Source: http://eulaw.pl/
Timestamp: 2018-03-19 14:05:11+00:00

Document:
Home - EULaw.pl
European Union Law. pl
> Zajęcia 1
> Zajęcia 2
> Zajęcia 3
> Zajęcia 4
> Prawo ustrojowe UE
> Unit 0
> Dodatkowe materiały
> Introduction to EU Law
> EU External Relations Law
Download the important EU legal acts:
Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Draft Accession Agreement of the EU to the ECHR
Link do strony Katedry Prawa Europejskiego UJ
Non-contractual liability of the European Union, Warsaw 2016, pp. 500.
My book about non-contractual liability of the European Union ("Pozaumowna odpowiedzialność odszkodowawcza Unii Europejskiej") is being published by Wolters Kluwer Warsaw. It will be available for purchase on November 19th, 2015 online (Księgarnia Proinfo) and in the bookstores.
Akty UE do pobrania w języku polskim!
Texts of the Treaties and the Charter in Polish language (Publications Office, 2010)
European Union Law.pl
Educational service for law students and practitioners. It aims at presenting a general framework and recent developments of the European Union Law.
It will provide a valuable insight into EU Treaties, legislation as well as the case law of the European Court of Justice in fields of institutional law, commercial law and external relations.
W dniu 1 marca 2018 r. Parlament Europejski przyjął rezolucję dotyczącą Polski. Rezolucja jest poparciem dla działań Komisji Europejskiej, która w grudniu rozpoczęła pierwszy etap procedury dotyczącej uruchomienia artykułu art. 7 TUE. Głosowało 617 europosłów: 422 było za, 147 przeciw, a 48 wstrzymało się od głosu.
– uwzględniając uzasadniony wniosek Komisji z dnia 20 grudnia 2017 r., złożony zgodnie z art. 7 ust. 1 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej, w sprawie praworządności w Polsce: wniosek dotyczący decyzji Rady w sprawie stwierdzenia wyraźnego ryzyka poważnego naruszenia przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską zasady praworządności,
Tekst na stronie Parlamentu Europejskiego
C-441/17 Komisja p. Polsce (Puszcza Białowieska)
Zdaniem Rzecznika Generalnego Bota decyzje z zakresu gospodarki leśnej dotyczące obszaru Natura 2000 Puszcza Białowieska naruszają prawo Unii.
W opinii wydanej w dniu 20 lutego 2018 r. Rzecznik Generalny Yves Bot zaproponował, aby rozstrzygając sprawę Trybunał Sprawiedliwości orzekł, że:
"Przyjmując i wdrażając działania gospodarki leśnej, zawarte w aneksie do planu urządzenia lasu w Nadleśnictwie Białowieża z dnia 9 października 2012 r., który został zatwierdzony w dniu 25 marca 2016 r. przez Ministra Środowiska (Polska), oraz w decyzji nr 51 Dyrektora Generalnego Lasów Państwowych z dnia 17 lutego 2017 r. w sprawie usuwania drzew zasiedlonych przez korniki oraz pozyskania drzew powodujących zagrożenie bezpieczeństwa publicznego i pożarowego, we wszystkich klasach wieku drzewostanów w nadleśnictwach Białowieża, Browsk, Hajnówka, bez upewnienia się, że działania te nie wpłyną niekorzystnie na integralność obszaru Natura 2000 Puszcza Białowieska PLC200004 (Polska), oraz nie zapewniając zachowania oraz ochrony siedlisk i gatunków chronionych, o których mowa w skardze Komisji i dla których obszar ten został wyznaczony jako teren mający znaczenie dla Wspólnoty i obszar specjalnej ochrony, Rzeczpospolita Polska uchybiła zobowiązaniom, które na niej ciążą na mocy art. 6 ust. 1 i 3 i art. 12 ust. 1 lit. a) i d) dyrektywy Rady 92/43/EWG z dnia 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk przyrodniczych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory, a także art. 4 ust. 1 i 2 i art. 5 lit. b) i d) dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2009/147/WE z dnia 30 listopada 2009 r. w sprawie ochrony dzikiego ptactwa.
