education policy competence and the soft measure of OMC employed in its framework. EU soft competences are generally explained by Member States’ reluctance to attribute competences to the EU in sensitive policy areas, but the soft instruments used in these areas nevertheless ensure compliance, while evading and bypassing competence and decision-making constraints. This general finding, made clear with the help of fiscal federalism and public choice approaches to EU education policy is also relevant in areas of (exclusive) EU legislative competence where soft instruments are used (such as customs policy). The present article tries to shed light on the various manifestations of softness and their ambivalent relationship with the help of the fiscal federalism and the public choice approach.","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75266718","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：