The article analyses the issue of Sharing and Collaborative Cities from a primarily methodological perspective. Starting from statistical data that confirm the constant growth of the urban population, and taking into account the major issues that affect urban policies (environment, inequalities, poverty), the author focuses on the different methodological approaches in the study of collaborative cities. Subsequently, an Italian case study is presented, which involves shared administration and the main implementation tools involved (Regulation of the management and regeneration of urban commons, including collaboration agreements). sharing city, collaborative city, smart city, cooperative economy, sharing economy, urban regeneration, urban commons, local government, city legal studies, urban public policies
{"title":"European Sharing and Collaborative Cities: The Italian Way","authors":"Giorgia Pavani","doi":"10.54648/euro2022005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022005","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses the issue of Sharing and Collaborative Cities from a primarily methodological perspective. Starting from statistical data that confirm the constant growth of the urban population, and taking into account the major issues that affect urban policies (environment, inequalities, poverty), the author focuses on the different methodological approaches in the study of collaborative cities. Subsequently, an Italian case study is presented, which involves shared administration and the main implementation tools involved (Regulation of the management and regeneration of urban commons, including collaboration agreements).\u0000sharing city, collaborative city, smart city, cooperative economy, sharing economy, urban regeneration, urban commons, local government, city legal studies, urban public policies","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43870510","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":"Book Review: Europe’s Passive Virtues: Deference to National Authorities in EU Free Movement Law, Jan Zglinski. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2020.","authors":"Lars Klenk","doi":"10.54648/euro2022009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43365825","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 hypothesis of the article is that advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although non-legally binding on the requesting court or tribunal, legally affect States, including those which have not ratified the Protocol. This will be demonstrated here conceptualizing the notion of ‘vertical’ non-binding effect of advisory opinions (i.e., that effect, regarding the requesting court or tribunal, under Article 5 of Protocol No. 16 which states that ‘Advisory opinions shall not be binding’) and the notion of their ‘horizontal’ legal effect (i.e., that ‘undeniable legal effect’ which comes from the fact that advisory opinions are ‘valid case-law’ which the ECtHR ‘would follow when ruling on potential subsequent individual application’). From a wider perspective of constitutional law, it will be then argued here that the producing of the aforementioned ‘horizontal’ effect constitutes a good reason for States to ratify Protocol No. 16 in light of judicial dialogue: non-ratifying States would be affected by them but at the same time there would be no opportunity for their highest courts or tribunals to contribute in creating that case-law via judicial dialogue (i.e., by requesting advisory opinions). Protocol No. 16, European Convention on Human Rights, ratification, advisory opinions, European Court of Human Rights, legally non-binding effect, requiring courts, caselaw, constitutional law, Constitutional Courts, judicial dialogue
{"title":"The European Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinions Legally Affect Non-ratifying States: A Good Reason (From a Perspective of Constitutional Law) to Ratify Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR","authors":"E. Albanesi","doi":"10.54648/euro2022001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022001","url":null,"abstract":"The hypothesis of the article is that advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although non-legally binding on the requesting court or tribunal, legally affect States, including those which have not ratified the Protocol. This will be demonstrated here conceptualizing the notion of ‘vertical’ non-binding effect of advisory opinions (i.e., that effect, regarding the requesting court or tribunal, under Article 5 of Protocol No. 16 which states that ‘Advisory opinions shall not be binding’) and the notion of their ‘horizontal’ legal effect (i.e., that ‘undeniable legal effect’ which comes from the fact that advisory opinions are ‘valid case-law’ which the ECtHR ‘would follow when ruling on potential subsequent individual application’). From a wider perspective of constitutional law, it will be then argued here that the producing of the aforementioned ‘horizontal’ effect constitutes a good reason for States to ratify Protocol No. 16 in light of judicial dialogue: non-ratifying States would be affected by them but at the same time there would be no opportunity for their highest courts or tribunals to contribute in creating that case-law via judicial dialogue (i.e., by requesting advisory opinions).\u0000Protocol No. 16, European Convention on Human Rights, ratification, advisory opinions, European Court of Human Rights, legally non-binding effect, requiring courts, caselaw, constitutional law, Constitutional Courts, judicial dialogue","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41950013","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 objective of the article is first to show there are worrying signs that the consensus about independent regulation is cracking in several countries that matter. We then go on to demonstrate that there are blind spots in the European framework of public service regulation. Regulation in the EU focuses too much on competition and not enough on other objectives. Finally we attempt to rethink the regulatory framework of public services in Europe in a way that would take all the competing interests of society into account. Although the main focus of the article falls on French and European experiences, it also adopts a broader view. regulation, public services, competition law, monetary policy, cost-benefit analysis, indirect administration, accountability
