Suchergebnisse

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts' more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court's approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court's broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

The paper illustrates the model of territorial networks and it investigates the role of institutions in a bottom-up approach of economic and institutional integration aiming to tackle the negative impacts of the globalization process on the economic development. The first chapter illustrates in analytical terms the model of territorial networks and the multidimen-sional nature of the process of integration, in a regional and international setting and it contrasts it with the traditional neoclassical model of price competition and of aggregate efficiency. The second chapter illustrates the concept of organizational/institutional distance and it analyses the various forms of interregional interdependence between developed and less developed regions and it contrasts them with the neoclassical model of market integration and interregional competition. The third chapter investigates the impact of the European Union enlargement on a reform of the aims and instruments of EU regional policy and the characteristics of a regional policy appropriate to the aim of the integration of the new accessing countries in the European Union. Finally, the fourth chapter illustrates the role of institutions in the governance of the international economic relations and the lessons which may be derived from the process of European integration in order to tackle the impact of the globalization process on less developed countries. Key words: Globalization, European Integration, networks, distance, institutions Prof. Riccardo Cappellin

This paper traces the profound decline in German unionism over the course of the last three decades. Today just one in five workers is a union member, and it is now moot whether this degree of penetration is consistent with a corporatist model built on encompassing unions. The decline in union membership and density is attributable to external forces that have confronted unions in many countries (such as globalization and compositional changes in the workforce) and to some specifically German considerations (such as the transition process in post-communist Eastern Germany) and sustained intervals of classic insider behavior on the part of German unions. The 'correctives' have included mergers between unions, decentralization, and wages that are more responsive to unemployment. At issue is the success of these innovations. For instance, the trend toward decentralization in collective bargaining hinges in part on the health of that other pillar of the dual system of industrial relations, the works council. But works council coverage has also declined, leading some observers to equate decentralization with deregulation. While this conclusion is likely too radical, German unions are at the cross roads. It is argued here that if they fail to define what they stand for, are unable to increase their presence at the workplace, and continue to lack convincing strategies to deal with contemporary economic and political trends working against them, then their decline may become a rout.

Despite the importance of the Bologna process for the mobility of students, and the further mobility of graduates, as well as for peace, growth and welfare in that area, nothing has been decided so far for the financing of internationally mobile students, so that the burden of that financing, usually public, is supported by the host country. Moreover in- and outflows of students show imbalances and such imbalances are expected to increase with mobility. Therefore, we first suggest and discuss an alternative system transferring the responsibility for financing higher education to the country of origin of the students (except for those from developing countries). Origin country finances students from its territory through a two-part portable voucher: one part is dedicated to the financing of the true cost of studies, the other part intends to support student's life and might be designed in such a way that some social goals are reached. Those vouchers can be used anywhere in a defined international area provided it is in the designed field of studies and in a school whose quality has been recognized by the issuing country. Some actual systems at work in the world, which prefigure aspects of the proposal, are presented in appendix. Second, we show that, when coupled with a compensation of the origin country in case of international career of the graduate, the system proposed in this paper might be equivalent to a centralized efficient design. JEL Code: H41, H77, I20.

Despite the importance of the Bologna process for the mobility of students, and the further mobility of graduates, as well as for peace, growth and welfare in that area, nothing has been decided so far for the financing of internationally mobile students, so that the burden of that financing, usually public, is supported by the host country. Moreover in- and outflows of students show imbalances and such imbalances are expected to increase with mobility. Therefore, we first suggest and discuss an alternative system transferring the responsibility for financing higher education to the country of origin of the students (except for those from developing countries). Origin country finances students from its territory through a two-part portable voucher: one part is dedicated to the financing of the true cost of studies, the other part intends to support student's life and might be designed in such a way that some social goals are reached. Those vouchers can be used anywhere in a defined international area provided it is in the designed field of studies and in a school whose quality has been recognized by the issuing country. Some actual systems at work in the world, which prefigure aspects of the proposal, are presented in appendix. Second, we show that, when coupled with a compensation of the origin country in case of international career of the graduate, the system proposed in this paper might be equivalent to a centralized efficient design. JEL Code: H41, H77, I20.