OPINIA RZECZNIKA GENERALNEGO YVES’A BOTA z 20 lutego 2018 r.
Komisja uruchamia procedurę z art. 7 TUE przeciwko Polsce
W dniu 20 grudnia 2017 r. Komisja zaproponowała Radzie podjęcie przeciwko Polsce decyzji na podstawie art. 7 ust. 1 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej.
Rada musi wysłuchać stanowiska Polski oraz uzyskać zgodę Parlamentu Europejskiego (na podstawie art. 354 TFUE Parlament Europejski stanowi większością dwóch trzecich oddanych głosów, reprezentujących większość wchodzących w jego skład członków), zanim przyjmie decyzję w sprawie stwierdzenia wyraźnego ryzyka poważnego naruszenia zasady praworządności, stanowiąc większością czterech piątych głosów (22 z 27 państw członkowskich uprawnionych do głosowania na podstawie art. 354 TFUE). W trybie tej samej procedury głosowania Rada może również skierować do Polski zalecenia.
20 lipca 2017 r. skarga Komisji p. Polsce wniesiona do TS
Naruszenie dyrektywy 92/43/EWG z dnia 21 maja 1992 r. w sprawie ochrony siedlisk przyrodniczych oraz dzikiej fauny i flory oraz naruszenie dyrektywy 2009/147/WE z dnia 30 listopada 2009 r. w sprawie ochrony dzikiego ptactwa.
Powołując się na gradację kornika drukarza Minister Środowiska RP zatwierdził dnia 25 marca 2016 r. aneks do planu urządzania lasów z 2012 r. zezwalający na 3-krotne powiększenie etatu pozyskiwania drewna w lasach Nadleśnictwa Białowieża tj. z 63 471 m3 do 188 000 m3 w latach 2012-2021 oraz, na obszarach dotychczas wyłączonych z zakresu interwencji, na stosowanie działań aktywnej gospodarki leśnej polegających na usuwaniu ponad stuletnich, zamierających i martwych drzew w tym przede wszystkim świerków zasiedlanych przez kornika drukarza- tzw. cięcia sanitarne, zalesiania i odnowienia.
27 lipca 2017 r. wydanie postanowienia o zastosowaniu środków tymczasowych do chwili wydania wyroku przez TS
Polska zaprzestanie, z wyjątkiem sytuacji zagrażających bezpieczeństwu publicznemu, aktywnych działań gospodarki leśnej oraz usuwania ponadstuletnich, martwych świerków, a także wycinki drzew w ramach zwiększonego etatu pozyskiwania drewna na obszarze Puszcza Białowieskiej.
20 listopada 2017 r. wydanie postanowienia o zastosowaniu środków tymczasowych do chwili wydania wyroku przez TS
• W drodze wyjątku działania mogą być kontynuowane tylko pod warunkiem, że stanowią jedyny środek zachowania bezpieczeństwa publicznego osób w bezpośrednim otoczeniu dróg komunikacyjnych lub innej ważnej infrastruktury, jeżeli z powodów obiektywnych nie jest możliwe zachowanie tego bezpieczeństwa poprzez przyjęcie innych mniej radykalnych środków, takich jak właściwa sygnalizacja zagrożeń lub czasowy zakaz wstępu.
•Powiadomienie Komisji o przyjętych środkach w terminie 15 dni
•Nieprzestrzeganie powyższego postanowienia spowoduje nałożenie na Polskę kary pieniężnej na podstawie art. 279 TFUE w wysokości 100 000 euro dziennie do chwili zaprzestania naruszeń.
