Suchergebnisse

The intertwinement of EC law and national law may create unforeseeability in situations where EC law invades the national cases, which gives rise to the very question of legal certainty in EC law. This study contributes to the contemporary discussion, which wrestles with the following questions in particular: - What have been the visions and objectives for European integration in the last decades? - How to describe European Union as a political entity and a legal system? - What is the relationship between legal certainty, rule of law, various general principles and human rights? - What is the core of legal certainty on the basis of the case study? - What kind of legal arguments and patterns of justification are there from a comparative perspective? - How has the term 'legal certainty' been defined in the Nordic legal theory? - How predictable and acceptable are the interpretations of the European Court of Justice - is it "running wild"? Legal certainty relates to the principle of non-retroactivity and the protection of legitimate expectations in particular, but more profoundly it can be related to the conceptual scale for weighing up and balancing between formal justice and material fairness in legal decision-making. This scale is illustrated by presenting the terms 'formal', 'factual' and 'substantive' legal certainty

The purpose of this article is to discuss from a legal perspective the status of small Member States like Finland in the EU, the national identity of Member States, and especially why it is important in the EU to emphasise the rule of law. ; The purpose of this short text is to discuss from a legal perspective the status of small Member States like Finland in the European Union, the national identity of Member States, and especially the reason why it is important in the EU to emphasize the rule of law. Equality among the Member States and the respect for the national identities of Member States are both stated in Article 4(2) TEU, so I have reviewed these issues first in their dedicated paragraphs. I have also discussed the values of the EU, the concept of the rule of law, and the effects of the observance of the rule of law on the equality of the Member States. ; Peer reviewed

This article advocates for a thick concept of rule of law, which refers to the idea that rule of law has both material and formal content. The controversial part seems to be the question of material content and whether it obscures the essential meaning of the rule of law as a requirement of legality. However, the material aspect of rule of law can be linked to the value-base of the European Union. For example, during its EU Presidency, Finland has strongly emphasized the significance of the value base and rule of law in Article 2 TEU for the development of the EU. Democracy, rule of law and human rights are connected together into a trinity where all the components form preconditions for the others. ; Oikeusvaltio-käsitteen analyysi EU-oikeuden kontekstissa ja arvio jäsenvaltioiden keskinäisen luottamuksen merkityksestä ; Peer reviewed

Eine juristische Diskussion über den Status kleiner Mitgliedstaaten wie Finnland in der Europäischen Union (EU), über nationale Identität und vor allem darüber, weshalb die Rechtstaatlichkeit in der Union in den Vordergrund gestellt werden muss, ist dringend erforderlich. Art. 4 Abs. 2 EUV statuiert die Achtung der Gleichheit und der jeweiligen nationalen Identität der Mitgliedstaaten, sodass zunächst diese Themen im Hinblick auf ihre normative Grundlage untersucht werden sollen. Zudem soll auf die Werte der EU, den Begriff der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und die Bedeutung der Wahrung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit für die Gleichheit der Mitgliedstaaten eingegangen werden.

The article concentrates on question, how and when state aids must be notified to Commission. This isuues was highly relevant and topical in the framework of the Finnish social and health care reform during the years 2018 and 2019 (PM Sipilä's government). In this reform the customer could be able to choose either the public or private sector as the provider of basic services, which caused problems concerning state aids and Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. ; Peer reviewed

What does the concept of rule of law mean? Does it contain any material elements? Despite the difficulties, it is worth trying to define the rule of law, but in a certain context. Now this context relates to the Nordic (mainly Finnish), German and British conceptions of the rule of law as well as to the rule of law in the European Union. The rule of law is a relatively contradictory concept from a theoretical perspective. For example, one may disagree whether the concept of democracy is a prerequisite for the rule of law. Another difficult question seems to be whether the concept of the rule of law contains a substantive element. The third issue to disagree relates to the question whether and to what extent one should take into account the contemporary European and international interpretations of the concept. In this article the emphasis is on the EU law perspective in a sense that the rule of law is connected to respect for democracy and the protection of human rights just like it has been presented in the Article 2 TEU.

Oikeusvaltio-käsitteellä on muodollinen ja aineellinen sisältö, mikä perustellaan artikkelissa oikeuskirjallisuuteen ja -käytäntöön nojautuen. What does the concept of rule of law mean? Does it contain any material elements? Despite the difficulties it is worth trying to define the rule of law, but in a certain context. Now this context relates to the Nordic (mainly Finnish), German (Rechtsstaat) and British conceptions of the rule of law as well as to the rule of law in the European Union. The rule of law is a relatively contradictory concept from a theoretical perspective. For example, one may disagree, whether the concept of democracy is a prerequisite for the rule of law. Another difficult question seems to be, whether the concept of the rule of law contains a substantive element. Third issue to disagree relates to the question, whether and to what extent one should take into account the contemporary European and international interpretations of the concept. In this article the emphasis is on the EU law perspective in a sense that the rule of law is connected to respect for democracy and the protection of human rights just like it has been presented in the Article 2 TEU. ; Peer reviewed

