Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (51) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (51) (remove)
Language
- German (32)
- English (14)
- French (3)
- Other Language (2)
Has Fulltext
- no (51) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (51)
Keywords
- Dienstrecht (3)
- Covid-19 (2)
- Digitalisierung (2)
- Qualifizierung (2)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (2)
- ACCC (1)
- Aarhus convention (1)
- Aarhus regulation (1)
- Anonymity Assessment (1)
- Arbeitsplatzsicherung (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (11)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (9)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (9)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (3)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (2)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (1)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (1)
The Union legislator has recently amended the Aarhus Regulation with the aim of bringing it more in line with the requirements the Aarhus Convention lays down. EU State aid decisions, however, remain excluded from its scope. This exclusion raises questions that form the object of this contribution. The article argues that the arguments presented to justify the continued exclusion of State aid review are not convincing. By not complying with the re-commendations of the ACCC, the EU is in clear violation of international law. Therefore, the article deliberates over the necessary changes and possible exemptions for a sound im-plementation of the Aarhus Convention against the procedural specificities of State aid review, considering also the Commission´s recently presented options, which contain a number of problematic aspects.
This introductory article makes the case for studying joint institutional frameworks (JIFs) in EU bilateral agreements and provides an overview of the remaining contributions to the sympo-sium. In doing so, it addresses contemporary policy developments and theoretical debates in political science and international institutional law. It considers the rationale, design, perfor-mance as well as legitimacy of JIFs both in general and, in particular, in the EU's contractual bilateral relations. By mapping out the variety of JIFs in distinct geographical and regulatory contexts, the article develops an overarching argument about the ‘transversal’ nature of such structural frameworks, focusing on the most prevalent structural principles and rules, joint bodies and special procedures, including those not covered in detail in the other contribu-tions to this symposium.
This article takes the proliferation of EU soft law instruments in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to analyse their effects and challenges to democracy and rule of law in the EU posed by the use of EU soft law in the implementation of EU law. A proposal will be made for a general legal framework on the adoption of administrative EU soft law in order to address them. Enhancing the legitimacy of EU governance requires a general legal framework that introduces minimum procedural, transparency and participa-tory safeguards and foresees looser rules for urgent soft measures. The article thus makes an original contribution by reconsidering the debate about EU soft law in the context of COVID-19 soft law with a view to its salience for domestic implementation of EU law and by developing core elements of a general legal framework.
Ex Officio Third Country Subsidies' Review: Similarities with and Differences to State Aid Procedure
(2022)
In May 2021 the European Commission tabled a draft Third Country Subsidies Regulation which stands between trade and competition policy. This new instrument establishes a review of third country subsidies with a view to addressing the competition distortion resulting from foreign subsidies granted to undertakings economically active in the EU internal market. As the new tool complements EU State aid scrutiny with a view to foreign subsidies, the present contribution compares the general procedures and provisions of the new regulation with EU State aid law. It will be shown that despite many similarities with State aid law, considerable differences remain which can be explained by looking at the different procedural and substantive context.
Durch die Konferenz zur Zukunft Europas hat die Debatte um eine Reform des EU-Primär-rechts neue Fahrt aufgenommen. Eine Vertragsreform tut not, im Interesse effektiverer, aber auch demokratischerer Beschlussfassung, erweiterter Kompetenzen und konsentierter Ver-bundgrundlagen zur Bewältigung der zahlreichen äußeren und inneren Herausforderungen.
The TCA (EU-UK Trade and Copperation Agreement) establishes a very comprehensive institutional framework with Partnership Council and diverse Committees having partly substantial decision-making powers for the development of the TCA. These considerable public functions prompt legitimacy concerns as to their democratic control, which this article explores in detail. It will be shown that the exercise of public powers by TCA treaty bodies meets with a sobering legal situation regarding democratic control mechanisms over treaty body decision-making at different levels. Thus, from a constitutional perspective, the legal and legitimate transfer of powers requires additional safeguards as to their democratic legitimacy. Solutions for better control of treaty body decisions by parliaments must be developed at several levels simultaneously.
Der neue Verordnungsvorschlag der Kommission zu Drittlandssubventionen sieht eine Aufsicht durch die Europäische Kommission vor, die vergleichbar ist mit ihrer Aufsicht über staatliche Beihilfen. Dennoch bestehen erhebliche Unterschiede. Vorliegender Beitrag unternimmt einen Vergleich der Instrumente im Hinblick auf von Amts wegen eingeleitete Verfahren und analysiert Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in den Verfahren und den Untersuchungsbefugnissen.
Am 23. und 24. September 2021 fanden zum dreizehnten Mal die jährlichen „Speyerer Tage zum Friedhofs- und Bestattungsrecht“ an der Deutschen Universität für Verwaltungswissen-schaften Speyer statt. Hier wurde auch § 8 Abs. 6 BestattG M-V angesprochen, der durch Art. 1 Nr. 5 des Zweiten Gesetzes zur Änderung des Bestattungsgesetzes in das BestattG M-V eingefügt worden ist, am 1. Juni 2022 in Kraft treten soll und eine Qualitätsmanagements-Zertifizierungspflicht für Bestatter einführt. Die Verfassungs- und Unionsrechtskonformität dieser Bestimmung wirft Zweifel auf, denen der Beitrag nachgeht.