Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?

The number of international law obligations that have binding force on the Union and/or its Member States is sharply increasing. This paper argues that in this light the well‐functioning of the European Union ultimately depends on the protection of the principle of supremacy from law originating outside of the EU legal order. The supremacy of EU law is essential to ensuring that Member States cannot use national rules to justify derogation from EU law. As a matter of principle, international treaties concluded by the Member States rank at the level of ordinary national law within the European legal order and below all forms of European law (both primary and secondary). Article 351 TFEU exceptionally allows Member States to derogate from primary EU law in order to comply with obligations under anterior international agreements. It does not however allow a departure from the principle of supremacy that underlies the European legal order. In Kadi I, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 351 TFEU, while it permits derogation from primary law, may under no circumstances permit circumvention of the “very foundations” of the EU legal order. This introduces an additional condition that all acts within the sphere of EU law need to comply with a form of “super‐supreme law”. It also strengthened the principle of supremacy and gave the Court of Justice the role of the guardian of the Union's “foundations”. The Court of Justice acted on the necessity of defending the Union as a distinct legal order, retaining the autonomous interpretation of its own law, and ultimately ensuring that the Union can act as an independent actor on the international plane.     

Smuggling of Migrants, Trafficking in Human Beings and Irregular Migration on a Comparative Perspective

Abstract:  The European Union aims to develop a European criminal justice to combat cross-border crimes of smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings. This article focuses its attention on European Community/European Union (EC/EU) law and on two Member States, Italy and the United Kingdom (UK). The findings show that there are diversities and ambiguities in the definition of irregular migration. On the contrary, the EU and Member States should concentrate their efforts on the two crimes of smuggling of migrants and trafficking in human beings rather than criminalising irregular migration.     

Data retention and the future of large-scale surveillance: The evolution and contestation of judicial benchmarks

Recent and upcoming judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have resurfaced a much-debated topic on the legal limitations of law enforcement authorities and intelligence services under EU law in implementing surveillance operations. In its decisions, the CJEU has reinstated and at times remoulded its case-law on data retention, unearthing a variety of legal issues. This article aims to critically analyse the legal limitations of (indiscriminate) surveillance measures, the role of the private sector in the scheme, and the line between the competence of the Member States and that of the EU on national security matters. It also aims to remark on the latest developments on the reception of the decisions by the Member States and the EU legislator, as well as on the ongoing dialogue between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).     

Holding to Account a Possible European Public Prosecutor Supranational Governance and Accountability Across Diverse Legal Traditions

The Lisbon Treaty provides a legal basis for the Member States of the European Union (EU) to establish a European Public Prosecutor (EPP) with competence to prosecute, in the courts of the Member States, crimes against the financial interests of the Union. Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, provides that the Member States may unanimously, or through flexible cooperation where nine Member States agree, establish such a European-level prosecution body, with the possibility for its powers to be extended by unanimity to include serious crime having a cross border dimension or affecting more than one Member State. Within the legal traditions of the Member States, means of holding prosecution authorities to account vary considerably. Probably the strongest form of accountability exists in the civil law tradition of Member States that permit appeals to judicial bodies for decisions not to prosecute, which contrasts with the traditional common law reluctance to even give reasons for not prosecuting. Similarly, the ways in which prosecution authorities interact or overlap with police functions, and thus with general mechanisms of police and/or bureaucratic accountability, differ. Some of the particular features of EU cooperation suggest additional accountability issues, notably, questions concerning competence spill-over and problems of remoteness. This paper seeks to address how to conceptualise governance and accountability of a possible EPP outside of the context of a trial (the latter entailing a type of open legal accountability that can be studied in its own right) and including the question of the definition of competences.     