{"title":"Current Issues on Regulation: A View from France","authors":"Thomas D. Perroud, B. Deffains","doi":"10.54648/euro2022004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022004","url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the article is first to show there are worrying signs that the consensus about independent regulation is cracking in several countries that matter. We then go on to demonstrate that there are blind spots in the European framework of public service regulation. Regulation in the EU focuses too much on competition and not enough on other objectives. Finally we attempt to rethink the regulatory framework of public services in Europe in a way that would take all the competing interests of society into account. Although the main focus of the article falls on French and European experiences, it also adopts a broader view.\u0000regulation, public services, competition law, monetary policy, cost-benefit analysis, indirect administration, accountability","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44551828","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 June 2020, the Danish Parliament adopted a new Climate Act that included legally binding measures. Two months earlier, in March 2020, the European Commission presented a proposal for a European Climate Law Regulation based upon the content of the Paris Agreement. Subsequently, the EU adopted the EU Climate Law Regulation in April 2021. This article presents a comparative legal analysis of the Danish 2020 Climate Act and the 2021 European Climate Law Regulation and investigates these new types of climate acts that have risen as results of the Paris Agreement and international climate law in general. Moreover, the article presents and discusses some examples of the implementation results in Denmark and the latest EU climate strategies. It is concluded that both the Danish and the EU Climate Acts can be considered umbrella legislation presenting the binding climate objectives and legal bases for future climate law however without presenting substantive legal provisions that implement the climate objectives. climate law, public law, Danish law, EU law, comparative law, international climate law
{"title":"The New Era of Climate Law in Denmark and in the EU","authors":"Christina D. Tvarnø","doi":"10.54648/euro2022006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022006","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2020, the Danish Parliament adopted a new Climate Act that included legally binding measures. Two months earlier, in March 2020, the European Commission presented a proposal for a European Climate Law Regulation based upon the content of the Paris Agreement. Subsequently, the EU adopted the EU Climate Law Regulation in April 2021. This article presents a comparative legal analysis of the Danish 2020 Climate Act and the 2021 European Climate Law Regulation and investigates these new types of climate acts that have risen as results of the Paris Agreement and international climate law in general. Moreover, the article presents and discusses some examples of the implementation results in Denmark and the latest EU climate strategies. It is concluded that both the Danish and the EU Climate Acts can be considered umbrella legislation presenting the binding climate objectives and legal bases for future climate law however without presenting substantive legal provisions that implement the climate objectives.\u0000climate law, public law, Danish law, EU law, comparative law, international climate law","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44777575","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 present contribution aims to critically reflect on the future direction of data retention at the EU and the national levels by discussing the lessons arising from two seminal Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decisions: Privacy International and Quadrature du Net. The article addresses four main themes: (1) the broad reach of EU data privacy law, (2) the detailed typology of permissible data retention models and the conditions applicable to these, (3) the evolving interaction between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases of bulk surveillance, and (4) the relevant legislative developments regarding data retention enshrined in the proposed ePrivacy Regulation. It advances four main lines of criticism. The first concerns the Court’s reasoning regarding the expansive scope of application of EU data protection law that – while anticipated – appears unconvincing. The second regards the shortcomings and weaknesses in the CJEU’s analysis laying down a taxonomy of permissible data retention systems. The third line of criticism is broader and concerns the progressive re-legitimisation of bulk as well as other surveillance models that seems to be the path undertaken by both the CJEU and ECtHR. Finally, we criticize the ways the EU legislature is trying to ‘circumvent’ the CJEU’s data retention rulings. data retention, EU fundamental rights, Privacy International, Quadrature du Net, bulk data retention, EU data protection law, European Court of Human Rights Big Brother Watch, GDPR, ePrivacy, UK adequacy decisions after Brexit
