Suchergebnisse

This article sets out to review the policies introduced by the European Pillar of Social Rights and its accompanying initiatives in light of their contribution to European Union (EU) social sustainability, particularly in comparison with their predecessors. The balance between economic and social policies at EU level has long been tipped in favour of the economic, leaving an atrophic social side a servant of market-based objectives. Social sustainability appeared absent from the European vocabulary, at least in substantive terms, something exacerbated by the effects of the 2008 crisis. The criticisms that ensued led to a resurgence of interest in establishing a socially sustainable Union, crystallized in the Pillar and its accompanying initiatives. Despite their potential, further commitment by the Member States as well as more concrete and legally binding proposals are necessary, for without them this social resurgence might once again surrender to economic hegemony.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows in the world have increased rapidly during the last decade. Most of the FDI inflows are targeted to developed countries (78% in 1999, about fifth of the flows are going to developing countries and Central and Eastern European transition countries are the host countries for only 2% of the world FDI. The necessity of foreign investments in the transition countries is the result of industrial restructuring in post-socialist Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries. New markets, lower production costs and higher profit rates have been the main motivators in investing to the transition countries. Privatization programs of some of these countries have also facilitated foreign direct investments. Lankes and Venables (1996) and Lankes and Stern (1998) have noted that previous studies have shown predominance of market seeking investors in Central and Eastern European countries and factor cost considerations appeared to be of less importance for the majority of investments. A study by Meyer (1995) showed also that local market of Central and Eastern European countries is the primary motive in making foreign direct investments and factor costs played only a secondary role in investing to those markets at the beginning of the transition process. Several other studies (for example Barrell et al. 1999; Borsos-Torstila 1998; Éltetö 1999, Garibaldi et al. 1999; Guimaraes et al. 1997; Holland et al. 1998a, 1998b; Wang et al. 1995; Ziacik 2000 have also shown the significance of the determinants that are important for these types of investors in explaining the foreign investments' flows into the transition countries. Two other types of foreign investors are not so important due to the relative lack of natural resources and strategic assets in Central and Eastern European transition countries. However, it has to be considered that there are quite big differences in the shares of different types of foreign investors between countries and sectors. A number of Central and Eastern European transition countries are in the middle of process of integration to the European Union now. Economic integration has impact on the movement of the foreign direct investment. The main aim of this paper is to find out the possible changes in attractiveness of investment climate of the Central and Eastern European transition countries in the context of European integration. Taking into account this aim, paper is divided into four parts: * At first, theoretical foundations of foreign direct investments movements and results of the previous empirical research are presented. * Then, theoretical foundations of the impact of regional integration on foreign direct investment flows is discussed. * After this, determinants of FDI inflows in Central and Eastern European countries and in Estonia are analyzed by using generalized component, regression and multinominal logistic analysis, * Finally potential changes in attractiveness of the Central and Eastern European transition countries are discussed and some economic-political recommendations for the governments are presented. REFERENCES: 1. Barrell, R., Pain, N. Trade Restraints and Japanese Direct Investment Flows. - European Economic Review, 1999, Vol. 43, pp. 29-45. 2. Borsos-Torstila, J. Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment Operations of Finnish Multinational Companies in Transition Economies in 1990-1995. Helsinki, 1998, 180 p. 3. Ëltetö, A. The Impact of FDI on the Foreign Trade of Central European Countries. – Materials of the workshop "Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on the International Competitiveness of CEEC Manufacturing and EU Enlargement", Budapest, November 19-20, 1999, 23 p. 4. Garibaldi, P., Mora, N., Sahay, R., Zettelmeyer, J. What Moves Capital to Transition Economies? – Materials of the IMF Conference "A Decade of Transition: Achievements and Challenges", February, 1999, 49 p. 5. Guimaraes, P., Rolfe, R.J., Doupnik, T., Woodward, D.P. The Locational Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Central Europe. – SSRN Journal, 1997, July, 17 p. 6. Holland, D., Pain, N. The Determinants and Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in the Transition Economies: A Panel Data Analysis. – Materials of the conference "Convergence or Divergence: Aspirations and Reality in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia" Buckinghamshire, 1998a, pp. 300-325. 7. Holland D., Pain, N. The Diffusion of Innovations in Central and Eastern Europe: A Study of the Determinants and Impact of Foreign Direct Investment. – Materials of the conference "Convergence or Divergence: Aspirations and Reality in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia", Buckinghamshire, 1998b, 49 p. 8. Lankes, H.-P., Stern, N. Capital Flows to Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. – EBRD Working Paper, 1998, No. 27, 31 p. 9. Lankes, H.-P., Venables, A.J. Foreign Direct Investment in Economic Transition: The Changing Pattern of Investments. – Economies of Transition, 1996, Vol. 4, No. 2 pp. 331-347. 10. Meyer, K. Direct Foreign Investment in Eastern Europe: The Role of Labor Costs. - Comparative Economic Studies, 1995, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 69-88 (cited by http://www.ebscohost.com pp. 1-16). 11. Wang, Z.Q., Swain, N.J. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Transforming Economies: Empirical Evidence from Hungary and China. – Weltwirtschaftlisches Archiv, 1995, Band 131, pp. 359-382. 12. Ziacik, T. An Assessment of the Estonian Investment Climate: Results of a Survey of Foreign Investors and Policy Implications. – BOFIT Discussion Papers, 2000, No. 3, 52 p.

