Suchergebnisse

Foreword -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- Part I General Reflections -- 1 -- The Division of Competences between the EU and the Member States: Reflections on the Past, the Present and the Future -- The Ever-Increasing Importance of the Competence Question -- The Legal Principles Limiting EU Competence -- The Problem of Competence Creep -- The Legal Principles Limiting Member State Competence -- Beyond Legislative Competence: The Real Sources of 'Creep' -- Implications for Legal Practice -- The Way Forward -- Final Thoughts -- 2 -- The Competence Divide of the Lisbon Treaty Six Years After -- General Observations -- New Developments Post Lisbon -- What about the Recent Crises and the Competence Divide? -- Conclusion -- 3 -- Classifying EU Competences: German Constitutional Lessons? -- Introduction -- German Competence Federalism: Dual Federalism -- European Federalism: Co-operative Federalism (with a Dualist Streak) -- Conclusion(s) -- Part II Areas of Complementary, Sharedand Exclusive EU Competence -- 4 -- Exclusive Member State Competences-Is There Such a Thing? -- Introduction -- Retained Competences -- Reserved Competences -- The Lisbon Treaty Reform: New Guarantees for Exclusive Member State Competence? -- Conclusion -- 5 -- The Competence to Create an Internal Market: Conceptual Poverty and Unbalanced Interests -- Introduction -- The Legal Basis of Internal Market Competences -- The Conceptual Basis of the Internal Market -- The Most Perfect Market: Full Harmonisation or Managed Diversity? -- What Place for National Interests in Internal Market Competences? -- Establishing a Disembedded Market -- Subsidiarity and Proportionality -- Conclusion -- 6 -- Monetary Policy: An Exclusive Competence Only in Name? -- Introduction -- Competence for Eurozone Monetary Policy and Related Policy Areas

[Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, nicht] nur kritisch den Bologna-Prozess und seine Zielsetzung und Folgen zu beurteilen. [...] Der Erfolg des eingeleiteten Prozesses, [...] ist nicht zu bestreiten. Der Punkt ist [...], dass die Mitgliedstaaten keinen einheitlichen Standard im Hochschulbildungswesen einführen und implementieren müssen, sollten sie sich dazu aber entscheiden, ist nach der hier vertretenen Auffassung der Rahmen der EU und ihrer Rechtsordnung immer noch am effektivsten und erfüllt besser die Anforderungen an Transparenz und demokratische Legitimation. Die Zukunft wird zeigen, ob dieser Weg nicht doch noch beschritten werden muss. (DIPF/Orig.).

Defence date: 14 June 2010 ; Examining Board: Prof. Bruno de Witte (European University Institute) Prof. Marise Cremona (European University Institute) Prof. H. Schneider (Maastricht University) Prof. M. Dougan (University of Liverpool) ; In 2012 awarded the 'The Jacqueline Suter Prize for the Best Doctoral Thesis in European Law' ; First made available online: 24 August 2021 ; The Bologna Process is a powerful reform movement, aimed at establishing a European Higher Education Area, most specifically by introducing a common standard of a three-cycle Bachelor, Master, Doctorate system for higher education degrees all over Europe. The Process is based on the non-binding Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations, and is a powerful follow-up process consisting of regular Ministerial Conferences and in-between follow-up meetings. In this sense, the Bologna Process is an important de-nationalisation of higher education. However, the strictly inter-governmental Process takes place outside the institutional framework of the European Union, even though all the EU Member States take part. Also the framework of the Council of Europe has been avoided. This exclusion of the European Organisations is remarkable, especially considering the large overlap between the subject matter of the Bologna Process and their activities. Most notably, the Bologna Process deals with diploma and study credit recognition, student and teacher mobility, research, lifelong learning, quality assurance and a European dimension in higher education, which are all well-established fields of activity of both the EU and the Council of Europe. In this way, it is argued, Bologna detracts from the large body of EU higher education law, and the – often underestimated – legal competence of the EU in higher education. Therefore, the Bologna Process can also be considered as a re-nationalisation of higher education. The Bologna Process is controversial. Some consider Bologna to be a great success, as it has spurred an overwhelming amount of (legislative) changes in almost all European countries through voluntary convergence, whereas others oppose it for precisely this reason. This thesis provides a legal analysis of the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations and the ensuing Process. From a European law perspective, there are several grave concerns about the way the Bologna Process was created and how it is currently operated. Using the option of operating within the EU framework, most particularly the option of a Bologna Directive, as a comparison, it is argued that with the Bologna Process the Member States have chosen to harmonise their higher education system by less accountable, less transparent, less democratic and less effective means. This is why the Bologna Process amounts to harmonisation by stealth.

Article first published online: 12 February 2010 ; The Bologna Process, an intergovernmental process of voluntary policy convergence towards a common higher education structure, poses several concerns from a European law perspective. The Bologna Process takes place outside the institutional framework of the EU, while there would have been legal competence to enact the content of the Bologna Declaration as a Community measure. Hence it could be argued that Member States have straddled the borders of loyal cooperation by avoiding the institutional framework of the EC with its built-in checks and balances. They have obstructed the Community in the attainment of its tasks, which stands in tense relation to Article 10 EC. Moreover, there exist several other objections against the Bologna Process, particularly in terms of democracy, transparency and efficiency. The Bologna Process resembles a deal done in a smoke-filled room, and its voluntary character combined with a lack of coordination prevents its effective implementation.

The Bologna Process, an intergovernmental process of voluntary policy convergence towards a common higher education structure, poses several concerns from a European law perspective. The Bologna Process takes place outside the institutional framework of the EU, while there would have been legal competence to enact the content of the Bologna Declaration as a Community measure. Hence it could be argued that it was illegal for the Member States to avoid the institutional framework of the EC with its built-in checks and balances. They have obstructed the Community in the attainment of its tasks, which is contrary to Article 10 EC. Moreover, there exist several other objections against the Bologna Process, particularly in terms of democracy, transparency and efficiency. The Bologna Process resembles a deal done in a smoke-filled room, and its voluntary character combined with a lack of coordination prevents its effective implementation.

"This book takes a wide-ranging approach to tackle the complex question of the current state of constitutional democracy in the EU. It brings together a broad set of academics and practitioners, legal and political perspectives, focusing on both topical and perennial issues concerning constitutional democracy (including safeguarding the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights) in theory and practice, primarily at EU level but also with due regard to national and global developments. This approach underlines that rather than a single problématique to be analysed and resolved, we are presently facing a kaleidoscopic spectrum of related challenges that influence each other in elusive, multifaceted ways. Critical Reflections on Constitutional Democracy in the European Union offers a rich analysis of the issues as well as concrete policy recommendations, which will appeal to scholars and practitioners, students and interested citizens alike. It provides a meaningful contribution to the rich array of existing scholarship and debate, by proposing original elements of analysis, challenging often-made assumptions, destabilising settled understandings and proposing fundamental reforms. Overall, the collection injects a set of fresh critical perspectives on this fundamental issue that is as contemporary as it is eternal"--