Więcej informacji www.curia.europa.eu
Order of the Court in Case C-441/17 R Commission v Poland
(Białowieża Forest)
In its order of November 20th 2017 the Court of Justice ruled that Poland must immediately cease its active forest management operations in the Białowieża Forest, except in exceptional cases where they are strictly necessary to ensure public safety. If Poland is found to have infringed this order, the Court will order it to pay to the Commission a penalty payment of at least €100 000 per day. Article 279 TFEU confers on the Court the power to prescribe any interim measures that it deems necessary in order to ensure that the final decision is fully effective. Such a measure may entail, inter alia, provision for a penalty payment to be imposed should that order not be respected by the relevant party. Since the prospect of a penalty payment being imposed in such a situation discourages the relevant Member State from failing to respect the interim measures ordered, it bolsters the effectiveness of those measures and guarantees the full effectiveness of the final decision, thus falling entirely within the ambit of the objective of Article 279 TFEU. Providing for the imposition of penalty payments for the sole purpose of ensuring that the interim measures at issue are complied with does not prejudge the future decision in the main action. In the present case, there is sufficient material in the file to give the Court grounds for doubting that Poland has complied with the order of the Vice-President of the Court of 27 July 2017 or that it is prepared to adhere to today’s order until the date of the final decision. In such circumstances, it appears necessary to bolster the effectiveness of the interim measures granted today by providing for penalty payments to be imposed if Poland fails to comply immediately and fully with the interim measures, for the purpose of discouraging Poland from delaying its compliance with today’s order. To that end, the Court orders Poland to send to the Commission, within 15 days of notification of the order, details of all measures that it has adopted in order to comply fully, detailing, with justifications, the active forest management operations at issue that it intends to continue because they are necessary to ensure public safety.
Order of the Court of Justice in Case C-441/17 R
Facebook safe form class action suit in Austria. For now ...
CaseC-498/16 Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited.
Opinion of AG Bobek of 14 November 2017 (PL)
Commission calls for immediate suspension of logging in Poland's Białowieża Forest Puszcza Białowieska
The European Commission has decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU for increased logging in the Białowieża Forest, which is a protected Natura 2000 site. As logging operations have started on a significant scale, the Commission is also requesting the Court for interim measures compelling Poland to suspend the works immediately.
Komisja Europejska p. Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (C-441/17)
Postanowienie o zastosowaniu środka tymczasowego (PL)
Commission expresses grave concern about clear risks for the independence of the judiciary in Poland
July 26th, 2017. On the invitation of President Juncker, First Vice-President Timmermans presented to the College the latest developments with regard to the Polish judiciary and the Rule of Law dialogue, which is ongoing between the Commission and Poland since 13 January 2016. The College of Commissioners expressed grave concerns about four legislative acts recently proposed in Poland: the law on the National Council for the Judiciary; the law on the National School of Judiciary; the law on the Ordinary Courts Organisation; and the law on the Supreme Court. If implemented in their current form, these laws would have a very significant negative impact on the independence of the judiciary and would increase the systemic threat to the rule of law in Poland. Commissioners today held a first in-depth discussion on these new developments, expressed serious concerns, and looked into the legal and political options available to the Commission to act upon these concerns, including another Rule of Law Recommendation to the Polish government and the possibility of infringement proceedings for violation of EU law. The option of triggering Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union was also part of the discussion. The College of Commissioners agreed to revert to this issue in its meeting next week on the basis of a comprehensive legal analysis and any observations the Polish authorities and other interested parties and European or international organisations may submit.
NEW! The European Comission Third Recommendation on the Rule of law in Poland of 26 th July, 2017.
The European Commission has also launched an infringement procedure against Poland on the bases of Art. 258 TFEU by sending a Letter of Formal Notice, following the publication in the Polish Official Journal of the Law on the Ordinary Courts Organisation on 28 July 2017.
