Suchergebnisse

Scholarly consensus sees EU supremacy as "necessarily bidimensional": the supranational dimension necessarily stands alongside the national dimension, which rejects the absolute and unconditional supremacy of EU law. I argue that this view of bidimensional supremacy is conceptually flawed and descriptively inaccurate. On the conceptual side, I identify the fallacy of symmetry (the idea that national and supranational perspectives on supremacy are similar in nature and equally reductionist), the fallacy of selection (the view that bidimensionalism alone can overcome what it perceives as an inevitable subjective bias in the choice between national and supranational supremacy claims), and the fallacy of construction (an originally shared popular sovereignty theory, which turns out to be riddled with biases that disrupt the equilibrium within the internally divided sovereign). On the interpretative side, I suggest that the empirical evidence in support of bidimensional supremacy is weaker than it is generally assumed. I then offer an interpretation of the PSPP judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which holds a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be ultra vires, unlawful and thus non-binding. PSPP presents a problem of German origins and cast, rather than one stemming from the inner structure of EU constitutionalism. At most, PSPP represents a contingent, rather than necessary, and thus unexceptional instance of bidimensional supremacy.

Obwohl es einer der zentralen Grundsätze des Rechts der Europäischen Union ist, gibt es immer noch keinen Konsens über die Gründe für den Vorrang des Rechts der Europäischen Union vor dem Recht der Mitgliedstaaten. Wenig diskutiert wird auch die immer wieder in der Rechtsprechung geltend gemachte Forderung nach einer einheitlichen Anwendung des Unionsrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten. Dieses Papier legt nahe, dass sowohl Vorherrschaft als auch Einheitlichkeit als Verhinderung der Diskriminierung von Einzelpersonen verstanden werden können, die durch die unterschiedliche Anwendung des Unionsrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten verursacht würde. Insofern ergänzt die nunmehr in Art. 4 Abs. 2 EUV zur Gleichstellung der Mitgliedstaaten vorgesehene mitgliedstaatszentrierte Nichtdiskriminierung (lediglich) die in Art. 18 AEUV und Art. 21 GRCh verankerte individualzentrierte Nichtdiskriminierung. Darüber hinaus erörtert dieses Papier, wie sich diese beiden Standards auf die sogenannte Einheit des Binnenmarkts beziehen. ; Despite being one of the pivotal principles of European Union law, there still is no consensus on the rationale for the supremacy of the law of the European Union over the law of the Member States. There is also not much discussion on the repeated claims in case law that Union law must have uniform application in the Member States. This paper suggests that both supremacy and uniformity can be understood as preventing the discrimination of individuals that would be caused by the divergent application of Union law in the Member States. In this respect, Member state-centred non-discrimination, now provided in Article 4(2) TEU on the equality of Member States, (merely) complements individual-centred non-discrimination, anchored in Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 CFR. Moreover, this paper discusses how these two standards relate to what is referred to as the unity of the internal market.

The article deals with the correlation between the European Union law and international law. Constant participation of the European Union and its members in international organizations gave a rise to the need for establishment of interrelation between the sources of international law particularly international agreements and customs and sources of European Union law such as regulating agreements and acts of the EU institutions as well as necessity to identify which norms should be applied in a certain case and which hierarchical connections exist in these sources. This issue was research by numerous Ukrainian and foreign scholars such as T.V. Komarova, O.V. Plotnikov, K. Zigler, I.I. Maryniv, R. Jennigs, K. Tomushat and others. But unlike scientific research EU agreements do not have any provisions which would identify the type of relations between EU law and international law. It is also necessary to note that the only subject which position is important in this sphere is EU Court. In order to answer the mentioned questions decisions of the EU Court which had an impact on the formation of a new law and order on international level such as the one of the European Union (for example decision in case Van Gend en Loos) and decision of the Court which established fundamental positions regarding correlation of EU law and international law (for example in case Kadi v Council and Commission) were researched into. Provisions of EU regulating agreements related to international agreements and their place in the system of norms of the European Union were analyzed. To see the procedure of applying customary law in European law case law of the EU Court was researched. The article provides modern position of the EU Court regarding interaction between European and international law.

In Association France Nature Environnement (judgment of 28 July 2016, case C-379/15), the Court of Justice dealt with two issues. First, is it possible for national courts to limit the effects of a judicial decision annulling national law contrary to EU law in the field of environmental protection? Second, are national courts obliged to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice in case of doubts on the possibility to postpone the temporal effects of a judgment annulling national law contrary to EU law? This judgment expands the Inter-Environnement Wallonie case law by granting to national courts further leeway to maintain in force the national legislation in breach of EU law. At the same time, it also expands the CILFIT case law.

Introduction / Fulvio Maria Palombino -- Brasil / Paula Almeida -- Canada / Stephane Beaulac -- China / Pierfrancesco Rossi -- France / Raphaele Rivier -- Germany / Niels Petersen -- Greece / Mariela Apostolaki and Antonios Tzanakopoulos -- India / Vinai Singh -- Indonesia / Simon Butt -- Israel / Yuval Shany -- Italy / Daniele Amoroso -- Japan / Hajime Yamamoto and Yota Negishi -- Mexico / Francisca Pou Gimenez and Alejandro Rodiles -- Netherlands / Andre Nollkaemper and Rosanne van Alebeek -- Nigeria / Babafemi Akinrinade -- Russia / Maria Smirnova -- South Africa / Hannah Woolaver -- Turkey / Ikboljon Qoraboyev and Emre Turkut -- United Kingdom / Eirik Bjorge and Ewan Smith -- United States / David Sloss -- Conclusions / Fulvio Maria Palombino.

pt.1. The structures of international law -- The centipede and the centrifuge: principles for the centralisation and decentralisation of governance -- On the causes of uncertainty and volatility in international law -- Structural paradigms of international law -- Subsidiarity as a method of policy centralisation -- Fragmentation(s) of international law: on normative integration as authority allocation.