The #Brexit saga continues: UK Prime Minister will seek to postpone a parliamentary vote on her proposal for Britain’s departure from the European Union

Brexit vote: What could happen next?

Brexit vote: What could happen next?

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU – Il Regno Unito è libero di revocare unilateralmente la notifica della sua intenzione di uscire dall’UE

Judgment in Case C-621/18
Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
December 10 2018

Such a revocation, decided in accordance with its own national constitutional requirements, would have the effect that the United Kingdom remains in the EU under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State

cp180191en

See also R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017]

Miller

“Conclusion

274. Shortly after the 1972 Act came into force, Lord Denning famously spoke of the European Treaty as “like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back …” (Bulmer Ltd v Bollinger [1974] Ch 401, 418F). That process is now to be reversed. Hydrologists may be able to suggest an appropriate analogy. On any view, the legal and practical challenges will be enormous. The respondents have done a great service in bringing these issues before the court at the beginning of the process. The very full debate in the courts has been supplemented by a vigorous and illuminating academic debate conducted on the web (particularly through the UK Constitutional Law Blog site). Unsurprisingly, given the unprecedented nature of the undertaking there are no easy answers. In the end, in respectful disagreement with the majority, I have reached the clear conclusion that the Divisional Court took too narrow a view of the constitutional principles at stake. The article 50 process must and will involve a partnership between Parliament and the Executive. But that does not mean that legislation is required simply to initiate it. Legislation will undoubtedly be required to implement withdrawal, but the process, including the form and timing of any legislation, can and should be determined by Parliament not by the courts. That involves no breach of the constitutional principles which have been entrenched in our law since the 17th century, and no threat to the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Case C-621/18 shall be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. – Rito accelerato per il caso Wightman

Case C-621/18 shall be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

C-621/18 order of the President of the ECJ0

Case C-621 Wightman (Judgment 10th December at 09:00 CET) has been dealt with using the ECJ’s expedited procedure at the request of the Court of Session “[i]n light of the urgency of the issue in terms of parliamentary consideration and voting” #Brexit

Il signor Andy Wightman, parlamentare scozzese, e altri politici e parlamentari scozzesi, britannici ed europarlamentari, si sono rivolti alla Court of Session, Inner House, First Division (Scozia) per conoscere se e a quali condizioni il Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (segretario di Stato per la Brexit) potrebbe revocare la notificazione dell’intenzione del Regno Unito di ritirarsi dall’Unione europea.

In virtù della legge britannica sul ritiro dall’UE (European Union Withdrawal Act), l’accordo che potrebbe essere concluso tra il Regno Unito e l’UE deve essere ratificato con l’approvazione del Parlamento britannico. In assenza di approvazione, se nessun’altra proposta viene formulata, l’uscita del Regno Unito dall’Unione sarà comunque effettiva dal 29 marzo 2019.

In questo contesto, con domanda pregiudiziale pervenuta alla Corte di giustizia il 3 ottobre 2018, il tribunale scozzese ha chiesto alla Corte di interpretare l’art. 50 del Trattato. In particolare, il giudice remittente chiede se, quando, ai sensi di tale norma, uno Stato membro ha notificato al Consiglio europeo la propria intenzione di ritirarsi dall’Unione, il diritto dell’Unione permetta a tale Stato di revocare unilateralmente la propria notificazione prima della fine del termine di due anni previsto nello stesso art. 50.

Su richiesta del tribunale scozzese, il Presidente della Corte ha disposto la procedura accelerata prevista all’art. 105 del regolamento di procedura della Corte, stante l’urgenza della domanda e tenuto conto dell’importanza fondamentale che riveste la corretta interpretazione e applicazione dell’art. 50 TUE sia per il Regno Unito sia per l’ordine costituzionale dell’Unione nel suo complesso.

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Brexit: Long-term economic analysis

Long-term economic analysis

Long-term economic analysis

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Publication of the Attorney General’s legal advice to Cabinet on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

Following the Motion passed on 4 December in the House of Commons, the Government has published the Attorney General’s legal advice to Cabinet on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and made this available to Parliament. This is the full, final advice that the Attorney General provided to Cabinet on 14 November on the legal effect of the Withdrawal Agreement. The release of this advice does not set a precedent for any future release of Law Officers’ advice.
This document has been made available to Parliament through a Written Ministerial Statement from the Attorney General.

Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet

Exiting the EU: Publication of Legal Advice:Written statement – HCWS1142 – UK Parliament

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exiting-the-european-union-publications

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that the Court of Justice should declare that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that the Court of Justice should declare that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU

cp180187en

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

ECHR grants interim measure in new inter-State case brought by Ukraine against Russia concerning events in the Kerch Strait

Today, the European Court of Human Rights decided to indicate to the Russian Government by way of interim measure that, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, they should ensure that appropriate medical treatment be administered to those captive Ukrainian naval personnel who required it, including in particular any who might have been wounded in the naval incident that took place in the Kerch Strait on 25 November 2018.
The Government of Ukraine submitted an urgent request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the context of a new inter-State application lodged against the Russian Federation under Article 33 (Inter-State cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The inter-State application was lodged on 29 November 2018 and registered under application no. 55855/18, Ukraine v. Russia (VIII).
In its decision today, the Court also maintained its request for factual information, as formulated in its letter to the Russian Government on 29 November 2018. See press release of 30 November 2018.
***
The Court may, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicate interim measures to any State party to the Convention. Interim measures are urgent measures which, according to the Court’s well- established practice, apply only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm. Such measures are decided in connection with proceedings before the Court, without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case in question

ECHR puts questions in new inter-State case brought by Ukraine against Russia

ECHR grants Rule 39 in new inter-State case Ukraine v. Russia concerning events in the Kerch Strait

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato , , | Lascia un commento

Il Tribunale respinge in quanto irricevibile l’impugnazione della decisione di apertura dei negoziati relativi alla Brexit – The application for annulment of the decision authorising the opening of Brexit negotiations is inadmissible.

Shindler v Council

Brexit: non è ricevibile la domanda di tredici cittadini britannici, residenti in Stati dell’UE diversi dal Regno Unito, di annullare la decisione che autorizza l’avvio dei negoziati sulla Brexit

cp180184it

Brexit: the application for annulment of the decision authorising the opening of Brexit negotiations, brought by thirteen British citizens who live in EU Member States other than the UK, is inadmissible

cp180184en

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Following endorsement by leaders at November European Council on 25 November, as required under Section 13(1)(a) of the EU (Withdrawal Act) 2018, the Government has laid before Parliament: (i) a statement that political agreement has been reached; (ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and (iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship.

26 November Statement that political agreement has been reached

26 November Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

26 November Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration-laid-before-parliament-following-political-agreement?utm_source=a65d3de6-8ca7-49b4-9b22-2a64ea283246&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Special meeting of the European Council (Art. 50) (25 November 2018) – Conclusions

1.The European Council endorses the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. On this basis, the European Council invites the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to take the necessary steps to ensure that the agreement can enter into force on 30 March 2019, so as to provide for an orderly withdrawal.

2. The European Council approves the Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The European Council restates the Union’s determination to have as close as possible a partnership with the United Kingdom in the future in line with the Political Declaration. The Union’s approach will continue to be defined by the overall positions and principles set out in the previously agreed European Council’s guidelines. The European Council will remain permanently seized of the matter.

3. The European Council thanks Michel Barnier for his tireless efforts as the Union’s chief negotiator and for his contribution to maintaining the unity among EU27 Member States throughout the negotiations on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

25-special-euco-final-conclusions-en

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Opinions on the Draft Budgetary Plans of euro area Member States: ITALY – Pareri sui documenti programmatici di bilancio degli Stati membri della zona euro

Opinions on the Draft Budgetary Plans of euro area Member States

The Commission has also adopted Opinions on whether the 2019 Draft Budgetary Plans (DBPs) of euro area Member States comply with the Stability and Growth Pact.

Preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact
In the case of Italy, having assessed the revised DBP presented on 13 November, the Commission confirms the existence of a particularly serious case of non-compliance with the Recommendation addressed to Italy by the Council on 13 July 2018. The Commission had already adopted an Opinion on 23 October 2018 identifying a particularly serious non-compliance in the initial DBP presented by Italy on 16 October 2018.
For ten Member States – Germany, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, and Finland –, the DBPs are found to be compliant with the Stability and Growth Pact in 2019.
For three Member States – Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia –, the DBPs are found to be broadly compliant with the Stability and Growth Pact in 2019. For these countries, the plans might result in some deviation from the country’s medium-term budgetary objective (MTO) or the adjustment path towards it.
For four Member States – Belgium, France, Portugal and Slovenia –, the DBPs pose a risk of non-compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact in 2019. The DBPs of these Member States might result in a significant deviation from the adjustment paths towards the respective medium-term budgetary objective.

