Ustavni otpor evropskim integracijama: upotreba i zloupotreba ustavnog identiteta

Consumer law has undergone a profound change in Europe in the recent years. Since the 1970's the scope of consumer protection has been widening very fast. This development had been triggered by the macroeconomic and microeconomic challenges and needs of the European market regarding the sale of goods and the provision of services. Problems found in the market were mostly identified where contracts with a consumer had not been individually negotiated. This also applied to insurance contracts. Many similarities can be found in the actions for consumer protection against the abusive clauses undertaken in the European Union member states, recently. This relates, inter alia, to the harmonisation of the matter under the Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. Recent developments in abusive clause regulations in the EU member states throughout its extent coincide with recent interpretation of terms of the insurance contracts, that became very restrictive as well. The change of the attitude towards the interpretation of contractual clauses can be seen on the national legislation level. It is mainly connected with the need to adapt to meet the requirements of the European Union directive harmonising the issues regarding the unfair terms in member states. This resulted in the lists of abusive or suspicious clauses in the national statutory legislation and, in some legislations, special registers of prohibited clauses operated by national courts or other bodies. Depending on the national legislation structures and general legal structures, some of the member states applied also other measures in this respect e.g. automatic nullity of the abusive clauses, bans on the use of such clauses. Also, collective actions of cessation and activity of authorities for consumer protection and supervisory bodies in forms of reports and direct penalties imposed on entrepreneurs, have been implemented in some of the member states. The majority of measures are of a coercive nature, but recently companies tend to be persuaded to meet adequate consumer standards without legal proceedings being undertaken against them. A number of informative publications on abusive clauses of national or international character became a tool for both, the consumers and entrepreneurs in the European Union to avoid entering into contracts containing or proposing wording that could be treated as abusive clauses. This article aims at presenting some of the developments regarding protection against abusive clauses in consumer and insurance contracts in terms of the measures undertaken by the EU member states in the last few decades.

The rules of coordination according to the EU regulation 883/2004 acquire their meaning especially in context of payment of the family benefits to another state of the EU – i.e. when children of the employed parent do not live in the same EU member state, in which the parent is employed. As a matter of principle, family benefits including the child allowance, belong to the employee or the self-employed person according to legislative standard and amount in his or her country of employment, regardless the residence of family members. This is generally known as the principle of equal treatment. A lower cost of living in the EU member state where the family members, including children may reside and live, is therefore of no relevance. However, in case when a minor child cannot be considered a family member of the employee in another EU member state because he or she does not fulfill the condition of sharing of a common household with the respective parent, as defined in the Article 1.i).3 of the EU regulation 883/2004, the regulation cannot be applied. It is, instead, the national social security legislation of the EU member state, where the child lives with another parent (in our case the Slovak Republic) fulfilling the condition of sharing of a common household, that must apply. This is to prevent the so-called negative collision of two different national legislations that might lead to failure in protection, as well as to avoid the so-called positive collision of parallel Social Security coverage in two different EU member states. To practically secure the right to social security to family members, including small children through reception of the child allowances, therefore requires the application of the national social security legislation of the EU member state where the parent taking daily, and actual care of the child permanently resides.

The Refugees We Are: Solidarity in the European Constitutional Imagination

Extradition is one of the issues that Europe was committed from the outset, so the first convention about this issue was made in 1957 by the Council of Europe. The European arrest warrant was established by an EU framework decision in 2002. With the ratification of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member State, EAW abolished formal extradition between EU Member States and replaced it by a system of surrender. The EAW radically changed existing arrangements of cooperation (however the EU Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements between EU member States). The purpose was to eliminate differences among legal systems in all Member States, when these are contrasting with EU minimum standard. Member States are obligated to implement framework decision into national legislation.

