Suchergebnisse

Identifying the concept of "ordre public" (translated into English as either "public policy" or "public order") is traditionally seen as a challenging endeavour, because of the relativity of the concept and the multiplicity of its occurrences. Within the framework of the European Union, the difficulty becomes even greater as a result of the constant tension that exists between the European legal order and every national legal order, each claiming "its own ordre public". Against this backdrop, this dissertation aims to conduct a systematisation of the legal phenomena usually considered to fall within the orbit of "ordre public". To that end, the national law and the European Union law will be afforded equal epistemological status. An analysis of each of the main occurrences of the concept that are common to both the national law and the European Union law will be undertaken fist, and on this basis the relationship between these notions will be studied as well as, more broadly, their purpose within a legal order. Such a synthesis yields the outline of a gradation of techniques ranging from the hypothesis where the values involved in a given situation are balanced by the legislator and cast in a legal rule that will then be applied, to that where a reference to the "ordre public" standard empowers the body that applies the law to decide for itself on the social acceptability of the situation it is facing. In this way, the dissertation suggests that the issue of the "ordre public in European Union law" should be rethought in terms of realization of values in the European social space, sometimes according to a pluralist mode], and sometimes according to a monist model. ; L'identification de la notion d' « ordre public» est traditionnellement vue comme problématique, compte tenu du caractère relatif de cette dernière et de la multiplicité de ses occurrences. Dans le cadre de l'Union européenne, la difficulté est encore accentuée par la mise en tension constante de l'ordre juridique européen et de l'ordre juridique ...

Identifying the concept of "ordre public" (translated into English as either "public policy" or "public order") is traditionally seen as a challenging endeavour, because of the relativity of the concept and the multiplicity of its occurrences. Within the framework of the European Union, the difficulty becomes even greater as a result of the constant tension that exists between the European legal order and every national legal order, each claiming "its own ordre public". Against this backdrop, this dissertation aims to conduct a systematisation of the legal phenomena usually considered to fall within the orbit of "ordre public". To that end, the national law and the European Union law will be afforded equal epistemological status. An analysis of each of the main occurrences of the concept that are common to both the national law and the European Union law will be undertaken fist, and on this basis the relationship between these notions will be studied as well as, more broadly, their purpose within a legal order. Such a synthesis yields the outline of a gradation of techniques ranging from the hypothesis where the values involved in a given situation are balanced by the legislator and cast in a legal rule that will then be applied, to that where a reference to the "ordre public" standard empowers the body that applies the law to decide for itself on the social acceptability of the situation it is facing. In this way, the dissertation suggests that the issue of the "ordre public in European Union law" should be rethought in terms of realization of values in the European social space, sometimes according to a pluralist mode], and sometimes according to a monist model. ; L'identification de la notion d' « ordre public» est traditionnellement vue comme problématique, compte tenu du caractère relatif de cette dernière et de la multiplicité de ses occurrences. Dans le cadre de l'Union européenne, la difficulté est encore accentuée par la mise en tension constante de l'ordre juridique européen et de l'ordre juridique national, chacun revendiquant« son ordre public». Dans ce contexte, cette étude se propose d'opérer une systématisation des phénomènes juridiques habituellement désignés sous l'expression« ordre public», en reconnaissant à cette fin un statut épistémologique identique au droit national et au droit de l'Union. Sur la base d'une analyse, dans un premier temps, de chacune des principales occurrences de la notion communes au droit national et au droit de l'Union, la thèse envisage, dans un second temps, l'articulation de ces notions entre elles et, plus largement, leur fonction au sein d'un ordre juridique. L'exercice de synthèse laisse ainsi entrevoir une gradation de techniques allant de l'hypothèse où la pondération des valeurs sollicitées par la situation envisagée est déterminée par le législateur et coulée dans une règle qu'il s'agit d'appliquer, à celle où la référence au standard« ordre public» habilite l'agent de la réalisation du droit à se prononcer lui-même sur l'acceptabilité sociale de la situation à laquelle il se trouve confronté. De cette manière, l'étude invite à reconsidérer la problématique de « l'ordre public en droit de l'Union européenne» comme étant celle de la réalisation des valeurs dans l'espace social européen, opérée tantôt selon un modèle pluraliste, tantôt selon un modèle moniste.