Democratic Policy in Europe

Abstract: This article examines the implications of European integration for democratic self-determination. Distinguishing between the dimensions of 'autonomy' and 'effectiveness', it is argued that autonomous processes of democratic participation, public discourse and democratic accountability have not yet been established on the European level. On the other hand, the effectiveness of democratic self-determination at the national level is increasingly constrained by processes of economic globalisation and even more so by the completion of the European internal market. At the same time, however, conflicts of interest among the Member States of the European Union often stand in the way of effective European problem-solving in those areas where the nation-state is losing control. It is argued, therefore, that it would be desirable to allow greater legal scope to national policy choices by limiting the reach of 'negative integration' and European competition law in those areas where the Union itself, for political reasons, is incapable of effective action.     

欧洲共同体竞争法实施过程中面临的冲突及对策

竞争法是欧共体法律体系中影响较大的一个部门。它的形成与发展,使共同体内并存着两种相互独立的竞争法及其执行机制。因此,竞争法在实施过程中,出现了一系列的冲突和矛盾。共同体通过二次立法,采取了一系列相应的措施:重新调整竞争法主管机构的权限,平衡竞争法管辖上的矛盾;确立共同体竞争法的效力优于成员国竞争法的原则,协调共同体竞争法适用上的冲突;加强竞争法实施的国际合作,化解欧共体竞争法域外适用过程中产生的困难。这些措施有效地清除了竞争法实施的障碍,推动了欧洲经济一体化的进程。     

The Missing View of the Cathedral: The Private Law Paradigm of European Legal Integration

The traditional partition between public and private law continues to reinforce the belief that public law is the only proper realm of political debate, where decisions having redistributional consequences are and should be taken. This allows for a seemingly minor role of private law in the debate on European integration. This article challenges such a traditional image by noticing the central role of private law in the several legal systems of the European Union, and by analysing a few instances of resistance to private law integration. The analysis suggests that, while fully engaged in debating the public law implications of integration, Member States strive to keep civil adjudication within their control and to protect the self–contained, autonomous structure of their codes (or sets of private law doctrines) from the disruptive impact of European legislation. Integrationist pressures compel national legal actors to make explicit the social and economic choices underlying private law rules. Against such pressures, States' resistance may take the shape of formalist entrenchment.     

欧盟商标法律制度的协调机制及其对我国的启示

在欧盟,既有各成员国国内的商标法律制度,又有欧盟的跨国商标法律制度即共同体商标条例,并设有将这两种商标法律制度协调运行的机制。该机制的核心主要有三个方面：一是优先注册权制度,即在一成员国有效的商标,或者同时又是共同体商标,权利人可以享有将同一商标在相同商品或服务上优先注册共同体商标的权利,或者优先注册其他成员国国内商标的权利;二是转换申请制度,即共同体商标的申请人或所有人在其申请失败或其商标失效时请求将该申请或商标转换成国内商标申请的情况;三是共同体商标特有的诉讼管辖和法律适用制度。欧盟所建立的这种复式商标法律制度及其协调机制,对于“一国两制”下的中国大陆、香港、澳门和台湾四法域商标法律制度的协调具有重要的借鉴作用。     

The Maastricht-Urteil: Sovereignty Now

Abstract: The sovereignty issue in European law, which was recently raised again before the highest national courts, poses a challenge to legal theory. The supremacy of EC law should not be regarded as imposing a strict hierarchy within a monistic legal system. A pluralistic and interactive analysis of the relations between the legal systems of the Member States and their common system of EC law suggests instead that the highest court within each system retains interpretative competence-competence. Although pluralist legal theory therefore supports the claim that sovereignty has not passed to the organs of the Union, the same analysis confirms that sovereignty has not remained with the individual Member States either: a more subtle understanding of the meaning of sovereignty and its locus is necessary.     

Variations in Member States’ Preliminary References to the Court of Justice—Are Structural Factors (Part of) the Explanation?

The preliminary reference procedure in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which enables national courts to request the Court of Justice to provide a ruling on the interpretation or validity of an EU legal act, is widely considered to be the jewel in the crown of EU law. When considering the number of references from different Member States, it will become immediately apparent that there are considerable variations. This article examines to what extent these variations may be explained by three structural factors, namely (1) population size, (2) willingness to litigate and (3) Member State compliance with EU law. It is concluded that some—but not all—of the variations in number of references from Member State judiciaries may be attributed to structural factors rather than being merely a reflection of different Member State courts’ willingness to make use of Article 267 TFEU on such references (the so‐called behavioural factors).     