Steps under the Stability and Growth Pact
The Commission has also taken a number of steps under the Stability and Growth Pact.
For Italy, the Commission has carried out a new assessment of the prima facie lack of compliance with the debt criterion. At 131.2% of GDP in 2017, the equivalent of €37,000 per inhabitant, Italy’s public debt exceeds the 60% of GDP reference value of the Treaty. This new assessment was necessary because Italy’s fiscal plans for 2019 represent a material change in the relevant factors analysed by the Commission last May. The analysis presented in this new report under Article 126(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union includes the assessment of all relevant factors and notably: (i) the fact that macroeconomic conditions, despite recently intensified downside risks, cannot be argued to explain Italy’s large gaps to compliance with the debt reduction benchmark, given nominal GDP growth above 2% since 2016; (ii) the fact that the government plans imply a marked backtracking on past growth-enhancing structural reforms, in particular the past pension reforms; and above all (iii) the identified risk of significant deviation from the recommended adjustment path towards the medium-term budgetary objective in 2018 and the particularly serious non-compliance for 2019 with the recommendation addressed to Italy by the Council on 13 July 2018, based on both the government plans and the Commission 2018 autumn forecast. Overall, the analysis suggests that the debt criterion as defined in the Treaty and in Regulation (EC) No 1467/1997 should be considered as not complied with, and that a debt-based Excessive Deficit Procedure is thus warranted.

italy_1263_may2018

Pareri sui documenti programmatici di bilancio degli Stati membri della zona euro
La Commissione ha anche adottato pareri in cui valuta la conformità al patto di stabilità e crescita dei documenti programmatici di bilancio degli Stati membri della zona euro per il 2019.
Braccio preventivo del patto di stabilità e crescita
Per quanto concerne l’Italia, dopo aver valutato il documento programmatico di bilancio rivisto presentato il 13 novembre, la Commissione conferma l’esistenza di un’inosservanza particolarmente grave della raccomandazione rivolta all’Italia dal Consiglio il 13 luglio 2018. Il 23 ottobre 2018 la Commissione aveva già adottato un parere in cui riscontrava un’inosservanza particolarmente grave nel documento programmatico di bilancio iniziale presentato dall’Italia il 16 ottobre 2018.
Per dieci Stati membri (Germania, Irlanda, Grecia, Cipro, Lituania, Lussemburgo, Malta, Paesi Bassi, Austria e Finlandia), i documenti programmatici di bilancio sono stati ritenuti conformi al patto di stabilità e crescita nel 2019.
Per tre Stati membri (Estonia, Lettonia e Slovacchia), i documenti programmatici di bilancio sono risultati sostanzialmente conformi al patto di stabilità e crescita nel 2019. Per questi paesi i documenti programmatici potrebbero comportare una certa deviazione dal rispettivo obiettivo di bilancio a medio termine o dal percorso di aggiustamento a tale obiettivo.
Per quattro Stati membri (Belgio, Francia, Portogallo e Slovenia), i documenti programmatici di bilancio presentano un rischio di non conformità al patto di stabilità e crescita nel 2019. I documenti programmatici di questi Stati membri potrebbero determinare una deviazione significativa dal percorso di aggiustamento verso i rispettivi obiettivi di bilancio a medio termine.

