Suchergebnisse

Legal scholarship on EU funding is a puzzle. It is a surprisingly recent scholarship that only tangentially focuses on the original and central source of EU funding: the EU budget. The first part of this analysis explores why the budget has attracted so little attention in EU legal scholarship and why the budget was overlooked in the recent funding turn in EU legal scholarship. The second part of the analysis makes the case for foregrounding the EU budget in legal scholarship on EU funding. It develops five reasons or paths for focusing more fully on the EU budget: completeness; building on budget-adjacent scholarship; a better guide to new EU directions; adding funding to governance; and understanding rule of law and other conditionalities. It makes the case that it is time for the budget in EU legal scholarship.

Social Europe is not only back but, we aim to show, bigger and bolder than ever before. Through historical comparison we make the case that, rather than being a false dawn, legislative developments linked to the 2017 European Pillar of Social Rights (Pillar or EPSR) beckon such a significant and broad-based burgeoning of Social Europe that it can be characterised as the 'Roaring 20s' for Social Europe. This is quite a surprise based on recent Social Europe history, the Pillar itself and established EU competence limits and practices. How Social Europe has defied these justifiably low expectations is the primary focus of this analysis. It aims to characterise and illustrate what we see as a new and quite dramatic turn for Social Europe.

AbstractThis analysis investigates changing mobilization at the ILO in response to the labour and social rights shock created by EU and IMF demands in the EU sovereign debt crisis (Crisis Europe or euro-crisis). Mobilization means the purposeful use of legal norms and institutions by social movements and civil society groups to advance identified policy goals. It can be contrasted with the use of legal norms and institutions by individuals or entities to settle disputes affecting them. After introducing relevant features of euro-crisis and the ILO, the article develops an analysis that measures changing mobilization at the ILO during euro-crisis. It then shows how such an analysis makes two key contributions: first, to our understanding of the ILO and, second, to how we approach mobilization. First, by viewing the ILO as a rights mobilization structure, it shows the vitality and interest of doubted or neglected ILO supervision and complaints mechanisms. Five elements are underlined: the ILO is more than existing literature assumes; it questions the depiction of the ILO as a 'toothless tiger'; the sharp divide between unions and NGOs is overstated; certain institutional design features make the ILO a good venue for transnational mobilization; the ILO is not transparent in terms of access to documents relevant to mobilization and compares poorly in this respect with UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Second, by setting it against existing literature, it is shown how measuring mobilization is distinctive within the broader human rights mobilization scholarship. The most important insights it introduces are: rejecting the assumption that mobilization inevitably follows a significant rights shock such as euro-crisis; addressing the puzzles of union 'mobilization' and motivation; operationalizing measurement of mobilization against the backdrop of venue choices; considering how to deal with an international organization which is both a mobilization venue and an engaged actor.

This analysis aims to set out clearly and succinctly the legal arrangements for macro-economic governance in EMU, legal challenges to that regime and different ways of assessing that new regime. It focuses on changes introduced from 2010, the year when the euro area crisis, and the response to it, began, and on changes to the law other than those concerning provision of sovereign debt loan assistance. The analysis first presents the (many) key EMU acronyms before outlining in four diagrams what is new in EMU by looking at what changes have been made since 2010. It outlines what further proposals in this area are included in the Five Presidents' Report of June 2015. It then briefly examines three central legal challenges with the current regime: competence, compatibility and complexity. Finally it raises issues of the effectiveness of the EU macro-economic governance regime by considering three assessments: too early to say, abject failure or triumph of pragmatic intelligence. These raise questions of optimal policy design. The four diagrams accordingly provide the foundation for understanding the current regime, further proposed changes, legal challenges and issues of effectiveness. ; The ADEMU Working Paper Series is being supported by the European Commission Horizon 2020 European Union funding for Research & Innovation, grant agreement No 649396.

This paper suggests that investigating how internal market architecture affects the accommodation of labour rights helps us better to understand internal market-labour rights conflicts and how they might be resolved. It probes the legislation/primary Treaty freedom dimension of the architecture, by looking at the interplay between legislature and Court of Justice in two overlapping free movement of service fields where labour rights' accommodation is contested: posting of workers and public procurement. The aspirations and reality of the current architecture are explored. Five lessons about internal market architecture are drawn from the case-study. Alternative architectural options, drawing on new governance, are canvassed.

Defence date: 1 July 1997 ; Examining board: Prof. Brian Bercusson, University of Manchester (co-supervisor) ; Prof. Bob Hepple, University of Cambridge ; Prof. Antoine Lyon-Caen, University of Paris X Nanterre ; Prof. Silvana Sciarra, European University Institute (supervisor) ; Prof. Spiros Simitis, University of Frankfurt

This title provides tools and approaches to study the activities of the European Court of Justice. Using new primary sources and an interdisciplinary approach, it develops a more holistic methodology for studying law and courts, especially the Court of Justice.

In this collection of essays, originally presented at the Academy of European Law in Florence, the changing landscape of the EU's legal acts is explored. Further to this, the changing boundaries between legal acts and processes which may create norms but do not create 'law' in the traditional sense are analysed. This landscape is presented in two ways. Firstly, by focusing on the transformations and challenges to the EU's traditional legal acts, in particular since the reconfiguration of the categories of legal acts and the procedures for which they are adopted by the Lisbon Treaty. Secondly, the collection focuses on those acts found at (or beyond) the margin of classic EU legal acts, including acts of Member States such as inter se treaties; self-regulation and collective agreements; so-called soft law; and decision-making outside the normal legislative procedures. The volume endeavours to explain the adaptability of the EU legal order despite the fact that the legal instruments at the Union's disposal have not fundamentally changed since the Treaty of Rome came into force 60 years ago. It explores the challenges that new decisional procedures and variations in the legal quality of EU acts pose for the EU's legal order, including alterations to institutional balance and the roles of the different institutional actors and challenges to the rule of law.--