Search

During the last fifteen years, a deterioration of the respect for the EU’s common values and in particular for the rule of law (Art. 2 TUE) occurred in several Member States. At the EU level, various – hard and soft law – instruments have been introduced and/or applied to foster compliance with the EU common values enshrined in Article 2 TUE, such as (i) the European Commission Rule of Law Annual Report, (ii) the Council’s peer review system, (iii) the mechanism based of Article 7 TUE, (iv) infringement procedures (Art. 258 TFUE), (v) preliminary rulings (Art. 267 TFUE), (vi) the principle of mutual trust, (vii) the Rule of Law Conditionality Mechanism (Regulation 2020/2092) and annulment actions (art. 263 TFUE). Following the analysis of the results achieved through the use of this diverse toolbox by the EU institutions and by the civil society (or, rather, judicial community), this article will focus on the interplay between these different instruments and on the opportunity to provide further avenues to promote and enforce EU common values.

1. – Le bénéfice du droit d’établissement et de la libre prestation de services, pour les personnes morales, suppose au préalable leur reconnaissance mutuelle par l’ordre juridique de chaque État membre. L’article 54 TFUE organise ce principe de reconnaissance mutuelle (V. n° 1 à 31). 2. – Le droit d’établissement peut s’exercer à titre principal ou à titre secondaire par la création, par exemple, d’agences, de succursales ou de filiales dans un autre État membre que celui selon le droit duquel la personne morale a été constituée (V. n° 32 à 57). 3. – La libre prestation de services est le droit pour toute personne morale, à partir de son établissement principal ou de son établissement secondaire, de prester des services dans un autre État membre sans y être établie (V. n° 58 à 73)

“Detention” is a crucial concept in the EU judicial cooperation framework. In the absence of a common normative definition, the EU Court of Justice construed “detention” as an autonomous concept of EU law in the JZ case. This article aims at illustrating the Court’s reasoning in JZ and the systemic implications of that autnonomous notion on the judicial cooperation framework. In this sense, the European Supervision Order Framework Decision is selected as a case-study, demonstrating how the notion as framed in JZ may not fit all judicial cooperation instruments. These considerations are finally integrated in the braoder debate on the establishment of common EU rules on detention

La tesi propone uno studio sistematico del principio di proporzionalità dei reati e delle pene fra il diritto dell'Unione europea e la CEDU, volto a verificare la sussistenza di una convergenza tra i due sistemi circa la sua teorizzazione e applicazione. Sul piano metodologico, l’analisi consiste in uno studio qualitativo basato sulla metodologia analitico-dogmatica e si articola in due parti consequenziali. La prima parte mira a definire una concettualizzazione della proporzionalità dei reati e delle pene, la quale si caratterizza per una complessa intersezione tra la dimensione europea e penale della proporzionalità. A tal fine, il capitolo 1 offre una sistematizzazione della dimensione europea della proporzionalità. Quest'ultima consiste nel paradigma teorico comune che caratterizza la proporzionalità nell'ambito del diritto dell'Unione europea e della Convenzione EDU, la cui matrice è costituita dal test trifasico di adeguatezza, necessità e proporzionalità stricto sensu. Successivamente, il capitolo 2 giunge ad una teorizzazione del principio di proporzionalità dei reati e delle pene risultante dell'intersezione tra la dimensione europea e quella penale della proporzionalità. Quest'ultima è caratterizzata da una dicotomia tra proporzionalità prospettiva e retrospettiva, la quale implica a una teorizzazione a doppio livello. Il test trifasico si arricchisce così di due scrutini di secondo livello, che comportano una valutazione della proporzionalità dei reati e delle pene rispetto al raggiungimento di un sufficiente effetto deterrente (proporzionalità prospettiva) e alla gravità della condotta (proporzionalità retrospettiva). Il principio è dunque di natura ibrida, in quanto combina le caratteristiche distintive della dimensione europea e penale della proporzionalità. La seconda parte si concentra sull'applicazione del principio nella prassi legislativa e giudiziaria. In particolare, il capitolo 3 analizza la valutazione di proporzionalità ef, The thesis proposes a systematic study of the principle of proportionality of criminal offences and penalties between EU law and the ECHR. In particular, it aims to ascertain whether there is a common understanding of the principle’s theorisation and application between the two systems. The analysis consists of a qualitative study based on an analytical-dogmatic methodology and is divided into two parts. The first one aims to define a conceptualisation of proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. This principle entails an uneasy intersection between two dimensions of proportionality: the European and the criminal law one. Chapter 1 offers a systematisation of the European principle of proportionality. The latter consists of the common theoretical pattern characterising proportionality under EU law and the ECHR, whose matrix consists of the threefold suitability, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu test. Then, Chapter 2 theorises the principle of proportionality of criminal offences and penalties as resulting from the intersection between European and criminal law proportionality. The latter dimension features a dichotomy between the prospective and retrospective understanding of proportionality, which gives rise to a double-layered theorisation. In the criminal law domain, the threefold test is enriched with two secondary schemes, involving an assessment of the proportionality of criminal offences and penalties vis-à-vis, respectively, the attainment of a genuine dissuasive effect and the seriousness of the wrongdoing. The principle is thus hybrid, as it combines the distinctive features of the European and criminal law dimensions of proportionality. The second part focuses on the hybrid principle’s application in legislative and judicial practice. In particular, Chapter 3 analyses the EU legislature’s proportionality assessment in the approximation of domestic substantive criminal law, as well as the CJEU one within judicial review over these har

