How does compliance with Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings on patient mobility in the new Member States compare to the old Member States? Studying new Member States' compliance practices would highlight the state of territoriality, the CJEU's effective influence and the European healthcare union's strength among the new Members. To provide a structured analysis and transferrable results, we compare Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria with France and Germany. These countries are selected on the basis of commonalities in their systems' organization. For the results for the old Member States, we rely on Obermaier's 2009 "The End of Territoriality". This study is qualitative in nature and relies mostly on qualitative semi-structured interviews with experts from ministries of health, health insurers and legal experts from all three countries. We distinguish between formal and informal compliance and based on this, we advance an analytical framework for a systematic study of CJEU compliance across the EU. Our findings produce a heterogeneous picture of these countries, with all three of them demonstrating different modes of compliance. This is due to distinct domestic conditions, ranging from insurance fund amenability and national court complaisance to state administration obstinacy.

English has become the first global language of international com- munication during the last decades. It is dominant in many fields as science, technology, transportation, business and tourism and diplomacy. The European Union with law applicable directly on individuals is officially multilingual. English is, however, preferred in internal communication and in communication with national experts. National laws are closely related with particular states. Related discourse is therefore realized mostly in national language. Legal education and research are thus less anglicized than other university education and research. Nevertheless, increasing importance of international and supranational rules for harmonization and coordination, growing demand for comparison, pres- sure to publish in internationally recognized journals, Europe-wide research projects and rising numbers of exchange of students cause widespread resort to English also at schools of law. Unfortunately, English is language of countries with Anglo-American law (common law) which differs significantly from continental law (civil law) existing in most European and other countries. Therefore, it is difficult to find adequate English words for phenomena of civil law and to stabilize their use in international discourse.

No abstract

No abstract

The short titles of several recent EU regulations or proposals contain the words ‘act’ and ‘law’. The latter reminds EU legal scholars, especially those using different EU languages, that the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe envisaged turning regulations into European laws, and directives into European framework laws. We propose to discuss their revival in terms of the so-called legislative acts, i.e., a category retained by the Lisbon Treaty, which otherwise avoids such a statist terminology, deeming it too sensitive. They are passed by the European Parliament, which is a directly elected body. A comparative look shows the difference in parliamentary statutes and instruments adopted by the executives of many nations in their languages with different nouns. This terminology also accommodates the recent preference for regulations, including dozens of them being transformed from directives. The two terms distinguished by a modifier reflect their relationship to each other.