Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1358)
- Book (901)
- Part of a Book (867)
- Public lecture (678)
- Conference Proceeding (328)
- Jugend-Check (256)
- Contribution to a Periodical (225)
- Review (185)
- Working Paper (160)
- Part of Periodical (142)
Language
- German (4532)
- English (900)
- Other Language (113)
- French (91)
- Spanish (52)
- Multiple languages (11)
- Russian (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5700)
Keywords
- Bildung (185)
- Arbeit (184)
- Familie (138)
- Deutschland (137)
- Politik (85)
- Digitales (77)
- Gesellschaft (72)
- Freizeit (67)
- Gesundheit (67)
- Umwelt (67)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (346)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Finanz- und Steuerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Joachim Wieland) (329)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (318)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (266)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (265)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (249)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (200)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (188)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (128)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (116)
The present contribution analyses the Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU on CETA, which, in a surprisingly uncritical view of conceivable conflicts between the competences of the CETA Investment Tribunal on the one hand and those of the CJEU on the other hand, did not raise any objections. In first reactions, this opinion was welcomed as an extension of the EU's room for manoeuvre in investment protection. The investment court system under CETA, however, is only compatible with EU law to a certain extent, which the Court made clear in the text of the opinion, and the restrictions are likely to confine the leeway for EU external contractual relations. Due to their fundamental importance, these restrictions, derived by the CJEU from the autonomy of the Union legal order form the core subject of this contribution. In what follows, the new emphasis in the CETA opinion on the external autonomy of Union law will be analyzed first (II). Subsequently, the considerations of the CJEU on the delimitation of its competences from those of the CETA Tribunal will be critically examined. The rather superficial analysis of the CJEU in the CETA opinion is in contrast to its approach in earlier decisions as it misjudges problems and therefore only superficially leads to a clear delimitation of competences (III.). An exploration of the last part of the CJEU's autonomy analysis will follow, in which the CJEU tries to respond to the criticism of regulatory chill (IV). Here, by referring to the unhindered operation of the EU institutions in accordance with their constitutional framework, the CJEU identifies the new restrictions for investment protection mechanisms just mentioned, which takes back the previous comprehensive affirmation of jurisdiction of the CETA Tribunal in one point and which raises many questions about its concrete significance, consequence, and scope of application.
The study of the processes and effects of internationalization has become a major field of inquiry in the social sciences. This article takes stock of corresponding research efforts in the field of public administration (PA) to understand the internationalization phenomenon by analyzing studies that were systematically sampled from major PA journals over recent decades. After 10 delineating, sampling, categorizing, and subsequently examining the scholarly production of PA regarding what can be understood as the internationalization of domestic PA, three major themes of PA-related debates are identified: diffusion, resistance, and the transformation of bureaucratic power. The article concludes that PA has developed neither genuine research questions nor a coherent theoretical framework able to come to grips with the internationalization challenge. It 15 ends with an appeal for PA to become aware of this deficit and recommends PA scholars liaise Q3 more intensively with other social sciences to overcome the current state of affairs.
The article introduces a research project carried out at the German Research Institute of Public Administration and the German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer. It examines the development, content and effectiveness of the written and unwritten standards of good administration drawn up within the framework of the Council of Europe (CoE).
Kluwer Law International, London/The Hague/Boston 1997. 382 pp. US$ 143.00 GBP 90.00 ISBN 90-411-0685-5
Translated from the German
This work analyzes the options and powers which exist at Community level for taking action in the sphere of 'culture', which is defined as education, science and culture in its narrower sense, and covers the question of the EC´s cultural jurisdiction.
The definition of culture underlying this work has two functions: firstly, from the point of view of form, it narrows down the subject-matter under investigation and, secondly, it characterizes that subject-matter, substantively, as the area covered by those manifestations of life in society which cannot be measured by the yardstick of economic efficiency - a characterization which links together the three areas making up the field of culture: education, science and culture in the narrower sense.
