Suchergebnisse

In the debate surrounding the reform of the Dublin system, the idea of distributing protection seekers among the Member States on the basis of pre-determined quotas is gaining support. This article examines the proposals currently under consideration, and offers a critical appraisal in light of the experiences garnered under the Dublin system and the 2015 relocation schemes. It advances the argument that, in pursuing fair sharing among the Member States, such proposals risk replicating the failings of the Dublin system. It also advances the broader thesis that sharing large numbers of persons among states, without their consent, is dubious from a legal perspective and practically unfeasible, and that pursuing this option ultimately precludes any hope of establishing a fair, efficient and sustainable Common European Asylum System (CEAS).

The "Europeanization" of non-EU countries' laws is predominantly seen as an "export" of the EU acquis, especially in the case of so-called "quasi-member" states such as Switzerland. Based on an examination of the Swiss experience, this paper highlights the flaws of this conceptualization: the Europeanization of Swiss Law is a highly differentiated phenomenon, encompassing several forms of approximation to EU Law. All of these forms fall short of an "export" of norms, and result in the creation of something new: a "Europeanized law" that is similar to, but qualitatively different from, EU Law. Another drawback of the "export" metaphor is the emphasis it places on the isomorphism of positive legislation. Europeanization goes deeper than that. As shown in this paper, it is a process of transformation involving not only positive law, but also legal thinking. The Swiss case demonstrates how significant such deeper transformations can be: the Europeanization of positive law has induced an alteration of the traditional canon of legal interpretation. It also demonstrates how problematic such transformations can be: the above-mentioned alteration has not given rise to a new and universally accepted canon of interpretation. This reflects the tension between the need for clear "rules of reference" for EU legal materials – which are required in order to restore coherence and predictability to an extensively Europeanized legal system – and the reluctance to give a legal value to foreign legal materials – which is rooted in a traditional understanding of the concept of "law". Such tension, in turn, shows what deep and difficult transformations are required in order to establish a viable model of legal integration outside supranational structures.

En Europe, les règles fondamentales en matière de transports émanent désormais de l'Union européenne. Le droit européen des transports s'est considérablement développé au cours des trente dernières années et évoluera encore en réponse aux défis que pose la croissance de la mobilité. Le présent ouvrage expose de manière actualisée, synthétique et complète ce droit en constante évolution. La première partie en illustre le contexte historique et systématique, y compris les principes directeurs ancrés dans les Traités fondateurs de l'Union. La deuxième partie aborde en détail l'acquis en vigueur à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice. La législation relative aux différents modes de transport, ainsi que les mesures en matière de transport multimodal et d'infrastructures, y sont analysées. L'action extérieure de l'Union est systématiquement prise en compte, tout comme le rayonnement du droit de l'Union par-delà ses frontières. Chaque chapitre comporte en outre un bilan des actions entreprises par l'Union dans chaque domaine et aborde leurs perspectives de développement. --

In the context of the 2004 Enlargement, several EU governments reformed their social legislation to restrict the access to benefits of job-seeking or inactive EU citizens. Many of these restrictions were in tension with the case-law of the European Court of Justice, but when it came to judge their compatibility with EU law, the ECJ was more lenient than many anticipated. This article analyses this shift in ECJ case-law by looking at the dialogue between the Court and national authorities against the backdrop of EU legislative reform. It demonstrates that Member States contributed to the evolution of case-law by 'pushing the boundaries' of EU law both domestically and before the Court. It shows in particular how closely the arguments presented before the Court by national judiciaries or governments correlate with the new interpretations adopted by the Court itself. This is illustrated with empirical evidence from the UK and Germany.

In its case law on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the ECJ has put great emphasis on the "principle of mutual trust". However, there is still relatively little analysis of the nature and content of the principle as it applies across the whole range of AFSJ law. This article aims to provide such an analysis. Taking a holistic approach, it examines the principle as established under Treaty provisions, legislation and case law relating to the AFSJ. It addresses its legal effects and unpacks its core normative propositions, also revisiting the issue of its relations with fundamental rights. The article concludes that, in essence, the principle is no more and no less than a bundle of interpretive doctrines. Its function is to enhance the effet utile of AFSJ legislation and to provide it with some doctrinal unity, without constraining the legislature's wide discretion in determining the form or degree of "mutual trust" required of the Member States under every individual AFSJ instrument.