Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000177
Perrine Carré, Marc Steiert
C-928/19 P European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) is a cornerstone to the future of Social Europe and the probably limited role of social dialogue in it. In this judgment, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirms that the European Commission is not obliged to transmit a collective agreement negotiated by the European social partners to the Council for its adoption as an EU legal act under Article 155(2) TFEU. What seems like a technical judgment on the Union’s institutions is a constitutional decision on the European social model. In fact, EU labour lawyers have been heatedly discussing whether the Commission can examine and reject the content of collective agreements negotiated in the European Social Dialogue under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU.1 One can effectively understand the European Social Dialogue as an alternative procedure of EU law-making that shares the right of legislative initiative in social policy among the Commission and the social partners. For this reason, the Commission should not be allowed to unilaterally reject a collective
{"title":"Social Europe without Social Dialogue: Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-928/19 P European Federation of Public Service Unions","authors":"Perrine Carré, Marc Steiert","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000177","url":null,"abstract":"C-928/19 P European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) is a cornerstone to the future of Social Europe and the probably limited role of social dialogue in it. In this judgment, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union confirms that the European Commission is not obliged to transmit a collective agreement negotiated by the European social partners to the Council for its adoption as an EU legal act under Article 155(2) TFEU. What seems like a technical judgment on the Union’s institutions is a constitutional decision on the European social model. In fact, EU labour lawyers have been heatedly discussing whether the Commission can examine and reject the content of collective agreements negotiated in the European Social Dialogue under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU.1 One can effectively understand the European Social Dialogue as an alternative procedure of EU law-making that shares the right of legislative initiative in social policy among the Commission and the social partners. For this reason, the Commission should not be allowed to unilaterally reject a collective","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"315 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47372711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000189
Stéphanie Wattier
of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal.
一种宗教仪式，基于可逆的电击，条件是电击不应导致动物死亡。
{"title":"Ritual Slaughter Case: The Court of Justice and the Belgian Constitutional Court Put Animal Welfare First","authors":"Stéphanie Wattier","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000189","url":null,"abstract":"of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal.","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"264 - 285"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42101172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000074
Madalina Moraru, Raluca Bercea
*Assistant Professor, Centre for Judicial Cooperation at the European University Institute, and Director of the Centre for Migration Studies, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University. This paper has received funding under the TRust, Independence, Impartiality and Accountability of judges and arbitrators safeguarding the rule of Law under the EU Charter (TRIIAL) Project led by the Centre for Judicial Cooperation at the European University Institute. The Project was funded by the European Commission Directorate General for Justice and Consumers under Grant Agreement No. 853832. The content of the article represents the views of the authors and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained. The authors are grateful to Gabor Halmai, Nicole Lazzerini, Viorica Viță, the team members of the Judicial Studies Centre at Masaryk University, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on previous versions of this article. **Prof.univ.dr., Law Faculty, West University of Timisoara.
{"title":"The First Episode in the Romanian Rule of Law Saga: Joined Cases C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19 and C-397/19, Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România, and their follow-up at the national level","authors":"Madalina Moraru, Raluca Bercea","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000074","url":null,"abstract":"*Assistant Professor, Centre for Judicial Cooperation at the European University Institute, and Director of the Centre for Migration Studies, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University. This paper has received funding under the TRust, Independence, Impartiality and Accountability of judges and arbitrators safeguarding the rule of Law under the EU Charter (TRIIAL) Project led by the Centre for Judicial Cooperation at the European University Institute. The Project was funded by the European Commission Directorate General for Justice and Consumers under Grant Agreement No. 853832. The content of the article represents the views of the authors and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained. The authors are grateful to Gabor Halmai, Nicole Lazzerini, Viorica Viță, the team members of the Judicial Studies Centre at Masaryk University, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments on previous versions of this article. **Prof.univ.dr., Law Faculty, West University of Timisoara.","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"82 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48210135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000025
L. Lonardo, Elisabet Ruiz Cairó
In Venezuela v Council (Venezuela), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union made a pronouncement on a procedural point: it held that Venezuela had locus standi to challenge restrictive measures adopted by the European Union (EU). This conclusion was based on the finding that a third country is a legal person for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.1 The judgment contributes to defining the autonomous EU constitutional space with regard to international law. In the light of the reasoning to justify such a decision, and of its likely consequences, this ruling is an expression of constitutional maturity: it sends the signal that the EU is confident in the robustness of its legal order to the extent that it is not afraid to permit challenges to its measures
{"title":"The European Court of Justice Allows Third Countries to Challenge EU Restrictive Measures","authors":"L. Lonardo, Elisabet Ruiz Cairó","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000025","url":null,"abstract":"In Venezuela v Council (Venezuela), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union made a pronouncement on a procedural point: it held that Venezuela had locus standi to challenge restrictive measures adopted by the European Union (EU). This conclusion was based on the finding that a third country is a legal person for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.1 The judgment contributes to defining the autonomous EU constitutional space with regard to international law. In the light of the reasoning to justify such a decision, and of its likely consequences, this ruling is an expression of constitutional maturity: it sends the signal that the EU is confident in the robustness of its legal order to the extent that it is not afraid to permit challenges to its measures","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"114 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48336179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000050
M. Szwed
This case note analyses the judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights on 7 May 2021 in Application No. 4907/18, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v Poland. 1 In this judgment, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the participation of an unlawfully elected person on the panel of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal that discontinued proceedings on the constitutional complaint fi led by a private applicant led to a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR. The Strasbourg Court ’ s judgment is of fundamental importance for several reasons. First, it clari fi ed the scope of applicability of Article 6 to constitutional courts and contributed to the Court ’ s case law on the right to a tribunal established by law, which has been developing rapidly since the landmark ruling in Ástráðsson v Iceland.