Dzień Europy - Europe Day
9 maja, 14:00– 20:00
Parter i dziedziniec Pałacu Larischa, ul. Bracka 12
Prof. dr hab. Jerzy Pisuliński, Dziekan WPiA UJ zaprasza wszystkich studentów i pracowników Wydziału na świętowanie Dnia Europy (Europe Day)
14.00-15.00 Prof. Nina Półtorak, sędzia w Sądzie UE - "Europa nie powstanie od razu i w całości (...) ale przez konkretne działania tworzące solidarność" - czy prawo i prawnicy mogą przyczynić się do integracji europejskiej?". Po wykładzie planowana jest dyskusja; moderator: prof. Sławomir Dudzik
15.00 - 16.00 Dr Alicja Sikora, referendarz w Sądzie UE - "Jak funkcjonuje Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej – refleksje referendarza". Po wykładzie planowana jest dyskusja; moderator: prof. Sławomir Dudzik
16:00 – 16:30 - Erasmus+ jest dla Ciebie! – przedstawienie oferty Działu Międzynarodowej Wymiany Studenckiej, w szczególności programu „Wystartuj z Erasmus+” – Monika Rząca, DWSM UJ
16:30 – 16:45 – „Students Helping Students” - prezentacja ESN – Erasmus Student Network
16:45 – 17:15 - „Erasmus czyli smak życia” – polscy studenci opowiedzą o swoich doświadczeniach podczas pobytu na stypendium w ramach programu Erasmus +
17:15-17:30 – prezentacja OKSPO – Ośrodka Koordynacyjnego Szkół Praw Obcych
17:30 – 18:00 - prezentacja europejskich uczelni przez zagranicznych studentów studiujących na naszym wydziale
18:00 – 20:00 - grill, didżej i dobra zabawa
Sixty years after the formation of the EU, 27 leaders from across the continent met in the Italian capital to mark the anniversary of the treaty that founded the European Economic Community, creating a common market and customs union.
All the leaders – even the Polish prime minister, Beata Szydło, who had threeatened to derail the celebrations by not endorsing a “Rome declaration” renewing the countries’ vows of loyalty, largely due to a personal grudge with Tusk – were greeted with a smile.
Only one leader was absent. Theresa May was not invited to the “informal summit”, a description that allows the EU institutions to cut out Britain from events. The prime minister will write to Tusk on Wednesday to formally announce that the EU’s second-biggest economy is to leave the union, a process that will involve two years of negotiations.
On March 25th 2017, the leaders adopted the Rome declaration, which offers ringing phrases about peace and unity. “We, the leaders of 27 member states and of EU institutions, take pride in the achievements of the European Union: the construction of European unity is a bold, far-sighted endeavour,” it says.
“Sixty years ago, recovering from the tragedy of two world wars, we decided to bond together and rebuild our continent from its ashes.
“We have built a unique union with common institutions and strong values, a community of peace, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, a major economic power with unparalleled levels of social protection and welfare.
The text concludes: “We have united for the better. Europe is our common future.”
Theresa May will trigger the two year process of leaving the European Union on March 29, 2017.
The judgement of the UK Supreme Court on BREXIT.
R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and associated references.
The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing - although this is expected to happen in time for the government's 31 March deadline. But the court ruled the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies did not need a say.
On 24th January 2017 the Supreme Court by a majority of 8 to 3 dismisses the Secretary of State’s appeal (Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge in the majority with Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissenting). In a joint judgment of the majority, the Supreme Court holds that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give Notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Each of the dissenting justices gives a separate judgment.
According to the Supreme Court the withdrawal makes a fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements, by cutting off the source of EU law. Such a fundamental change will be the inevitable effect of a Notice being served. The UK constitution requires such changes to be effected by Parliamentary legislation.
The fact that ministers are accountable to Parliament for their actions is no answer constitutionally, if the power to act does not exist in the first place and where (as the court has been asked to assume) the exercise of the power would be irrevocable and prempt any Parliamentary action.
Subsequent EU related legislation and events after 1972, including the introduction of Parliamentary controls in relation to decisions made by UK ministers at EU level relating to the competences of the EU or its decision-making processes, but not to the giving of notice under Article 50(2), are entirely consistent with an assumption by Parliament that no power existed to withdraw from the treaties without a statute authorising that course.
UK's Supreme Court delivers article 50 judgment (VIDEO)
Text of the judgement (PDF)
"Skutki braku notyfikacji przepisów technicznych ustawy o grach hazardowych dla wymiaru sprawiedliwości Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej", Warsaw 2017, pp. 480.
