Judge Biographies as a Methodology to Grasp the Dynamics inside the CJEU and Its Relationship with EU Member States

This article addresses two questions about the EU's and EU Member States' diplomacy in the UN General Assembly's Third Committee and the Human Rights Council: have EU Member States been more, or less, active outside the framework of EU co‐ordination since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty? Has EU activity increased? The findings are that EU Member States have been increasingly active at the Human Rights Council and have increasingly worked with other states outside of the EU, while the level of EU activity has remained largely the same. In the Third Committee, Member States speak more than the EU but neither the EU nor Member States have been sponsoring more resolutions. Europeanization is ‘arrested’ in these cases, as Member States are reluctant to push for more EU activity because both the internal intergovernmental decision‐making system and external context discourage it.

The Belt and Road Initiative aims to connect China with the rest of Asia and Europe, thereby creating a Eurasian continent. Since the European Union is the terminal point of both the overland and maritime routes of the Belt and Road Initiative, the European Union is an essential partner for the success of the Initiative. Nonetheless, the EU has not yet adopted any common position on the Belt and Road Initiative. Whereas southern and eastern EU Member States are generally enthusiastic, northern and western EU Member States are more hesitant. China for its part focuses on the 16+1 framework, which includes EU and non-EU Member States, but has not yet comprehensively engaged with the EU. However, such engagement is needed, due to significant legal obstacles that may arise when the Belt and Road Initiative is implemented within the EU legal order. Although China may prefer to engage with individual EU Member States, due to the pooling of sovereignty at the EU level, EU Member States do no longer have sole decision-making powers in the areas of internal market, international investment, public procurement, etc. Consequently, projects under the Belt and Road Initiative may conflict with EU rules, as is evidenced by the EU Commission’s investigation into the Budapest-Belgrade Railway for possible violation of EU public procurement rules. The contribution looks into the potential legal obstacles posed by EU law for the successful implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative and proposes that China and the EU should set up a comprehensive international framework through which the European part of the Belt and Road Initiative may be realized.

When an urgent response in international relations is needed, the EU institutions and Member States’ governments face a deficiency of effective and practical mechanisms in security cooperation. Developing autonomous programs and concepts that address this dilemma, preventing duplication of endeavors and investments, and maximizing cost-effectiveness by broadening military-political consultations on all issues of common concern is challenging. This article analyses the path and logic of EU security integration in the recent decade. In this context, the origins and goals of the pooling and sharing concept are essential to analyze the continuity of security integration, where the Council’s introduction of Permanent Structured Cooperation in defense and security is an important step forward. Therefore, this article will investigate whether and how P&S and PESCO have been related and complemented, even though both differ in the prism of aims, logic, decision-making processes, and funding. Due to budgetary throwbacks in recent decades and the war in Ukraine intensified after February 2022, EU Member States’ governments might evaluate their approach to the level of engagement in common security programs.

Today the states and the institutes of the West are focusing on the deterrence of Russia, containment of rather active powers of non-West (Iran, China). They are perceived by Western democracies as the sources of classical military security threats. At the same time, NATO and EU member states are vulnerable to non-classical security threats, which contain a noticeable non-military (non-force) component and are often created by non-state actors. The key examples are the instability risks such as mass uncontrolled migration, the spread of international terrorist groups, arms smuggling, and drug trafficking. Despite the efforts made, Western democracies were unable to effectively counter these non-classical threats in the second half of 2010-s — middle 2020-s. It was shown by the examples of the migratition crisis and the growing terrorist threat in the EU in 2015—2016. In the early 2020s NATO and EU member states were forced to withdraw strategically from the countries of origin of the conflict which were the key directions of efforts of the West aimed at the stabilization (the examples are Afghanistan and Mali). But ensuring the security of the international community, including the “Western democracies” themselves, requires continuing the fight against these threats of instability. The growing practical role belongs to Russia. Thus, Russia contributes to ensuring peace not only for itself and its partners, but also for Western countries which are unfriendly to it. The situation seems paradoxical only at first glance, being due to the indivisibility of international security. The article pays special attention to the importance of Russia's activity in Syria as practical help for the EU and NATO member states in the struggle with instability risks. The role of Russia as the guarantor in this field for “Western democracies” the scientific paper is also understood on the examples of the situation in the Middle East, North Africa and the Sahara-Sahel region, and even in Europe itself.