Individual aspects of the EC´s cultural jurisdiction have previously been covered in varying degrees of detail in the literature, prompted by decisions of the Court of Justice or the adoption of legislation by the Community institutions. Particular attention has been paid to the question of the EC´s powers in the field of broadcasting. General investigations encompassing the various individual problems and the principles of the relationship between culture and EC law are always readily available and some lack the necessary depth because of their approach. This study attempts to fill the gap which has been found to exist in the literature on European Community law. This book is an English version ot the author´s doctoral thesis, which was awarded the Wolters Kluwer Award of 1993. In order to consider the changes brought about by the Maastricht Treaty, the author has added a section on the Treaty on European Union, which originally appeared in German as Die kulturelle Dimension im Vertrag über die Europäische Union in the magazine Europarecht (EuR 1995, 349-376).
CONTENTS:
Introduction. 1: The Cultural Dimension in the Treaty on European Union. A. Introduction. B. Survey of the Changes Brought About by the Treaty. C. The Objective of the Maintenance and Development of the acquis communautaire. D. Classification of the New Provisions within the Treaty Structure. E. Individual Aspects of the New Provisions. 2: Community Practice in the Cultural Sphere. A. The Field of Education. B. The Field of Science. C. The Cultural Sphere in the Narrower Sense. 3: Individual Aspects of Community Law in the Field of Culture. A. The Field of Education. B. The Field of Culture in the Narrower Sense. 4: Principles and Potential Development of Community Law in the Cultural Field. A. Community Competence in the Cultural Field. B. The Community Law Framework for National Cultural Policy. C. The Legal Significance of Individual Forms of Action in the Cultural Field. D. Possible Developments in Community Law in the Cultural Field. Bibliography.
Vortrag auf einer Konferenz des American Institute for Contemporary German Studies am 24.6.1996 in Washington, D.C.
This book explores how migrants and refugees can revitalise peripheral regions and commu-nities economically. The extent to which migrants stimulate the economic activities of these regions through labour market participation, entrepreneurship, innovation and consumption is examined theoretically and empirically for the EU as a whole, as well as through empirical case studies that highlight the impact of migration at macro, company, and individual levels. A particular focus is given to the economic consequences of Third Country Nationals to places beyond the cities, i.e. the peripheral and remote regions of Europe. This book aims to provide insight into the role of migrations in low productive and labour-intensive regions. The authors provide innovative policy recommendations to stimulate the positive economic con-sequences of immigration to places beyond the cities. It will be of interest to students, re-searchers, and policymakers working within labour economics and migration and integration policies.
Considering the new focus of the European Union (EU) trade policy on strengthening the enforcement of trade rules, the article presents the proposed amendments to the EU Trade Enforcement Regulation 654/2014. It analyzes the EU Commission proposal and the amendments suggested by the European Parliament Committee on International Trade (INTA), in particular with regard to uncooperative third parties and the provision of immediate countermeasures. The amendments will be assessed in view of their legality under World Trade Organization (WTO), Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and general international law and in view of their political implications for the EU’s multilateralist stance. Finally, the opportunity to amend Regulation 654/2014 to use it for the enforcement of FTA trade and sustainable development chapters will be explored. The analysis shows that the shift towards more effective enforcement should be pursued with due care for respecting existing international legal commitments and with more caution to multilateralism.
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.
Trade relations face unprecedented challenges, which has led to an increased politicisation and contestation of trade rules. In response, the EU has changed its trade policy under the motto ‘Open Strategic Autonomy’ towards a more as-sertive policy. The EU seeks to signifi-cantly expand its room of manoeuvre and to gain more autonomy by strengthening the en-forcement of its trade rights and by ensuring more effectively, including unilaterally, a level playing field. This re-orientation engenders several new or amended trade policy instru-ments, but meets with reservations as the renewed politicisation of EU trade policy will have internal consequences and raise demands for more democratic accountability of the Euro-pean Commission. The new policy instruments will enlarge its leeway in trade policy. The future of the EU's multilateral, rule- instead of power-oriented political stance becomes unclear, which might undermine its negotiation posi-tion in WTO reform and collide with the EU's respect for international law. The tensions of the EU's new hybrid approach with its international commitments even more fuel demands for increased accountability of the Commission as a safeguard against employing the new powers for protectionism and disrespect to international law. The contribution analyses the need for increased Commis-sion accountability in the redirected trade policy.
