对欧盟机构席位选择的判断:挑战和将会发生什么变化

Tomáš Buchta
{"title":"对欧盟机构席位选择的判断:挑战和将会发生什么变化","authors":"Tomáš Buchta","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221148419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The process of the selection of the seats of an EU agency has been an intergovernmental decision-making between the EU Member States, in most cases separated from the EU legislative process related to the establishment and functioning of the agency. The Court of Justice had a possibility to assess the legality of this hybrid process and decided that the power to determine the seat of EU agency belongs solely to the EU co-legislators. The three judgments in five cases contain several contentious points regarding the interpretation of Article 341 TFEU, which will be analyzed in this case note. In addition, its purpose will be also to assess the implications of the judgments to future decision-making process related to the selection of seats of EU agencies.","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"726 - 735"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgments on the selection of the seats of EU agencies: Challenges and what will change\",\"authors\":\"Tomáš Buchta\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1023263X221148419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The process of the selection of the seats of an EU agency has been an intergovernmental decision-making between the EU Member States, in most cases separated from the EU legislative process related to the establishment and functioning of the agency. The Court of Justice had a possibility to assess the legality of this hybrid process and decided that the power to determine the seat of EU agency belongs solely to the EU co-legislators. The three judgments in five cases contain several contentious points regarding the interpretation of Article 341 TFEU, which will be analyzed in this case note. In addition, its purpose will be also to assess the implications of the judgments to future decision-making process related to the selection of seats of EU agencies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"726 - 735\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221148419\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221148419","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟机构席位的选择过程一直是欧盟成员国之间的政府间决策,在大多数情况下,与该机构的设立和运作有关的欧盟立法过程是分开的。法院有可能评估这一混合程序的合法性,并决定决定欧盟机构所在地的权力仅属于欧盟共同立法者。五个案件中的三项判决包含了关于TFEU第341条解释的几个争议点,将在本案例说明中进行分析。此外,其目的还将是评估这些判断对未来欧盟机构席位选择决策过程的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Judgments on the selection of the seats of EU agencies: Challenges and what will change
The process of the selection of the seats of an EU agency has been an intergovernmental decision-making between the EU Member States, in most cases separated from the EU legislative process related to the establishment and functioning of the agency. The Court of Justice had a possibility to assess the legality of this hybrid process and decided that the power to determine the seat of EU agency belongs solely to the EU co-legislators. The three judgments in five cases contain several contentious points regarding the interpretation of Article 341 TFEU, which will be analyzed in this case note. In addition, its purpose will be also to assess the implications of the judgments to future decision-making process related to the selection of seats of EU agencies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Non-contractual liability of the EU: Need for a ‘diligent’ administrator test The European Arrest Warrant and the protection of the best interests of the child: The Court's last word on the limits of mutual recognition and the evolving obligations of national judicial authorities OP v. Commune d’Ans: When equality, intersectionality and state neutrality collide DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany? Chilling effect: Turning the poison into an antidote for fundamental rights in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1