The need to protect victims of domestic violence is becoming increasingly more important in many States. The 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction, which in principle requires the child’s return and apparently leaves little scope for protecting the child’s mother, is at times perceived as being at odds with this need. The 2022 US Supreme Court’s judgment in Golan v Saada is set to become a leading case with regard to abductions occurring against the backdrop of domestic violence. Although the USSC, out of necessity, considers the issue from the viewpoint of the US legal system, the impact of the decision will be felt well beyond the country’s borders. This paper will start by analysing the legal arguments developed by the USSC in finding that ameliorative measures are not required by the 1980 Hague Convention, but lie at the discretion of the courts, as well as the general principles laid down by the USSC to guide the exercise of that judicial discretion. Furthermore, the rationale for—discretionary, but still relevant—protective measures will be measured against the Brussels II-ter EU Regulation, which has established a different legal framework for EU Member States. In contrast to the position under pure Hague cases, the EU Regulation now clearly calls on the courts of the State of refuge to guarantee the child’s physical and psychological safety by directly adopting provisional measures, which will apply to the child upon return to the State of habitual residence and which are recognizable and directly enforceable in that Member State. It will be argued in this paper that ameliorative/protective measures offer a means for filling a gap that is increasingly being felt within public opinion, but that could undermine the efficacy of the 1980 Hague Convention. The best way of ensuring that domestic violence cases are not neglected, while at the same time remaining within the confines of the 1980 Hague Convention, would be to adopt expeditious, substa

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, aims to provide background information and policy recommendations concerning prisons and detention conditions in the EU, on the basis of European and national regulations, legislation, policies and practices.

On 8 December 2022, the European Commission issued a Recommendation on pre-trial detention and material detention conditions. The Recommendation is the first EU act setting forth common (non-binding) standards in these two areas, by compiling the most relevant international rules, including those deriving from the two European courts’ case-law. In so doing, this act aims at encouraging the harmonisation of Member States’ legislations. The present contribution will provide a brief initial analysis of the Recommendation at hand. First, the context in which it originated will be provided, also by pointing at competence concerns raised by scholars. Secondly, the content of the Recommendation will be illustrated. Finally, this latter act will be measured against its objectives, namely consolidating existing standards and strengthening mutual trust. In this sense, the use of a soft-law act as a harmonising instrument will be discussed.

The EU developed a complex set of rules for international abduction of children, which, albeit based on a formal reference to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention, experimented with new solutions and acquired its own specificity. After nearly 20 years of this combined set of rules being applied under the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), it is suggested that some of the guidance offered to EU national courts may also be of some interest to third States. The chapter focuses on a few selected topics (e.g., the child’s habitual residence; termination of retained jurisdiction; provisional measures; hearing of the child; the child’s right to personal relations with both parents and adequate arrangements for the child’s safe return) where the impact of the CJEU has been stronger and where a welcome cross-fertilisation with the practice of third States could be possible.