The landmark judgment in the case of Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France, which concerned the execution of a European arrest warrant, provides a good illustration of the effects of the Con-vention liability of EU Member States for their implementation of EU law. These effects touch on such notions as cooperation, trust, complementarity, autonomy and responsibility. The two European courts have been cooperating towards some convergence of the standards applicable to the handling of EAWs. The Bosphorus presumption and its application in Bivo-laru and Moldovan show the amount of trust placed by the Strasbourg Court in the EU pro-tection of fundamental rights in this area. To the extent that their standards of protection coincide, the Luxembourg and Strasbourg jurisdictions are complementary. However, the two protection systems remain autonomous, notably as regards the methodology applied to fundamental rights. Ultimately, the EU Member States engage their Convention responsibility for the execution by their domestic courts of any EAWs.
The European Commission
(2005)
This article offers an in-depth analysis of the relationship between European law and the
case-law born of the European Convention. The author addresses the tension between
the drive for legal certainty and the need to expand fundamental rights. By offering an
overview of the legal reality that this tension has created, the author seeks to find the balance
between needless plurality and rigid certainty. Through this overview, the author argues
that the promotion of fundamental rights must be organised along lines of harmony and
not of uniformity. To do this, he offers a detailed analysis of the respective approaches
to the detention of asylum seekers and to the privilege against self-incrimination. The
article thus traces the increasingly inter-referential nature of Strasbourg and Luxembourg
jurisprudence, arguing that this trend has the potential to promote fundamental rights, as
long as the jurisdiction of human rights’ legislation is significantly expanded. The author
goes on to discuss the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, looking at the ways in which
it grew out of jurisprudence from both legal systems and how this cross-pollination may
change the expansion of fundamental rights in a wider sense.
Article 191 EC ascribes several functions to "political parties at European level" and empowers the European Parliament and the Council to regulate the status and the financing of these parties. On this legal grounding the European Regulation on Political Parties was adopted in the year 2003 and entered into force on July, 20th.
A "political party at European level" is defined by the Regulation as a "political party" (association of citizens) or an "alliance of political parties" (structured cooperation between at least two political parties) which is electorally successful in at least one quarter of the 25 member States. Every party which is represented by elected members in regional assemblies in at least seven member States will receive money from the European budget. Such a party will at least share in the 15 percent from the total available public subvention. The lion's share (85%), however, will be divided among those parties which are also successful in European elections.
This applies to the existing party alliances on which the Regulation is obviously based, viz. the "Party of European Socialists" (PES) the "European People's Party" (EPP), the "European Liberal Democrats" (ELDR), the "European Federation of Green Parties" (EFGP) the "European Free Alliance" (EFA) and the "Party of the European Left", which was founded prior to the European elections.
The public subventions intended for European party alliances glaringly violate constitutional principles developed in Germany. These principles are not binding on European institutions. They are not, however, completely meaningless because they have political relevance, at least in Germany. They will also influence the creation of European principles in the field of party financing. The same is true for the standards developed by the Council of Europe.