这种情况下注意分析判断欧洲人权法庭发布的2021年5月7日申请4907/18号鑫元鸿福罗w Polsce sp.是一家v波兰。1在这个判断,欧洲人权法院裁定一个非法当选人的参与小组的波兰宪法法庭中止诉讼的宪法诉讼fi为首的一个私人申请人导致ECHR的违反第六条。出于几个原因，斯特拉斯堡法院的判决具有根本性的重要性。首先，它明确了第6条对宪法法院的适用范围，并对法院关于依法设立法庭的权利的判例法作出了贡献，自Ástráðsson诉冰岛一案具有里程碑意义的裁决以来，这一判例法得到了迅速发展。
{"title":"The Polish Constitutional Tribunal Crisis from the Perspective of the European Convention on Human Rights","authors":"M. Szwed","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000050","url":null,"abstract":" This case note analyses the judgment issued by the European Court of Human Rights on 7 May 2021 in Application No. 4907/18, Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v Poland. 1 In this judgment, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the participation of an unlawfully elected person on the panel of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal that discontinued proceedings on the constitutional complaint fi led by a private applicant led to a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR. The Strasbourg Court ’ s judgment is of fundamental importance for several reasons. First, it clari fi ed the scope of applicability of Article 6 to constitutional courts and contributed to the Court ’ s case law on the right to a tribunal established by law, which has been developing rapidly since the landmark ruling in Ástráðsson v Iceland.","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"132 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42751694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000037
Neža Šubic
On 15 April 2021, in Case C-622/20 P, Validity and Center for Independent Living v Commission,1 the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeal to the order of the General Court, T-613/19,2 in which the General Court found inadmissible the action for annulment lodged by three non-governmental organisations that defend and represent persons with disabilities, due to a lack of legal standing. The succinct order of the Court of Justice is prima facie in line with previous case law and does not seem to offer any noteworthy developments in
{"title":"Challenging the Use of EU Funds: Locus Standi as a Roadblock for Disability Organisations","authors":"Neža Šubic","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000037","url":null,"abstract":"On 15 April 2021, in Case C-622/20 P, Validity and Center for Independent Living v Commission,1 the European Court of Justice dismissed the appeal to the order of the General Court, T-613/19,2 in which the General Court found inadmissible the action for annulment lodged by three non-governmental organisations that defend and represent persons with disabilities, due to a lack of legal standing. The succinct order of the Court of Justice is prima facie in line with previous case law and does not seem to offer any noteworthy developments in","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"59 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42248855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000049
M. Bonelli
Infringement actions and EU values – constitutional backsliding in Hungary and Poland – the role of the Court of Justice – judicial independence and Article 19 TEU – the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the toolkit to protect EU values – political and judicial mechanisms – a bottom-up approach
{"title":"Infringement Actions 2.0: How to Protect EU Values before the Court of Justice","authors":"M. Bonelli","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000049","url":null,"abstract":"Infringement actions and EU values – constitutional backsliding in Hungary and Poland – the role of the Court of Justice – judicial independence and Article 19 TEU – the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the toolkit to protect EU values – political and judicial mechanisms – a bottom-up approach","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"30 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43082551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.1017/S1574019622000062
Hugo Canihac
Invention and promotion of the concept of ‘Community of law’ in the EEC – The role and thought of Walter Hallstein – Moving beyond the traditional opposition between ‘constitutionalists’ and ‘internationalists’ – The diversity and struggles among the ‘constitutionalists’ – Constitutional imaginaries as different conceptions of the relation of law, market, and democracy – Social processes at work in the elaboration of a transnational constitutional imaginary – Political and academic making of the imaginary of the ‘Community of law’
{"title":"The Making of an Imagined ‘Community of Law’: Law, Market and Democracy in the Early Constitutional Imaginaries of European Integration","authors":"Hugo Canihac","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000062","url":null,"abstract":"Invention and promotion of the concept of ‘Community of law’ in the EEC – The role and thought of Walter Hallstein – Moving beyond the traditional opposition between ‘constitutionalists’ and ‘internationalists’ – The diversity and struggles among the ‘constitutionalists’ – Constitutional imaginaries as different conceptions of the relation of law, market, and democracy – Social processes at work in the elaboration of a transnational constitutional imaginary – Political and academic making of the imaginary of the ‘Community of law’","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"2 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47085728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：