Il Prodotto qui descritto risulta dalla catalogazione e dalla classificazione di documenti riguardanti l’Affare a cui il Superfondo è intitolato. Le Attività che hanno portato al Prodotto iniziarono il 2019-0704 con l’attivazione della piattaforma ARCHIUI e si svolsero in prevalenza nel quadriennio dal 2020 al 2023. Il Prodotto ha due componenti: (1) il Titolario e (2) la rappresentazione di suoi contenuti riordinata cronologicamente e per Attore, rappresentazione della quale si presenta solo un esempio.

In the light of the relevant EU case-law (Tele2, Ministerio Fiscal, Privacy International, La Quadrature du Net, French Data Network, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, G.D., SpaceNet, VD and SR and Spetsializirana prokuratura) and the decision practice of the Italian Data Protection Authority (decisions n. 1580543 of 19 December 2008 and 3736199 of 22 January 2015), this article aims at ascertaining whether, and if so under what conditions, the EU legislation on the protection of privacy and personal data (GDPR, directives LED and e-privacy) allows public authorities involved in the research of missing persons (rescue, police and/or judicial) to access (directly and indirectly) their personal data (location and/or traffic data) even without the prior consent of the latter, including outside of any criminal investigation.

This paper uses the case of Italy during the Covid-19 pandemic to critically assess the EU legal framework on third-country national migrants’ equal access to social benefits. In Italy, migrants are structurally excluded from core social protections, a situation that during the pandemic led to a worsening of existing patterns of inequality; migrants have been more exposed than citizens to poverty, unemployment, and destitution. The first part of the paper looks for the EU legal root of this situation: it examines the EU legal framework in the migration field, showing that it is affected by fragmentation and inconsistencies. These problems become even more acute at the national level, where the Italian legislature mis-transposed the EU migration directives, thus affecting the use of discretionary clauses therein and severely curtailing migrants’ equal treatment rights. Then, the second part of the paper asks whether adopting a mainstreaming approach to enhance equality could improve the situation of migrants. The paper argues that equality mainstreaming in the migration field shows good potential, while also encountering some structural limits. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a silver bullet against the problem of migrants’ discrimination.

This Insight offers a combined reading of the ECJ rulings in Puig Gordi and E. D. L., with a view to investigating their impact on the theorisation and place of the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test in the EAW framework. Notwithstanding multiple calls for overcoming that twofold assessment, the Court has strenuously upheld the test’s structure in subsequent case-law. Against this background, the Puig Gordi and E. D. L. rulings give further insight into the ECJ's approach towards securing fundamental rights in the EAW system. On the one hand, the Court in Puig Gordi has halted any aspiration to modify the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test; on the other hand, the E. D. L. ruling clarified that the test does not constitute the only avenue to protect the defendant’s fundamental rights. In this light, the Insight shows that the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test shall be construed as the ultimate remedy to that aim. Executing authorities shall undergo the two-step assessment only if the EAW Framework Decision does not afford any alternative legal avenue to avoid serious risks of violation of the defendant’s fundamental rights. This approach is likely to project the fundamental rights discourse in the EAW context to a new dimension. The ECJ’s explicit refusal to modify the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test may dissuade further calls in that direction. Conversely, the ECJ reasoning discloses that the EAW Framework Decision may afford valuable and underestimated alternatives to the two-step test, whose potential still needs to be explored.