This book is the result of the PhD defended at the University of Liège in April 2018. I propose a two-part examination of the right to an effective remedy in litigation concerning the legality of Union acts. The first part describes the origins, foundations and content of this right in the European Union legal order. Following an examination of the texts (and their development) and the case law of the Court of Justice, I come to the intermediate conclusion that the action for annulment of Union acts, provided for by Article 263 of the TFEU, does not make it possible, in the current state of interpretation of its conditions by the Court of Justice, to guarantee the right to an effective remedy of the Union citizen. In the second part, I then look for the elements that would make it possible to ensure a real control of the legality of Union acts in the complete system of remedies and procedures supposedly put in place by the TFEU. Having analysed the reference for a preliminary ruling, the plea of illegality and the action for non-contractual liability, I consider that these procedures do not provide the necessary judicial protection either. In those circumstances, I then plan to create a declaratory relief to effectively remedy the shortcomings of the mechanism for monitoring the legality of Union acts. Based on Article 19 TEU, this action would be integrated into national legal remedies.

This article provides a legal perspective on the new European External Action Service (EEAS), and positions this new body in the reshuffled institutional balance of EU external relations. To that end, the paper examines the EEAS's legal nature as compared to that of Council, Commission, their support services and EU agencies, and seeks to define the EEAS's sui generis status in the EU institutional set-up. Some relevant questions are: What are the implications of its absence of legal personality, what does its "functional autonomy" from the Council and Commission imply, what are its formal powers - if any, and could the EEAS be drawn into proceedings before the Court of Justice? In answering those questions, this article then examines to what extent the legal-institutional choices on the structure of the EU External Action Service reflects the age-old tension entrenched in EU external relations law: the EU's nature as an internally diverse entity, which seeks to present a coherent Union voice to the world.

The EC food industry is characterized by a fragmented manufacturing
sector of over 100,000 companies. The heterogeneous nature of food
demand and the predominance of family‐owned companies servicing
specialized local needs has hindered the growth of the major food
manufacturers, while the influence of the food multiples has grown
unabated. An analysis of the forces for change in the European food
industry leads to the conclusion that partnerships and alliances will
increase rapidly throughout Europe. Vertical co‐ordination will be
driven by such factors as: food safety legislation; growing consumer
concern over how, where and by whom food products are produced; and
incentives for all parties to squeeze costs in the supply chain to gain
additional margin and enhanced competitiveness. Horizontal alliances
will continue to develop as retailers seek to maintain their strength in
the market, manufacturers attempt to minimize the risks associated with
entering new markets, and farmers (co‐operatives) look to add value to
their produce and improve marketing management.