This blog is mostly about EU law, but from time to time I can stray a bit for entertainment and my own sanity. I hope you like it, because I`ll try it myself. After all, that`s what blogging, entertainment, and fun is all about, so please don`t take my comments as something too serious. These are just reflections of an overworked EU lawyer who struggles to understand where EU law is going, but in no way avoids losing his mind in the process. This article was previously published on the author`s blog Despite Our Differences and is republished here with kind permission. Dear Daniel, congratulations on the blog. I`m sure it will be a very fun mental challenge. As I am a little broke, I have already discussed the content of this book on the blog (see, for example, here, where I cover my presentation with the Amicale des Référendaires). But I hope Daniel`s good questions and perspectives add something to the ongoing debates. Have fun with the podcast (and also on weekends)! Dear Sarmiento, very interesting (and brilliant).
Can I www.free-group.eu reblog it on the website of the European Group of Experts on Fundamental Rights (FREE Group)? Thanks in advance! EDC As for the Constitution blog, contrary to the usual propaganda, the article is very balanced. The current decision is a small victory for EU federalists over Poland, but the costs are immense. Poland is likely to apply interim measures from now on, leaving a handful of former judges in office for a few years. Then he will introduce another judicial reform and make the final judgment of the CJEU obsolete before it is rendered, ridiculing the court. As we have already mentioned, the consequences for the EU are indeed immense. Today, it has become possible to apply the law retroactively and, therefore, to extend the competence of each EU actor according to the creative will. This will destroy the balance between the core and peripheries of the EU and lead to its collapse, especially in the context of Germany`s impending weakness. Possible financial sanctions are always directed against citizens, not the government, and as I said, their imposition requires creative (= dishonest) accounting.
This is certainly not a way to convince Polish citizens to elect a “correct” government. “Despite our differences. Rights, Litigation and Crisis in European Law” includes four years of publications in a leading European legal blog. The book is a detailed account of EU law in turbulent but very interesting times. Events such as Brexit, the Polish rule of law crisis, important decisions on procedural issues or the consolidation of a fundamental rights doctrine have become concrete during this period. The book examines these developments chronologically and gives insight into the development of crucial things that help to understand them as they are today. Elena GarcÃa Aguado, Edurne Navarro. Actualidad Jurãdica Urãa Menã ndez, n.º©27, 2010 Estimado Colega: Muchas gracias por su invalorable aporte académico para quienes debemos desasnarnos en la temática del Derecho de la Unión. Alicia Kuriel (Prof. Titular Escuela Cuerpo de Abogados del Estado (ECAE) Rca.
Argentina. Thank you for this very insightful and well-argued article. I will use it in my lectures! Ronan McCrea However, the stakes are so high that the court had no choice. Unfortunately, the Polish government set in motion a process and style of government that ultimately put it in an untenable position, a prisoner-free approach in which the EU institutions have no choice but to remain firm and calm. Unlike other illiberal governments within the Union, especially Hungary, the Polish crisis is extremely instinctive and radical. Enhorabuena por la iniciativa y mucho ánimo. Lo importante que disfrutes con ella; Los demás lo disfrutaremos sin duda. Miguel Presno Ana Raquel Lapresta Bienz, Patricia Vidal. Actualidad Jurãdica Urãa Menã ndez, n.º 29, 2011 Juan Josã Alba Rãos, Jaime Folguera, Josã Sierra Lã©©³pez, et al.
Madrid: Club Espaã±ol de la Energãa – Instituto Espaã±ol de la Energãa©, 2011 As you can imagine, I was very happy when Daniel invited me to discuss in a podcast the topics I covered in The Shaping of EU Competition Law. The podcast can be accessed here and lasts about 30 minutes. Daniel Sarmiento (Universidad Complutense et Uría, formerly at the Court of Justice) does not need to be introduced to our community. He is an illustrious member of an endangered species: the universal specialist in EU law. EU Law Live, of which he is the editor-in-chief, reflects his wide range of interests. The site has become an essential reference for those who want to stay up to date with case law and beyond. As you all know by now, it is an incredibly rich source of information. In Germany, we must refrain from criticising judicial reform in Poland. A central point of criticism of the draft Polish regulation is that the Sejm must decide in future on the composition of a national council of judges that appoints judges.
In addition, the Order is retroactive. The Law on Judicial Reform introduced a new retirement age for judges, set at 65 years, and since its entry into force it has already served as a legal guarantee for the retirement of several sitting judges. Although the law was suspended by the Supreme Court following a request for a preliminary ruling from Luxembourg this summer, some of its provisions have already entered into force. Consequently, the Regulation against Poland provides for a retroactive suspension of the effects of judgments from the date of entry into force of the Law. I believe that Decision C-441/17 R of the ECJ provides that enforcement of the order is not to take place in proceedings under Article 260 TFEU, but also in proceedings under Article 279 TFEU. They are not treated as a punishment, but as a means of ensuring the effectiveness of the injunction. Nevertheless, last week`s Order was slowly and carefully brewed in the futuristic Ring of Luxembourg. In the landmark case of the Portuguese judges, presented in early 2018, the Court set the tone for this new ground for review, noting that Article 19 TEU, including its reference to independence, is a relevant parameter for the review of national measures. Shortly before, in the case of the Polish Białowieża Forest, the Court had held that, in the event of infringement of an interim injunction addressed to a Member State, the Court may, at the Commission`s request, impose periodic penalty payments and fines, in a cautious but bold interpretation similar to Article 260 TFEU. Ahead of the 2018 summer recess, the Court sent another strong message in the LM case, stating that judicial cooperation with Poland in the field of criminal law in Poland could end if the European Council finally initiated proceedings under Article 7 TEU against the Member State. Last week`s Order seems to be another piece of the terribly complex puzzle that the Polish challenge turns out to be.
If we look at the Order from a strictly legal point of view, the decision is quite an event and a revolutionary precedent. Interim measures are exceptional means of ensuring the effectiveness of a procedure, but they are mainly used to suspend the effects of EU acts. Actions before the Court of Justice usually involve private applicants questioning the legality of, for example, Commission decisions. The situation in which a Member State acts as a defendant to whom an interim order may be imposed is essentially limited to infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission or another Member State under Article 258 TFEU. Such interim measures are almost never requested, as the Commission is aware of the Court`s reluctance to instruct Member States to take interim measures or to refrain from taking interim measures. These provisional measures shall be granted on the basis of Art. 279 TFEU, a provision which leaves the Court a wide discretion to be creative in the type of interim measures which the case deserves, but which, in practice, are rarely requested and therefore rarely granted.