Il 18 dicembre 2008 veniva adottato il Regolamento (CE) N. 4/2009 del Consiglio del 18 dicembre 2008 relativo alla competenza, alla legge applicabile, al riconoscimento e all’esecuzione delle decisioni e alla cooperazione in materia di obbligazioni alimentari, ambizioso strumento giuridico in grado di disciplinare in modo unitario i settori della cooperazione giudiziaria civile nel contesto dei rapporti alimentari della famiglia. Obiettivo del regolamento è rendere più semplice e rapido il recupero transfrontaliero del credito alimentare, in particolare attraverso l’eliminazione della procedura di exequatur per le decisioni provenienti dagli Stati membri vincolati alle disposizioni sulla legge applicabile del Protocollo dell’Aia del 2007. Il presente lavoro prende le mosse dal processo di adozione del regolamento e prosegue con lo studio delle poche (e talvolta oscure) disposizioni sui rapporti con gli strumenti che lo hanno preceduto. Particolare attenzione è rivolta all’interazione del regolamento con la Convenzione dell’Aia del 2007, con il Protocollo dell’Aia del 2007 - entrambi adottati in seno alla Conferenza dell’Aia di diritto internazionale privato (HCCH) - e con la Convenzione di Lugano del 2007, in quanto anche questi strumenti disciplinano alcuni aspetti del recupero transfrontaliero del credito alimentare. Segue poi un’analisi dettagliata delle disposizioni sulla competenza internazionale, sulla legge applicabile, sul riconoscimento ed esecuzione e sulla cooperazione amministrativa. L’analisi suddetta è finalizzata ad individuare le difficoltà incontrate dalle corti nazionali, in particolare italiane e tedesche, nell’applicazione pratica delle disposizioni tanto del regolamento quanto del protocollo. Nel valutare alcuni profili di miglioramento in vista di un futuro recast del regolamento, speciale attenzione è rivolta alle indicazioni fornite dalla Corte di giustizia nel contesto dei numerosi rinvii pregiudiziali di interpretazione ed alle Conclu, On December 18th 2008 the Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations was adopted. The Maintenance Regulation is an ambitious and comprehensive legal instrument since it covers all the areas of civil judicial cooperation in the context of family maintenance obligations. The Maintenance Regulation aims at simplifying and accelerating the cross-border recovery of maintenance obligations in particular by abolishing the exequatur procedure for all decisions adopted by Member States bound by the applicable law provisions of the 2007 Hague Protocol. This work begins with the adoption of the Maintenance Regulation and continues by studying the few (and sometimes unclear) provisions on the relationship with existing instruments. Particular attention is paid to the interaction of the Maintenance Regulation with the 2007 Hague Convention, the 2007 Hague Protocol - both adopted within the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) - and the 2007 Lugano Convention, as these legal instruments also regulate certain aspects of the cross-border recovery of maintenance. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the provisions on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement, and cooperation. The above analysis aims at identifying the difficulties encountered by national courts, in particular the Italian and German ones, in the practical operation of the provisions of both the Maintenance Regulation and the Protocol. In assessing some areas of improvement with a view to a future recast of the Maintenance Regulation, special attention is paid to the indications provided by the Court of Justice and to the Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Special Commission of the HCCH, which guide the States in the practical application of the Convention and the Protocol.

La presente nota si sofferma sui problemi legati all'interpretazione dell'art. 125-sexies t.u.b. nella versione antecedente le modifiche introdotte con il Decreto Sostegni bis. A questo riguardo, la diversa formulazione letterale dell'art. 16, par. 1, Direttiva 2008/48/CE e la necessità che ogni spostamento patrimoniale sia sorretto da una causa meritevole di tutela impediscono al giudice nazionale di interpretare la norma italiana conformemente ai principi europei. Soprattutto, però, l 'ambigua natura della sentenza Lexitor - tesa a verificare l'effettiva attuazione della Direttiva sul credito al consumo nell'ordinamento polacco, piuttosto che ad offrire un'interpretazione uniforme dell'art. 16 cit. - suggerisce di riqualificare tale pronuncia come un'(irrituale) decisione resa ai sensi degli artt. 258 e 259 TFUE: come tale, necessariamente dotata di una semplice efficacia "relativa".

Le texte analyse les arrêts de la Cour de justice et les documents UE adoptés en 2021 en matière de Reconnaissance, établissement et libre prestation des services des sociétés.