Extradition is one of the issues that Europe was committed from the outset, so the first convention about this issue was made in 1957 by the Council of Europe. The European arrest warrant was established by an EU framework decision in 2002. With the ratification of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member State, EAW abolished formal extradition between EU Member States and replaced it by a system of surrender. The EAW radically changed existing arrangements of cooperation (however the EU Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements between EU member States). The purpose was to eliminate differences among legal systems in all Member States, when these are contrasting with EU minimum standard. Member States are obligated to implement framework decision into national legislation . A Correction to this article was published on 07 May 2021. http://ijasos.ocerintjournals.org/en/pub/issue/61260/930787

The aim of this paper is to analyse the very recently approved national Member States’ laws that have implemented the GDPR in the field of automated decision-making (prohibition, exceptions, safeguards): all national legislations have been analysed and in particular 9 Member States Law address the case of automated decision making providing specific exemptions and relevant safeguards, as requested by Article 22(2)(b) of the GDPR (Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, the United Kingdom, Ireland).The approaches are very diverse: the scope of the provision can be narrow (just automated decisions producing legal or similarly detrimental effects) or wide (any decision with a significant impact) and even specific safeguards proposed are very diverse.After this overview, this article will also address the following questions: are Member States free to broaden the scope of automated decision-making regulation? Are ‘positive decisions’ allowed under Article 22, GDPR, as some Member States seem to affirm? Which safeguards can better guarantee rights and freedoms of the data subject?In particular, while most Member States refers just to the three safeguards mentioned at Article 22(3) (i.e. subject's right to express one's point of view; right to obtain human intervention; right to contest the decision), three approaches seem very innovative: a) some States guarantee a right to legibility/explanation about the algorithmic decisions (France and Hungary); b) other States (Ireland and United Kingdom) regulate human intervention on algorithmic decisions through an effective accountability mechanism (e.g. notification, explanation of why such contestation has not been accepted, etc.); c) another State (Slovenia) require an innovative form of human rights impact assessments on automated decision-making.

The Chinese national legislature has enacted a national security law (NSL) for Hong Kong. This paper applies the theory of national security constitution as developed by Professor Koh to examine the impact of the NSL upon four core constitutional principles in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution which underly its national security constitution and to evaluate the nature of the impact. The paper argues that the NSL has, instead of applying and supplementing the existing underlying constitutional principles in the mini-constitution, changed them to various degrees, and the pre-NSL bifurcated national security system for Hong Kong and mainland China has been replaced by an integrated national security system under the NSL. The impact caused by the NSL is so significant as to amount to a permanent paradigm shift to a new post-NSL national security constitution. The paper also argues that the theory of national security constitution has its limitation in its application to subnational Hong Kong because its mini-constitution and the underlying principles therein can be modified by national legislation, such as the NSL, of its sovereign, China. Through a comparative study with the USA, the paper proposes that the theory of national security constitution needs to be modified by adding that different effects may occur to a sub-national national security constitution depending on the source of the framework national security legislation. Hong Kong’s failure in its constitutional duty to enact national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law has led to the enactment of the NSL by China. Such legislation from the sovereign has changed the underlying constitutional principles and is fundamentally different from sub-national framework legislation that only implements and supplements those principles. However, a comparative study with Macau indicates that the theory of national security constitution is still applicable to a sub-national entity such as Macau so long as China as sovereign exercises self-restraint and any framework national security legislation is enacted at the sub-national level.

The regulatory framework governing anaerobic digestion and biogas production in EU Member States is arranged in European Policies, Regulations and Directives and by national legislation, which is based on European Policies and Directives. Consequently, we have organised the Regulatory Framework Report following the same structure. Chapter 1 deals with European Policies which are followed by European Regulations that must be enforced by all Member States as they are in chapter 2. Chapter 3 refers to European Directives which must be adopted by Member States but not literally. Directives typically stipulate a target but leave room for selecting the strategy and pathway by the Member State. Chapter 4 briefly deviates from legislation and provides - extracted from the EBA Annual Reports - statistical information on the regional development of electricity from biogas and biomethane production in Europe clearly showing Germany in the lead but higher recent dynamics regarding biomethane in France and Nordic countries. In chapter 5 the report returns to legislation in Member States, starting with comprehensive information on the countries with demonstration plants. Chapter 6 deals with legislation in countries with outreach plants and chapter 7, finally, gives an overview of all Member States.