The SE regulation is an european tool in between national law and European Union law. It is an innovative legal tool allowing companies with European scale to elaborate cross-border reorganizations through the creation of a SE and the transfer of the head office of such company; while preserving benefits of creditors, of employees and shareholders of such companies. In order to achieve this goal, the SE regulation is not enough: it is pluralistic. It coordinates the rules applied to the SE. In addition, it proceeds itself to remand to national law that enables to preserve national specificities of each State Member. So, the SE is attached on one end to the European Union law and on the other end it is attached to the national law on a subsidiary basis.Furthermore, the SE regulation is not only useful to companies. Indeed, it enables adoption of other european tools such as the directive related to cross-border merger between joint-stock companies. ; Le Règlement SE est un outil européen au confluent des intérêts nationaux et du droit de l'Union européenne. Il est un instrument juridique novateur permettant aux entreprises d'envergure européenne d'élaborer des restructurations transfrontalières par voie de constitution d'une SE et du transfert du siège social de celle-ci ; tout en préservant les intérêts des créanciers, des salariés et des actionnaires minoritaires de ces entreprises. Pour y parvenir, le Règlement SE ne se suffit pas à lui-même : il est pluraliste. Il coordonne les règles applicables à la SE. En outre, il procède lui-même aux renvois vers les droits nationaux qui permettent de préserver les particularités nationales des Etats membres. Ainsi, la SE est rattachée d'une part à un ordre juridique européen et d'autre part à un ordre juridique étatique à titre subsidiaire. Par ailleurs, le Règlement SE n'est pas uniquement bénéfique aux entreprises. En effet, il permet de favoriser l'adoption d'autres outils européens parmi lesquels la directive relative à la fusion transfrontalière entre sociétés de ...

The SE regulation is an european tool in between national law and European Union law. It is an innovative legal tool allowing companies with European scale to elaborate cross-border reorganizations through the creation of a SE and the transfer of the head office of such company; while preserving benefits of creditors, of employees and shareholders of such companies. In order to achieve this goal, the SE regulation is not enough: it is pluralistic. It coordinates the rules applied to the SE. In addition, it proceeds itself to remand to national law that enables to preserve national specificities of each State Member. So, the SE is attached on one end to the European Union law and on the other end it is attached to the national law on a subsidiary basis.Furthermore, the SE regulation is not only useful to companies. Indeed, it enables adoption of other european tools such as the directive related to cross-border merger between joint-stock companies. ; Le Règlement SE est un outil européen au confluent des intérêts nationaux et du droit de l'Union européenne. Il est un instrument juridique novateur permettant aux entreprises d'envergure européenne d'élaborer des restructurations transfrontalières par voie de constitution d'une SE et du transfert du siège social de celle-ci ; tout en préservant les intérêts des créanciers, des salariés et des actionnaires minoritaires de ces entreprises. Pour y parvenir, le Règlement SE ne se suffit pas à lui-même : il est pluraliste. Il coordonne les règles applicables à la SE. En outre, il procède lui-même aux renvois vers les droits nationaux qui permettent de préserver les particularités nationales des Etats membres. Ainsi, la SE est rattachée d'une part à un ordre juridique européen et d'autre part à un ordre juridique étatique à titre subsidiaire. Par ailleurs, le Règlement SE n'est pas uniquement bénéfique aux entreprises. En effet, il permet de favoriser l'adoption d'autres outils européens parmi lesquels la directive relative à la fusion transfrontalière entre sociétés de ...

