Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann)
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Contribution to online periodical (1)
- Other (1)
- Public lecture (1)
Language
- Other Language (15) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (15) (remove)
It has long been a commonplace that the European Union forms a community of law and that the principle of “integration through law” is one of its central characteristics. In view of the growing scope and complexity of Union law, which requires ever new adaptations from the Member States, research on the implementation of Union law, which also works empiri-cally, is gaining considerable importance. An international research project conducted at the German Research Institute for Public Administration was dedicated to the implementation and adaptation strategies of selected EU Member States. It investigated the transposition of organisational and procedural requirements for national administrations as laid down in EU directives related to environmental and energy policy. The investigation focused on various modalities of transposition: minimum transposition (“copy out”), the enactment of provisions that create obligations going beyond the requirements of the Directive (“gold-plating”) and the extension of the rules or principles of the Directive to other fields of law (“spill-over”), either by including a subject area not provided for in the Directive in the scope of application of the transposition provisions (spill-over in the narrow sense) or by fundamentally reforming a legal area on the occasion of the Directive (spill-over in the broad sense). The comparative analysis revealed a low degree of strategic use of transposition modalities. However, there is a growing awareness among Member States that they belong not only to a law community, but also to an implementation community. This is not least due to the mechanisms and procedures of intertwining Union and national action.
In the case, Brzeziński v. Poland, the European Court of Human Rights for the third time addressed the issue of the summary electoral proceedings in the Polish legal system. The last judgement is an excellent opportunity to examine if the provisions of the electoral law concerning these proceedings are well designed and correctly interpreted by the Polish courts. There is no doubt that free elections and freedom of expression together form the bedrock of any democratic system. The two rights are inter-related and operate to reinforce each other. For this reason, it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds are permitted to circulate freely. On the other hand, national authorities are legitimised to create special proceedings in order to ensure the proper conduct of the electoral campaign by preventing the dissemination of false information. As a consequence, it is possible to verify factual statements contained in the materials pertaining to an electoral campaign. Special proceedings should not apply to the value judgements. If such comments and opinions infringe the candidate’s personal rights, he or she may seek redress under the general rules of protection of individual rights.
In the field of public procurement EU law has deeply regulated not only the awarding procedures of public contracts of works, supplies or services (and since 2014 of concession contracts) but also the related review mechanisms. EU directives allow member states to decide upon the identification of the “bodies responsible for review procedures” (breviter “review bodies”) in charge of determining a possible breach of public procurement directives and whether such review bodies should or should not be judicial in character.
The essay focuses on the comparison between the implementation given to those rules by the German law, especially regarding the Vergabekammern (“Public procurement tribunals”), which are non-judicial review bodies in charge of first instance decisions, and by Italian law, where the new pre-litigation advice of ANAC (i.e. Italian Anti-Corruption Authority) has been introduced since 2016, in addition to the traditional judicial remedies, as an optional and ancillary non-judicial remedy.