The public funding system violates European primary law. This is true for Article 191 EC as well as for the principle of equality which is binding at European level too. All of these standards aim at two democratic principles:
<ol><li>promoting direct linkages between parties and citizens and</li>
<li>ensuring the openness and fairness of political competition.</li></ol>
The Regulation violates these principles in several aspects:
Defining the European party alliances as political parties violates the meaning of the term "political party". In the member States of the European Union, the membership of natural persons as well as the fielding of candidates in elections are necessary conditions to qualify as a political party. The term "political party" defined in this uniform manner is relevant at European level. However, the party alliances in their present form fail to meet either of the two conditions. In the Statutes of all European party alliances natural persons only play at most a marginal role. The fielding of candidates at elections is monopolised by the national parties. The European party alliances lack everything which actually makes a political party. Therefore, these party alliances are not political parties within the meaning of Article 191 EC. From the very outset then the entire Regulation is devoid of a legal basis.
Without natural persons as members and by not fielding electoral candidates, the European party alliances cannot meet the functions ascribed to them in Article 191 EC. They can neither "express the political will of citizens" nor "form a European awareness". Both can - according to democratic principles - only be achieved in a bottom-up process and not in a top-down process. The European party alliances can therefore not be defined as "parties at pan-European level".
The provision of public funding will further increase the distance between citizens and the European party alliances. It will reduce any interest within these party alliances to recruit natural persons as members or to strengthen their links with voters. The required 25 percent of "own resources" will in fact consist of membership fees from political parties, from parliamentary groups, party taxes and donations from national parliamentary groups which may also be partly funded out of the public budget. Therefore, a complete public funding of European party alliances will occur. That is not compatible with the principle of grass roots support.
The actual quantum of public funding is not defined in the Regulation itself, but remains to be set in the annual budget. Therefore, doors to a massive increase of the public funds are wide open because no relevant hurdles for the Parliament deciding on its own behalf exist. Increases are hidden among one of the many budget lines of the European Union. Any possible control by the fragmented nature of "European public opinion" is further weakened. The Council has to agree to the budget as a whole. However, based upon a "Gentleman's agreement" between Parliament and Council, neither body interferes with the adoption of the budget of the other body. We can, therefore, already foresee that the amount of 6.5 m. Euros set down for the year 2004 will soon explode. There is already talk of the need for about 100 m. Euros per year. This foreseeable and unchecked increase in public funding which in Germany itself is prevented by the so-called "absolute limit", equally violates the principle of voter support at the grass roots level.
Real political parties in the sense of associations of citizens, which would meet the requirements of Article 191 EC and which would be able to fulfil the functions defined by this article do not exist at European level and are given no realistic chance to emerge. They are factually excluded from public funds. They would have to achieve at least three percent of the votes in seven member States in order to participate alone in the 15 percent share. These conditions are prohibitive.
The criteria defined in the Regulation unnecessarily extend the inequalities of the European electoral system to the public funding of European parties. Accordingly, one vote from Luxemburg will not only have sixteen times as much weight as one vote from Germany, it will also bring the respective parties at European level sixteen times as much public funding. This is not compatible with the principle of equality. While inequalities in the distribution of seats in the European Parliament are laid down in primary law, corresponding reasons do not exist for the distribution of public subventions to political parties.
National thresholds in elections to the European Parliament also lead to inequalities. In member States without threshold, a mandate can be won with as few as 30,000 votes. In Germany about 1.6 m. votes are necessary, that is about 53 times as many. This conflicts with the principle of equality.
Reserving 85 percent of the funds for parties represented in the European Parliament and dividing the remaining 15 percent into equal shares, clearly advantages the established parties. This too is incompatible with the principle of equality. Keeping open the process of political competition requires more scope being allowed for possible political opponents.
An alternative compatible with the principle of equality would be to take into account only the number of votes won in European elections. This would prevent parties from larger member States or parties in member States with thresholds from being grossly disadvantaged. This alternative would conform with the requirements of the system since results in national or regional elections have nothing to do with the programs of European parties; nor is there any reason for them to influence the distribution of public funds to European parties.
Transferring control of the applicability criteria to the Bureau of the European Parliament places responsibility into the hands of a political institution. This creates the danger that established political forces might exclude their political opponents for spurious reasons.
