EU citizenship: Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.

What can the Better Regulation Commissioner do for the EU? CEPS Commentary, 29 September 2014

This commentary welcomes the creation and prominence given by President Juncker to the new post of First Vice-President in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as among the most interesting of several novelties contained in the proposed Commission and overdue. After all, as the authors point out, better regulation has been underpinning the Commission’s core business, namely, EU regulation, for over a decade. At the same time, however, they warn that Commissioner-designate Frans Timmermans is receiving an extremely challenging mandate which pose many difficulties to overcome.

The European Court of Justice blocks the EU’s accession to the ECHR. CEPS Commentary, 8 January 2015

The goal of accession to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is to place the EU under the external oversight of the specialised court in Strasbourg. But in its Opinion of 18 December 2014 the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice ruled that the draft accession agreement is not compatible with the EU treaties. In this commentary the authors argue that this would force EU member states to renegotiate the terms of accession to the ECHR. But meeting the demands made by the Court of Justice will prove to be very difficult.

EU citizenship, Citizenship and identity beyond national borders. EU Centre Singapore Background Brief No. 10, October 2013

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty introduced the concept of European Union citizenship. All citizens of the 28 EU member states are also EU citizens through the very fact that their countries are members of the EU. Acquired EU citizenship gives them the right to free movement, settlement and employment across the EU, the right to vote in European elections, and also on paper the right to consular protection from other EU states' embassies when abroad. The concept of citizenship in Europe – and indeed anywhere in the world – has been evolving over the years, and continues to evolve. Against this time scale, the concept of modern citizenship as attached to the nation-state would seem ephemeral. The idea of EU citizenship therefore does not need to be regarded as a revolutionary phenomenon that is bound to mitigate against the natural inclination of European citizens towards national identities, especially in times of economic and financial crises. In fact, the idea of EU citizenship has even been criticised by some scholars as being of little substantive value in addition to whatever rights and freedoms European citizens already have. Nonetheless the ‘constitutional moment’ that the Maastricht Treaty achieved for the idea of EU citizenship has served more than just symbolic value – the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding, for instance. The idea of EU citizenship also put pressure on the Union and its leaders to address the perceived democratic deficit that the EU is often accused of. In attempts to cement the political rights of EU citizens, the citizens’ initiative was included in Lisbon Treaty allowing citizens to directly lobby the European Commission for new policy initiatives or changes.

Britain and Europe: A new settlement? EPC Challenge Europe 23, May 2016

Britain's European problem, Stephen Wall; Britain's contribution to the EU: an insider's view, David Hannay; 'Foreign judges' and the law of the European Union, David Edward; The United Kingdom and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Peter Goldsmith; European foreign policy: five and a half stories, Robert Cooper; External relations and the transformative power of enlargement, Heather Grabbe; Recalibrating British European policy in foreign affairs, Fraser Cameron; The European Union and the wider Europe, Graham Avery; From Common Market to Single Market: an unremarked success, Malcolm Harbour; Lost in translation: Britain, Germany and the euro, Quentin Peel; After Cameron's EU deal, Kirsty Hughes; Re-imagining the European Union, Caroline Lucas; Britain and European federalism, Brendan Donnelly; Europe's British problem, Andrew Duff.

La prevenzione e la risoluzione dei conflitti di giurisdizione nello Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia.

L’elaborato ha ad oggetto lo studio della tematica inerente alla prevenzione e alla risoluzione dei conflitti di giurisdizione tra autorità giudiziarie appartenenti a Paesi membri dell’Unione europea, in presenza di un reato caratterizzato da elementi di transnazionalità. In questi casi è necessario elaborare alcuni canoni idonei a individuare per tempo l’autorità giudiziaria competente a condurre l’attività di accertamento. Tale esigenza sorge a causa della lacunosità ed insufficienza dell’attuale normativa (Decisione quadro 2009/948/GAI) sotto molteplici profili: il riferimento è tanto alla carenza di tassatività e cogenza dei criteri necessari a radicare la giurisdizione in un determinato Stato, quanto all’irrilevanza, nelle dinamiche inerenti alla scelta del foro, dei diritti di difesa dell’indagato. In questa prospettiva, occorre dunque trovare un punto di equilibrio tra le istanze repressive e quelle di tutela dei diritti fondamentali: detto altrimenti, l’esigenza di evitare di prevenire “zone franche” nello Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia – anche alla luce della libertà di movimento dei soggetti e dunque dei criminali – non può comportare la lesione della sfera giuridica del cittadino europeo. Il presente lavoro di ricerca, sulla scorta dell'analisi tanto dei principi quanto delle regole attualmente vigenti, si pone l'obiettivo di individuare delle guidelines in linea con il portato garantistico della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea ed efficaci per assolvere il mandato presente all’art. 82, § 1, lett. b) TFUE: ossia di prevenire e risolvere i conflitti di giurisdizione.

