The European Union's Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash?

Part I: Introduction 1. Uniform Customs Administration in the European Union Part II: The EU Customs Union and the WTO 2. The EU Customs Union in the European Union's Legal System I. EU Customs Law as a Pioneer for the Europeanisation of Administrative Law II. History of the EU Customs Union III. Current Legal Framework of the EU Customs Union IV. The Need for a Reform of EU Customs Law to Enhance Uniform Customs Administration V. Conclusion 3. Standards of WTO Law: Uniformity of the Administration of Law According to Article X:3(a) GATT 1994 and its Implications for EU Customs Law I. Exigencies of Uniformity in Article X:3(a) GATT 1994 II. Relevance for the Administration of EU Customs Law III. Conclusion Part III: The Great Reform of EU Customs 4. Modernised Customs Code, Electronic Customs Initiative and the Future Customs Initiative I. The Security Amendment- A Minor Reform II. The Need for a Great Reform: The Changing Environment and New Role for EU Customs III. Simplifying Legislation: The 'Better Regulation' Initiative IV. The Electronic Customs Initiative V. The Future Customs Initiative VI. Conclusion 5. Recast of the Great Reform: The Union Customs Code and European IT Strategy I. Legal Aspects II. IT Aspects III. Operational Aspects IV. Conclusion Part IV: Implementation of the European Union's Customs Law and Strategies for Enhancing Uniform Administration 6. The System of Decentralised Implementation in EU Customs Administration I. Status Quo and Development Regarding an EU Customs Procedure Union II. Status Quo and Development Regarding an EU Customs Administration Union A. The Legal Possibility for Direct Implementation in EU Customs Administration 1. The Principle of Subsidiarity 2. Criteria for the Need of Uniform Implementing Conditions Pursuant to Article 291 Paragraph 2 TFEU 3. Conclusion B. Special Provisions in EU Customs Law Regarding Administrative Organisation 1. Community Customs Code 2. Union Customs Code C. Conclusion 7. Administrative Cooperation as a Strategy for Enhancing Uniform Customs Administration I. Legal Basis for Customs Cooperation II. Rules for Mutual Assistance of Administrative Bodies in EU Customs Law III. Ad Hoc Cooperation in EU Customs Administration Practice IV. Customs Action Programme V. Conclusion 8. Role, Competences and Strategies of the European Commission I. Legislative Functions and 'Quasi-Legislative' Functions II. Administrative Functions III. Assistance by the Customs Code Committee IV. Conclusion 9. Summarising the Implementation System of EU Customs Law Part V: Specific Areas of EU Customs 10. Special Tools and Mechanisms for 'Uniformisation' of EU Customs Law Implementation in Specific Areas of EU Customs I. Classification II. Valuation III. Origin IV. Conclusion Part VI: Final Conclusion 11. Potential for Improving Uniform Customs Administration ... 299

How the European Union's Legal System Works and Does Not Work: Response to Carruba, Gabel, and Hankla

Animal welfare is a multifaceted issue of international and state policy, which requires a socio-economic, religious, and cultural approach, must consider international trade features, and must correspond to the vector of development of modern society. The new global plans and challenges of the animal protection community are to help feed the world healthily and sustainably that takes face the needs of people and is safe for animals. The protection and provision of animal welfare depend on the species differences of agricultural and productive animals, which are determined by physiological, biochemical, and behavioral factors, as well as on the differences between climatic zones, which are analyzed in the article. Modern animal husbandry systems must meet the latest knowledge about stress and be based on the science of ethology, comply with the concept of the “Five freedoms” of the welfare of productive animals, based on which a system of clear standards of animal welfare has been developed and implemented as a component of national and international public policy, commerce, and trade. However, animal welfare science continues to develop and deepen our understanding of the interaction between humankind and agricultural species by integrating ethological, physiological, and biochemical methods, methods of assessing the genotype, and its interaction with the environment into the systems for assessing the quality of animal welfare. The assessment includes measuring the artificial impact of farm conditions, microclimate, etc., on the general animal’s welfare and the interaction between individuals in the middle of a limited population. An important factor that has affected animal welfare recently is the restrictions introduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected feed supply chains, animal transportation, and limited access to high-quality veterinary services. In recent years, Ukraine has been actively implementing the international experience of animal welfare regulation into domestic legal acts. It continues harmonizing with the European Union's legal system, which covers animals' welfare during their keeping, transportation, and slaughter. A key element on the way to the practical application of the principles of animal welfare is the training of specialists – doctors of veterinary medicine, who would be aware of the importance and necessity of such approaches in their daily professional activities.

