Abstract Although a substantial part of the body of laws of an EU Member State is founded upon European Union law and norms, the number of preliminary questions emanating from courts in the Czech Republic appears to be disproportionately low compared to other similar EU Member States. The aim of this article is to analyse and outline possible reasons for the lack of preliminary questions coming from the Czech Republic. In her analysis, the author identifies three possible factors underpinning the issue. These factors include attitudes towards the EU and a general lack of understanding of the relevance of EU laws and norms; the role of preliminary rulings; and the perception and recognition of courts. An integral part of this analysis is a critical commentary on the shifts in how courts and tribunals are perceived within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU. Lastly, the author offers guidance to fellow legal professionals and academics for interpreting EU norms.
{"title":"Why Do So Few Preliminary Questions Come From Czechia?","authors":"Tereza Kunertová","doi":"10.2478/wrlae-2023-0020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2023-0020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although a substantial part of the body of laws of an EU Member State is founded upon European Union law and norms, the number of preliminary questions emanating from courts in the Czech Republic appears to be disproportionately low compared to other similar EU Member States. The aim of this article is to analyse and outline possible reasons for the lack of preliminary questions coming from the Czech Republic. In her analysis, the author identifies three possible factors underpinning the issue. These factors include attitudes towards the EU and a general lack of understanding of the relevance of EU laws and norms; the role of preliminary rulings; and the perception and recognition of courts. An integral part of this analysis is a critical commentary on the shifts in how courts and tribunals are perceived within the meaning of Art. 267 TFEU. Lastly, the author offers guidance to fellow legal professionals and academics for interpreting EU norms.","PeriodicalId":508988,"journal":{"name":"Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141387478","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}
Abstract This article analyses the consequences of the International Law Commission (ILC) adopting Draft Article 7, about exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of foreign criminal prosecution, in a seemingly rushed way, without solving the sometimes antagonistic views of its members and of the international community. To this end, the generally accepted rules of immunity were reviewed, followed by taking a closer look at the discussions within the ILC. It seems that the reasoning of the Special Rapporteur on the topic has failed to provide enough proof of state practice and opinio juris to affirm the customary status of an exception to immunity ratione materiae for international crimes. Had the commission tried to resolve the disagreement among its members, the provisional adoption of Draft Article 7 would not bring much criticism. As a result of the lack of clarity, however, national courts are applying said exceptions, which action is believed to be contrary to international law as it currently stands. This is one of the consequences of the provisional adoption, the other being the international responsibility of states which disregard the immunity of a foreign official, not to mention the deterioration of the friendly relationship between the forum State and the State of nationality of the official.
{"title":"Provisional Adoption of Draft Article 7 of the International Law Commission Articles on Immunity for Foreign Officials and Its Implications","authors":"Lucas Da Costa Pereira Fontoura","doi":"10.2478/wrlae-2023-0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2023-0001","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article analyses the consequences of the International Law Commission (ILC) adopting Draft Article 7, about exceptions to immunity ratione materiae of foreign criminal prosecution, in a seemingly rushed way, without solving the sometimes antagonistic views of its members and of the international community. To this end, the generally accepted rules of immunity were reviewed, followed by taking a closer look at the discussions within the ILC. It seems that the reasoning of the Special Rapporteur on the topic has failed to provide enough proof of state practice and opinio juris to affirm the customary status of an exception to immunity ratione materiae for international crimes. Had the commission tried to resolve the disagreement among its members, the provisional adoption of Draft Article 7 would not bring much criticism. As a result of the lack of clarity, however, national courts are applying said exceptions, which action is believed to be contrary to international law as it currently stands. This is one of the consequences of the provisional adoption, the other being the international responsibility of states which disregard the immunity of a foreign official, not to mention the deterioration of the friendly relationship between the forum State and the State of nationality of the official.","PeriodicalId":508988,"journal":{"name":"Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139179441","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}
Abstract The measles elimination programme in the European region set up by the World Health Organization was a response to the real risk of a measles epidemic in Europe. The ideas of the programme were to be integrated into national regulations to effectively counteract this threat. The end of the programme in 2020 opens the door for discussion on the further need to refine legislative and organisational solutions for measles prevention. This is even more justified as new measles outbreaks have been observed in the European region since 2018. Poland was one of the countries in the European region to take legislative action to protect public health after 2008. However, it was only the COVID-19 pandemic that led to numerous amendments to the national legal order. This raises the question of the effectiveness and quality of national regulations against measles. This article analyses selected national regulations in relation to the objectives of the measles elimination programme in the European region. The assessment shows the need for further improvement of national legislation, as well as the need to extend the measles elimination programme in the European region to coordinate national efforts.
{"title":"Polish Legislation and Health Policy against the Background of Achievement of the Assumptions and Objectives of the Measles Eradication Programme in the European Region","authors":"Rafał Kubiak, S. Czechowicz","doi":"10.2478/wrlae-2022-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2022-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The measles elimination programme in the European region set up by the World Health Organization was a response to the real risk of a measles epidemic in Europe. The ideas of the programme were to be integrated into national regulations to effectively counteract this threat. The end of the programme in 2020 opens the door for discussion on the further need to refine legislative and organisational solutions for measles prevention. This is even more justified as new measles outbreaks have been observed in the European region since 2018. Poland was one of the countries in the European region to take legislative action to protect public health after 2008. However, it was only the COVID-19 pandemic that led to numerous amendments to the national legal order. This raises the question of the effectiveness and quality of national regulations against measles. This article analyses selected national regulations in relation to the objectives of the measles elimination programme in the European region. The assessment shows the need for further improvement of national legislation, as well as the need to extend the measles elimination programme in the European region to coordinate national efforts.","PeriodicalId":508988,"journal":{"name":"Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139224882","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}
Abstract The main purpose of this article is to analyse the Council’s practice of ‘common accord’ as the argument behind the tardiness of accession to the Istanbul Convention by the European Union. It presents how political and legal factors condition the accession of the Istanbul Convention by the European Union. In light of the Court of Justice Opinion 1/19, there are no legal obstacles to the accession; therefore, the tardiness of ratification arose from the political context, which consists of the EU’s constitutional crisis, populists in power, and liberal decision-makers succumbing to them. Based on the sociological assumption, the case study confirms the existence of the practice of ‘common accord’ as an effect of the conditions mentioned above. Nevertheless, the social need to access the Istanbul Convention is urgent.
{"title":"The EU Accession to the Istanbul Convention: The Argument From the ‘common Accord’ Practice","authors":"Karolina Kaja Kubacka","doi":"10.2478/wrlae-2022-0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2022-0007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The main purpose of this article is to analyse the Council’s practice of ‘common accord’ as the argument behind the tardiness of accession to the Istanbul Convention by the European Union. It presents how political and legal factors condition the accession of the Istanbul Convention by the European Union. In light of the Court of Justice Opinion 1/19, there are no legal obstacles to the accession; therefore, the tardiness of ratification arose from the political context, which consists of the EU’s constitutional crisis, populists in power, and liberal decision-makers succumbing to them. Based on the sociological assumption, the case study confirms the existence of the practice of ‘common accord’ as an effect of the conditions mentioned above. Nevertheless, the social need to access the Istanbul Convention is urgent.","PeriodicalId":508988,"journal":{"name":"Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139225730","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：