Search

The Protocol, which is designed to keep the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland "soft" or invisible, offers a story' of intellectual intrigue and dismal duplicity. Its intellectual value lies in the confirmation that the EU is, contrary to its rhetoric, prepared to insist on commitment to some but not all of its economic freedoms in particular, and its internal market acquis in general, as the price for keeping one of its external borders unguarded. The consequence, however, is that an as yet imprecisely defined border is required between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, which harms the UK's own internal market. The duplicity which generated this damaging outcome is emblematic of the dishonesty at the heart of the entire Brexit campaign, the full implications of which are yet to emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent influx of cases on state aid granted to sport undertakings in several EU Member States has brought to the fore the debate on the interpretation and application of this particular competition policy provision to the sports sector. This article reviews the recent Commission decisions on state aid in order to discuss the extent to which a coherent approach by the Commission can be found. The article notes the Commission’s readiness to treat support for sports infrastructure as an aspect of “state responsibility”, which tends to generate a positive assessment under EU state aid law and contrasts this with its critical scrutiny of financial support granted to ailing sports clubs, where the Commission has been more cautious. It also discusses the wider political and policy implications of the application of European state aid rules to sport. Its core inquiry is how convincing is the case that sport deserves to be treated as a special case, distinct from other areas of economic activity? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A review of the article "Distinctive Identity Claims in Federal Systems: Judicial Policing of Subnational Variance" by Antoni Abat i Ninet and James A. Gardner, is presented.

In this article, the author comments that a national parliament (NP) could be designated as a national regulatory authority (NRA) required by a European Union (EU) directive. He mentions that designating a specialist agency as a National Recovery Administration (NRA) seems to be preferable precisely as it achieves an insulation from raw politics. He disagrees that NPs are superior to orthodox NRAs in promoting open and impartial debate about regulatory issues.

The article analyzes the reasons behind the failure of the European Union's quest for coherence in its October 2011 directive (Directive 2011/83) on consumer rights. It explains that the directive is merely a recycled version of the rejected 2008 Proposal on Consumer Rights. The article also suggests that Directive 2011/83 is not charter of consumer rights being confined only to pre-contractual information disclosure and limited aspects of contractual performance.

The judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the Court in Ángel Lorenzo Gonz´lez Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE does not concern startling subject matter, nor is the ruling a surprise. The Court concluded that the exclusion of insurance contracts from the scope of Directive 85/577 on doorstep selling was apt to cover unit-linked insurance contracts. The interest in the ruling lies in the Court's declaration for the third time in recent years that the protection of consumers pursued by the EU's rules is not absolute and is subject to certain limits. The purpose of this note is not to deny this nor to quarrel with the outcome of the Court's cases, but rather to caution that this approach should not be elevated to an interpretative principle apt to challenge the longstanding and constitutionally proper assumption that the EU's legislative acquis shall benefit from a pro-consumer interpretation. In particular it should be appreciated - as the Fifth Chamber appears not to appreciate - that this latest ruling is not of precisely the same type as earlier rulings in which the Court has referred to the limits of consumer protection under EU law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The absence of explicit reference to sport in the European Union (EU) treaties has allowed the Court and the Commission room to require sport to adjust to the standards required by EU law. Sporting federations typically assert a need for a wider zone of autonomy than the Court and Commission have been prepared to grant, but, unable to persuade the Member States that they deserve exemption from the application of the Treaty, sports bodies have increasingly been induced to develop strategies of co-existence with the EU. This paper shows how they were able to exert influence in both the Convention on the Future of Europe and the subsequent intergovernmental conference in order to secure recognition of sport's special characteristics within the Treaty, albeit in ambiguous form. Sports bodies engage with the EU precisely in order to minimize its impact. The relevant provisions of Treaty of Lisbon dealing with sport are examined to show that they leave open scope for future contestation about the interaction between EU law and policy and the systems of sports governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the principles of civil law for the interpretation of European Union (EU) Directive. In the cases of Hamilton and Messner, the European Court emphasized the readiness to use the principles of civil law. According to the author, the appeal to the principles of civil law includes an assumption of homogeneity in content and method undr the area of private law. In the rulings, the European Court frequently emphasizes the role of the Directive as a way to strengthen consumer protection.

The article discusses the court case regarding the implications of national regulations of consumer protection for free movement of goods in Belgium, under a European Community regulation. The author centered on the decision, Lodewijk Gysbrechts, of the European Court of Justice that pertains to restrictions in exporting goods implicating the legitimacy of national market regulations ion the European Union.

This article addresses claims regarding the limited legitimacy of international institutions. It argues that the two original appointed supranational institutions of the European Union play a crucial, if systematically underestimated, role not merely in providing legitimacy for the Union itself, but also in shoring up that of its constituent member states. We illustrate that supranationalism enhances national legitimacy in functional, political and administrative terms. It does so by helping member states produce outputs they otherwise could not (particularly by enabling them to deal with transboundary policy problems they would struggle to confront if acting in isolation) and by embedding within national political and administrative systems legally enforceable obligations to respect the interests of actors whose voice is excluded or muffled (de jure or de facto) within purely national political processes. The article contends that the claims to legitimacy made by the EU and its member states are of distinctive character but interdependent and mutually reinforcing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its original version, this paper was delivered by the authors to the Bureau Europeen des Unions des Consommateurs in April 2004 in order to provide the basis for that body's submissions to the intergovernmental conference then charged with the task agreeing a new constitutional Treaty for the European Union. The aim: to improve the attention paid to the consumer interest in the Treaty. Ultimately the text agreed by the Heads of State and government of the Member States of the EU in June 2004 largely adopted the existing consumer-related acquis communautaire - in fact in most areas of substantive EU policy-making, not merely consumer policy, textual continuity is the hallmark of the newly agreed text. This paper has been revised to provide a commentary on the consumer-related provisions that were agreed in June 2004, in order both to show chances that have been missed (but may be revived should the ratification process founder) and to reveal areas of current debate that remain topical and controversial because of the preference simply to absorb existing provisions, lightly amended or left wholly unamended, into the constitutional Treaty agreed by the Heads of State and government of the Member States of the EU in June 2004. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reflects on questions about the scope of the European Commission's competence highlighted in its contract law documentation. Constitutionality of legislating contract law; Problem arising from the pursuit of active policy of consumer protection; Provisions on confidence-building perspective in policy documents.

Examines the extent to which the Treaty on European Union agreed at Maastricht, Netherlands, will alter European Community consumer protection law and policy. Focus on aspects of treaty of interest to consumers; Survey of scope of Community consumer protection law and policy; Analysis of subsidiarity as a means for sharpening debate about responsibility for regulating the Community.