The book contains my article concerning the State liability for damages connected with breach of the obligation to notify the technical regulations.
The book is being published by Wolters Kluwer Warsaw. It will be available for purchase on January 12th, 2017. online (Księgarnia Proinfo) and in the bookstores.
Gina Miller Case (The Brexit Case).
The UK Supreme Court hears Government's appeal after High Court insisted Theresa May must get parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50 TFEU.
The government presented its closing arguments on the final day of the case which will determine whether parliament or ministers have the right to trigger article 50 to leave the European Union.
Brexit legal challenge: Watch the Supreme Court hearing live
The NEW opinion of the Venice Commission on the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016.
On 14th October 2016 the European Commission for Democracy through Law adopted new opinion on the Constitutional Tribunal Act of 22 July 2016.
The Venice Commission stated that, by adopting the Act of 22 July (and the Amendments of 22 December), the Polish Parliament assumed powers of constitutional revision which it does not have when it acts as the ordinary legislature, without the requisite majority for constitutional amendments.
Individually and cumulatively, these shortcomings show that instead of unblocking the
precarious situation of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Parliament and Government continue to challenge the Tribunal’s position as the final arbiter of constitutional issues and attribute this authority to themselves. They have created new obstacles to the effective functioning of the Tribunal instead of seeking a solution on the basis of the Constitution and the Tribunal’s judgements, and have acted to further undermine its independence. By prolonging the constitutional crisis, they have obstructed the Constitutional Tribunal, which cannot play its constitutional role as the guardian of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
The text of the Opinion (English).
Resolutions of the European Parliament on the situation in Poland
1. European Parliament resolution of 13 April 2016 on the situation in Poland (2015/3031(RSP)). TEXT
2. 1. European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2016 on the situation in Poland. Press release
European documents concerning the Rule of Law in the case of Poland
On 1 June 2016 the European Commission adopted an Opinion concerning the Rule of Law in Poland.
On 27 July 2016 the European Commission adopted a Rule of Law Recommendation on the situation in Poland.
Opinion on amendments to the Act of 25 June 2015 on the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session (Venice, 11-12 March 2016).
NEW! Reply of the Polish Government to the European Commission adopted on 27 October 2016 (text in Polish language).
Odpowiedź Rządu RP z dnia 27 października 2016 r. na zalecenie Komisji Europejskiej.
Annual report on the application of the Charter of fundamental rights - 2015
On 19 May 2016, the 2015 report on the application of the EU charter of fundamental rights was adopted. It is accompanied by a staff working document. It gives an overview of instances where European institutions took into account the Charter in their legislative and policy work in 2015.
The EU's Rule of Law Framework in the case of Poland!
The Rule of Law Framework – introduced on 11 March 2014 - has three stages. The entire process is based on a continuous dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned. The Commission will keep the European Parliament and Council regularly and closely informed.
Source: The European Commission Press Release IP/16/1828
The history of the framework to safeguard the rule of law in the European Union
The College of Commissioners had a first orientation debate on how to better safeguard the rule of law in the European Union during its seminar in August 2013. Speaking at the Centre for European Policy Studies in September, Vice-President Reding then outlined her vision for a possible new rule of law framework for the European Union (SPEECH/13/677). At the Assises de la Justice, a high-level conference on the future of justice in the EU in November 2013 which was attended by over 600 stakeholders and interested parties, one session was specifically dedicated to the topic "Towards a new rule of law mechanism".
On the basis of all these discussions, the College of Commissioners held another orientation debate on 25 February 2014 before adopting the new rule of law framework
European Commission's framework to safeguard the rule of law in the European Union - Press Release, 11 March 2014
ARTICLE 2 THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
ARTICLE 7 THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
#SzanujKonstytucje
Law students at the Jagiellonian University read selected articles of the Polish Constitution. The film is aimed at enhancing the legal awareness of citizens on the Constitution.
Source: You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhmRTkcekwE
New rules concerning the protection of personal data!
The European Commission proposed a comprehensive reform of data protection rules in the EU.
EU v. Google and the right to be forgotten!