In the member states of the European Union, the field of cell‐based medicine and tissue preparations is determined by the law of the European Community (EC). The implementation of the EC directives is mandatory and makes Community law binding in the EU Member States. The Tissues and Cells Act of July 20, 2007 transposed the Directive 2004/23/EC, which is setting standards for human tissues and cells, into German law. This Tissue Act is not a law on its own, but makes significant amendments of the Medicinal Products Act, the Transplantation Act and the Transfusion Act. According to the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and the Directive 2004/23/EC itself, the national legislators may stipulate stricter provisions, thus exceeding the minimum requirements specified in this EC directive. Accordingly, a real harmonization of the standards for human tissues and cells within the European Union is not intended and not possible. The Directive 2004/23/EC includes minimum standards to ensure high quality and safety margins for human tissues and cell preparations released for clinical application in humans. The standards cover the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage, and distribution of human tissues and cells. The German Tissue Act defines tissues and cell preparations as pharmaceutical drugs governed by the German Drug Act. The need for high standards in quality and safety is highlighted, most of the loopholes that might otherwise allow operation outside national drug legislation in the field of local tissue banking and tissue engineering have been closed. As a consequence, donated tissues and stem cell preparations are subjected to strict regulations which mainly aim to prevent the most serious adverse effects of allogeneic tissue transplants, the transmission of infectious pathogens. Whenever possible, a validated inactivation procedure should be included in the manufacturing process. Tissues and stem cell preparations now usually require national approval, a procedure which in principle is comparable, although somewhat simplified, to the well‐established national licensing procedure for blood components seeking post‐marketing approval from the national authorities (Paul Ehrlich Institute). According to the highly positive experiences obtained with the standardization and licensing of blood components combined with a local and national system for surveillance, it can be expected that the national approval and local and national surveillance of stem cell and tissue preparations will contribute to a significantly improved quality and higher safety profile for the patients. However, the bureaucratic efforts which are inevitable consequences of the new regulations are still a matter of some dispute.

Background. Due to Ukraine's accession to the European Union, is necessary to harmonize its constitutional, legal and regulatory framework and practice with the EU norms on the right to vote and stand for local elections for EU citizens residing in Ukraine. The study of the provisions of Directive 94/80/EC will make it possible to predict changes to the Electoral Code of Ukraine to harmonize the legislation. Methods. The study is based on the application of the formal logical method to identify the advantages and disadvantages of legal regulation of local elections in the European Union and the comparative legal method to study the provisions of the current national legislation and the legislation of the European Union Member State regulating local elections. Results. The author establishes that Directive 94/80/EC is the main legal act of the European Union which grants every citizen of the European Union the right to vote and stand for election in local elections. The author analyzes the articles of Directive 94/80/EC, their positive and negative impact on the national legislation of the EU Member States, as well as possible amendments to it that may occur before Ukraine joins the European Union. The author gives an example and analyzes the electoral legislation of Bulgaria as a member state of the European Union, which is harmonized with the provisions of Directive 94/80/EC. The author also suggests the changes that should be made to the Electoral Code of Ukraine in order to harmonize the national electoral legislation with the provisions of Directive 94/80/EC. Conclusions. It is determined that the electoral legislation of Ukraine is currently not harmonized with the provisions of Directive 94/80/EC and certain provisions of Directive 94/80/EC are identified which may be the most problematic for implementation in domestic legislation.

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.

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 issue of protecting the rights of stateless persons remains relevant despite a number of international treaties aimed at preventing this negative legal phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to research and establish the peculiarities of the regulation of the legal status of stateless persons in the law of the European Union. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the lack of comprehensive research and domestic science, as well as the need to study the legal standards of the European Union in the context of acquiring membership in this organization and the need to bring domestic legislation to the EU acquis. It has been established that the legal regime applied to stateless persons is close to that applied to persons who have the citizenship of third countries. At the same time, EU member states retain the right to determine the content of national citizenship, in particular, the grounds for acquisition and loss. However, this should take place taking into account their international obligations, as well as obligations related to EU membership, and be based on the principles of non-discrimination, legal certainty, ensuring gender equality, etc. Current EU regulations contain only minimum legal standards for the rights of stateless persons, which must be ensured by member states in their national legislation. It has been demonstrated that the lack of a single legislative approach to the definition of a stateless person among the EU member states can have negative consequences. Conclusions. The key practical problem in EU law today remains the need to introduce a single, unified for EU member states approach to determining a stateless person, as well as measures aimed at reducing cases of statelessness. Further development of EU law in this area should be aimed at convergence of the legislation of the member states in this area.