The considerable share of natural gas in the aggregated gross available energy clearly indicates the resource’s importance for the energy security of EU states. Natural gas shortages caused by energy crises result in the resource’s price increases in foreign markets. The condition of the global energy system translates directly to the prices of natural gas for households. The main research objectives were the analysis of prices of household natural gas in the EU, and identification of key factors affecting the prices of household natural gas in Poland and their effect on the prices established in domestic tariffs. The secondary data analysis method (desk research) was used in the research. The 2017–2022 data were acquired from Eurostat, the Polish distributor’s (PGNiG SA) tariffs, the Energy Regulatory Office and exchange information. The paper fills a research gap in the disparity of prices of natural gas supplied to final individual recipients in the EU. It was established that the sudden increases in natural gas purchase prices on energy resource exchanges translated into a similarly dynamic increase in the household gas fuel prices. The price data concerning Poland were compared to analogous data from other EU member states. It was established that in the period between the first half of 2021 and the first half of 2022, gas prices in the EU increased by over 34% on average (maximum of 150%). It was concluded that the household natural gas prices in Poland, established in the officially approved distribution tariffs of PGNiG SA, are substantially affected by two factors: energy resource purchase prices on the Polish Power Exchange (TGE), and purchase prices on foreign markets. The main reason for price increases was the unforeseen substantial changes in the conditions of conducting business activity by PGNiG SA in terms of gas fuel trading, resulting from the increase in high-methane natural gas purchase price at the TGE. On the other hand, the increases in purchase price of natural gas imported from EU or EFTA member states by 2021 have moderately translated into increases in prices established in officially approved tariffs. A similar effect of household natural gas price increase has also occurred in other EU member states but was not uniform. The effect depended on the volume of gas production and consumption in the given country, and on the diversity of gas sources that determined the resource’s purchase price.

The European External Action Service (EEAS) should coordinate the Union external action and, thus, enhance coherence in the EU’s participation in multilateral fora. This article verifies the EEAS’ practical impact on EU voting cohesion and unity of representation in multilateral fora over its first ten years of existence, through an analysis of empirical data regarding the EU’s performance at the UN General Assembly. The data suggest that the EEAS has not had a significant impact on EU Member States’ voting cohesion. However, the EEAS has promoted unity in the EU’s international representation: indeed, EU delegations – which are part of the EEAS – have become the main Union representatives at the UN General Assembly and their representative role is unchallenged by EU institutions and Member States. Despite the persisting divisions in EU foreign policy, the EEAS is likely to ensure an effective Union representation in multilateral fora in the future. EEAS, international institutions, international organisations, diplomacy, coherence, coordination, cooperation, representation, votes, statements

This article analyzes the national security strategies of EU member states in the 2009–2018 period, and conceptualizes three security strategies EU member states have adopted toward Russia – flexible accommodation, cooperative deterrence, and calibrated confrontation. It tests strategic culture hypotheses against those of realism and commercial liberalism to explain the variation of EU member states’ security strategies toward Russia. While a realist explanation would predict EU member states geographically proximate to Russia would possess more confrontational security strategies, geographic proximity and confrontational security strategies toward Russia are not positively correlated. Bilateral economic interdependence with Russia, the presence of populist parties in EU member states governing coalitions, and EU member states’ alignment or status as an occupied state during the Cold War also do not explain EU member states’ security strategies toward Russia. A more consistent explanation of the variance in EU member states’ policy on Russia revolves around the strategic culture of the state in question. States with a more Atlanticist perspective tend to be more confrontation with Russia than their more Europeanist counterparts, regardless of geographic proximity or economic interdependence with Russia.

Summary This article analyses how the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty have influenced the performance of the eu Delegation in Ankara and the relationship between the eu Delegation, member states’ embassies and Turkish government during times of crisis. Based on numerous interviews, the article analyses how European diplomacy conducted by the eu Delegation and eu member states’ embassies functions in three categorically different situations: 1) a political crisis in the host country; 2) an international crisis involving a neighbouring region to the host country; and 3) negotiations between the host government and the eu on an issue important for eu member states, against the background of a stalled accession process. Based on an investigation of the relationship of the eu Delegation, eu member states’ embassies and Turkey in those three distinct contexts, the article sheds light on the opportunities and constraints of the new way of European diplomatic representation.