On May 13th 2014 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in case C-131/12 Google Spain.
The case was brought by a Spanish citizen Mr. Gonzalez, who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his right to privacy.
The CJ has decided that an operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to remove links to web pages that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a person from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s name. The Court makes it clear that such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name or in formation is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.
The Court observed that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data where, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the data appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed.
The Court added that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.
The text of the judgement (Curia)
EU against Facebook! The Court of Justice has declared that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid
On October 6th 2015 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in case C-362/14 Schrems. It declared that Comission decision concerning US Safe Haurbour is invalid.
Mr. Schrems is a privacy activist who brought a case against Facebook in Ireland. He said his privacy had been violated by the NSA's mass surveillance programs, first revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Schrems is Austrian, but brought the case against Facebook in Ireland because the company's European headquarters are in Dublin.
Safe Harbour is an agreement drawn up between Europe and the US allowing the transfer of private data on users between the two regions. There are different rules concerning data on either side of the Atlantic, but Safe Harbour harmonises them and allows for smooth transfers without worrying about differing legal frameworks.
The United States authorities were able to access the personal data transferred from the Member States to the United States and process it in a way incompatible, in particular, with the purposes for which it was transferred, beyond what was strictly necessary and proportionate to the protection of national security. Also, the persons concerned had no administrative or judicial means of redress enabling, in particular, the data relating to them to be accessed and, as the case may be, rectified or erase.
The Court stated that legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life. Likewise, the Court observed that legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure of such data, compromises the essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, the existence of such a possibility being inherent in the existence of the rule of law.
The aftermath of the judgement - EU-US Privacy Shield!
Opinion of the Advocate General in case C - 62/14 Gauweiler
On January 14th 2015 Advocate General Cruz Villalón deleivered its opinion on the ECB's Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). In view of the Advocate General the OMT programme is in principle compatible with the TFEU.
For the first time in its history, the BVerfG has made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and has done so to raise the question of the legality of the OMT programme.
In his Opinion Advocate General observed that the framing and implementation of monetary policy are the exclusive competence of the ECB. In order to carry out its task, the ECB has at its disposal technical expertise and valuable information, which, together with its reputation and communications strategy, enable it to manage expectations in such a way that its monetary policy “impulses” actually reach the economy.
Therefore, the ECB must have a broad discretion when framing and implementing the EU’s monetary policy, and the courts must exercise a considerable degree of caution when reviewing the ECB’s activity, since they lack the expertise and experience which the ECB has in this area.
The Advocate General concluded that :
The OMT programme of the European Central Bank, announced on 6 September 2012, is compatible with Article 119 TFEU and Article 127(1) and (2) TFEU, provided that, in the event of that programme being implemented, the ECB
On December 18th 2014 the Court of Justice delivered its opinion on the draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and identified problems with regard to its compatibility with the EU law.
The Court considered that the approach adopted in the draft agreement, which is to treat the EU as a State and to give it a role identical in every respect to that of any other Contracting Party, specifically disregards the intrinsic nature of the EU. In requiring the EU and the Member States to be considered Contracting Parties not only in their relations with Parties which are not members of the EU but also in their relations with each other, the ECHR would require each Member State to check that the other Member States had observed fundamental rights, even though EU law imposes an obligation of mutual trust between those Member States. In those circumstances, accession is liable to upset the underlying balance of the EU and undermine the autonomy of EU law.
Given that in the event of accession the ECHR would form an integral part of EU law the advisory mechanism established by the Protocol No 16 to the ECHR could affect the autonomy and effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by the TFEU notably where rights guaranteed by the Charter correspond to rights secured by the ECHR.
The draft agreement allows for the possibility that the EU or Member States might submit an application to the ECtHR concerning an alleged violation of the ECHR by a Member State or the EU in relation to EU law. The very existence of such a possibility undermines the requirements established in Article 344 TFEU.