The Member States of the European Union are continuously striving for an ever-wider digitalization of judicial cooperation in accordance with the principle of “digital by default”. From 1 May 2025 onwards, e-communication will become a priority and in many EU proceedings to facilitate oral hearings in proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters with cross-border implications the optional use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology will be available. With regard to EU proceedings, it is the responsibility of the Member States (MS) to fill in procedural issues not covered by EU law with national law, provided that this does not undermine the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law. EU MSs are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and all EU MSs are party to the European Convention on Human Rights. In light of the above, MS should adapt their national procedural law to the new EU digital procedural possibilities, while considering the fundamental rights jurisprudence of both the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts. The national legislator can respond either by creating specific procedural rules or by adapting the general rules of national law. The need for more extensive use of digital solutions is also apparent in national procedures. In this framework, a case study focusing on Hungary will be presented. Therefore, the modification of the general rules is the way to go, which can also contribute to even greater harmonisation of national procedural laws in the MSs, indirectly.

As a country aspiring to join the European Union, Moldova has been working towards the harmonization of its criminal justice standards and laws with those of the EU.This involves aligning its legal framework with the EU acquis communautaire, which is the body of EU law that all member states must comply with. One of the main objectives of this harmonization process is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Moldovan criminal justice system, as well as to enhance its capacity to fight against cross-border crime and other forms of transnational organized crime. To achieve this, Moldova has implemented a number of reforms aimed at improving its criminal justice institutions and processes, including the adoption of new laws and regulations that are in line with EU standards and practices.In addition, Moldova has also established closer cooperation with other EU countries, both through bilateral agreements and through its participation in EU-wide initiatives such as Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. This cooperation allows for the exchange of information and best practices between Moldova and the EU, as well the coordination of efforts to combat cross-border crime and other forms of transnational organized crime.The path traveled by the states of Central and Eastern Europe in the last decade demonstrates that European integration cannot be considered only as a priority ofthe country’s foreign policy, as was declared by the Government of the Republic of Moldova until recently. Since independence, conditions have been created in the Republic of Moldova that allow a new approach to the European integration process, and the course towards joining the European Union has become a priority state policy that is consistently promoted internally and externally.The adoption of such a new approach is all the more important, as the expansion of the European Union has taken on an unprecedented scale and it is the first time that the accession of new members directly targets the interests of the Republic of Modova.Overall, the harmonization of criminal justice standards and legislation in Moldova is an ongoing process that will require continued effort and cooperation between Moldova and the EU.The article is dedicated to the analysis of the cooperation of the Republic of Moldova with the European Union through the prism of the provisions of the Association Agreement, implicitly, by connecting its national legislation to the requirements stipulated in the legal acts of the EU, this being achieved by implementing the provisions of Directives, Regulations, Decisions of the EU and of the CoE.In the Association Agreement, in particular, in its annexes, a list of concrete legal acts of the EU and the deadline for their implementation established for the Republic of Moldova is included. This denotes the fact that Moldova is obliged not only to harmonize its relevant legislation with these legal acts, but also to implement it and ensure its compliance by the set deadline. It should be taken into account that the Republic of Moldova is not a member state of the EU and, therefore, it is obliged to follow a gradual process of harmonization, because Moldova is not, for now, obliged to carry out full harmonization with the EU acquis, at the level of the EU member states, in order to fulfill its obligations deriving from the Agreement. However, the acquisition in 2022 by the Republic of Moldova of the status of a candidate state for EU accession, denotes wider efforts in terms of harmonizing national legislation with EU legislation, which is not limited to the EU acquis included in the annexes to the Association Agreement, but implies the need to ensure the transposition into national legislation of the entire legislative body of the EU.According to the analysis of the European Commission, Moldova has reached a certain level of preparation (level II) for the implementation of the EU acquis in the field of justice, freedom and security. The legislation is largely aligned with EU legislation, and Moldova has implemented a number of important strategies. However, there is room for improvement regarding institutional cooperation and coordination to boost implementation.