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Common Market Freedoms in Union Law: Schmidberger and Omega in the Light of the European Constitution

Abstract:  This article deals with how the Court of Justice balances fundamental rights protection and Common Market freedoms. From the particular perspective of the Charter and the ECHR, whose legal status will be upgraded upon entry into force of the European Constitution, it studies the Court of Justice's approach to fundamental rights invocations by Member States in the context of Common Market freedoms. For this purpose the judgments in Schmidberger and Omega will be discussed both in the current setting and that envisioned by the European Constitution. It will emerge that the Court of Justice's reasoning in Schmidberger and Omega can be criticised on different levels, and alternative approaches are proposed. At a later stage some further elements for refining the methodology for assessing Member States' fundamental rights invocations are addressed with a view to facilitating the Court of Justice more satisfactorily to take account of the current and likely future setting of fundamental rights protection in Union law.     

Game of courts: A tale of principles and institutions

The ontological, terminological and conceptual confusion that surrounds the concept of ‘general principles of European Union law’ is far from being resolved. The constitutional interlocutors—the Court of Justice of the European Union and the highest courts in Member States—have at times fiercely argued about their different understanding of general principles, whereas European legal scholarship has failed to convincingly clarify the intricacies surrounding this source of law. Instead of engaging with a more abstract, theoretical question of what general principles are, this paper reflects on the practical, functionalist question: how are they used by the Court of Justice and what are some of their functions and implications? To do so, it enquires into contextual, institutional and strategic features of the Court's behaviour and jurisprudence and responses of the highest national judiciaries to this jurisprudence. The aim is to offer an alternative account of the Court's jurisprudence on general principles.     

Civil Protection Cooperation in EU Law: Is There Room for Solidarity to Wriggle Past?

This article provides insight into the under‐researched area of civil protection cooperation and disaster response capacity in EU law. It discusses how the mechanisms set up by the EU have assisted Member States in supporting one another when faced with natural or man‐made disasters, including those perpetrated by terrorists. In particular, the article provides a critique of the Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) clause, which has introduced the principle of solidarity within the EU's security strategy. The author explores the broadened notion of ‘threat’ in Europe and assesses the significance of the Solidarity Clause vis‐à‐vis the level of commitment required by Member States for its coherent implementation. The article then contrasts Article 222 TFEU with the mutual defence clause of Article 42 (7) Treaty on European Union (TEU), and finally points into certain ‘grey areas’ that may have a diminution effect upon the political message concerning the EU as a community based on solidarity.     

Sisters in Arms: European Community Law and Sex Equality in the Armed Forces

Abstract: Recently the European Court of Justice has been shedding a new light on the limits of Community competence for defence. This article analyses the rulings in Sirdar, Kreil, and Dory with regards to two interrelated issues. First it discusses the effect of Community law on the equality of men and women in the armed forces of the Member States. Second, it deals with the impact of these decisions on the constitutional order of the European Union. The article argues that Community law has a considerable impact on defence‐related national law. Therefore the analysis ultimately contributes to a narrow aspect of the constitutional debate: the demarcation of competencies between the Member States and the Community in matters related to defence.>     

Racism and Xenophobia in English Law

Racism and xenophobia are currently growing concerns inall the Member States of the European Union. This article deals withthe various legal mechanisms relating to the control of racistand/or xenophobic expression in English law. Although xenophobia isnot per se recognised in English law, racism is covered on a varietyof levels, by the prevention of racial discrimination and thepotential for suing in defamation (civil); and by the prosecutionof public order offences, sedition and the new concept of raciallyaggravated offences (criminal). It is suggested that these variousmechanisms are too diffuse and that their effectiveness would begreatly enhanced by a consolidating statute which would attach anappropriately high level of stigma to the behaviour in question.     

