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。     

论一般法律原则在共同体司法实践中的运用

国际法适用于欧洲共同体 ,共同体法律体系中的一般法律原则基本上包括国际法的一般原则。在共同体中 ,一般法律原则的适用已是成员国的共识。共同体法意义上的一般法律原则既内在于共同体法的秩序里 ,也存在于成员国各法律体系之中。本文试图通过若干案例 ,说明一般法律原则在共同体司法实践中的运用。     

论欧盟金融服务法中的最低限度协调原则

在欧盟金融服务法中,最低限度协调原则是指共同体立法只对各成员国金融监管规则的基本要素进行协调。这一原则尊重了成员国的国家主权,有助于降低金融服务市场一体化的政策成本,并能够充分发挥市场机制的作用以促成最优的监管标准。《欧共体条约》中的特别协调条款是这一原则的直接依据,金融服务指令中的协调条款是其集中体现。最低限度协调原则只适用于符合共同利益的非歧视性限制措施。在其适用范围内,各成员国只能进行执行性立法。该原则的确立和推行是以相互承认为核心、以母国控制为表现形式的一体化模式成功运用的必然结果。晚近的立法实践表明,这一原则有被边缘化的危险。     

共同体利益原则与欧共体最新反倾销法程序规则

欧共体最新反倾销法关于共同体利益原则的规定,是欧共体反倾销法的一个重大发展,同时也使其程序性规则得到进一步完善。     

欧共体商标权利国际用尽原则演变过程及对我国的启示

自欧共体成立后的几十年时间内 ,由于共同体有关商标法律规定不明确 ,各成员国对于商标权利共同体外部是否采用权利用尽原则 ,各个时期有不同的理解。 1998年欧洲法院一个判例明确确立了共同体商标在共同体外不适用权利用尽原则 ,从而正式统一了各成员国在这个问题上的做法。我国现有的法律尚未确立商标权利是否采取国际用尽原则 ,酝酿中的商标法修正方案可以从欧共体解决这一问题的历史及欧洲法院判决的依据中得到启示。     

论欧盟金融服务法中的最低限度协调原则

在欧盟金融服务法中,最低限度协调原则是指共同体立法只对各成员国金融监管规则的基本要素进行协调.这一原则尊重了成员国的国家主权,有助于降低金融服务市场一体化的政策成本,并能够充分发挥市场机制的作用以促成最优的监管标准.<欧共体条约>中的特别协调条款是这一原则的直接依据,金融服务指令中的协调条款是其集中体现.最低限度协调原则只适用于符合共同利益的非歧视性限制措施.在其适用范围内,各成员国只能进行执行性立法.该原则的确立和推行是以相互承认为核心、以母国控制为表现形式的一体化模式成功运用的必然结果.晚近的立法实践表明,这一原则有被边缘化的危险.     

从相称性原则看欧盟贸易与环境争端的解决

欧盟法作为自成一体的特殊法律体系,有关贸易与环境争端的解决也颇具特色。本文通过欧盟条约生效前后有关相称性原则的两个典型案例,着重对此类争端解决中本原则的适用作初步探讨,试图理清相称性原则在欧盟一体化的贸易与环境平衡过程中适用标准的逐步演进,并论述欧洲法院解决贸易与环境争端的特色及其对我国的启示。     

欧盟修改商标指令及海关执法指令

正欧盟作为全球一体化程度最高的区域性国际组织,为确保欧盟内部市场良好运转以及促进商品、服务和资本在欧盟范围内流动,欧盟建立起了独特的共同体统一商标制度。欧盟商标法规是在欧盟范围内直接适用的,对于共同体商标的定义、注册原则、审查原则、国民待遇原则、注册程序和共同体商标权等均有详尽的规定。这些规定不仅包括实体法内容,也对程序法     

合理期待原则的适用及其局限性

合理期待原则不仅适用于普通消费者保险合同,也适用于团体保险情形。因保险人或代理人作出误导性表述或行为使投保人或被保险人产生合理期待的,也应适用合理期待原则。这一原则自在美国保险实践中适用以来,关于其合理性的问题一直是争议的焦点。尽管如此,合理期待原则对于我国保险立法而言仍有重要借鉴意义。     

