Suchergebnisse

"Both in WTO law and EU law there is a dichotomy between liberalisation based on market access and targeting domestic regulation. Consequently, both regimes share the problem of distinguishing national measures impairing market access and those that do not have such effect. Looking at the provision of services, a cornerstone of EU substantive law, in the EU and the WTO this book offers a comprehensive evaluation of the current legal status quo on transnational services provision on a global level. Based on thorough analysis of both EU and WTO law, policymakers are provided with concrete proposals for fostering the consistency and effectiveness of the current regime. A final chapter discusses possible approaches to regulation such as home state rule, host state rule and mutual recognition from a comparative perspective. Written by a highly respected author team, this is essential reading for EU internal market specialists and WTO law scholars alike"--. "Services liberalization is just as much a hot potato within the European Union as it is within the WTO. In this work Markus Klamert offers a stimulating examination of how the EU and the WTO have coped with market liberalization and with the development of regulatory standards. His analysis almost recalls the perceived relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States (two nations divided by a common language). While the EU and WTO regimes display manifest differences, the language of market access, discrimination, justifi cation and harmonization can be seen as being hewn from the same roots. This work seeks to lift the veil of ignorance about these similarities and to encourage more cross-fertilization than has hitherto occurred

Introduction -- Part I: Introducing loyalty. Loyalty in the EU treaties ; Loyalty in context ; Loyalty and the constitutionalization of EU law -- Part II: The cohesion of European Union law. A primer on the structure of Union law ; Supremacy, pre-emption, and the Union interest ; Effectiveness, judicial protection, and loyalty -- Part III: Cooperation in the European Union. A primer on Union competences ; Loyalty and non-exclusive competences ; Manifestations of loyalty in secondary law ; Loyalty and mixed agreements -- Part IV: The construction of the European Union. A primer on constitutional cooperation and conflict in the EU ; On the nature of loyalty ; Deconstructing loyalty ; Amplification and the limits of loyalty.

The book offers the first treatment in English to provide a thorough examination of the legal duties falling under the principle of loyalty in EU public law. Despite its seemingly innocuous wording, in what is now Article 4 (3) TEU, the principle of sincere cooperation has had a significant impact in deepening the reach of EU law within the Member States. The principle has been central to the development of Union law since the 1960s, and is still being relied on by the European Court of Justice to often-controversial effect. Providing a thorough discussion of the principle of loyalty in EU law, this book introduces a novel classification of the very diverse roles loyalty plays in the EU. It distinguishes between the effects loyalty prescribes for interlocking the legal orders of the Member States with Union law (cohesion), its application in preventing and resolving conflicts between the Union and the Member States (cooperation), and the loyalty principle's role in the shaping of EU law (construction). It addresses important and yet unresolved questions pertaining to loyalty, such as its relation to the principles of solidarity, effectiveness, fidelity, pre-emption, the Union interest, institutional balance, and the unity of international representation. The book explains why the principle of loyalty has been neglected in the prevailing narratives about the constitutionalization of EU law, places it in its international context, examining how it has influenced EU law and the comparisons that can be drawn with national and international principles of law.

The book offers the first treatment in English to provide a thorough examination of the legal duties falling under the principle of loyalty in EU public law. Despite its seemingly innocuous wording, in what is now Article 4 (3) TEU, the principle of sincere cooperation has had a significant impact in deepening the reach of EU law within the Member States. The principle has been central to the development of Union law since the 1960s, and is still being relied on by the European Court of Justice to often-controversial effect. Providing a thorough discussion of the principle of loyalty in EU law, this book introduces a novel classification of the very diverse roles loyalty plays in the EU. It distinguishes between the effects loyalty prescribes for interlocking the legal orders of the Member States with Union law (cohesion), its application in preventing and resolving conflicts between the Union and the Member States (cooperation), and the loyalty principle's role in the shaping of EU law (construction). It addresses important and yet unresolved questions pertaining to loyalty, such as its relation to the principles of solidarity, effectiveness, fidelity, pre-emption, the Union interest, institutional balance, and the unity of international representation. The book explains why the principle of loyalty has been neglected in the prevailing narratives about the constitutionalization of EU law, places it in its international context, examining how it has influenced EU law and the comparisons that can be drawn with national and international principles of law.

Obwohl es einer der zentralen Grundsätze des Rechts der Europäischen Union ist, gibt es immer noch keinen Konsens über die Gründe für den Vorrang des Rechts der Europäischen Union vor dem Recht der Mitgliedstaaten. Wenig diskutiert wird auch die immer wieder in der Rechtsprechung geltend gemachte Forderung nach einer einheitlichen Anwendung des Unionsrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten. Dieses Papier legt nahe, dass sowohl Vorherrschaft als auch Einheitlichkeit als Verhinderung der Diskriminierung von Einzelpersonen verstanden werden können, die durch die unterschiedliche Anwendung des Unionsrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten verursacht würde. Insofern ergänzt die nunmehr in Art. 4 Abs. 2 EUV zur Gleichstellung der Mitgliedstaaten vorgesehene mitgliedstaatszentrierte Nichtdiskriminierung (lediglich) die in Art. 18 AEUV und Art. 21 GRCh verankerte individualzentrierte Nichtdiskriminierung. Darüber hinaus erörtert dieses Papier, wie sich diese beiden Standards auf die sogenannte Einheit des Binnenmarkts beziehen. ; Despite being one of the pivotal principles of European Union law, there still is no consensus on the rationale for the supremacy of the law of the European Union over the law of the Member States. There is also not much discussion on the repeated claims in case law that Union law must have uniform application in the Member States. This paper suggests that both supremacy and uniformity can be understood as preventing the discrimination of individuals that would be caused by the divergent application of Union law in the Member States. In this respect, Member state-centred non-discrimination, now provided in Article 4(2) TEU on the equality of Member States, (merely) complements individual-centred non-discrimination, anchored in Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 CFR. Moreover, this paper discusses how these two standards relate to what is referred to as the unity of the internal market.

AbstractWhen we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years afterTobbaco Advertising IandIIit remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.