Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis Article analyses recent developments in Union citizenship, in particular the relationship between Articles 20 and 21 TFEU. In doing so, it divides Union citizenship into a transnational and a supranational dimension with the transnational dimension having two sub-dimensions: social integration and autonomy. It is argued that we are seeing an increased emphasis on the responsibility of the individual citizen in the context of the transnational dimension and a clear linkage between the transnational and supranational dimensions. The result of these two moves is a status which continues to emphasise the relationship between the Union citizen and the communities represented by Member States, while framing this with a more prominent supranational dimension.

"Over the past 20 years the European Union has been increasingly active in the area of criminal law. Meanwhile, the status of European Union citizenship has been progressively developed and strengthened. Adopting an expressive and communitarian perspective of the criminal law, this book considers EU criminal law in light of EU citizenship with a view to revealing the structure of the EU's political community as expressed in its criminal law. It argues that while national communities remain dominant, through transnational processes certain features of a supranational community can be said to emerge. The book will be of interest to scholars of EU citizenship, EU criminal law and EU law and integration more generally"

This report explores challenges to political participation of mobile EU citizens in Ireland. It discusses electoral rights of non-resident citizens and non-citizen residents from the EU in European Parliament and local elections. The report also offers recommendations on how to increase political participation of mobile EU citizens in this country. ; This report was funded by the European Union's Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (2014-2020). The content of this report represents the views of the author only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Criminal law has an inherent expressive and communitarian dimension, expressing the common values and norms of the political community. Drawing on the theory of Antony Duff, this article explores the extent to which the EU's actions in the area of substantive criminal law can be said to express common European values by identifying actions deemed wrongful vis-à-vis the Union as a whole. The Union is limited in its capacity to express conceptions of wrong-doing through its substantive criminal law by the limited nature of its competences, its functional character and its multilevel structure. However, it does enjoy an expressive quality in two broad areas; first, the identification of European public goods, harm to which constitutes a wrong to the Union and second, common European public values. Also, substantive EU criminal law can support transnational criminal law processes, interacting with national criminal law and giving rise to the identification of certain shared wrongs amongst Member States. Thus, while certainly limited, EU criminal law does fulfil a role in the identification of wrongful behaviour and the expression of common values.

Defence date: 6 November 2015 ; Examining Board: Professor Loïc Azoulai, EUI (Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, EUI; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary University, London; Professor Niamh Níc Shuibhne, University of Edinburgh ; The aim of this thesis is to analyse the extent to which criminal law can contribute towards our understanding of Union citizenship and of the political community of the Union. In carrying out this task it adopts a particular perspective on both criminal law and Union citizenship. Firstly, it adopts the criminal law theory developed by RA Duff, premised on the notions of citizenship and community; crimes are viewed as public wrongs, committed against the community. Individuals are held responsible as citizens and are called to account before the community. Secondly, it adopts a particular account of Union citizenship based on a distinction between transnational dimensions and supranational dimensions. The transnational dimension is then broken into two sub-dimensions based on the concepts of social integration and autonomy or a space of free movement. The role of criminal law in these dimensions of Union Citizenship is analysed in the main body of the thesis. Two chapters consider the role of criminal law in social integration in the context of the acquisition of residence rights and the serving of sentences. Two chapters consider the parallels between the autonomy of Union citizens that results in a single space of movement, and the area of justice as it is constructed through the European Arrest Warrant and the operation of a transnational ne bis in idem principle. A final substantive chapter details the competence of the Union to adopt legislation criminalising certain conduct and the extent to which this can be said to contribute to the formation of a community at a supranational level. A conclusion brings together the findings of the thesis in relation to Union citizenship and considers the implications for the structure of the political community in the Union. It is suggested the national remains the main site for communities in the Union. However, transnational processes associated with Union citizenship trigger the emergence of certain supranational norms and ultimately a composite, complementary supranational community.

Electoral rights for Irish citizens abroad and for foreign residents have been a topic of political debate (less so of legislative reform) for at least fifty years. There is a long-standing demand that Irish emigrants be given some parliamentary representation, in either the upper house (Seanad Éireann) or the lower house (Dáil Éireann). The only electoral rights granted to Irish citizens not ordinarily resident in the State are the right to be elected to either house of parliament and, for graduates of certain universities within the State, a vote in the election of the Senators representing those universities. Elections to the European Parliament apart, in relation to the electoral rights of non-citizens ordinarily resident in Ireland, a sharp distinction exists between local elections (where all ordinarily resident in the State, irrespective of citizenship, have both active and passive electoral rights) and elections to Dáil Éireann, in which only Irish citizens have the right to be elected and only Irish citizens, British citizens (and, potentially, citizens of other European Union member states) have the right to vote. Wide extension of electoral rights in local elections has been uncontroversial and there was little opposition to the constitutional amendment in 1984 providing for the possibility of noncitizens voting in Dáil elections. Issues concerning the extension of electoral rights generally appear to provoke relatively little public interest; extending a form of postal voting to all prisoners in the State, irrespective of their crimes or the duration of their sentences attracted little public attention.