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).     

The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.     

Judicial Oversight of Parental Visitation in Family Reunification Cases

This article explores the issue of visitation between a child and parents in the context of child protection proceedings, addressing the following areas: 1) the importance of visitation in the context of family reunification; 2) the results of an informal study of visitation practices in several jurisdictions; 3) the law relating to visitation in child protection proceedings; 4) some best practices that have been identified by commentators; 5) the role of the judge regarding visitation issues; and 6) some recommendations for judges and court systems regarding visitation. The article concludes that visitation between a child and her parents often occurs too infrequently; as a result, the relationship between the child and parents can be damaged, the child can suffer further trauma, and the chances for successful family reunification may be reduced. Finally, judges and social service agencies can and must improve both the quality and quantity of parent‐child visitation.     

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.     

Mainstreaming Gender into European Family Law? The Case of International Child Abduction and Brussels II Revised

Gender mainstreaming is an EU policy tool encouraging equality between men and women by incorporating gender concerns into the formation of EU law. The EU has intervened in private international family law, an area where concerns over gender equality may be present. Child abduction, which is regulated by the Brussels II Revised Regulation, is an aspect of international family law where issues of gender have been highlighted. Women are predominantly the abductors of their children and may abduct a child to escape a violent relationship. These factors were in evidence in the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and an effective gender mainstreaming strategy should promote discussion to address these concerns. By examining the proposals for Brussels II Revised, this article will demonstrate that the gendered nature of child abduction was not clearly addressed in the development of the legislation and questions how mainstreaming can be effective as an aspect of the legislative process.     

The Quest for Truth: Substantiating Allegations of Physical Abuse in Criminal Prosecutions and Care Proceedings

The protection of children from violence is increasingly beingplaced on national and international societal and politicalagendas throughout the world. Although responses vary, measuresto punish abusers in the criminal courts and measures to protectchild victims in the family courts are common to many jurisdictions.When an allegation of abuse is contested, the conflict mustbe resolved before these punitive or protective measures canbe implemented. However, proving that a child has been abusedis a process fraught with difficulties. This article exploresthe concept of proof and illustrates the challenges faced insubstantiating allegations of physical abuse in criminal prosecutionsand care proceedings in England and Wales. In so doing it considersthe relationship between the two kinds of proceedings in thelight of their respective punitive and protective objectives.It concludes that, although recent developments may occasionallyhave blurred the distinction between the two systems, the fundamentallydifferent objectives of each remain and that this distinctionjustifies apparently conflicting outcomes in the quest for truth.     

Free Movement of Goods and Property Law

Although usually considered a national competence, there is an effect of internal market law on property law. When a property right is validly created in one Member State and the object on which it rests is moved to another Member State, an internal market dimension arises. Such has been the case in the ECJ's Krantz decision 25 years ago, dealing with the question on whether the rules allowing a seizure of goods owned by someone else in another Member State and leading to a potential loss of right is in conformity with EU law. More than 25 years have passed and our thinking about the internal market as well as the free movement case‐law has changed significantly. A re‐examination of this decision leads to a different conclusion: the refusal to recognise property rights validly created in another Member State violates the free movement of goods under Article 34 TFEU.     

Civic Citizenship Reintroduced? The Long‐Term Residence Directive as a Post‐National Form of Membership

This paper presents how the Long‐Term Residence Directive has created a status that can be considered as a subsidiary form of EU citizenship. This key revolution has been operated by EU law since this status escapes direct control by Member States that are obliged to grant EU long‐term residence and the rights associated with it to third‐country nationals (TCNs) fulfilling the conditions in the Directive. This represents a fundamental development and may be distinguished from the acquisition by TCNs of national/EU citizenship, which constitutes a prerogative of State sovereignty. Indeed, the recent cases by the Court of Justice analysed below confirm this truly post‐national form of membership and have profound implications for the relationship between borders, territory and population in the EU.     

Protection Orders in the European Member States: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go from Here?