Artikkelissa problematisoidaan se, kuinka Britanniassa on Brexitiin liittyen pohdittu sitä, tulisiko parlamenttia kuulla ennen EU:lle tehtävää eroilmoitusta. Samalla artikkelissa pohditaan, mitä oikeusvaltiollisuus englantilaisille merkitsee ja mitä se merkitsee manner-Euroopassa. ; In contemporary politics it is important to emphasize the parliamentary democracy, the separation of powers between the legislator, the executive and the judiciary as well as the rule of law. Such constitutional structures will in turn strengthen the protection of human and fundamental rights. Thus democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights are intertwined in a sense that each of them seem to entail the existence of the other two. Good governance is also inseparably interlinked to the democratization, the rule of law and respect for human rights. All these standpoints may seem to be basics of constitutional and administrative law, but yet they are relevant in today's world of the so-called 'post-truth era'. And indeed the concept of rule of law has come to the fore in both political debates and academic studies. The importance of the rule of law can be illustrated by referring to the debate in the UK, whether the UK government can trigger the Article 50 procedure without an act of the Parliament on grounds of the royal prerogative. Currently we know that the UK government cannot do that on grounds of the Supreme Court ruling of 24 January 2017 ; Peer reviewed

After the referendum in June 2016, both the EU and the UK were plunged into political turmoil. The withdrawal procedure must be triggered by the UK government, in accordance with the UK's constitutional requirements. The judiciary has consequently faced questions whether the government could use the royal prerogative and the status of the devolved legislatures in the context of triggering Brexit. The Supreme Court confirmed that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 TEU without an authorizing Act of Parliament. On the role of the devolved legislatures, the Supreme Court ruled that these do not have a veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU. The UK now needs to decide what it wants to achieve in the negotiations for its future relationship with the EU. In this article, a few models are explored. Although it currently seems that the UK government is leaning towards a 'hard' or 'clean' Brexit, a deeper analysis of the options reveals that there is no easy answer to the question of what the new EU–UK relationship will be like. The purpose of this article is to analyse the options available to the UK rather than to advocate any one particular model.

After the Brexit referendum in 23 June 2016 both the EU and the UK were led to a political turmoil on account of the winning of the Leave campaign. The withdrawal procedure should be triggered by the UK Government, but in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements. The main constitutional problem related to the competence of the Government to trigger the Article 50 TEU procedure to withdraw from the EU without any Act of Parliament beforehand. The judiciary had to solve this constitutional and political dilemma. The High Court of Justice ruled in 3 November 2016 that the Government does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 TEU and thus the UK Parliament is needed to accept the notification, but this interpretation was controversial. Namely, the Belfast High court ruled later in November 2016 that neither the UK Parliament in London, nor the Northern Ireland assembly, had to be asked for their consent before the UK government triggers the Article 50 procedure. The High Court in London took it for granted that once the Article 50 procedure is triggered, it can't be stopped, whereas the High court in Belfast did not agree on this. In December 2016 the case was heard in the UK Supreme Court, which delivered its ruling in 24 January 2017. The key questions related to the interpretation of the royal prerogative and the status of the devolved legislatures in the context of Brexit. As regards the prerogative powers the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of 8 to 3 that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 procedure without an authorizing Act of Parliament. What comes to the role of the devolved legislatures the Supreme Court ruled that they do not have a veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU. This controversy partly explains the delay to launch the withdrawal of the UK. Other reasons for the delay are more political and relate to the obscurity of the political will. The UK has to decide, what it tries to achieve in the negotiations for the future relationship with the EU. In this article a few models are explored, but the models provide only speculative value at the moment. The emphasis is on clarifying the possible 'hard Brexit' and 'soft Brexit' and reversed Greenland options. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyse the situation and the options that are open or could have been open for the UK rather than advocate any over another. In other words, it does not try to place any option over another and it does not aim to advocate what should happen next. ; Artikkelin tarkoituksena on taustoittaa sitä kehitystä, joka johti Britannian Brexit kansanäänestykseen sekä selvittää, millaisia ratkaisuvaihtoehtoja EU:n ja Britannian tulevien kauppasuhteiden osalta on nähtävissä. ; After the Brexit referendum in 23 June 2016 both the EU and the UK were led to a political turmoil on account of the winning of the Leave campaign. The withdrawal procedure should be triggered by the UK Government, but in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements. The main constitutional problem related to the competence of the Government to trigger the Article 50 TEU procedure to withdraw from the EU without any Act of Parliament beforehand. The judiciary had to solve this constitutional and political dilemma. The High Court of Justice ruled in 3 November 2016 that the Government does not have power under the royal prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 TEU and thus the UK Parliament is needed to accept the notification, but this interpretation was controversial. Namely, the Belfast High court ruled later in November 2016 that neither the UK Parliament in London, nor the Northern Ireland assembly, had to be asked for their consent before the UK government triggers the Article 50 procedure. The High Court in London took it for granted that once the Article 50 procedure is triggered, it can't be stopped, whereas the High court in Belfast did not agree on this. In December 2016 the case was heard in the UK Supreme Court, which delivered its ruling in 24 January 2017. The key questions related to the interpretation of the royal prerogative and the status of the devolved legislatures in the context of Brexit. As regards the prerogative powers the Supreme Court confirmed by a majority of 8 to 3 that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 procedure without an authorizing Act of Parliament. What comes to the role of the devolved legislatures the Supreme Court ruled that they do not have a veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU. This controversy partly explains the delay to launch the withdrawal of the UK. Other reasons for the delay are more political and relate to the obscurity of the political will. The UK has to decide, what it tries to achieve in the negotiations for the future relationship with the EU. In this article a few models are explored, but the models provide only speculative value at the moment. The emphasis is on clarifying the possible 'hard Brexit' and 'soft Brexit' and reversed Greenland options. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to analyse the situation and the options that are open or could have been open for the UK rather than advocate any over another. In other words, it does not try to place any option over another and it does not aim to advocate what should happen next. ; Peer reviewed