In carrying out such a review under co-respondent mechanism, the ECtHR would be required to assess the rules of EU law governing the division of powers between the EU and its Member States as well as the criteria for the attribution of their acts or omissions. The ECtHR could adopt a final decision in that respect which would be binding both on the Member States and on the EU. To permit the ECtHR to adopt such a decision would risk adversely affecting the division of powers between the EU and its Member States
The Court also expressed its view on the procedure for the prior involvement of the Court the draft agreement excludes the possibility of bringing a matter before the Court in order for it to rule on a question of interpretation of secondary law by means of that procedure. Limiting the scope of that procedure solely to questions of validity adversely affects the competences of the EU and the powers of the Court.
Moreover the ECtHR would be empowered to rule on the compatibility with the ECHR of certain acts, actions or omissions performed in the context of the CFSP, notably those whose legality the Court cannot, for want of jurisdiction, review in the light of fundamental rights. Such a situation would effectively entrust, as regards compliance with the rights guaranteed by the ECHR, the exclusive judicial review of those acts, actions or omissions on the part of the EU to a non-EU body.
Commentary by Łazowski and Wessel
Commentary by Sionaidh Douglas-Scott
Dano case
On November 11th 2014 the European Court of Justice delivered judgement in Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig.
Two Romanian nationals, Ms Dano and her son Florin, have brought proceedings before the Social Court, Leipzig (Germany), against Jobcenter Leipzig, which refused to grant them benefits. Ms Dano did not enter Germany in order to seek work there and, although she is requesting benefits by way of basic provision which are only for jobseekers, it is apparent from the case-file that she is not seeking employment.
The Court of Justice pointed out that, under the directive 2004/38/EC, the host Member State is not obliged to grant social assistance during the first three months of residence. Where the period of residence is longer than three months but less than five years, one of the conditions which the directive lays down for a right of residence is that economically inactive persons must have sufficient resources of their own. The directive thus seeks to prevent economically inactive Union citizens from using the host Member State’s welfare system to fund their means of subsistence. A Member State must therefore have the possibility of refusing to grant social benefits to economically inactive Union citizens who exercise their right to freedom of movement solely in order to obtain another Member State’s social assistance although they do not have sufficient resources to claim a right of residence.
CJ judgement in case C 333/13 Dano
The Fiscal Compact (the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union; also referred to as TSCG or more plainly the Fiscal Stability Treaty), is an intergovernmental treaty introduced as a new stricter version of the Stability and Growth Pact, signed on 2 March 2012 by all member states of the European Union (EU), except the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, and Croatia (subsequently acceding the EU in July 2013). The treaty entered into force on 1 January 2013 for the 16 states which completed ratification prior of this date. As of 1 April 2014, it had been ratified and entered into force for all 25 signatories.
Poland ratified the Fiscal Compact on 24 July 2013
The group of Sejm Deputies submitted the statute for the ratification of the Fiscal Compact to the Constitutional Tribunal for assessment as to its conformity to the Constitution (case K 11/13). The Constitutional Tribunal has discontinued the proceedings since the deputies elected in October 2015 has not upheld the motion.
Interesting opinion by Ingolf Pernice (ECLN)
Interesting opinion by Paul Craig (SSRN)
The 9th SIPE volume
The SIPE Volume on “Responsibility, Accountability and Control of the Constitutional State and the European Union in Changing Times” has just been published by Nomos.
The volume contains revised editions of presentations delivered at the 9th SIPE Congress in Krakow in 2013.
My Article published in the volume "Concurrent Liability of the European Union and the Member States".
Congress report published in "Państwo i Prawo" 12/2014
Watch their vote!
Very interesting website that shows how our EU-deputies and ministers voted in the EU institutions.
Votewatch.eu - http://www.votewatch.eu/
Council and Parliament votes
We can also closely watch the votes of specific members of the EU Parliament - for example our candidate for presidential elections in 2015 - Mr. Andrzej Duda.
© 2016. EUlaw.pl. All Rights Reserved.

References: art. 7
 art. 7
 art. 6
 art. 12
 art. 4
 art. 5
 art. 7
 art. 7
 art. 354
 art. 354
 art. 279
 Art. 258