From a German perspective the prohibition of donations exceeding 12,000 Euros is especially welcome because in Germany no such limits for donations exist. The requirement that donations of 500 Euros and above must be published also represents progress, even though the Regulation seems to allow donations to be split up, so that this limit can easily be circumvented.
Controls are deficient. Effective sanctions are almost totally absent. Only the refunding of funds improperly received is defined in the Regulation. Inaccurate declarations in the annual accounts, non-declaration of large donations, even the acceptance of prohibited donations: none of these lead to any legal consequences. Such donations are not required to be refunded, nor is there provision for any prosecution. The European Court of Justice could however, still bring the Regulation to a halt.
The introduction of public funding for political parties at the European level was inspired by three motives which have long guided the political class:
<ol><li>To gain access to public funds and to use the European budget for this purpose</li>
<li>To exclude political opponents and manipulate party competition in accordance with their own interests
and</li>
<li>To eliminate effective means of control over Parliament deciding on its own behalf.</li></ol>
The Covid-19 pandemic is a multi-faceted crisis that challenges not only the health systems and other policy sub-systems in the single Member States, but also the European Union’s ability to provide policy responses that address the transnational nature of pandemic control as a union-wide ‘public good’ that affects health and social policies, border control and security as well as topics related to the single market. Thus, the pandemic constitutes a veritable capacity test for the EU integration project.
This article attempts to take stock of the Union’s early reaction to the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak. After an introduction and a short note on the scope and methodology of the analysis a theoretical framework is developed. Scrutinising the pertinent literature on crisis management, we reflect the traditional hypothesis that in times of crisis the centre becomes more relevant against the background of the EU crisis management system, and discuss the role of informality in particular during the time of crisis. Against this backdrop, empirical evidence from interviews with EU officials and documents in selected policy fields (health and emergency management, digitalisation, and economic recovery) are analysed, before a discussion and conclusion complete the study.
The report outlines the basic issues, research questions, approach and methods of the project, the progress made thus far, and the steps to be taken next. Using the approaches and methods of political science and comparative policy research, it consists in a comparative analysis of the implementation and enforcement of national permitting and inspection systems for large industrial installations including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and Major Accident Prevention (MAP). The study is being conducted on a broad selection of EU member states (D, DK, E, F, I, NL, S, UK) using five languages, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish in all the process of data collection and devising the research instruments.
In the context of growing policy debate on international trends toward environmental integration, such as the EU Directive on IPPC the main objective of the project is to explore and analyse the existence and extent of an integrated approach in the national environmental laws and administrations of member states, the different problems involved in its achievement and practical implementation and enforcement, the factors of various types that account for the similarities and variation identified in the countries included, and the degree of adaptation of the national systems necessary to meet the requirements of implementation of European legislation.
The report proceeds first by discussing the basic practical and theoretical issues involved in integrated pollution control and permitting. Then, after a comprehensive review of previous research and sources, some conceptual discussion and definitions are presented which, together with the research questions, form the basis of the proposed comparative analytical framework. These lead to the concrete empirical methods proposed in the fourth section. In the fifth section a comparative descriptive overview of the formal legal-administrative aspects of the countries in the study is presented. Finally a description of the steps taken so far and forthcoming steps is found in the last section. Country overviews based on preliminary interviews are attached as Annex I to this report. Annex II contains a list of institutions interviewed. Annex III presents the guidelines for the expert interviews to be conducted in the eight countries.
The European Commission presented, in its White Paper on the Future of Europe, scenarios on the future of the EU in 2025, which prompt the question as to their meaning for the future of EU administrative law. This article explores the implications of the scenarios for the future of EU executive rulemaking and its constitutional consequences. As some scenarios imply a more powerful political role of the Commission, and almost all expand the scope and usage of executive rulemaking, the executive power gains induce the need for more distinct constitutional guidelines for executive rulemaking and for strengthened parliamentary control, to preserve the institutional power balance between legislative and executive rulemaking. The analysis develops proposals insofar and demands respect for constitutional barriers already enshrined in EU primary law but not sufficiently addressed yet in institutional practice.