评欧洲法院司法能动性的贡献及其限度

在《欧洲联盟条约》之前 ,欧共体法的一体化价值、基础条约的框架性特征和二次立法的低下立法效率三者共同构成了欧洲法院司法能动性的正当性基础。《欧洲联盟条约》和《阿姆斯特丹条约》所规定的从属原则和相称性原则表明 ,非一体化已经成为欧共体法价值中一个新的维度 ,法律将不再只一味为高歌猛进的一体化过程提供支持。相应的 ,欧洲法院的司法解释理念和实践将表现为司法能动和司法自我克制的双重色彩。     

Affirmative Action in Women's Employment: Lessons from Canada

The use of affirmative action to increase women's representation in employment is recognized under European Community law. The European Court of Justice has identified affirmative action permissible under EC law and what constitutes reverse discrimination, deemed incompatible with the equal treatment principle. Despite these developments, gendered occupational segregation — vertical and horizontal — persists in all member states as evidenced by enduring pay gaps. It is widely argued that we now need national measures which take advantage of the appropriate framework and requisite political will which exists at the European level. Faced with a similar challenge, the Canadian government passed the Employment Equity Act 1986 which places an obligation on federal employers to implement employment equity (affirmative action) by proactive means. Although subject to some criticism, there have been some improvements in women's representation since its introduction. This article assesses what lessons might be learned from Canada's experience.     

Principle of Proportionality as Principle of Economic Efficiency

The principle of proportionality is at the cornerstone of EU law, and precisely of the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the law and economics literature, the general principles of law are commonly opposed to legal rules in terms of efficiency. On the one hand, the legal formalistic approach consists of apprehending the law as principled, whereby principles of law do not and should not encompass an efficiency rationale and should be self‐sufficient. On the other hand, the legal nihilism denying the existence or relevance of the general principles of law favours legal rules that are said to incorporate an efficiency rationale. I intend to analyse the efficiency rationale of probably the most important general principles of EU law—the proportionality principle. In this paper, I shall assert that not only does the EU proportionality principle encapsulate an efficiency rationale, but most importantly, it has been interpreted by the ECJ as such—hence, I propose the representation of the principle of proportionality as a principle of economic efficiency. After having introduced the principle of proportionality (1), I shall decipher the proportionality principle both from a law and economics perspective, and from a comparative perspective (2). Then, I shall delve into the jurisprudence of the ECJ so that the judicial reasoning of the Court as this reasoning proves the relevance of the proposed representation (3). Finally, I conclude in light of the findings of this paper (4).     

The principle of proportionality in biometrics:Case studies from Norway

The principle of proportionality is a decisive factor in the legal review of biometric systems by the Data Protection Authorities (DPA) in EU member states. However, in the working document on biometrics the Data Protection Working Party gives little guidance on how the purpose and proportionality principle must be applied to biometrics. There remain uncertainties as to the specific criteria and factors that are used for evaluating the proportionality of processing biometric information. This sometimes leads to contradictory decisions by different national DPAs on similar biometric related issues. This paper aims to discuss the legal factors and parameters that are generally adopted to address the proportionality issue in the biometric context. After a brief analysis of the legal notion of the principle of proportionality, the paper analyses and discusses the European organisations’ interpretation of the recent Norwegian cases on biometrics. The paper then concludes with a summary of the interpretation of the proportionality principle within the biometric context and gives specific recommendations of several important factors that need to be taken into account.     

Regulation of incivilities in the UK,Italy and Belgium: Courts as potential safeguards against legislative vagueness and excessive use of penalising powers?

In recent years, the legislators in the UK, Italy and Belgium have progressively empowered local authorities to subject sometimes already criminalised and harmful, but also some relatively harmless uncivil conduct to intrusive and punitive measures deeply affecting individuals' rights. However, judicial action in these three countries has been recently trying to restrain the (illegitimate) use of penalising powers of local authorities by delivering interesting liberty-safeguarding decisions. This paper firstly describes the (expanded) regulation of incivilities in the three aforesaid European countries. Secondly, it focuses on two criteria that inform judicial review of legislative and administrative action, namely the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality. Thirdly, it examines the case law of English, Welsh and Scottish courts, along with Italian and Belgian courts, and shows how courts can safeguard the individual's rights and freedoms against (illegitimate) penalisation of conduct that is deemed anti-social or uncivil at the local level.     