La Commissione ha inoltre preso una serie di misure nell’ambito del patto di stabilità e crescita.
La Commissione ha effettuato una nuova valutazione della presunta non conformità dell’Italia con il criterio del debito. Il debito pubblico dell’Italia, che nel 2017 era pari al 131,2% del PIL, l’equivalente di 37 000 euro per ogni abitante, supera il valore di riferimento del 60% stabilito dal trattato. Questa nuova valutazione si è resa necessaria poiché i piani di bilancio dell’Italia per il 2019 modificano in maniera sostanziale i fattori significativi analizzati dalla Commissione lo scorso maggio. L’analisi presentata nella nuova relazione a norma dell’articolo 126, paragrafo 3, del trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione europea comprende la valutazione di tutti i fattori pertinenti, in particolare: i) il fatto che le condizioni macroeconomiche, nonostante il recente intensificarsi dei rischi di revisione al ribasso, non possono essere invocate per spiegare gli ampi divari dell’Italia rispetto al parametro di riduzione del debito, data una crescita del PIL nominale superiore al 2 % dal 2016; ii) il fatto che i piani del governo implicano un notevole passo indietro sulle passate riforme strutturali volte a stimolare la crescita, in particolare sulle riforme delle pensioni adottate in passato; e, soprattutto, iii) il rischio di deviazione significativa dal percorso di aggiustamento raccomandato verso l’obiettivo di bilancio a medio termine nel 2018 e l’inosservanza particolarmente grave per il 2019 della raccomandazione rivolta all’Italia dal Consiglio il 13 luglio 2018, stando ai piani del governo e alle previsioni d’autunno 2018 della Commissione. Nel complesso l’analisi indica che il criterio del debito stabilito dal trattato e dal regolamento (CE) n. 1467/1997 dovrebbe essere considerato non soddisfatto e che è quindi giustificata una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi basata sul debito.

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union; Joint Statement and outline of the Political Declaration on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, as agreed at negotiators’ level.

1) Joint Statement: State of Play of the negotiations under article 50 TEU on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union

2) The political declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom

3) 14 November Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Draft budgetary plan submitted by Italy for 2019 – Italia, documento programmatico di bilancio per il 2019

The European Commission has identified in the draft budgetary plan submitted by Italy for 2019 a particularly serious non-compliance with the fiscal recommendation addressed to Italy by the Council on 13 July 2018.

IP-18-6174_EN

La Commissione europea ha riscontrato nel documento programmatico di bilancio presentato dall’Italia per il 2019 un’inosservanza particolarmente grave della raccomandazione in materia di bilancio che il Consiglio ha rivolto al paese il 13 luglio 2018.

IP-18-6174_IT

MEMO-18-6175_IT

MEMO-18-6175_EN

REgulation (EU) n. 473/2013

Regolamento (UE) n. 473/2013

Documents/Documenti

Commission letter to Italy – 23 October 2018
Commission opinion on the 2019 Draft Budgetary Plan of Italy – 23 October 2018
Italy – reply to Commission – 22 October 2018
Commission letter to Italy – 18 October 2018
Draft budgetary plan Italy 2019
Commission letter to Italy – 5 October 2018

2019_dbp_it_it
it_letter_in_it
lettera_ministro_tria_alla_commissione_22-10-2018_0
2019_dbp_opinion_it_it
2019_dbp_commission_letter_it_20181023_it
2019_dbp_commission_letter_it_20181023_en
2019_dbp_opinion_it_en
letter_to_vd_and_pm_-_22-10-2018
18_10_18_commission_letter_to_italy_en_0_1
2019_dbp_it_en_0
com_reply_minister_tria_0

La Commissione Ue chiede chiarimenti sul debito 30 ottobre 2018

Vademecum on the Stability and Growth Pact – 2018

Public finances in Euro Area Member States: selected indicators 2018

macroeconomic imbalances in the eu

Lettera del Governo italiano del 13 novembre 2018 NEW

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Aiuti di Stato: la Corte annulla la decisione con cui la Commissione ha rinunciato a ordinare il recupero di aiuti illegali concessi dall’Italia sotto forma di esenzione dall’imposta comunale sugli immobili.

I concorrenti direttamente interessati dei beneficiari di aiuti di Stato hanno il diritto di rivolgersi ai giudici dell’Unione per chiedere l’annullamento di una simile decisione

(Sentenza nelle cause riunite C-622/16 P, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl / Commissione, C-623/16 P, Commissione / Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl, e C-624/16 P, Commissione / Pietro Ferracci)

CP180166IT_Recupero aiuti illegali concessi dall’Italia sotto forma di esenzione dall’ICI

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Protetto: 29-31 October

Il contenuto è protetto da password. Per visualizzarlo inserisci di seguito la password:

Pubblicato in EULaw | Inserisci la tua password per visualizzare i commenti.

