Introduction

Koutrakos, Panos

doi:10.4337/9781849808613.00006

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to such novel element, another peculiarity in ATAA relates to the way the Court appears to incorporate the analysis of the second condition into the first one. 202 In support of its reasoning on the flexibility available to the parties in terms of the manner and speed of meeting their obligations, the Court's cites Art 2(2) of the Kyoto Protocol which 'cannot in any event be considered to be unconditional and sufficiently precise so as to confer on individuals the right to rely on it in legal proceedings' contesting internal EU law. 203 While the emphasis on conferral of rights appears to be in accord with Intertanko it nonetheless appears to blur the lines between the two conditions.…”

Section: (Ii) Intertanko and Lack Of Direct Effect Of The Unclosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are the ‘Gatekeepers’?: In Continuation of the Debate on the Direct Applicability and the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements

Ghazaryan

2018

Yearbook of European Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article revisits the debate on direct applicability and direct effect of EU international agreements by questioning the role of the so called gatekeepers. It considers the established role of the Court of Justice of the EU as the gatekeeper of the EU legal order through identifying the stages of gatekeeping and their implications. It further analyses the possibilities of sidelining the Court through various techniques, which include the agreement between the parties to the international agreement. A more controversial challenge to the Court's position stems from a practice emerging from Council decisions concluding a number of international agreements. These decisions make a strong pronouncement on the exclusion of direct effect for the entire agreement. The status of such pronouncements is analysed with reference to CJEU's jurisprudence as well as the relevant rules of international law.

show abstract

Section: (Ii) Intertanko and Lack Of Direct Effect Of The Unclosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Are the ‘Gatekeepers’?: In Continuation of the Debate on the Direct Applicability and the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements

Ghazaryan

2018

Yearbook of European Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…88 The Commission has suggested that trade relations with ENP states should be pursued in the context of DCFTAs. 89 These have been achieved in the context of the EU environmental law and policy post- Brexit 337 bilateral Association Agreements signed between the EU and Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia. Even in the absence of Association Agreements, the model of working within the ENP is seen as strongly bilateral.…”

Section: The European Neighbourhood Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…96 The UfM works to complement the bilateral legal relations established by many states in the region with the EU through Association Agreements. 97 Two of the six 'priority areas' identified for the UfM's work include Energy & Climate Action and Water & Environment. The Mediterranean Solar Plan seeks to create a common regulatory approach as regards solar energy between EU and non-EU Mediterranean states and create a regional renewable energy market, while the Depollution of the Mediterranean project works to reduce pollution of sea water.…”

Section: Union For the Mediterraneanmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU environmental law and policy post-Brexit: models for engagement between the EU27 and the UK

O’Gorman

2018

NILQ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UK’s departure from the EU will have significant impact on the existing EU environmental protection regimes. This article examines the possible options for the new relationship between the EU27 and the UK and how the environment might be protected under this. This is done through an analysis of how environmental law is dealt with under the EU’s existing relationship models with non-member states. These models are examined in conjunction with the negotiating lines that have been set down by both the UK and EU to see which is most politically feasible, and what impact it will have on how the EU protects the environment.

show abstract

“…32 Importantly, it does not matter who provides it, so long as the service provider can be said to be paid for their work. 33 To be an 'undertaking' for competition law purposes an entity must be engaged in an activity which is, or could be, performed on a competitive market. 34…”

Section: Are Welfare Services Economic?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Process and Side-Effects of the Harmonisation of European Welfare States

Davies

2006

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the ways in which EU law forces Member States to reorganise their welfare states, focusing on the effects of free movement and competition principles on health care, education, and social insurance. It then considers the consequences of such reorganisations for national identity and social cohesion, for domestic and foreign policy and European integration, and as the creation of a new welfare industry.

show abstract

Introduction

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Who Are the ‘Gatekeepers’?: In Continuation of the Debate on the Direct Applicability and the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements

Who Are the ‘Gatekeepers’?: In Continuation of the Debate on the Direct Applicability and the Direct Effect of EU International Agreements

EU environmental law and policy post-Brexit: models for engagement between the EU27 and the UK

The Process and Side-Effects of the Harmonisation of European Welfare States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About