A short commentary on the ECJ Polbud decision (2017) from a Belgian perspective

Fisheries Law is taking its foundation within the Law of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea addresses fisheries issues through the maritime spaces it establishes. The fight against "illegal, unreported and unregulated" IUU fishing has crept into the Fisheries Law in transformation, which we are considering here, and in particular the latter's ability to eradicate these IUU activities. IUU fishing refers to different forms of fishing activities or methods, or fishing conditions, that need to be clarified. The causes of IUU fishing and the treatment to be applied to it are of full interest to public Law, particularly when it is looking for loopholes. The content and scope of the principles of international Law to combat IUU fishing have not been fully effective since this type of fishing persists. The main responsibility for combating IUU fishing lies with States, which are responsible at a minimum for avoiding IUU fishing in their territorial sea and areas under their jurisdiction (coastal State) and on the high seas by vessels flying their flag (flag State). The involvement of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or other States or the focus on certain State roles such as the "port State" and the "market State", which facilitate or counter trade in fishery products from IUU activities. This has nevertheless led to the emergence of more restrictive international or national legal measures. In this movement, the European common fisheries policy and its law, both internally and externally, have played a decisive role. ; Le droit des pêches maritimes puise ses fondements dans le droit de la mer. La Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982 pense les questions de pêche à travers les espaces maritimes qu'elle établit. La lutte contre la pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementée (INN), s'est insinuée à l'intérieur du droit des pêches en transformation, sur lequel on s'interroge ici, et notamment sur la capacité de ce dernier à éradiquer ces activités ...

Fisheries Law is taking its foundation within the Law of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea addresses fisheries issues through the maritime spaces it establishes. The fight against "illegal, unreported and unregulated" IUU fishing has crept into the Fisheries Law in transformation, which we are considering here, and in particular the latter's ability to eradicate these IUU activities. IUU fishing refers to different forms of fishing activities or methods, or fishing conditions, that need to be clarified. The causes of IUU fishing and the treatment to be applied to it are of full interest to public Law, particularly when it is looking for loopholes. The content and scope of the principles of international Law to combat IUU fishing have not been fully effective since this type of fishing persists. The main responsibility for combating IUU fishing lies with States, which are responsible at a minimum for avoiding IUU fishing in their territorial sea and areas under their jurisdiction (coastal State) and on the high seas by vessels flying their flag (flag State). The involvement of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or other States or the focus on certain State roles such as the "port State" and the "market State", which facilitate or counter trade in fishery products from IUU activities. This has nevertheless led to the emergence of more restrictive international or national legal measures. In this movement, the European common fisheries policy and its law, both internally and externally, have played a decisive role. ; Le droit des pêches maritimes puise ses fondements dans le droit de la mer. La Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982 pense les questions de pêche à travers les espaces maritimes qu'elle établit. La lutte contre la pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementée (INN), s'est insinuée à l'intérieur du droit des pêches en transformation, sur lequel on s'interroge ici, et notamment sur la capacité de ce dernier à éradiquer ces activités ...

Fisheries Law is taking its foundation within the Law of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea addresses fisheries issues through the maritime spaces it establishes. The fight against "illegal, unreported and unregulated" IUU fishing has crept into the Fisheries Law in transformation, which we are considering here, and in particular the latter's ability to eradicate these IUU activities. IUU fishing refers to different forms of fishing activities or methods, or fishing conditions, that need to be clarified. The causes of IUU fishing and the treatment to be applied to it are of full interest to public Law, particularly when it is looking for loopholes. The content and scope of the principles of international Law to combat IUU fishing have not been fully effective since this type of fishing persists. The main responsibility for combating IUU fishing lies with States, which are responsible at a minimum for avoiding IUU fishing in their territorial sea and areas under their jurisdiction (coastal State) and on the high seas by vessels flying their flag (flag State). The involvement of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or other States or the focus on certain State roles such as the "port State" and the "market State", which facilitate or counter trade in fishery products from IUU activities. This has nevertheless led to the emergence of more restrictive international or national legal measures. In this movement, the European common fisheries policy and its law, both internally and externally, have played a decisive role. ; Le droit des pêches maritimes puise ses fondements dans le droit de la mer. La Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982 pense les questions de pêche à travers les espaces maritimes qu'elle établit. La lutte contre la pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementée (INN), s'est insinuée à l'intérieur du droit des pêches en transformation, sur lequel on s'interroge ici, et notamment sur la capacité de ce dernier à éradiquer ces activités ...