World GDP by Country 1960-2017

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

How the ESM works

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Il giudice non deve estendere una normativa nazionale riferita alla Cedu alla violazione del diritto dell’Unione ( art. 50 Carta )

SENTENZA DELLA CORTE (Grande Sezione) 24 ottobre 2018, causa C?234/17,XC,YB,ZA v. Generalprokuratur,

Il diritto dell’Unione, e in particolare i principi di equivalenza e di effettività, deve essere interpretato nel senso che non obbliga un giudice nazionale ad estendere alle violazioni del diritto dell’Unione, e segnatamente alle lesioni del diritto fondamentale garantito dall’articolo 50 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea e dall’articolo 54 della Convenzione di applicazione dell’Accordo di Schengen, del 14 giugno 1985, tra i governi degli Stati dell’Unione economica Benelux, della Repubblica federale di Germania e della Repubblica francese, relativo all’eliminazione graduale dei controlli alle frontiere comuni, firmata a Schengen (Lussemburgo) il 19 giugno 1990 ed entrata in vigore il 26 marzo 1995, un mezzo di impugnazione di diritto interno che consente di ottenere, unicamente in caso di violazione della Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei Diritti dell’Uomo delle Libertà fondamentali, firmata a Roma il 4 novembre 1950 o di uno dei suoi protocolli, la ripetizione di un procedimento penale concluso con una decisione nazionale passata in giudicato.

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

EU response to Brexit

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit/

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac-art50/2018/09/18/

EU27 leaders reaffirmed their full confidence in Michel Barnier as the negotiator and their determination to stay united. They also noted that, despite intensive negotiations, not enough progress has been achieved.

background-gac-art-50-en

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-uk-after-referendum/

Pubblicato in EULaw | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento

Bollettino – Gruppo di lavoro – Corte di Cassazione – CEDU

Dopo la firma del Protocollo d’intesa tra la Corte di Cassazione e la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo, avvenuta a Strasburgo l’11 dicembre 2015, la Corte di cassazione ha dato attuazione al Protocollo costituendo un gruppo di lavoro permanente, composto di un componente per ciascuna Sezione, civile e penale, della Corte, nonché di due magistrati del Massimario, che cura sia l’immediata selezione delle sentenze di legittimità che applichino in maniera significativa la normativa europea, sia la segnalazione delle sentenze CEDU che più direttamente riguardino l’Italia, diffondendone la conoscenza tra i colleghi della Corte con sintetici abstracts.

Bollettino_1_semestre_2018

http://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/it/dett_cst.page;jsessionid=11658CAC467D568E8F1E563041FBF643.jvm1?contentId=CST21649

Pubblicato in CEDU | Lascia un commento

Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Examining Economic Outcomes After Brexit

Rsearchers from the US and RAND Europe explored the economic implications of eight different trade scenarios involving the UK, EU and US after Brexit:

https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/brexit-economic-implications.html

Pubblicato in Brexit | Lascia un commento

The United Nations circulated a report concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities.

N1820101

http://undocs.org/S/2018/705

Pubblicato in Terrorismo | Lascia un commento

Obligation to disapply national legislation contrary to a directive. Obbligo di disapplicare una normativa nazionale contraria a una direttiva

Court of Justice 7 August 2018, C-122/17

“EU law, in particular Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds that it is unable to interpret the provisions of its national law that are contrary to a provision of a directive that satisfies all the conditions required for it to produce direct effect in a manner that is compatible with that provision, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply those provisions of national law and a clause to be found, as a consequence of those provisions of national law, in an insurance contract.

In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party could however rely on the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C?6/90 and C?9/90, EU:C:1991:428), in order to obtain from the Member State, if justified, compensation for any loss sustained.”

“Il diritto dell’Unione, in particolare l’articolo 288 TFUE, dev’essere interpretato nel senso che un giudice nazionale, investito di una controversia tra singoli, che si trovi nell’impossibilità di interpretare le disposizioni del suo diritto nazionale contrarie ad una disposizione di una direttiva che soddisfa tutte le condizioni richieste per produrre un effetto diretto in un senso conforme a quest’ultima disposizione, non è tenuto, sulla sola base del diritto dell’Unione, a disapplicare tali disposizioni nazionali nonché una clausola contenuta, conformemente a queste ultime, in un contratto di assicurazione.
In una situazione come quella di cui trattasi nel procedimento principale, la parte lesa dalla non conformità del diritto nazionale al diritto dell’Unione o la persona surrogata nei diritti di tale parte potrebbe tuttavia invocare la giurisprudenza scaturita dalla sentenza del 19 novembre 1991, Francovich e a. (C-6/90 e C-9/90, EU:C:1991:428), per ottenere eventualmente, da parte dello Stato membro, il risarcimento del danno subito”.