The German Federal State
(2020)
Vom 22. bis 23. Juni 2017 fand an der Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam im Rahmen des Forschungsnetzwerks Public Contracts in Legal Globalization ein Workshop zum Thema „The impact of competitive tendering and its regulation on the formation and execution of public contracts and concessions” statt. Im Rahmen der Veranstaltung referierte Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens, der Mitglied des Steering Committees dieses Netzwerks ist, über den Ist-Stand in Deutschland.
In this paper, the 2015/16 budgetary effects of refugee immigration in Germany are analyzed. The Public sector spends billions of Euros to accommodate and supply refugees and to integrate those into the labor markets who have a perspective for a permanent or even medium-term residence permit. In case of a successful integration, we can expect flow backs in the form of income tax revenues and social security contributions. The costs and financial benefits of several types of refugees are modelled and – weighted with the number of cases – added to a public sector ‘financial balance’. Financial ‘profitability’ depends on labor market integration, the volume of labor participation and the future income earned, which depends on qualification, education and training. The levels of government will experience diverging cost-benefit balances. They will only receive future flow backs in the form of their share in the income tax revenues if refugees find jobs within their territories. Administrative efforts should concentrate on a successful labor market integration of refugees and no longer continue the policy of preventing them from entering the labor market for many years and thereby making them heavily dependent on public transfer payments.
.
Here, it will be argued that administrative modernization in the sense of the NPM is a global process but local in implementation. This amounts to the hypothesis that administrative modernization is 'culture and institution bound'. Tue institutional contingency approach taken in this study reflects the need to examine the nature of the multiple environmental conditions that structure how public organizations implement 'administrative modernization '. An environmental contingency model of administrative modernization strategies allows to reason on the NPM from "outside to inside" (Koiman and van Vliet, 1993:59) and to link two rather isolated concepts to each other: the governance concept with an interactive perspective on governing and the NPM concept with an orientation on the internal functioning of public organzations.
This research report presents the results of an international mail survey on the implementation strategies of innovative and modernizing public organizations in Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. The aim of the survey was to discover country-specific differences in the implementation of administrative modernization in various areas of modernization.
The survey was undertaken in 1996 among former quality award participants of German, British and American national quality awards. The data collected include organizational level responses from 400 different well-performing public organizations. A first data analysis shows that British public organizations are the most managerialist ones, American public organizations take a medium position and German public organizations are behind in most modernization areas. For most modernization strategies, the Anglo-American hypothesis proved to be a valid assumption, which means that British and American implementation strategies are more similiar than German and American strategies of administrative modernization.
The study starts with an extensive discussion various theoretical and methodological issues in the context of comparative 'New Public Management'. The following chapter is devoted to empirical issues involved with the use of quality awards as a source of empirical data. In accordance with the structure of this study, a two-level comparative analysis, the study proceeds to analysize contextual macro-level variables before it jumps into the empirical subgroup analysis of the survey data on modernization strategies. Last, but not least, the study concludes with hypothesis testing and by producing some tentative qualitative and quantitative country-specific profiles of administrative modernization.
The research report is written in English. A modified German version of this research report will be published in early 1998 in the series 'die innovative Verwaltung' by Raabe-Verlag, Stuttgart et al.
The notion of civil service in Europe: establishing an analytical framework for comparative study
(2021)
Comparative study of the employment regimes of public officials in European countries requires an appropriate analytical framework, including definitions. This blog entry explores the meaning and scope of terms “civil service” and “civil servant”. It argues that a civil servant is an employee of the executive power, who has special duties and responsibilities, and should often meet specific requirements.