本贡献旨在通过讨论欧盟法院（CJEU）两项具有开创性意义的裁决所产生的经验教训，批判性地反思欧盟和国家层面数据保留的未来方向：隐私国际和Quadrature du Net。这篇文章涉及四个主要主题：（1）欧盟数据隐私法的广泛范围，（2）允许的数据保留模式的详细类型和适用于这些模式的条件，（3）欧盟法院和欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）在大规模监控案件中不断演变的互动，以及（4）拟议的《电子隐私条例》中关于数据保留的相关立法发展。它提出了四条主要的批评路线。第一个问题涉及法院关于欧盟数据保护法适用范围扩大的推理，尽管这是意料之中的，但似乎没有说服力。第二个问题是欧盟委员会分析中的缺陷和弱点，该分析对允许的数据保留系统进行了分类。第三条批评范围更广，涉及批量以及其他监控模式的逐步重新合法化，这似乎是欧盟法院和欧洲人权法院共同采取的道路。最后，我们批评了欧盟立法机构试图“规避”CJEU数据保留法规的方式。数据保留、欧盟基本权利、隐私国际、Quadrature du Net、批量数据保留、欧洲数据保护法、欧洲人权法院“老大哥观察”、GDPR、ePrivacy、英国脱欧后的充分性决定
{"title":"Privacy International and Quadrature du Net: One Step Forward Two Steps Back in the Data Retention Saga?","authors":"M. Tzanou, Spyridoula Karyda","doi":"10.54648/euro2022007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2022007","url":null,"abstract":"The present contribution aims to critically reflect on the future direction of data retention at the EU and the national levels by discussing the lessons arising from two seminal Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decisions: Privacy International and Quadrature du Net. The article addresses four main themes: (1) the broad reach of EU data privacy law, (2) the detailed typology of permissible data retention models and the conditions applicable to these, (3) the evolving interaction between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases of bulk surveillance, and (4) the relevant legislative developments regarding data retention enshrined in the proposed ePrivacy Regulation. It advances four main lines of criticism. The first concerns the Court’s reasoning regarding the expansive scope of application of EU data protection law that – while anticipated – appears unconvincing. The second regards the shortcomings and weaknesses in the CJEU’s analysis laying down a taxonomy of permissible data retention systems. The third line of criticism is broader and concerns the progressive re-legitimisation of bulk as well as other surveillance models that seems to be the path undertaken by both the CJEU and ECtHR. Finally, we criticize the ways the EU legislature is trying to ‘circumvent’ the CJEU’s data retention rulings.\u0000data retention, EU fundamental rights, Privacy International, Quadrature du Net, bulk data retention, EU data protection law, European Court of Human Rights Big Brother Watch, GDPR, ePrivacy, UK adequacy decisions after Brexit","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45642334","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 discusses how the application the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contributes to the fight for the rule of law in the EU. After outlining the connections between the two it focuses on two examples of how the Charter could and should play a more significant role in upholding the rule of law. As to Member State-level rule of law breakdowns, we demonstrate that the Charter has either been missing in the shadow of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union or threatened to undermine the fight for the rule of law when the principle of judicial independence was reduced to Article 47 Charter standing alone. As to supranational level rule of law issues, where the Charter’s applicability under Article 51 CFR is uncontroversial, we show that it has nonetheless so far been applied to a problematically limited extent. This is particularly clear with regard to party-financing at EU-level. This file offers a case in point to show how taking the Charter seriously could make a significant difference in protecting the rule of law in the EU. Article 7 TEU, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, judicial independence, party financing, rule of law
{"title":"Strengthening the Charter’s Role in the Fight for the Rule of Law in the EU: The Cases of Judicial Independence and Party Financing","authors":"John Morijn, D. Kochenov","doi":"10.54648/euro2021037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021037","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses how the application the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contributes to the fight for the rule of law in the EU. After outlining the connections between the two it focuses on two examples of how the Charter could and should play a more significant role in upholding the rule of law. As to Member State-level rule of law breakdowns, we demonstrate that the Charter has either been missing in the shadow of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union or threatened to undermine the fight for the rule of law when the principle of judicial independence was reduced to Article 47 Charter standing alone. As to supranational level rule of law issues, where the Charter’s applicability under Article 51 CFR is uncontroversial, we show that it has nonetheless so far been applied to a problematically limited extent. This is particularly clear with regard to party-financing at EU-level. This file offers a case in point to show how taking the Charter seriously could make a significant difference in protecting the rule of law in the EU.