This paper analyses some key issues related to EU secondary law provisions regarding extraterritorial exercise of criminal jurisdiction by Member States over EU-harmonised offences. Two main research objectives have been examined: firstly, a theoretical systematisation of the phenomenon at stake; secondly, an assessment of its actual reach. The analysis firstly deals with the classical taxonomy of prescriptive, adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction. It is then suggested that the extraterritorial application of EU criminal law entails a peculiar overlap between original and vicarious jurisdiction, as well as an intersection between territorial extension and effects-based jurisdiction. The paper then analyses the criteria used by the EU legislature to stretch Member States’ criminal jurisdiction beyond the EU’s external borders in light of Scott’s taxonomy, with a view to highlighting the emerging trends. Secondly, the paper underlines the emergence of an EU-own scope for extraterritorial jurisdiction, wider than the one designed by both International Crime Control Treaties and pre-Lisbon Framework Decisions. Finally, the paper calls upon an in-depth assessment of the practice related to the prosecution of EU-harmonised offences. Such an analysis would reveal if potential deal-breaking conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States and third States could lead to a reconsideration of the EU’s extraterritorial approach in criminal law.

The Court of Justice provided a comprehensive interpretation of the dual criminality requirement under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA when it handed down its judgment in the KL judgment (case C-168/21 Procureur général près la cour d’appel d’Angers ECLI:EU:C:2022:558). The case at hand raised three intertwined legal issues. Firstly, whether the double criminality criterion is fulfilled where the relevant offences in the issuing and executing Member States aim at protecting different legal interests. Secondly, whether an accused person’s refusal to surrender could be grounded on a partial lack of dual criminality. Lastly, whether the execution of a European Arrest Warrant may be denied in the event of a supervening disproportion of the penalty due to the said lack of double criminality. This Insight highlights how this ruling allows the executing authority significant flexibility when carrying out a double criminality check, with a view to minimising the applicability of the grounds for refusal in question. Comparing the KL judgment with the only existing precedent, it will be argued that the Court is increasingly oriented towards an abstract assessment of double criminality. A few final considerations will highlight the persistence of an effectiveness-oriented approach to mutual recognition and its exceptions.

Il d.lgs. 27 giugno 2022, n. 104 (c.d. “Decreto trasparenza”) introduce una innovativa disciplina in tema di prova del licenziamento ritorsivo; novità che consente di mettere in discussione l'orientamento prevalente sul licenziamento per motivo illecito e di proporre un nuovo modello sulla ripartizione degli oneri probatori più favorevole al lavoratore licenziato

Through the analysis of the recent case-law of the CJEU (in particular SpaceNet, VD e SR, G.D., La Quadrature du Net, Privacy International, Schrems II, B. v. Latvia and B.K. v. Slovakia) the present article aims at better understanding the scope and meaning of Article 4, par. 2, TUE. On that basis, it assesses if, and to which extent, EU law – and in particular EU data protection law (GDPR and e-privacy directive) – can affect the activities of Member States in the field of national security.

La disciplina italiana sull’immigrazione economica, ormai risalente, non consente di selezionare i lavoratori stranieri necessari. Non consente, perciò, di gestire entro la legalità un processo strutturale, indispensabile per lo sviluppo della società di destinazione. Movendo da queste premesse, l’Accademia di diritto e migrazioni (ADiM) ha avviato nel 2020 una ricerca volta a individuare, attraverso la comparazione con altri ordinamenti, i modelli e le soluzioni utili. Il volume raccoglie studi che esaminano non solo il caso italiano e i vincoli europei e internazionali sulle migrazioni economiche, ma anche il contesto storico e geopolitico, la legislazione e i problemi applicativi in altri Paesi occidentali di destinazione dei flussi migratori (Germania, Francia, Regno Unito, Stati Uniti, Canada, Irlanda, Portogallo, Spagna, Svezia e Svizzera). L’obiettivo è contribuire ad alimentare un dibattito costruttivo tra studiosi e policy-makers.

This article discusses whether a recognition mechanism based on a relationship of trust sustains surrender under the EU-UK tca. Having framed the main features of the new judicial cooperation arrangements, the article firstly shows that the EU-UK Arrest Warrant entails a brand-new form of recognition of custodial decisions, labelled as recognition à la carte. Secondly, the article underlines that this form of recognition is grounded on a specific relationship of trust, different from the one governing the afsj, framed as mutual core trust. Finally, the paper discusses the enhanced role of the ECtHR in reviewing the application of the EU-UK Arrest Warrant, thus illustrating why ecj case-law concerning the eaw system could play a major role in shaping the Strasbourg Court's reasoning.