The article focuses attention on the fact that a structural element of everyone's subjective legal right to medical care is the right to access to a medicinal product. It is emphasized that the Covid-19 pandemic, the increase in the spectrum of incurable diseases and the number of patients suffering from them, Russia's aggression against Ukraine, the consequences of which are an increase in the number of military personnel and civilians who need the use of medicinal products created using the latest technologies, but which (medicines) are still not allowed in the state, the integration of Ukraine with the EU became the factors that actualized the discussion of scientists and practitioners on the issue of the conditions that must be observed by the EU member state in order to apply the provisions of Article 1. 5 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community Code regarding medicinal products intended for human use, the exception is to provide an EU member state with access to a patient to a medicinal product not authorized by the competent authorities of such a member state and thereby fulfill its obligation to provide everyone's constitutional right to medical care. The conditions that must be observed by the EU member state in order to apply the provisions of Article 1. 5 of the Exclusion Directives - for an EU member state to provide a patient with access to a medicinal product that is not authorized by the competent authorities of such a member state: 1) the presence of a norm of national law that allows the supply of a medicinal product for which a permit was not granted; 2) the goal is to meet the special needs of a specific seriously ill patient (private interest) and ensure the protection of public health (public interest); 3) be due to the absence on the national market of any authorized medicinal product - the equivalent of an unauthorized medicinal product; 4) delivery is made in response to a bona fide order on one's own initiative; 5) supply is carried out according to the prescription in accordance with the specifications of the authorized medical worker; 6) an unauthorized medicinal product is prescribed for use by a specific patient under his direct personal responsibility. The signs of the patient's special needs are highlighted: 1) the specific situation of the patient's state of health and the course of his illness; 2) medical reasoning, which is justified; 3) the patient's need for a certain medicinal product. The grounds for an unregistered medicinal product to be prescribed by a doctor are: the doctor's therapeutic considerations; results of research, analyzes of the patient. In a situation where there are authorized medicinal products on the market of an EU member state - analogues of prohibited medicinal products - the import of unauthorized medicinal products can be qualified as an act of non-fulfillment by the EU member state of its obligations, provided for in Article 1. 6 Directives.

The Framework for Sustainable Food Systems law will either not be published at all or after a long delay. Whereas the first part of the article constructs an empirical and theoretical underpinning about why the EU Member States should therefore act on food sustainability, the second part focuses on what legal measures Member States can take.In the first part, leaning on food systems thinking, we argue that in the absence of EU action in the matter, the Member States remain the most potent lever for taking regulatory action on addressing sustainability in the food system.In the second part, the article provides an exploratory study of potential national legal instruments for making domestic food systems more sustainable, with an emphasis on the regulation of offer and consumption of foods and food environments. The article discusses the following legal instruments in the context of EU law and Member States’ room for action, with examples from a comparative perspective: public procurement purchasing by governments, product composition requirements, fiscal measures, non-fiscal pricing instruments, labelling & certification, marketing, and the regulation of private and public food environments. The article further concludes that it may prove useful to better enshrine the food sustainability paradigm in law at national level.