Fisheries Law is taking its foundation within the Law of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea addresses fisheries issues through the maritime spaces it establishes. The fight against "illegal, unreported and unregulated" IUU fishing has crept into the Fisheries Law in transformation, which we are considering here, and in particular the latter's ability to eradicate these IUU activities. IUU fishing refers to different forms of fishing activities or methods, or fishing conditions, that need to be clarified. The causes of IUU fishing and the treatment to be applied to it are of full interest to public Law, particularly when it is looking for loopholes. The content and scope of the principles of international Law to combat IUU fishing have not been fully effective since this type of fishing persists. The main responsibility for combating IUU fishing lies with States, which are responsible at a minimum for avoiding IUU fishing in their territorial sea and areas under their jurisdiction (coastal State) and on the high seas by vessels flying their flag (flag State). The involvement of regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) or other States or the focus on certain State roles such as the "port State" and the "market State", which facilitate or counter trade in fishery products from IUU activities. This has nevertheless led to the emergence of more restrictive international or national legal measures. In this movement, the European common fisheries policy and its law, both internally and externally, have played a decisive role. ; Le droit des pêches maritimes puise ses fondements dans le droit de la mer. La Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982 pense les questions de pêche à travers les espaces maritimes qu'elle établit. La lutte contre la pêche illicite, non déclarée et non réglementée (INN), s'est insinuée à l'intérieur du droit des pêches en transformation, sur lequel on s'interroge ici, et notamment sur la capacité de ce dernier à éradiquer ces activités ...

The comparative study of French and Spanish cases law for State aid enforcement reveals that national judge does not represent a hurdle to European Union law effectiveness in this field. Spanish courts and French courts now master effectiveness of State aid control. Indeed, they have fully understood their double task consisting in the notification control and the interpretation of State aid notion. However, French and Spanish courts incompletely draw consequences of an unlawful State aid. They make sure to guarantee the enforcement of illegal State aids cancellations and the implementation of Commission decisions ordering recovery. Nevertheless, interim measures practice and State liability due to the granting of illegal aids remains low because of a strict interpretation of application criteria. ; L'étude comparée des jurisprudences françaises et espagnoles dans l'application du droit des aides d'État révèle que le juge national ne constitue pas un obstacle à l'effectivité du droit de l'Union européenne en ce domaine. Tant les juridictions espagnoles que leurs homologues françaises maîtrisent dorénavant les exigences du contrôle de légalité des aides d'État. En effet, elles ont pleinement assimilé leur double rôle de contrôle de la notification et d'interprétation de la notion d'aide. En revanche, les juridictions françaises et espagnoles tirent de manière incomplète les conséquences de l'illégalité d'une aide d'État. Elles veillent à garantir la suppression des aides illégales et à l'exécution des décisions de récupération de la Commission. Néanmoins, la pratique des mesures provisoires et l'engagement de la responsabilité de l'État, du fait de l'octroi d'aides illégales, demeurent faibles à cause d'une interprétation stricte des critères d'application.

The comparative study of French and Spanish cases law for State aid enforcement reveals that national judge does not represent a hurdle to European Union law effectiveness in this field. Spanish courts and French courts now master effectiveness of State aid control. Indeed, they have fully understood their double task consisting in the notification control and the interpretation of State aid notion. However, French and Spanish courts incompletely draw consequences of an unlawful State aid. They make sure to guarantee the enforcement of illegal State aids cancellations and the implementation of Commission decisions ordering recovery. Nevertheless, interim measures practice and State liability due to the granting of illegal aids remains low because of a strict interpretation of application criteria. ; L'étude comparée des jurisprudences françaises et espagnoles dans l'application du droit des aides d'État révèle que le juge national ne constitue pas un obstacle à l'effectivité du droit de l'Union européenne en ce domaine. Tant les juridictions espagnoles que leurs homologues françaises maîtrisent dorénavant les exigences du contrôle de légalité des aides d'État. En effet, elles ont pleinement assimilé leur double rôle de contrôle de la notification et d'interprétation de la notion d'aide. En revanche, les juridictions françaises et espagnoles tirent de manière incomplète les conséquences de l'illégalité d'une aide d'État. Elles veillent à garantir la suppression des aides illégales et à l'exécution des décisions de récupération de la Commission. Néanmoins, la pratique des mesures provisoires et l'engagement de la responsabilité de l'État, du fait de l'octroi d'aides illégales, demeurent faibles à cause d'une interprétation stricte des critères d'application.