Cada vez es más frecuente el uso de indicadores subjetivos para el estudio de la calidad de vida, por el interés que genera conocer no solo lo que tienen sino también lo que sienten los ciudadanos en diferentes ámbitos de su vida. El objetivo de este trabajo es construir indicadores sintéticos subjetivos que cuantifiquen la calidad de vida en los distintos países de la UE-28, con los datos de la Encuesta de Calidad de Vida (EQLS) en los años 2007, 2011 y 2016. Se construirá un indicador sintético general utilizando dos metodologías, basados en formulaciones claramente diferentes: análisis de Mazziota-Pareto (IMP) y análisis de componentes principales estandarizado (IACP) en los tres períodos. El estudio en varios años permite analizar la evolución de la calidad de vida en la UE-28 en el tiempo. Mediante ambos procedimientos se obtienen resultados similares en la clasificación de los países ; The use of subjective indicators for the study of quality of life is becoming more and more frequent, due to the interest generated by knowing not only what they have but also what citizens feel in different areas of their lives. The objective of this work is to construct subjective synthetic indicators that quantify the quality of life in the different countries of the EU-28, with data from the Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) in the years 2007, 2011 and 2016. It will be constructed a general synthetic indicator using two methodologies, based on clearly different formulations: Mazziota-Pareto analysis (IMP) and standardized principal component analysis (IPCA) in the three periods. The study in several years allows to analyze the evolution of the quality of life in the EU-28 over time. By means of both procedures, similar results are obtained in the classification of countries

The aim of the article is to compare the total real GDP growth of European countries from the 3rd quarter of 2008 with the 3rd quarter of 2012, the period characterized by a predominant economic stagnation or economic recession in the majority of examined European countries. The countries are divided into groups based on the following grounds: whether they are geographically close to the economic center (Germany) or peripheral, whether they are in the eurozone or not, whether they are (new) EU members or 'old' ones, etc. The main findings from the comparisons are as follows: 1. European countries close to the economic center (Germany and its neighbours) experienced, on average, positive economic growth during examined period, while countries from European periphery on average experienced negative economic growth during the same period. This difference was found statistically significant at the α = 0.01 level. 2. Differences between eurozone and non-eurozone, old and new EU members, and between more and less populated countries were found statistically insignificant. 3. European regions with the most negative real total GDP growth included the Baltics, the Balkans, Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal) and Iceland. The most successful countries with the most positive real total GDP growth were central European countries (Poland, Slovakia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria) and those in northern Europe (Sweden and Norway). ; Celem artykułu jest porównanie całkowitego wzrostu realnego PKB w krajach europejskich od III kwartału 2008 roku do III kwartału 2012 roku, w okresie charakteryzującym się przewagą stagnacji i recesji gospodarczej, która miała miejsce w większości badanych krajów europejskich. Kraje zostały podzielone na grupy na podstawie następujących kryteriów: geograficzna bliskość lub peryferyjność w stosunku do centrum gospodarczego (Niemcy), członkostwo w strefie euro lub jego brak, członkostwo w UE (z podziałem na kraje starej i nowej Unii) lub jego brak. Główne wnioski z porównania są następujące: 1. Kraje europejskie blisko centrum gospodarczego (Niemcy i sąsiedzi) zanotowały dodatni wzrost gospodarczy w badanym, okresie podczas gdy w tym samym okresie kraje europejskiej peryferii wzrostu gospodarczego osiągnęły wzrost ujemny (średnio). Różnica ta była statystycznie znacząca na poziomie α = 0,01. 2. Różnice pomiędzy krajami w i poza strefą euro, różnice między starymi i nowymi członkami UE oraz różnice między bardziej i mniej zaludnionymi krajami UE nie były statystycznie znaczące. 3. Europejskie regiony z najwyższym ujemnym wzrostem realnego wzrostu PKB obejmują kraje bałtyckie, Bałkany, Europę Południową (Włochy, Portugalię) i Islandię. Najwyższy dodatni wzrost PKB osiągnęły kraje Europy Środkowej (Polska, Słowacja, Niemcy, Austria), Zachodniej (Szwajcaria) i Północnej (Szwecja, Norwegia).