\u0000Article 7 TEU, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, judicial independence, party financing, rule of law","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49469803","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 the last two decades, the European Union (EU) legislative institutions transformed dozens of directives into regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the most familiar, even to the general public. For various reasons, however, EU legal scholars discuss these transformations sporadically. Framework nature justified the existence of directives. However, EU directives gradually become detailed, narrowing the margin of appreciation exercised by the Member States. We suggest a favourable view of such expansion of uniform frameworks, ranked to the administrative/public law addressing various economic activities in most cases. Transformations reduce the complexity of directives and national law implementing them. Decreasing expenditures and lesser effort in implementation, increased transparency, streamlining of interpretation could result from these transformations. Preference for regulations can enhance both efficiency and legitimacy of supranational policies of the EU shattered with multiple crises. However, prevailing decentralized enforcement of EU law requiring supplementing national legislation together with the EU multilingualism resulting in discourses separated by language barriers limit the advantages of regulations as supranational statutes. At the moment, there is no consensus on the desirability of these transformations. Further discussion is needed. the European Union, Directives, Regulations, Legislation, Supranationality, Statutory law
{"title":"Transformations of Directives into Regulations: Towards a More Uniform Administrative Law?","authors":"Filip Křepelka","doi":"10.54648/euro2021038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021038","url":null,"abstract":"In the last two decades, the European Union (EU) legislative institutions transformed dozens of directives into regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the most familiar, even to the general public. For various reasons, however, EU legal scholars discuss these transformations sporadically. Framework nature justified the existence of directives. However, EU directives gradually become detailed, narrowing the margin of appreciation exercised by the Member States. We suggest a favourable view of such expansion of uniform frameworks, ranked to the administrative/public law addressing various economic activities in most cases. Transformations reduce the complexity of directives and national law implementing them. Decreasing expenditures and lesser effort in implementation, increased transparency, streamlining of interpretation could result from these transformations. Preference for regulations can enhance both efficiency and legitimacy of supranational policies of the EU shattered with multiple crises. However, prevailing decentralized enforcement of EU law requiring supplementing national legislation together with the EU multilingualism resulting in discourses separated by language barriers limit the advantages of regulations as supranational statutes. At the moment, there is no consensus on the desirability of these transformations. Further discussion is needed.\u0000the European Union, Directives, Regulations, Legislation, Supranationality, Statutory law","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42835572","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 principle of the primacy of the law of the European Union (EU) establishes that, where the law of the EU conflicts with the laws of its Member States (MSs), the law of the EU takes precedence over the laws of the MSs. This article evaluates the doctrinal status of the principle of primacy in response to the press release of the Court of Justice of the European Union (European Court of Justice (ECJ)) on the judgment of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, which breached the principle. It argues that respect of the absolute and exclusive, final jurisdiction of the ECJ under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is – to quote from the press release – ‘the only way of ensuring’ the supremacy of EU law and also the direct effect and equality of EU law. European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union/European Court of Justice, European Union Law, Primacy/Supremacy, Direct Effect, Equality
{"title":"The Quiet Architect Finds its Voice: The Primacy of the Law of the European Union after Press Release No 58/20 of the Court of Justice of the European Union","authors":"Gonzalo. Villalta Puig, M. E. Vergara","doi":"10.54648/euro2021033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2021033","url":null,"abstract":"The principle of the primacy of the law of the European Union (EU) establishes that, where the law of the EU conflicts with the laws of its Member States (MSs), the law of the EU takes precedence over the laws of the MSs. This article evaluates the doctrinal status of the principle of primacy in response to the press release of the Court of Justice of the European Union (European Court of Justice (ECJ)) on the judgment of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court of 5 May 2020, which breached the principle. It argues that respect of the absolute and exclusive, final jurisdiction of the ECJ under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is – to quote from the press release – ‘the only way of ensuring’ the supremacy of EU law and also the direct effect and equality of EU law.\u0000European Union, Court of Justice of the European Union/European Court of Justice, European Union Law, Primacy/Supremacy, Direct Effect, Equality","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48843796","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：