Rimski ugovor dodjeljuje sucima različite i komplementarne sudbene funkcije kako bi jamčio, s jedne strane, jedinstvo europskog prava, a s druge njegovu učinkovitu primjenu koja poštuje nacionalne procedure. S jedne strane, prema Ugovoru, Sud Europske unije treba jamčiti izvjesno jedinstvo europskog prava, a s druge, nacionalni suci čiji legitimitet proizlazi iz njihova nacionalnog pravnog poretka – vrlo često ustavnog – moraju primjenjivati europsko pravo u sporovima u kojima sude. Kao europski suci općeg prava, oni se, prirodnim slijedom stvari, susreću s poteškoćama vezanim za uklapanje europskog pravnog poretka u nacionalni. Također moraju osigurati stalnu ravnotežu između poštivanja vlastitog nacionalnog pravnog poretka i razvoja "integracijskog prava". ; The Treaty of Rome grants judges varied and complementary judicial functions in order to guarantee, on the one hand, the unity of European Law and, on the other, its efficient application which respects national procedures. On the one hand, according to the Treaty, The European Union Court must guarantee the expected unity of European law and, on the other, national judges, whose legitimacy is founded on their national legal order which is most often constitutional, must apply European Law in the disputes they try. As European judges of common law, they naturally face the difficulties related to harmonising European law with national law. They must also ensure a continual balance between respecting one's own national legal order and developing "integrated law".

My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of the government the find an appropriate remedy; and (4) the judicial activism role of courts, in which they introduce moral judgments in favour of the protection of the individual, beyond the requirements of the law. Revealing the court's function in order to situate a decision on the utopian-judicial activism scale is carried out by a critical analysis of the court ruling, in which both the legal argument and the political context are examined. This is done through a technique of deconstruction, which aims to reveal the political character of what appears a priori, to be a neutral application of objective rules. As the research shows, the functional role of the courts is a combination of contradictions and mixed attitudes – sometimes they play an apologist role, in other cases a normative, activist, or an avoiding one. It would appear that national courts are in the process of defining their own role as enforcing organs of IHL.

The book concerns the election law and the equality principle in three European legal systems, i.e. the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom. In this framework, the research is structured into two principal questions. I firstly wonder whether the election law guarantees equality among the governed people. Should the answer to that question be negative, I secondly check if the inequality can be legally justified in democratic systems. My thesis is a nuanced answer to these questions. The work shows that election law, considered under the scope of the equality principle, includes two categories of legislations which effect is opposed: some legal rules tend to distribute equally the faculty to influence the composition of the elected assemblies, while others tend to distribute unequally that faculty. Among the rules of the second category, I argue that the tendency to inequality can be partly legally justified by the purposes of these rules, but is also a mean – hardly justifiable in a democratic system – that helps persons and parties in government to remain in power.

In the United Kingdom, human rights have been strongly debated, both in the legal and political fields. One of the very first measures taken by the government of Tony Blair in 1998 has been to pass the Human Rights Act, a law incorporating the European convention on human rights into national law, therefore transforming the protection of human rights at the national level. However, the flaws of the Human Rights Act have appeared and it was contested soon after its passage. Furthermore, the government had to make political choices to implement in practice the protection of human rights. Their evolution can be considered paradoxical: the right to equality was strengthened and included more varied elements while the development of a strong security policy caused some civil liberties to be severely constrained. The British courts have also been able to participate in the creation of new rights, like the right to privacy which did not have an independent existence in English law until the courts recognised it, under European influence. The legal changes in the protection of human rights have caused a change in the way power is distributed in the United Kingdom, both at a national level, where the executive branch was strengthened, and in the relationship with Europe, where the power of international courts has been seen as infringing on British sovereignty. The human rights policies of the Blair and Brown governments, therefore, has been fraught with contradictions, living somewhere between the stronger protection of some rights and the tighter restraints created to defend security, and between the desire to participate more fully in European integration while still having to deal with growing Euroscepticism. ; Les droits de l'homme au Royaume-Uni sont un objet de vif débat, à la frontière entre le domaine juridique et le domaine politique. L'une des toutes premières mesures du gouvernement de Tony Blair a été de faire voter une loi en 1998 incorporant la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme au droit national, ...