This article tries to provide an overview of current criminal, civil and administrative protection order legislation in the 27 European Member States by comparing five studies that have (laterally) touched upon this topic. Although the data are sometimes questionable and, on occasion, even contradictory, the general picture emerges that there is a huge variation in levels of victim protection across the EU. In some Member States there are considerable gaps in victim protection legislation, for example, because there is no (pre-trial or post-trial) protection in criminal proceedings or because civil protection orders and/or barring orders are not available. If we agree that in the light of today??s emphasis on victim protection the current gaps in protection order legislation can no longer be accepted, a strategy needs to be devised on how to solve this problem. It was argued that the European Union could play an important part in addressing the protective vacuum, first by supporting thorough research into the current status of protection order legislation and implementation in the 27 Member States, and second by further exploring certain ??soft law?? possibilities such as co-regulation or the open method of coordination.     

Towards a common standard of protection of the right to housing in Europe through the charter of fundamental rights

The trend towards the financialisation of housing since the 1980s and the global financial crisis exposed a dramatic lacuna in the legal protection of the right to housing. Yet, the right to housing features not only in national and international human rights instruments, but also in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Charter rights are increasingly finding expression in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In particular, drawing on the Charter, the CJEU's interpretation of EU consumer law is moving towards a recognition of housing rights as inherent components of consumer protection. On the basis of such developments, this article examines whether there is scope to extend this human rights approach to new areas – namely, to the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014) – a major EU harmonising measure – and to the work of EU institutions now responsible for banking supervision. The article concludes that, if guided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the case law of the CJEU and the practice of supranational banking supervision could significantly enhance the protection of the right to housing, both at EU and Member State level.     

IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN

In the traditional family law and child protection litigation where the court is asked to make determinations based on the best interests of a minor, the adversarial, rights-based model often fails to serve the interests of children and families and may be more harmful than beneficial to children relative to other possible methods of dispute resolution. This article examines the shortcomings of such an adversarial, rights-based model; briefly highlights the literature on dispute resolution systems design; and then proposes a new approach to better serve the interests of children in family law and child protection cases.     

The Fight Against Organised Crime in Europe: A Comparative Perspective

This article provides an overview of the measures and actions taken by the Member States of the European Union in their fight against organised crime and transborder crime. The Action Plan to Combat Organized Crime adopted by the Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs during the Dutch EU Presidency, submitted some 30 recommendations with respect to greater harmonisation regarding the fight against organised crime in the EU Member States. The author gives a concise summary of the most relevant changes and the structural characteristics per Member State, paying attention to developments in the specific countries and the organisations involved. One of the conclusions reached is that few or no reforms within national investigative and prosecution authorities may be directly traced back to the regulatory impulses of the EU. Although the EU Action Plan has not yet realised a convergence of the systems, the European process of integration has increased the mutual transparency and knowledge of one another's systems.     

The Patients’ Rights Directive (2011/24/EU) – Providing (some) rights to EU residents seeking healthcare in other Member States

This article presents the main elements of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, commonly known as the Patient’s Rights Directive. It is the latest EU initiative with regard to European Health Care and the Single Market. The main elements of the Directive contain provisions related to the prior authorisation of health care in another Member State, the reimbursement of such health care and the removal of unjustified obstacles to achieving these aims.These provisions largely reflect the recent case law of the European Court of the Justice (ECJ). Amongst these are provisions involving the use of personal data. Such provisions will engage data protection issues and will have to be carried out according to the data protection directives. Alongside this primary aim of codifying ECJ case law the Patient’s Rights Directive also introduces novel initiatives aimed at fostering cross border cooperation between various elements of national healthcare systems.Part 1 of this contribution will describe the legal basis and the aims of the PRD, Part 2 will describe the principle obligations placed on the Member States with regard to reimbursement, Parts 3 and 4 will describe other informational and procedural requirements placed upon the Member States of Treatment and Affiliation. Finally Part 5 will outline some of the novel initiatives that have been included in the PRD.The increases in the frequency of cross border-treatment that this directive attempts to facilitate are likely to see a concurrent increase in cross-border patient information flows. Such data flows will be subject to the Union’s provisions on Data Protection. It remains uncertain whether the EU’s Data Protection regime will act as inhibitor to cross-border medical treatment or rather represent a gold standard that allows patients to engage in such activities with peace of mind. The Patient’s Rights Directive will form part of the EU’s future e-Health strategy which envisages a large increase in the fluidity of patient data. A discussion of this directive is therefore merited in this journal.     

The Temporal Paradox of Regions in the EU Seeking Independence: Contraction and Fragmentation versus Widening and Deepening?