The introduction of new technologies, as well as digital is a new logical stage in the development of society, affecting all areas of humanity, including legal. The digitalization of society is becoming the most important factor in economic growth and is a modern trend in the development of any country in the world. Ukraine is no exception to this list, as it has chosen to bring its national legal system closer to the European Union's legal system and international legal standards, which is a complex and lengthy process. Unfortunately, so far there are no generally accepted and harmonized definitions and legal definitions for the legal regulation of introducing digital technologies in the Ukrainian legal system. This necessitates a more thorough study of implementing digital technologies in the legal field. This article is devoted to the problems concerning legal regulation of remote court proceedings by videoconference, which is designed to simplify access to justice and lead to savings in material and procedural means in court proceedings. The purpose of this article is to identify problematic issues regarding legal regulation of distance litigation in Ukraine and to propose mechanisms for its improvement as well as to harmonize it with international legal standards.

The value of “precedent” in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the attempt to identify its characteristics within the European Union legal framework cannot be proceeded without the preemptive analysis of the legal reasoning and of the creative role of the judge. The role of the precedent in the legal reasoning and in the interpretation of the European Union law, as well as the unanimously accepted capacity of the judge to “create” law, are to be indented as the pivotal conditions allowing the development of a stare decisis system. The second part of the present thesis is focused on the peculiar features of the judicial precedent in the case law of the Court of Justice. In particular, we could notice, firstly, the absence of a clear definition and distinction between the concept of ratio decidendi and obiter dicta; secondly, we underline the need to overcome the classical distinction between persuasive precedent and binding precedent, in order to properly evaluate the scale of value that the precedent can take following the use and the function that is playing from time to time. Moreover, the analysis of the efficacy of the precedent will be confined, in this second part of the work, to the “self-precedent” of the Court, meaning to the obligation for the judge to follow his own precedent. The analysis will then highlight the role of precedent in case it is overruled or distinguished by the Court: practice that, ultimately, has to be conceived as a confirmation, as well as a recognition, of the precedent’s value. Furthermore, in spite of the absence of a doctrine of precedent in the European Union legal system, we recall two circumstances in which the judicial precedent assumes a de facto binding value. Firstly, we analyse the use of precedent in the decision-making activity of the judge, and then those norms of the rules of procedure that required the Court of Justice to decide by explicit reference to the previous judgment. Lastly, the analysis will be focus on the efficacy of the Court’s precedent with respect to the Tribunal is the evaluation of the impact of the vertical relationship between the two judges and the extension to which the Tribunal is bound by the Court’s as well as in the relationship between the Court and the national judge.

An examination of the Pirate political movement in Europe analyzes its advocacy for free expression and the preservation of the Internet as a commons. The Swedish Pirate Party emerged as a political force in 2006 when a group of software programmers and file-sharing geeks protested the police takedown of The Pirate Bay, a Swedish file-sharing search engine. The Swedish Pirate Party, and later the German Pirate Party, came to be identified with a “free culture” message that came into conflict with the European Union's legal system. In this book, Patrick Burkart examines the emergence of Pirate politics as an umbrella cyberlibertarian movement that views file sharing as a form of free expression and advocates for the preservation of the Internet as a commons. He links the Pirate movement to the Green movement, arguing that they share a moral consciousness and an explicit ecological agenda based on the notion of a commons, or public domain. The Pirate parties, like the Green Party, must weigh ideological purity against pragmatism as they move into practical national and regional politics. Burkart uses second-generation critical theory and new social movement theory as theoretical perspectives for his analysis of the democratic potential of Pirate politics. After setting the Pirate parties in conceptual and political contexts, Burkart examines European antipiracy initiatives, the influence of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the pressure exerted on European governance by American software and digital exporters. He argues that pirate politics can be seen as “cultural environmentalism,” a defense of Internet culture against both corporate and state colonization.

