Suchergebnisse

This book examines the impact of increased legislative power and political authority on the internal development of the European Parliament and the supranational party group system. This is done through an analysis of changes in the hierarchical structures that regulate the internal organization of both the EP as a whole and the individual party groups. In addition, the changing pattern of coalition formation between party groups across time and legislative procedure is analyzed. The trends of internal development examined suggest that the increases in EP power that have occurred since the creation of the cooperation procedure by the Single European Act in 1987 have caused a fundamental shift in the character of the European Parliament as a legislative institution. Prior to 1987 the European Parliament, despite direct election and several small attempts to increase its powers, served primarily as a chamber of debate where much more was discussed than accomplished

The 'Europeanisation' of the fight against crime is a broad and much-contested notion. This in-depth analysis of the role of the EU in fighting crime within the area of freedom, security and justice explores the impact of EU policies in the Member States, the progressive convergence of Member States' criminal law systems, the emergence of mutual recognition as an alternative to harmonization, and the incremental development of the ECJ's jurisdiction. The essays also explore the limitations inherent in EU counter-crime policies and the changes brought about by the introduction of the Treaty of Lisbon. These changes are discussed both collectively and within individual substantive areas in which the EU has taken an active role in fighting crime, such as corruption, money laundering, terrorism, organised crime and extradition.

Acknowledge: The University of Malta would like to acknowledge its gratitude to the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Budget for their permission to upload this work on OAR@UoM. Further reuse of this document can be made, provided the source is acknowledged. This work was made available with the help of the Publications Office of the European Union, Copyright and Legal Issues Section. ; The EU budget is an important tool that puts EU policies into practice. It finances actions that Member States cannot fund on their own or which they can fund more economically by pooling their resources. The EU budget is adopted through a democratic procedure: it is prepared by the European Commission (the EU's executive body) and is then discussed and agreed by the Council of the EU (representing EU Member States, including Malta) and by the European Parliament (where the democratically elected Maltese representatives sit). Once adopted, the budget is then managed either jointly by the EU Member States and the Commission, or directly by the Commission. In practice, 80 % of the EU budget is managed by national or regional governments. Through grants, loans and other forms of financing, the EU budget provides financial support to hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries such as students, scientists, NGOs, SMEs, towns and regions ; N/A

Intro -- Preface -- Summary -- Abbreviations -- Introduction -- Focus and approach in this study -- Method -- 1. Framework and background for reflection periods -- 1.1 The international framework for reflection periods -- 1.2 Recommendations and opinions of the Group of Experts on Trafficking in Human Beings of the European Commission -- 1.3 The situation and needs of victims -- 2. Reflection periods and related TRPs in the Nordic countries, Belgium and Italy -- 2.1 Denmark -- 2.2 Finland -- 2.3 Iceland -- 2.4 Norway -- 2.5 Sweden -- 2.6 Belgium -- 2.7 Italy -- 3. Discussion -- 3.1 The factors that vary -- 3.2 Length and nature of the reflection period -- 3.3 Implementation of the permit -- 3.4 When protection is contingent on cooperation -- 3.5 Return of victims to countries of origin/residence -- 3.6 The main pros and cons of different types of reflection periods -- 3.7 Reflection periods and prosecution -- 4. Conclusion and recommendations -- 4.1 Striking the balance between protection and prosecution -- 4.2 The totality of victim assistance -- 4.3 Implementation of reflection periods -- 4.4 The importance of knowledge of policy consequences -- References -- Sammendrag.

Defence date: 12 February 2016 ; Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Héritier, EUI (Supervisor); Professor Alexander H. Trechsel, EUI; Professor Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen, Copenhagen University; Professor Michael Shackleton, Maastricht University. ; The project explores, maps and analyzes the coordination that takes place between national governments of the EU member states and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in parallel with the legislative processes of the EU. Starting from a descriptive section depicting coordination in a broad selection of member states, France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Denmark, Slovakia, and Poland, and their MEPs, the questions are posed: 1) Why do EU member states' governments coordinate with their MEPs in the EU legislative process? 2) Why does coordination vary between the member state governments? 3) How do MEPs perceive and receive the coordination efforts by the governments? The project assesses the extent to which the efforts by the national governments to coordinate with the MEPs are a direct function of the institutional changes to the EU legislative process that have shifted the balance of power between the Council and the European Parliament. The project then proceeds to seek out the main factors influencing the extent and mode of coordination between the actors, and the reasons member states differ in their approach to coordination. The analysis focuses, in particular, on the sizes and political systems of the member states, as well as on the duration of their EU membership. Finally, MEPs' receptiveness to coordination is investigated, and the effect of national and political affiliation on MEPs' openness to the input they receive from the national governments is analyzed. Through a qualitative analysis of empirical data gathered from semi-structured interviews with government officials, MEPs and MEP assistants from the selected countries, the project finds that while governments have reacted to the increased relative influence of the European Parliament by seeking to influence legislative negotiations via the MEPs, the development, in several countries, has been less than linear. The duration of states' EU membership and the overall amount of resources the governments allocate to influencing EU negotiations are among the main factors found to affect the governments' level of coordination. The political system of the member states is fund to have little influence on the extent or manner of coordination efforts by the governments. In general, MEPs have a positive view of engaging with, and receiving, input of both a political and technical nature from the governments. This positive view largely cuts across the domestic party political divide and, albeit to a lesser extent, across national lines. It is even found that, among some MEPs, an increased effort by the national governments to engage bilaterally with the MEPs, simultaneously with the formal legislative negotiations between the Council and the European Parliament, would be welcomed.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Information -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Abbreviations and Acronyms -- Dedication -- Introduction: "Social Europe" -- irrelevant, catching up or dangerous? -- 1 What is the European social question? -- Grasping the social question from different conceptual angles -- Inequality, justice and solidarity -- Social rights and social citizenship -- Welfare states and the European social model -- EU socio-economic governance and Social Europe -- Cohesion and convergence -- Explanations for the EU's social deficit

What happens to European Union (EU) fiscal policy coordination in hard times? Recent accounts of the EU have portrayed the union as plagued by an austerity regime and rampant moral hazard. Charlotte Rommerskirchen provides an alternative account of economic cooperation in Europe during the Great Recession and the European Debt Crisis. Drawing on Mancur Olson's theory of collective action, this volume combines evidence from statistical analysis and extensive interviews with key players.