This article investigates the possibility of regional entities within EU Member States to become EU Member States in their own right following their secession from their mother state. International law does not automatically allow such regions to remain EU Member States since it refers this issue back to the constituent instruments of international organisations and a reading of both the EU Treaties and the ECJ's jurisprudence seems to preclude such a ‘continued membership’. The article then further explores the legal issues which could arise during the accession process of the newly independent state. After suggesting solutions to bridge the gap between its secession and its own EU membership, it is argued that the key challenge for such a region would be to ensure a smooth transition, without the loss of prerogatives under EU law, from being an EU region to an EU Member State proper.     

Occupational Accidents from an EU Perspective: Is There a Place for the Principle of Freedom of Choice?

Abstract:  It is evident that one of the most crucial issues concerning the future of European integration is that between social rights and market freedoms. This article is aimed at investigating whether, within a EU law perspective, there exists a legal basis on which the introduction of the freedom of choice as a ruling principle could be founded within the highly sensitive sector of social protection and occupational accidents. In order to answer this question, this article will focus on two aspects of the subject matter. The first concerns the 'reality and myth' of the potential of EU competition law to interfere with Member States' competence in organising their social security systems, particularly as it relates to occupational accidents. The second, the question of health and safety, which at present appears to be an EU Commission priority, may provide a useful starting point in order to avoid a partisan answer to our question. The conclusion is that the potential of EU competition law to interfere is a reality, and not a myth, and the health and safety issue appears to be a crucial element in excluding a pure market model based on the freedom of choice.     

A Review of the Creation by the European Court of Justice of the Right to Effective and Speedy Medical Treatment and its Outcomes

Abstract:  This article is in two parts. The first part examines a number of judgments delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities since 1998, all of which relate to the free movement of medical services covered by national healthcare schemes of the Member States. It then demonstrates that these judgments, when construed cumulatively, reveal that not only have all EU citizens insured under national healthcare schemes been accorded the right to obtain effective and speedy medical treatment anywhere in the EU, in the event that their home national healthcare fails to provide this, but also that the cost of such treatment shall be borne by their home national insurance scheme. The fact that the new right has developed despite each Member State having exclusive competence with respect to the organisation and financing of its healthcare system is commented upon. The second part suggests and discusses risks and limitations currently surrounding the right and its exercise, and indicates challenges that the new right poses for the national healthcare systems of the Member States.     

Buy baby: the European Union and regulation of human reproduction

In its decision in ex parte Blood the Court of Appeal relied on European Community (EC) law to hold that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority had acted unlawfully in taking its decision to prevent Mrs Blood from exporting sperm taken from her dying husband without his written consent. The Blood case raises the issue of the extent to which EC law may affect the regulation of human reproduction in the Member States. Responding to fears that such national regulation might be 'swept away' by the commodifying nature of EC law, this article considers the scope of the potential application of EC law to regulation of human reproduction. The cautious conclusion is that, while there may be some increase in deregulatory pressures, the 'vertical relationship' of supreme EC law to national law may turn out to be less significant than 'horizontal relationships' between policy-makers within and between the EU and its Member States.     

Directives in EU Legal Systems: Whose Norms Are They Anyway?

This article is concerned with whether the concept of a legal system—long a centrepiece of state‐based legal theories—is a useful conceptual tool in theorising the contemporary EU and its legal relations with its Member States. The focus lies particularly with EU directives, and with what the character and operation of this distinctive type of EU norm can tell us as regards the existence of and relations between legal systems in the EU. I argue for the view that the EU is comprised of distinct but interacting legal systems at EU and national level, and claim that the character and operation of directives supports this view. Throughout the discussion I try to bring the conceptual tools of analytical legal philosophy to bear on puzzles generated by EU law and its relations with national law, in order to show that a sound analysis of aspects of the EU can benefit from abstract legal philosophical reflection, and vice versa.     

The Triangular Relationship Between Nationality,EU Citizenship and Migration in EU Law: A Tale of Competing Competences

Within the legal framework of the EU, the Member States have remained competent to regulate who qualifies as a national. As nationals of a Member State are simultaneously EU citizens and enjoy the right to intra-EU mobility, it is the Member States who, through their Nationality Laws, determine who is to be classed as an EU citizen and who enjoys the right to intra-EU mobility. This article explores whether Member State competence to regulate nationality matters has been affected by the introduction of EU citizenship and/or developments in intra-EU mobility rights, the contents of which are determined primarily by the EU.

     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.