Search

What practical problems are at stake in current EAW surrender proceedings? The research project Improving Mutual Recognition of European Arrest Warrants through Common Practical Guidelines of which the three country reports for Greece, the Netherlands and Poland are now published, is a follow-up of an earlier project that led to the publication of The European Arrest Warrant and In Absentia Judgments, Maastricht Law Series No.12 InAbsentiEAW. This project is broader than in absentia alone and looks at various other aspects of the EAW surrender procedure that are problematic in practice. It also goes more into detail as it aims to present an alternative to the outdated Handbook for the European Arrest Warrant. This publication will be followed by a final report containing these Common Practical Guidelines. The current volume contains the country reports for Greece, the Netherlands and Poland as these countries offer a representative and interesting intersection of situations in daily practice when it comes to creating, fighting and solving problems on the EAW ImprovEAW.

The Andres judgement has often been seen as a Milestone on selectivity, but in essence it is not. It rather deals with the absence of an advantage. In this contribution the author revisits Andres and concludes that, from a transactional perspective set forth in Sigma Alimentos Exterior, the outcome could well have been different. He also points out that Andres opened up a loophole to the state aid regime that could be exploited by providing targeted relief to over-inclusive anti-abuse measures. He concludes that it is primarily up to national legislators and domestic courts to guard against disproportional tax measures. Milestones Preview: this annotation is based on a chapter of the upcoming second edition of the book 'Milestones in State Aid Case Law' (Lexxion 2022).

The cross-border execution of judgments remains difficult in practice for European Member States. This article seeks to analyze why this may be the case with regard to four different modalities of sentences: (1) prison sentences and other measures involving deprivation of liberty, (2) conditional sentences and alternative measures, (3) financial penalties and (4) confiscation orders. Based on a comparative analysis, this article investigates the problems at stake regarding the cross-border execution of judgements in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands and identifies possible causes and explanations for these. The analysis shows that impediments to cooperation may inter alia stem from differences in national law and diverging national sentencing practices and cultures and may furthermore be related to a lack of possibilities for cooperation in the preliminary phase of a transfer. Moreover, some obstacles to cooperation may be country-specific and self-made, due to specific choices and approaches of national criminal justice systems.

The election of Donald Trump posed an existential challenge to NATO. At the end of his tenure, however, the US president had neither withdrawn membership nor substantially undermined the alliance from within. This article helps explain the puzzle of why NATO survived Trump's presidency. Extant explanations emphasize domestic factors such as the US foreign policy machinery and entrenched liberal ideology, structural reasons and Trump's idiosyncratic personality. While these accounts possess some explanatory value, they remain incomplete as they omit one central factor: NATO's leadership. Drawing on more than twenty original interviews with senior officials, the article demonstrates that particularly Secretary-General Stoltenberg's strategic responses were a necessary factor in changing Trump's stance on burden-sharing and helped maintain a robust deterrence policy toward Russia. These findings carry important implications both for theoretical debates on international organizations' agency in fending off contestation and policy debates on which actors shape NATO by emphasising the hitherto understated role of the secretary-general.

Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement establishes rules on the procedures for procurement by contracting authorities with respect to public contracts as well as design contests, whose value is above the European thresholds. Next to purely economic goals, the Directive incorporates common societal goals and aims to contribute to environmental and social objectives and sustainable innovation as well. Directive 2014/24/EU does not refer to cultural considerations in general. It only contains a specific exclusion from the scope of application of the Directive for audiovisual or radio media services and indicates that a special regime is applicable to certain social and other specific services as it is believed that they have by their very nature a limited cross-border dimension. These ‘special’ services are provided within a national context that varies among the Member States due to different cultural traditions. For the procurement of works, supplies and services that do not fall within this special category, specific cultural considerations seem not to be warranted. While on the one hand, procurement procedures have to be applied in conformity with the principle of equal treatment so that all tenderers must have equality of opportunity when formulating their tenders, Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union holds that Member States are the principal actors in charge of the flowering of their cultures, that the EU should contribute to this and that it should respect the Member State’s national and regional diversity. This article will investigate whether and in how far Directive 2014/24/EU allows room for national contracting authorities to explicitly and implicitly take cultural concerns into account in procurement procedures. The purchase of ‘Mozzarella’ by means of a procurement procedure will serve as an example to analyse whether cultural considerations can implicitly play a role to overcome the ‘buy local’ prohibition, even for products that enjoy a protected designation of origin.Keywords: Directive 2014/24/EU, culture, equal treatment, public interest

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

This contribution provides an analytical overview of recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the framework agreement on fixed-term work (FTW agreement). The cases discussed virtually all concerned fixed-term work in the public sector and, in essence, raise the delicate question of whether the non-discrimination rule and the rules on fighting abuse of successive fixed-term employment relationships, demand from Member States to sacrifice classic notions of public service employment. The case law reveals that the Court leaves the Member States considerable discretion in hiring fixed-term workers instead of permanent workers or civil servants.

