Suchergebnisse

The book offers the first treatment in English to provide a thorough examination of the legal duties falling under the principle of loyalty in EU public law. Despite its seemingly innocuous wording, in what is now Article 4 (3) TEU, the principle of sincere cooperation has had a significant impact in deepening the reach of EU law within the Member States. The principle has been central to the development of Union law since the 1960s, and is still being relied on by the European Court of Justice to often-controversial effect. Providing a thorough discussion of the principle of loyalty in EU law, this book introduces a novel classification of the very diverse roles loyalty plays in the EU. It distinguishes between the effects loyalty prescribes for interlocking the legal orders of the Member States with Union law (cohesion), its application in preventing and resolving conflicts between the Union and the Member States (cooperation), and the loyalty principle's role in the shaping of EU law (construction). It addresses important and yet unresolved questions pertaining to loyalty, such as its relation to the principles of solidarity, effectiveness, fidelity, pre-emption, the Union interest, institutional balance, and the unity of international representation. The book explains why the principle of loyalty has been neglected in the prevailing narratives about the constitutionalization of EU law, places it in its international context, examining how it has influenced EU law and the comparisons that can be drawn with national and international principles of law.

The Services Directive had to be implemented into national laws by the end of 2009. This paper will start by briefly addressing some salient issues concerning this obligation and compare a selection of Member States on how they have coped with them. The Services Directive moreover gives occasion for discussing the instruments the Community legislator has at its disposal to regulate the provision of services in the European Union. We will distinguish home state rule in the form of the country of origin principle from host state rule in the shape of the general prohibition of restrictions. The dogmatic difference between these regulatory models provided in the Commission's proposal and in final version of the Services Directive respectively will be examined. We will furthermore distinguish harmonization from mutual recognition and discuss both in light of the legality of the Services Directive. This paper concludes by submitting the key features each regulatory model should be associated with in order to foster conceptual and terminological clarity in this important area. However, it is also shown that the boundaries between the instruments examined are rather blurred.