Sara Poli

The External Dimension of the European Union's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Part one. The institutional and legal framework. The institutional setting and the legal toolkit / Sara Poli; EU external action in the JHA domain: a legal perspective / Marise Cremona -- Part two. Policy interaction and interconnection. Channels of externalisation of EU justice and home affairs / Sandra Lavenex; the external dimension of the AFSJ and other EU external policies / Panos Koutrakos; the principle of pre-emption after Opinion 1/2003 and coherence in EU readmission policy / Bart Van Vooren -- 3. Part three. External aspects of migration policy. Resilient bilateralism in the cooperation on readmission / Jean-Pierre Cassarino; the external dimension of EU policy on trafficking in human beings / Conny Rijken -- Part four. External aspects of judicial cooperation. The European Union and the implementation of international norms in criminal matters / Valsamis Mitsilegas; recent trends in private international law: the European Union and third states / Horatia Muir Watt; the exclusive external competence of the community under Article 81 TFEU: Lugano re-opened? / Jan-Jaap Kuipers -- Part five. External aspects of counter-terrorism. Kadi and the EU as instrument or actor: which rule of law for counter-terrorism? / Piet Eeckhout; soft, smart and strategic: the international dimension of EU action in the fight against terrorism / Monica den Boer -- Part six. Cooperation with major international partners. The Mediterranean dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice / Francesca Longo; EU-US cooperation on counter-terrorism and the internationalisation of law enforcement / Wyn Rees -- Part seven. Conclusion. The outcomes of the external dimension of the AFSJ: forms, effectiveness, prospects and specificity / Jorg Monar.

Le misure restrittive dell’Unione europea per sviamento di fondi pubblici alla luce della sentenza Azarov

The intersections between recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions in civil and commercial matters and protection of fundamental rights have been a subject of growing interest in the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The judgment of the Grand Chamber in Avotiņs v. Latvia is especially relevant, insofar as it concerns the system of mutual recognition of decisions established under EU law and its compatibility with Art. 6 of the European Convention. Even though the CJEU has recognised that mutual recognition of judgments between EU Member States cannot hamper the right to a fair trial, the judgment in Avotiņs v. Latvia calls for a greater attention to the observance of the rights of defence. The European Court points out the necessity of a control of the foreign judgment by the courts of the requested State in order to prevent violations of fundamental rights protected by the European Convention. The principles laid down in the judgment are thus likely to set some limits to the existing freedom of circulation of judgments enacted by EU acts adopted on the basis of Art. 81 TFEU.

La revisione della politica europea di vicinato e il controverso rapporto tra condizionalità e geometria variabile

The intersections between recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions in civil and commercial matters and protection of fundamental rights have been a subject of growing interest in the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The judgment of the Grand Chamber in Avotiņs v. Latvia is especially relevant, insofar as it concerns the system of mutual recognition of decisions established under EU law and its compatibility with Art. 6 of the European Convention. Even though the CJEU has recognised that mutual recognition of judgments between EU Member States cannot hamper the right to a fair trial, the judgment in Avotiņs v. Latvia calls for a greater attention to the observance of the rights of defence. The European Court points out the necessity of a control of the foreign judgment by the courts of the requested State in order to prevent violations of fundamental rights protected by the European Convention. The principles laid down in the judgment are thus likely to set some limits to the existing freedom of circulation of judgments enacted by EU acts adopted on the basis of Art. 81 TFEU.

Introduction to EU governance of (global) emergencies, threats and crises

This is the introductory chapter of the book, which examines the new legal instruments that the European Union (EU) has at its disposal to tackle situations of humanitarian emergency and to fight terrorism outside the EU, following the Treaty of Lisbon. In addition, the book examines the obligations of solidarity stemming from Article 222 TFEU for the EU and its Member States in the event that the territory of a component of the EU family is the subject of a terrorist attack or a natural/man-made disaster. It explores what the effects are of the economic and fiscal crises of the Euro zone countries as well as the volcanic ash crisis on the European integration process and considers judicial review of EU measures addressing emergencies, crises or threats. The opening contribution sets out the scrutiny of the EU policy approach from the perspective of the EU policy makers. Keywords: economic crises; European Union (EU); fiscal crises; humanitarian emergency; terrorist attack; Treaty of Lisbon

What Price for the Community Enforcement of WTO Law

Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) legal framework, when a violation is deemed to occur, Members have recourse to a quasi-automatic dispute settlement system. If the breach persists after the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has adopted a ruling, Members hurt by the illegal measures can be authorized to retaliate against the scofflaw Member. Rights and obligations are, thus, centrally enforced within the WTO. The object of this article is the decentralized enforcement of WTO law, and more precisely of DSB rulings through the ECJ. The aim is to explore whether it is in the Community (EC) as well as in the WTO’s interests to ensure that these acts are enforced before the Luxembourg Courts. Notoriously, the European Courts have been resistant to Community enforcement of DSB’ rulings. Unlike many legal commentators that have criticized the European Courts, we conclude that the approach of the Courts is justified both from a purely legal standpoint and from a Law and Economics perspective. In relation to the latter, we develop a theoretical framework, building on Calabresi and Melamed’s ‘Cathedral’, and show that the Community enforcement of DSB’s decisions bears costs that outweigh the benefits.

The Legal Basis of Internal Market Measures With a Security Dimension. Comment on Case C-301/06 of 10/02/2009, Ireland v. Parliament/Council, nyr

[Political representation] is the basis of modern representative democracy. Older and less sophisticated forms, such as direct democracy, subsist marginally, even if they keep exerting a certain attraction. But representative democracy does not carry the self-evident authority it once had. Like every modern institution it is under challenge and consequently needs to be defended. In actual politics, the defence often takes the form of discussion of the merits of one system over the other and of proposals for change. The part of this defence appertaining to constitutional scholarship is not concerned primarily with proposals and changes. It is, before all, to brush up the fundamentals underlying representative democracy, on the basis of topical issues.There are three current issues upon which we would like to draw attention. They are: equality in structuring electoral systems, the processes of electoral reform and the rise of non-majoritarian institutions versus parliamentary democracy.