Foreign Investors in the EU—Which ‘Best Treatment’? Interactions Between Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law

Abstract: This article discusses the main interactions between bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and EU law. The European Commission identified a number of incompatibilities in BITs signed by eight recent Member States with the USA, proposing solutions for their adjustment in conformity with EU law, but was this step sufficient? The risk of disputes remains, as long as the proposed adjustments do not achieve legal force and as long as other BITs still need to be harmonised with EU law. Moreover, provisions in BITs that are not in conflict with EU law could still be challenged if the application of certain EU requirements by Member States interferes with foreign investors' rights. To avoid such risks, coherence between different commitments and practices of the Member States is needed and coordination at the EU level is highly desirable.     

REFLECTIONS ON EU INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: AN INTROSPECTIVE VIEW

This article presents three main arguments: First, shared competence exists between the national and supranational levels within the European Union (EU) because EU Member States do not trust the European Commission in the external relations law of the EU. Second, the EU will have greater bargaining power in international negotiations if it speaks in a single voice. Within the EU-27, we have compatible values, overlapping interests, shared goals, as well as economic, social and political ties. Therefore, there is a presumption of collective action in the EU’s external relations. However, EU Member States disagree on many issues before they start negotiations, while trying to define a mission together as partners of the European project. Third, Member States confer specific negotiating powers on the EU only when it is in their own national interest to have a common European position on international negotiations.     

CHINESE INVESTMENT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION & NATIONAL SECURITY

Rapidly increasing foreign direct investment from China within the European Union over the past decade has been, in general, greatly fostered by an open and non-discriminatory legal regime. However, 28 Member States retain control over the review of such investment for purposes of evaluating national security concerns within their respective borders. Current trends reveal a strong likelihood of substantial increases within the coming years in Chinese investment touching upon so-called “strategic” or “sensitive” sectors within the European Union nations. Similar Chinese investment in the United States has raised some strong opposition from the federal government on national security grounds. Accordingly, this article compares and contrasts the European Union’s current fragmented system of national security review with that of the United States — a centralized legal regime which provides for exclusive federal government national security review of foreign investment. The question is then posed as to the likelihood of the European Union adopting an American-style unified national security review system to replace the existing fragmented system, especially in light of the newly enhanced legal competence of European Union authorities over issues concerning foreign investment. This article then concludes with an analysis of the advantages to Chinese investors stemming from the creation of such a European-wide system of national security review.     

Free movement of patients: Directive 2011/24 on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare

This contribution comments on Directive 2011/24, providing a legal framework for cross border healthcare 13 years after the famous Kohll and Decker case law. The Directive contains provisions concerning the reimbursement of costs, the responsibilities of the Member States and their mutual cooperation in healthcare. Analysing the (potential) impact of the Directive 2011/24 on EU healthcare systems, patients and healthcare providers, it becomes clear that the impact of the Directives reaches far beyond patient mobility. The Directive creates patients' rights, pays attention to the quality and safety of healthcare services and creates an excessive structure of cooperation in the field of healthcare. The European Union seems ready to use its economies of scale to improve healthcare for all European patients.     

Independence of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Unchecked Member States power after the Sharpston Affair

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the apex of the EU legal order, and is the supreme arbiter of EU law. For decades, it has delivered judgments, collectively shaping European integration and ‘integration through law’. It has undoubtedly been an authoritative leader in entrenching a European judicial culture, and has benefited from the cardinal principle of judicial independence enshrined in the EU Treaties, which in turn, it has insisted on being upheld as regards national courts. Questions have rarely arisen, however, about judicial independence of the CJEU. The Sharpston Affair of 2020–2021 opened the door to questioning such judicial independence. Is the CJEU at the mercy of the Member States? If so, what are the consequences for the EU legal order? This article reflects on the judicial independence of the CJEU, and offers reflections on how it can be preserved in the future.