The European Union and Penal Law

Technically-speaking, penal law remains outside the competence of the European Communities and Union. However, mirroring other legal developments within Europe, a combination of higher Community 'principles' such as proportionality, non-discrimination, free competition and loyal co-operation, together with secondary Community law, has on the one hand, led to an unforeseen process of the harmonisation of national penal systems; with national norms either being set aside by Community law, or given extended scope in the pursuance of EC/EU goals. On the other hand, certain European interests – most notably, the need to safeguard the European Union budget – have proven strong enough to prompt the evolution of a nascent penal law of the EU; the most noteworthy development here being the drawing up of an independent European 'corpus juris' covering penal policy and procedure in the area of EU budget protection.     

寻找WTO法中的比例原则

虽然国内外学者公认非歧视、透明度及自由化原则是WTO法的基本原则,但对WTO法基本原则的范围及其适用并没有达成一致,而这其中一个最大的争议就是欧洲大陆学者所主张的比例原则是否是WTO法的原则。美国政府及学者对此一般都持反对态度。中国学者研究这一涉及国际法基本理论问题的人还比较少,通过寻找WTO法律文本中体现比例原则的规定和WTO争端解决机构裁决中对这些规定的应用和分析,证明比例原则在WTO法中确实存在,它不但可以在平衡不同的政策目标,削减贸易壁垒及限制贸易报复水平方面起重要作用,而且作为一个工具性原则能起到其它原则起不到的作用。比例原则应该成为约束成员方政府行为及指导WTO法发展的基本原则。     

The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law

In this article the author assesses the proportionality principle in EU law from a legal theoretical and constitutional perspective with the aim of discovering the function of the principle. Having first discussed the implications of the proportionality principle being a general principle of law, and what function it has—namely to secure legitimacy for judicial decisions—the author suggests that there are several ways in which the principle can be interpreted. There is, nevertheless, a limit to this interpretation determined by the proposed function of the principle. In the third part of the article, the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) interpretation of the principle is assessed. The assessment clearly shows that the ECJ is interpreting the principle in different distinguishable ways. The question could, however, be raised as to whether the ECJ in some areas is interpreting the principle in a way that undermines the very function of it.     

Judges as legislators

Among the regulatory measures intended to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste is the European Community Regulation concerning the Supervision and Control of Shipments of Waste within, into and out of the European Community, 1993, and it is this Regulation, in particular, that this work intends to treat. In this context, the European Parliament's attempts to counteract the weight of economic argument in favour of the conflicting interests of human health and the environment will be examined. Despite international and European Community regulation, it is submitted that double standards in law and practice are continually applied to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Emphasis will be placed on both the international and European dilemma of defining hazardous waste.     

WTO下行政补贴的原则探究

WTO下的行政补贴原则应在行政法基本原则的框架下 ,充分吸收WTO基本原则的有关内容 ,并纳入《SCM协定》的有关规定 ,以使其内容具体明确。据此 ,应包括平等原则、比例原则、公开原则、国家辅助作用原则。平等原则着眼于对竞争者公平竞争权的保障 ;比例原则着眼于补贴措施与公益目的之间的均衡 ;补贴公开原则着眼于对行政主体在补贴领域裁量权的程序限制 ;国家辅助作用原则着眼于控制补贴行为的范围和程度     

论德国行政法的基本原则

德国是大陆法系国家的典范,也是近现代世界行政法体系中一股不可忽视的力量,尤其是其行政法的基本原则被誉为欧洲行政法之灵感与源泉,对各国行政法发展的影响极大。对德国行政法及其基本原则的产生最有影响的是其法治国理念与议会民主、基本权利等宪法原则。正是伴随着这些因素的作用,德国逐渐形成了依法行政、比例与信赖保护三大并驾齐驱的基本原则。这些原则体现的价值有一定的普适性,值得我国借鉴。