This contribution explores the application of data science and artificial intelligence to legal research, more specifically an element that has not received much attention: the research infrastructure required to make such analysis possible. In recent years, EU law has become increasingly digitised and published in online databases such as EUR-Lex and HUDOC. However, the main barrier inhibiting legal scholars from analysing this information is lack of training in data analytics. Legal analytics software can mitigate this problem to an extent. However, current systems are dominated by the commercial sector. In addition, most systems focus on search of legal information but do not facilitate advanced visualisation and analytics. Finally, free to use systems that do provide such features are either too complex to use for general legal scholars, or are not rich enough in their analytics tools. In this paper, we motivate the case for building a software platform that addresses these limitations. Such software can provide a powerful platform for visualising and exploring connections and correlations in EU case law, helping to unravel the “DNA” behind EU legal systems. It will also serve to train researchers and students in schools and universities to analyse legal information using state-of-the-art methods in data science, without requiring technical proficiency in the underlying methods. We also suggest that the software should be powered by a data infrastructure and management paradigm following the seminal FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles.

Developed and developing countries are increasingly cooperating on migration management, and human rights NGOs have harshly criticised these instruments for cooperation. This article asks how and to what extent parliaments are challenging policies for international cooperation on migration management. On the one hand parliaments have traditionally been described as ?moral tribunes? in international relations, due to their principled support for human rights. On the other hand, parliaments are increasingly operating in political systems marked by anti-immigrant sentiment and increased support for right-wing populist parties. How do parliaments navigate between these two poles when it comes to international cooperation on migration management? Based on examples from Australia, the EU and Israel, this article shows that the use of non-legally binding instruments for cooperation limits the formal role of parliaments, but also and more importantly that there is a lack of political will to scrutinise these instruments and hold executives to account (notwithstanding attempts by some members of parliament or some political groupings to challenge policies through informal means). The lack of political contestation implies that, as far as migration management is concerned, ?politics stop at the water's edge?.

In the reporting period (February 2019-June 2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union did not deliver any ground breaking rulings that really altered existing coordination rules on social security. Nonetheless, the Court did rule in various interesting cases. These include the material scope of Regulation 883/2004 ( Dreyer), the rules determining the applicable legislation ( SF), invalidity benefits ( Vester), and family benefits ( Bogatu). In addition, the Court brought about clarification of the possibility of retaining worker status (and thus claiming social benefits as a worker) under Directive 2004/38 ( Tarola) and the right of Turkish nationals to export benefits under Decision 3/80 when returning to Turkey ( Coban).

In its efforts to counteract terrorist threats and contain the risks posed by returning foreign fighters, the Netherlands, like several other European states, has enacted legislation introducing denationalisation as a counter-terrorism measure. The Dutch measures target convicted terrorists and foreign fighters alike, the latter without the prior involvement of the judiciary. This practice not only challenges traditional conceptions of citizenship, but also raises several human rights concerns, of which discrimination is the most pressing. This Article therefore examines the measures taken by the Netherlands and analyses their compatibility with Articles 14 and P12-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to assess the measures' disproportionate focus on Dutch-Moroccans from a legal perspective. Based on this conclusion of inequality, the Article then ventures beyond purely legal analysis to discuss the Dutch legislation more broadly, before linking the legal argument with normative critiques on the denationalisation of terrorists, and foreign fighters in particular. Taken together, the legal and normative findings establish that denationalisation as a counter-terrorism measure in the Netherlands cannot be reconciled with the legal or normative dimension of the equality principle.

This concluding article draws out the main themes of the special issue, and points to avenues of future research into eu external migration policy: the role of civil society actors; democratic accountability and the rule of law; policy implementation and evaluation (including unintended consequences); and the reasons for continued externalization.

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2018 3(3), 1319-1331, I. Introduction. - II. Deprivation of Member State nationality. - II.1. Adults. - II.2. Minor children. - III. Member State withdrawal from the Union. - IV. Associate EU citizenship. - V. Final remarks., This Article addresses questions concerning the loss of Member State nationality and the possible implications for EU citizenship. The Author first revisits Rottmann (Court of Justice, judgment of 2 March 2010, case C-135/08) and reflects on the limitations that EU places on decisions of Member States to deprive a person of his/her nationality. In addition, the contribution considers whether the Rottmann case law, and the logic underpinning it, can be extended to situations in which Member State nationality is lost as a result of a decision of a Member State to withdraw from the Union. Having answered the latter question in the negative - for UK nationals Brexit implies loss of EU citizenship - the author briefly discusses the recent proposal to introduce an associate EU citizenship for nationals of former Member States.