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Frequently Asked Questions on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Domande frequenti sulla Procura europea

FAQ EPPO

FAQ Procura europea

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Follow-up to the EU-U.S. Joint Statement of 25 July: Imports of U.S. soybeans increase by over 280%

Follow- up EU- US joint statement

Pubblicato in trade, trade wars, USA, WTO | Lascia un commento

Ukraine: EU adds six entities involved in the construction of the Kerch Bridge connecting the illegally annexed Crimea to Russia to sanctions list


The Council added six entities to the list of those subject to restrictive measures over actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. They are listed because of their involvement in the construction of the Kerch Bridge, connecting Russia to the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula. Through their actions they supported the consolidation of Russia’s control over the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, which in turn further undermines the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/07/31/ukraine-eu-adds-six-entities-involved-in-the-construction-of-the-kerch-bridge-connecting-the-illegally-annexed-crimea-to-russia-to-sanctions-list/

Pubblicato in Russia, sanctions | Lascia un commento

A judicial authority called upon to execute a European arrest warrant must refrain from giving effect to it if it considers that there is a real risk that the individual concerned would suffer a breach of his fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of his fundamental right to a fair trial on account of deficiencies liable to affect the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State – L’autorità giudiziaria chiamata a eseguire un mandato d’arresto europeo deve astenersi dal darvi seguito se ritiene che la persona interessata rischi di subire una violazione del suo diritto fondamentale a un giudice indipendente e, quindi, del contenuto essenziale del suo diritto fondamentale a un equo processo, a causa di carenze idonee a incidere sull’indipendenza del potere giudiziario nello Stato membro emittente

Judgment in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v LM (Deficiencies in the system of justice)

It follows that, where the person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued, pleads, in order to oppose his surrender to the issuing judicial authority, that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies, which, according to him, are liable to affect the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State and his fundamental right to a fair trial, the executing judicial authority must, as a first step, assess, on the basis of material that is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated, whether there is a real risk, connected with a lack of independence of the courts of the issuing Member State on account of deficiencies of that kind, of such a right being breached in the issuing Member State.
The Court considers that information in a reasoned proposal recently addressed by the Commission to the Council on the basis of Article 7(1) TEU is particularly relevant for the purposes of that assessment.

——————————-

(Sentenza nella causa C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality / LM (Carenze del sistema giudiziario))

Ne discende che, qualora la persona oggetto di un mandato d’arresto europeo faccia valere, per opporsi alla propria consegna all’autorità giudiziaria emittente, l’esistenza di carenze sistemiche o generalizzate che, a suo avviso, sono idonee a pregiudicare l’indipendenza del potere giudiziario nello Stato membro emittente e il suo diritto fondamentale a un equo processo, l’autorità giudiziaria dell’esecuzione è tenuta, in un primo momento, a valutare, in base a elementi oggettivi, attendibili, precisi e debitamente aggiornati, l’esistenza di un rischio reale di violazione di tale diritto nello Stato membro emittente, connesso a una mancanza di indipendenza dei giudici di detto Stato membro a causa di siffatte carenze.
La Corte considera che le informazioni contenute in una proposta motivata recentemente rivolta dalla Commissione al Consiglio in base all’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, TUE costituiscono elementi di particolare rilevanza ai fini di tale valutazione.

cp180113it

cp180113en

Pubblicato in human rights | Lascia un commento

Financial services legislation under the EU (Withdrawal) Act

These publications set out the government’s approach to bringing EU financial services legislation into domestic law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications

HM_Treasury approach to financial_services

EEA_passport_rights_draft_SI

Pubblicato in Brexit | Lascia un commento

Brexit: Government confirms detail on new Bill that will put Withdrawal Agreement into law