INTRODUCTION. The choice of the strategic vector of the socio-economic development of modern states is focused on the “digital economy”, and telecommunications offer critical economic importance and commercial value. Approaches to the legal regulation of the telecommunications sector, which the European Union demonstrates, are now acquiring an important practical significance for many states. This article considers the simultaneous adoption by the European Parliament and the Council on December 11, 2018 of two acts of “secondary EU law” (Directive (EU) 2018/1972 on the establishment of the European Electronic Communications Code and Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 establishing the Body of European Regulators for electronic communications and the Agency for support thereof) to be the key factor that marks the “newest” stage in telecommunications regulation, which enhances the appeal to their analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The presented article is based on doctrinal studies of Russian and foreign scientists in the field of European law, electronic communications, as well as on regulatory documents and the roots of the European Union's legal system. Formal-logical, historical-legal, technical-legal, comparative-legal and SWOT-analysis methods as well as other general scientific and special legal methods were the methodological basis for the preparation of this article. RESEARCH RESULTS. The dynamic development of the regulation of relations in the field of telecommunications in the European Union indicates a consistent, systematic and complex formation, development and improvement of the relevant regulations, and institutional frameworks in their organic correlation. The proposed periodization of telecommunication regulations highlights the main stages in which relevant EU legal instruments were developed and improved, defining the crux of two related processes: establishing a common regulatory framework, enshrined in EU legal documents, and improving the institutional organization of regulations at EU level. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The author of the presented article believes that the adoption of the EU Electronic Communications Code is a highlevel codification act, offering legal certainty and harmonizing the regulation of the telecommunications sector. Modernizing the function of the Body of European Regulators through electronic communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support of BEREC, just as with the institutional structures of special competencies, leads to the further development of the institutional framework of the European Union in the telecommunications sector.

This article highlights the importance of unbiased scientific advice in the European Union's legal system. It then analyses and compares the policies in force throughout the European Food Safety Authority, European Medicines Agency and European Commission's Scientific Committees with the one implemented by the US Food and Drugs Administration. The author argues that at the present time the framework adopted and implemented by the European Food Safety Authority seems to be the most complete and stringent amongst those taken into account in the article and he advances some proposals for further improvement of the policies regulating conflict of interest.

In the multi-level European Union (EU) legal system, there are two possibilities to indirectly challenge the EU (administrative) action, namely before a national court through a preliminary question of validity under Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and before an EU court through the procedure known as the ‘plea of illegality’ and provided for in Article 277 TFEU. The importance of these two systems of indirect review has been stressed time and again by the Court of Justice in the context of allegations that direct access to the EU courts is too restrictive because of the narrow standing conditions to be fulfilled in direct actions. The aim of the chapter is to disprove the supposedly complete nature of remedies of the EU legal system, in particular with respect to the second system of indirect review, namely that which foresees the ‘plea of illegality’ under Article 277 TFEU. First, the restrictive requirements to gain direct access to the EU courts are discussed. Then, the plea of illegality and its main features are examined. Thereafter, an empirical analysis of the use of the plea of illegality is presented. Finally, the plea of illegality is framed in the context of the delicate balance between legality and legal certainty.

The main purpose of the preliminary ruling procedure is to prevent divergences in judicial decisions applying European Union (EU) law and to ensure the uniform interpretation of EU legal provisions across Member States. The procedure, introduced in the Founding Treaties, has provided a platform for the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter, the ECJ or the CJEU) to deliver seminal judgments that have progressively defined the relationship between national and EU legal systems, among others. The procedure has also helped the ECJ to develop fundamental principles of EU law, including direct effect, indirect effect (i.e., the interpretation of national law in line with directives) and primacy. Being one of the most important aspects of the EU judicial system, the procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter, TFEU) has had an immense impact on the harmonious development of EU law and the way in which national courts and EU courts interact and communicate.