The notion of civil service in Europe: establishing an analytical framework for comparative study
(2022)
The aim of this paper is to create an analytical framework for comparative study (FÖV project “The Transformation of the Civil Service in Europe”). It explores the scope and denotation of the terms “civil service” and “civil servant”. Its main argument is that a comparative legal ana-lysis should distinguish the notions of public service and civil service. Public service concerns a type of professional activity related to the exercise of all public power (legislative, executive and judicial). Civil servants are officials employed by the executive; they have special duties and responsibilities and are often subject to specific requirements. The employment regime is not decisive for the status of civil servant, due to the fact that government officials in Europe are employed both under public or private (labour) law. Nonetheless, they should enjoy stability of employment and exercise their competencies on a regular basis, not ad hoc.
This thesis explores the principles of administrative punishment under the European Con-vention of Human Rights (ECHR). Administrative punishment, for its part, is gaining popularity across European legal systems because it is a flexible, speedy and cost-efficient option. More precisely, it allows public authorities to inflict punishment without having to undergo a judi-cial action. The procedural safeguards that the concerned individual can expect are accor-dingly lower. However, whilst at the national and European Union levels the academic atten-tion grew in line with the gradual expansion of the use of administrative punishment, the same cannot be said regarding the legal framework of the Council of Europe (‘CoE’). Compre-hensive scholarly works on the subject matter are still missing and only a few authors are researching administrative sanctions within this framework more profoundly, i.e., in a cross-cutting manner.
This is regrettable because nowadays, one can speak of a rich and congruent body of admini-strative punishment under the CoE’s law. Not only has the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) admitted administrative sanctions within its remit since the famous Engel case in 1976, but it also interprets all relevant terms found in the letter of ECHR such as ‘criminal charge’, ‘penal procedure’, and ‘penalty’ autonomously and in harmony with one another. Autonomous interpretation of these key terms by using Engel criteria means that administra-tive sanctions can, and often are, put under scrutiny (as long as they bear ‘punitive’ and ‘de-terrent’ hallmarks). All in all, the following normative sources can be said to comprise the ius puniendi administrativus within the legal framework of the CoE: First, Article 6 ECHR, which ensures the procedural protection for administrative sanctioning by enshrining the right to a fair trial and its various components, i.e., by laying down a range of participatory and defence rights, as well as the possibility to have access to judicial review and the presumption of inno-cence. Secondly, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, which stipulates ne bis in idem prin-ciple precluding double jeopardy. Thirdly, Article 7 ECHR is essential in giving substantive pro-tection to the subject-matter, and lays down the requirement of legality including regulatory quality, non-retroactive application of administrative sanctions, and no punishment without personal liability. Finally, Recommendation No. R (91) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to the Members States on administrative sanctions of 13 February 1991 as a ‘soft’ yet authoritative legal act creates boundaries for acceptable administrative sanctioning. All of these normative sources form the backbone of the research.
This thesis intends to fill the aforementioned academic gap and contribute to the legal scho-larship. It furthermore aspires to be a useful source for practitioners working within the field of public law who are empowered to regulate on or impose administrative sanctions. For this reason, the following research questions are tackled: What is a sanction? What purposes does it serve in a legal system? What is an administrative sanction in particular? What are its role and idiosyncratic features? What aims does it follow? How can it be differentiated from other types of public admonition, i.e., from criminal law measures? How do the CoE and the ECtHR conceptualize an administrative sanction? What guarantees stipulated by the ECHR are applicable to these sanctions? To what extent do they apply? Are there any limitations? If so, then what are the implications thereof on the individual rights? Is the current level of pro-tection in the field of administrative punishment regarding fundamental rights sufficient?
The thesis has furthermore sought to verify the following hypothesis: “The ECtHR acknowled-ges certain minimum requirements stemming from the ECHR from which the administrative authorities imposing a punitive administrative measure upon the individual, cannot deviate”. The hypothesis was drafted similarly to the wording of Article 6 (3) ECHR, which, together with other paragraphs of this Article, enlists fundamental individual guarantees for (any kind of) punishment (“Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights […]”).