Problem setting. This article is devoted to the analysis of the scope of obligations, accepted by the Contracting States in the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, as well as in the EU Regulations № 1257/2012 on implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and № 1260/2012 on implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements, that all form the so-called «patent pack». The subject of this research is EU Member States’ responsibility for the obligations, deriving from their activity via the enhanced cooperation mechanism and the procedural models of them being held responsible for the possible EU law infringements. The analysis of the legal base, governing the legal personality of the Unified Patent Court, including the clauses, that outline the interactions between the Unified Patent Court and the European court of justice, has been conducted. The problems and probable challenges, that will have appeared when the Unified Patent Court becomes operational, have been set, primarily stressing the problem of absence of a detailed Contracting Member States’ collective liability provision within the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Probable outcomes of EU law infringements have been detected and the available strategies, that can be used by the Court of Justice of the European Union for enforcing liability on the Member States and ruling its decisions on the scope and severity of such a liability, have been discovered. The conclusion about the problems and challenges, that might appear before the EU institutions, Member States, taking part in the enhanced cooperation concerning the creation of the Unified Patent Court, which will impersonate the Contracting States of the Agreement of a Unified Patent Court, has been made. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The issues of the legal nature of the Unified Patent Court and the nature of collective and individual responsibility of the member states of the Unified Patent Court Agreement were considered in the publications of the following researchers: Douwe de Lange, Jacopo Alberti, Alfredo Ilardi, Aurora Plomer, James Tumbridge, Jelena Cerani, Franklin Dehousse, Franklin Dehousse. Target of the research is to study a complex nature of the issue of individual and collective liability of the Contracting States via the Unified Patent Court agreement and to outline the possible ways of fulfilling the flaws of its legal regulation. Article’s main body. The legal rules, governing the Unified Patent Court’s liability are set in Chapter IV of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. Article 20 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court points at the EU law primacy principle, which reads as follows: «the Court shall apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy». Moreover, article 21 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court gives the Unified Patent Court the right to request preliminary rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the decisions of which appear to be binding on the Unified Patent Court. In case of EU law infringement, the liability for the damages shall be incurred upon the Contracting States of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court collectively and severally, in accordance with the EU law governing the Member States’ non-contractual liability for damages caused by the infringements of the EU Law, that result from the faulty application of the EU law by the national courts of the Member States. According to the provisions of article 23 of the Agreement of a Unified Patent Court, the Unified Patent Court’s actions shall be directly attributed to each Contracting State, concerning the scope of articles 258 – 260 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. The rules in these articles cover the actions of the Commission of the European Union regarding the summaries, made by this institution in case of a reasonable suspicion of the Member State’s EU law infringements, involving a lawsuit to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The aspect of the liability and damages, conferred by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Member State, are worth being made a detailed research of further in this paper. Conclusions and prospects for the development. To sum this up, it’s worth noting, that the problem of EU Member States’ liability for taking action of harmonizing the field of patent law by means of an international treaty must be considered in light of an unprecedented legal nature of the Unified Patent Court. The analysis of the legal construction, governing the future activity of the Unified Patent Court can be hardly described as the only and the most complicated problem, which might actually arise as soon as the Unified Patent Court becomes operational. Nevertheless, the Member States of the EU have managed to make a truly daring step forward towards the patent law unification, that can only be praised as a remarkable event in the history of the Union, that will surely entail more challenges for the EU Member States and institutions. However, such an outstanding experiment, in case of its success, may create an attractive harmonization instrument for the EU Member States in the foreseeable future.

The article deals with the issue of cooperation in criminal matters among European Union Member States. It analyses the emerging European Criminal Area, a form for cooperation aiming at establishing a single judicial area in criminal justice. The author describes the instruments and mechanisms of the ECA, which are unprecedented. However, this analysis is conducted from a unique perspective. Namely, the main issue explored in the paper is the principle of mutual trust. This principle, while recognised as a condicio sine qua non of deep cooperation, has not yet been fully implemented. The article presents explanations of both the theory and practice of mutual trust. It uses the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the practice of the Member States to demonstrate the legal character of mutual trust within the emerging European Criminal Area. The paper emphasize the problematic issue of loopholes in EU primary and secondary law regarding mutual trust as the foundation of criminal cooperation. The author invokes many significant judgments of the Court of Justice, as well as declarations of EU institutions and Member States which highlight the importance of the respective principles. Thus, the law and jurisprudence, together with other non-binding documents, are compared and contrasted, revealing a certain paradox. In her conclusion the author shows the consequences of the determination of the normative character of mutual trust, threats facing it and future prospects for the realisation of the unique idea of a single area in criminal justice.

EU immigration politics and policies have been established by EU institutions and member states during the past four decades. Initial efforts to cooperate on this issue started in the 1970s and, since then, supranational influence on the policy area has increased step by step. From 1999 to 2009, member states agreed on five directives that regulate the entry and residence of migratory categories. These encompass family migration, long-term residents, students, researchers, and highly qualified workers. Observing this development, this book deals with two basic questions: First, how can EU policy in such a sovereignty-sensitive area like immigration be achieved? And, second, what kind of policy was agreed upon at the EU level? Does EU legislation in this policy area aim to restrict or expand immigration in EU member states?

type="graphical" xml:id="gpol12219-abs-0001"> There is agreement across the various contributions to the special issue that the state of democratic systems has deteriorated – not only in Europe but also in the United States. Of course, attention must be paid to the different contexts, reasons and the degrees to which democracies are experiences a period of unease. There is also agreement as to the necessity of national democracies - and the EU as a supranational political actor - to re-think current practices and to allow for a new democratic ethos that gives greater room for contestation.

This article briefly presents the attitude towards same sex-marriages and registered partnerships of legislators in those EU Member States which have decided not to participate in the adoption of EU regulations concerning property matters for spouses and registered partners. It also provides an overview of these regulations in order to indicate which provisions have triggered such decisions. Finally, it points out some examples of clashes resulting from the different systems being applied in participating Member States and non-participating Member States.