Il valore precettivo dei diritti sociali fondamentali previsti dal titolo IV della Carta

Il dibattito giuridico, politico ed economico in tema di protezione dei diritti sociali nel contesto del processo di integrazione europea risale alle origini stesse di tale processo. A circa dieci anni dall’attribuzione alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’UE dello stesso valore giuridico dei Trattati, sembra possibile tracciare un primo bilancio in termini di aspettative inverate ed aspettative non soddisfatte quanto alla giustiziabilità dei diritti sociali fondamentali contenuti nel Titolo IV direttamente o indirettamente al rapporto di impiego (articoli da 27 a 34). A questo fine, la tesi ha adottato una struttura tripartita capace di coniugare una metodologia di analisi pratica, in relazione alla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia UE post Lisbona (Capitolo III), con un’analisi dal carattere maggiormente teorico-ricostruttivo (Capitoli I e II). La ricerca cerca di dimostrare come tanto i più interessanti sviluppi quanto i limiti registratisi nella giurisprudenza della CGUE (rispettivamente, l’efficacia diretta, anche orizzontale, di alcuni di essi negli ordinamenti nazionali, e la determinazione del loro ambito di applicazione e delle modalità di interazione con il diritto secondario e primario) possano essere meglio compresi tenendo in debito conto il percorso ed il significato di ciascuno di tali diritti nel contesto del processo di integrazione europea. In breve, si sostiene che la “costituzionalizzazione” dei diritti sociali in esame abbia certamente un “valore aggiunto” che, tuttavia, riflette la natura sui generis e le finalità dell’Unione, il sistema di riparto di competenze tra Stati membri e Unione, ed il significato ultimo del sistema UE di tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Ciò non toglie che questi caratteri, con il tempo, possano infine mutare.

Safe Harbour or into the storm? EU-US data transfers after the Schrems judgment. Liberty and security in Europe No. 85/November 2015

In its recent Schrems judgment the Luxembourg Court annulled Commission Decision 2000/520 according to which US data protection rules are sufficient to satisfy EU privacy rules regarding EU-US transfers of personal data, otherwise known as the ‘Safe Harbour’ framework. What does this judgment mean and what are its main implications for EU-US data transfers? In this paper the authors find that this landmark judgment sends a strong message to EU and US policy-makers about the need to ensure clear rules governing data transfers, so that people whose personal data is transferred to third countries have sufficient legal guarantees. Without such rules there is legal uncertainty and mistrust. Any future arrangement for the transatlantic transfer of data will therefore need to be firmly anchored in a framework of protection commensurate to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU data protection architecture.

Access to Electronic Data by Third-Country Law Enforcement Authorities, Challenges to EU Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. Center for European Policy Studies, 2015

This study examines the challenges posed to European law by third country access to data held by private companies for the purposes of law enforcement. It pays particular attention to the implications for rule of law and fundamental rights of foreign authorities’ direct access to electronic information falling outside pre-established channels of supranational cooperation. A special focus is given to EU-US relations and the practical issues emerging in transatlantic relations covering mutual legal assistance and evidence gathering for law enforcement purposes in criminal proceedings.

A New Start for the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? Setting of Priorities for the New European Commission. CEPS Commentary, 23 September 2014

The nomination of a First Vice-President (Frans Timmermans) in charge of rule of law and the EU Charter of Fundamental is one of the more far-reaching innovations contained in the new institutional shape of the Juncker Commission. This CEPS Commentary by Sergio Carrera and Elspeth Guild welcomes the fact that a new fundamental rights and rule of law First Vice-President will exercise a coordination and advisory role over the other two JHA Commissioners – Věra Jourová, responsible for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality (DG Justice); and Dimitris Avramopoulos, responsible for Migration and Home Affairs (DG Home Affairs), but expresses a note caution whether this new role and triangular relationship can be made to work effectively in practice.

Answering the Call of the European Court of Justice in Eurofoods a Proposed Package of Due Process Rights with a View Toward the 2012 Revision of the European Insolvency Regulation. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2011

This paper anticipates the 2012 revision of the European Insolvency Regulation, which is the sole Union legislation on the subject of cross border insolvency proceedings. The paper first describes the historical background of the Regulation. The salient point of the historical discussion is that the Regulation is the product of forty years of negotiation and arises from a historical context that is no longer applicable to current economic realities, i.e. it provides for liquidation, not reorganization, it doesn’t deal with cross border groups of companies, and it lacks an effective mechanism for transparency and creditor participation. The paper then reviews the unique hybrid jurisdictional system of concurrent universal and territorial proceedings that the Regulation imposes. It looks at this scheme from a practical viewpoint, i.e. what issues arise with concurrent proceedings in two states, involving the same assets, the same creditors, and the same company. The paper then focuses on a significant issue raised by the European Court of Justice in the Eurofoods case, i.e. the need to comply with fundamental due process principles that, while not articulated in the Regulation, lie at the core of Union law. Specifically, the paper considers the ramifications of the Court’s holding that “a Member State may refuse to recognize insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard.” In response to the Court’s direction, this paper proposes a package of due process rights, consisting principally of an accessible, efficient and useful insolvency database, the infrastructure of which already exists, but the content and use of which has not yet been developed. As part of a cohesive three part due process package, the paper also proposes the formation of cross border creditors' committees and the establishment of a European Insolvency Administrator. Finally, on the institutional level, this paper proposes that the revision of the Regulation and the development of the insolvency database not only need to be coordinated, but need to be conceptualized, managed and undertaken, not as the separate efforts of diverse institutions, but as a single, unified endeavor.

An EU mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 91/April 2016 Thursday, 21 April 2016

The European Union is founded on a set of common principles of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union. Whereas future Member States are vetted for their compliance with these values before they accede to the Union, no similar method exists to supervise adherence to these foundational principles after accession. EU history proved that this ‘Copenhagen dilemma’ was far from theoretical. EU Member State governments’ adherence to foundational EU values cannot be taken for granted. Violations may happen in individual cases, or in a systemic way, which may go as far as overthrowing the rule of law. Against this background the European Parliament initiated a Legislative Own-Initiative Report on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and proposed among others a Scoreboard on the basis of common and objective indicators by which foundational values can be measured. This Research Paper assesses the need and possibilities for the establishment of an EU Scoreboard, as well as its related social, economic, legal and political ‘costs and benefits’.