Das Buch verwendet Forschungsergebnisse aus dem Projekt IMPEL, das unter Leitung von Univ.-Prof. Dr. <i>Eberhard Bohne</i> am Forschungsinstitut zwischen 1997 und 2001 durchgeführt wurde. Gegenstand des umfangreichen Forschungsprojekts war die Umsetzung dreier europäischer Richtlinien: der Richtlinie zur Integrierten Vermeidung und Verminderung der Umweltverschmutzung (IVU-Richtlinie), der Richtlinie über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (UVP-Richtlinie) sowie der Seveso-II - Richtlinie. Empirische Erhebungen wurden in acht EU-Mitgliedstaaten - Dänemark, Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Italien, den Niederlanden, Schweden und Spanien - durchgeführt. Insgesamt 138 Interviews mit Experten von Behörden, Industrie und Nichtregierungsorganisationen wurden durch eine schriftliche Befragung von 178 Umweltbehörden ergänzt.
Das Projekt wurde von der Europäischen Kommission, dem deutschen Bundesumweltministerium, dem österreichischen Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Forsten, Umwelt und Wassermanagement sowie der Environment Agency England and Wales gefördert.
Das vorliegende Buch gibt den Rechtsstand 2005/06 wieder. Die Sektionsreferentin Dr. <i>Sonja Bugdahn</i> hat die Kapitel zu Italien und Spanien mitverfasst, zu denen sie entscheidend beitragen konnte.
Die Studie hebt sich von anderen EU-Implementationsstudien durch eine Kombination rechtsvergleichender und sozialempirischer Analyse ab. Aufbauend auf einer detaillierten Beschreibung und Bewertung administrativer Rahmenbedingungen und nationaler Genehmigungssysteme werden allgemeine Schlussfolgerungen bezüglich einer Reform europäischer Politikgestaltung (European Governance) und Rechtsetzung gezogen.
Mixed agreements have been a preferred form of entering into international treaties chosen by the EU and its Member States, despite the complexities their usage implies. Recent attempts of the EU institutions to prefer the conclusion of EU only agreements to mixed agreements, as a consequence of the broad interpretation of EU exclusive trade competences by the CJEU in Opinion 2/15 are motivated by the hope for increased efficiency in EU treaty making. They, however, provoke criticism with regard to democratic legitimacy and the EU principle of conferral, which constrain the EU to adopt only those legal acts for which it is competent. As this criticism is particularly strong in Germany and led to constitutional challenges of EU only acts, the present contribution will explain the treatment of mixed agreements in the constitutional order of Germany and explore the constitutional challenges that EU only agreements pose to the German constitutional order. This discussion will thus show the German legal order’s continued preference for mixed agreements, in view of the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). Those constitutional challenges are particularly topical in view of the most recent case law of the CJEU that stressed the political leeway of the EU Council to choose, when it comes to the negotiation and conclusion of EU agreements based on shard competences, between either an EU only agreement or a mixed agreement. This political leeway turns mixity into a facultative endeavour in the hands of the Council. Under the constitutional perceptions of the FCC, such type of facultative mixity meets with considerable constitutional concerns because it replaces what was formerly held obligatory mixity.
The regulation of blockchain is not easy. Many lawyers are curious about the technology but do not understand it. Then the technology offers many advantages - but what are its dis-advantages? Which issues need to be regulated legally and which do not? Can the state even do that? Who is better suited for this? How must lawyers change their thinking and work to get a grip on such new technologies?
From today's viewpoint it seems almost inconceivable that there once was a time where academia functioned without peer review processes, which are now so much part and parcel of the academic environment. Peer review is mainly taken for granted and we assume that it generally works well in estimating the worth of academic outputs of differents kinds (publications, grant proposals etc.) However, the process itself is not free of criticism and much can still be done to improve review quality. In this paper I explore and question the purpose and function of peer review, engage with various problems that can occur in the process, and make suggestions for ways in which peer review might be improved. It is based on empirical research, participation in various peer review forms and observation of accreditation practice.