The author discusses the relationship between two legal orders: international law and European Union (EU) law. The main provisions of this relationship have been established through the precedential practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union – the EU’s main judicial body. This kind of research seems important because of the gap in the theory of international law caused by the immutable dogma of the supremacy of international law. However, modern legal practice demonstrates a certain fragmentation of the international legal order because of the impact of the existence and development of regional supranational legal orders. The EU legal order, with its own special nature (sui generis), is undoubtedly one of the most developed among them. The Court of Justice of the European Union performs a crucial role in the EU legal system concerning application and interpretation of EU law. It provides a uniform interpretation of this law for the purposes of development of supranational integration. In this context the Court of Justice the European Union establishes the status of European law and its relationship with the national legal systems and international law. The Court acts as protector of the EU legal order against the influence of other legal orders. The Court’s precedential practice reveals EU law’s tendency towards its constitutionalization and the development of its autonomy. The latest practice indicates the Court’s powers to review the EU institutions’ acts in relation to the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. This proves the Court’s ability to establish indirect control even over UN acts.

This article aims to reconstruct and theorise the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal system by drawing on Hartian legal theory. It comprises four claims. First, the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 'foundational case law' on autonomy – and direct effect and supremacy as its corollaries – is conceptualised as a second-order thesis about the genus to which EU law belongs (the 'autonomy thesis'). Second, the ECJ's reliance on the full effectiveness of EU law as a justification for the autonomy thesis alludes to the deep connection between legality and effectiveness, but this connection cannot rationally explain the normativity of the autonomy thesis as an internal statement of law. Third, in order to provide such an explanation, the autonomy thesis is reconceptualised as an 'internal recognitional statement' by which the ECJ asserts a normative formulation of an autonomous EU rule of recognition. Fourth, within this Hartian analysis of the EU legal system, the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy lack self-standing analytical value. This article finishes with some very preliminary observations on a well-known objection against the autonomy of EU law based on the attitudes and perspectivism of national courts.

The Autonomy of EU Law: A Hartian View

As Ukraine progresses toward European Union (EU) integration, the transformation of its legal education system has become a pivotal aspect of its alignment with EU standards. The training of legal professionals capable of navigating both Ukrainian and EU legal systems is essential to the implementation of directives, fostering cross-border cooperation, and maintaining the rule of law. However, this process faces challenges including the legacy of Ukraine's post-Soviet legal education, resource constraints, and the need for rapid modernization. By adopting international best practices, fostering partnerships, and integrating modern technologies, Ukraine has the opportunity to create a legal education framework that meets EU demands and empowers its lawyers to thrive in global contexts. This article aims to analyze the challenges and opportunities in training lawyers for Ukraine’s European future. It seeks to compare Ukraine’s legal education practices with those in EU countries, identify critical gaps, and propose actionable reforms to align Ukraine’s legal training systems with EU standards. A comparative analysis methodology is employed, drawing insights from literature, policy documents, and case studies of EU member states and transitioning nations. The study systematically examines disparities in curriculum content, teaching methods, practical skill development, faculty expertise, resource access, ethical training, and employment market alignment. Both qualitative and quantitative data inform the recommendations for reform. The analysis reveals significant disparities between Ukraine and EU countries in legal education systems. Key findings include Ukraine’s reliance on outdated curricula, limited practical training opportunities, inadequate faculty development, and fragmented ethical training. Conversely, EU countries emphasize dynamic, interdisciplinary curricula, robust practical skill development, and integrated ethical considerations, supported by advanced resources and technology. Despite these challenges, Ukraine's EU integration provides a unique opportunity to modernize its legal education system through international collaboration, leveraging technology, and implementing market-aligned reforms. Future studies should explore the long-term impact of implemented reforms on Ukraine’s legal system and investigate strategies for sustaining educational alignment with rapidly evolving EU standards.

This paper analyzes the path paved by the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) in order to reconcile the series of its inconsistent judgments dealing with free trade, right to economic initiative, and freedom of competition. For this purpose, this article aims at investigating the role of the Italian Constitutional Court in the ‘constitutionalization’ of free trade and freedom of competition and at assessing the relationship between European Union policies and the Constitutional Court interpretation thereof. The last decade demonstrates, on the one hand, that the European Union law has influenced the domestic case law and, on the other hand, that, in turn, the European Union legal system has been ‘constitutionalized’ through the introduction of social and constitutional principles deriving from the Member States’ Constitutions.