The Government has published a White Paper on how it will legislate for the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-detail-on-new-bill-that-will-put-withdrawal-agreement-into-law?utm_source=1427e6c7-5230-4b50-b247-57878b4f849a&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

Pubblicato in Brexit | Lascia un commento

UK Strategic Export Controls annual report 2017

This report gives a detailed overview of the UK’s Strategic Export Controls work in 2017.
The report includes sections on:

information on export licensing processes and responsible departments
export Licensing data and performance statistics
UK and EU policy developments and a section on Brexit
export licensing and industry
UK support to allies and partners
international policy and regimes
compliance and enforcement
It also contains case studies and detailed information about the UK’s export licensing processes and procedure.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-strategic-export-controls-annual-report-2017?utm_source=ff4c1cac-3f3b-4a89-8299-032be6cdfd94&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

FCO_Strategic_Exports_Controls_Annual_Report_2017

Pubblicato in EULaw | Lascia un commento

Kerch Strait bridge (“the Crimean Bridge”): individual sanctions against 6 people involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Strait bridge.

It seems that at the recent EU-Ukraine Summit the ambassadors of the EU member states approved the decision to impose individual sanctions against 6 people involved in the illegal construction of the Kerch Strait bridge.

http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/dyakuyu-za-pidtrimku-ukrayini-u-protidiyi-rosijskomu-agresor-48810

Pubblicato in sanctions | Lascia un commento

CSS ETH Zurich: Strategic Trends 2018

http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/specialinterest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/de/publications/strategic-trends/details.html?id=/s/t/r/a/strategic_trends_2018

ST2018-04-BC

Pubblicato in trade, trade wars | Lascia un commento

In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK as of 30 March 2019. *** In assenza di un accordo sull’uscita del Regno Unito dall’UE, non vi sarà un periodo transitorio e le regole UE termineranno di applicarsi nel Regno Unito a partire dal 30 marzo 2019.

In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, 
there will be no transition period 
and EU law will cease to apply to 
and in the UK as of 30 March 2019.
Pubblicato in Brexit | Lascia un commento

Brexit: European Commission publishes Communication on preparing for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Comunicazione della Commission sulla fase preparatoria alla Brexit

Brexit: European Commission publishes Communication on preparing for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU

The European Commission has today adopted a Communication outlining the ongoing work on the preparation for all outcomes of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

If the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified before 30 March 2019, most of the legal effects of Brexit will apply as of1 January 2021, i.e. after a transition period of 21 months, the terms of which are set out in the draft WithdrawalAgreement.

In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, there will be no transition period and EU law will cease to apply to and in the UK as of 30 March 2019.

communication-preparing-withdrawal-brexit-preparedness-web

factsheet-preparing-withdrawal-brexit-preparedness-web_0

IP-18-4545 Brexit Preparedness Factsheet

communication-preparing-withdrawal-brexit-preparedness

communication-preparing-withdrawal-brexit-preparedness-annex

 

Pubblicato in Brexit | Lascia un commento

Protection of intra-EU investment – Protezione degli investimenti intra-UE

Pubblicato in investments, trade | Lascia un commento

Migration and Asylum: Commission takes further steps in infringement procedures against Hungary. La Commissione ha deferito l’Ungheria davanti alla Corte di giustizia per violazione delle regole in materia di migrazione e asilo.

Migration and Asylum: Commission takes further steps in infringement procedures against Hungary

The European Commission has today decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for non-compliance of its asylum and return legislation with EU law.

IP-18-4522_EN

Pubblicato in migrazioni - migrations, protezione internazionale | Lascia un commento

Trade: EU Commission imposes provisional safeguard measures on imports of steel products

Today the European Commission is announcing provisional safeguard measures concerning imports of a number of steel products. These measures will address the diversion of steel from other countries to the EU market as a result of the recently imposed US tariffs. The safeguard measures will come into effect on Thursday 19 July. Traditional imports of steel products will not be affected.

IP-18-4563_EN

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1851&title=European-Commission-reacts-to-the-US-restrictions-on-steel-and-aluminium-affecting-the-EU

Trade European Union – United States of America

 

Pubblicato in sanctions, trade, trade wars | Lascia un commento

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google’s search engine – Antitrust: la Commissione infligge a Google un’ammenda di 4.34 miliardi di € per pratiche illegali riguardanti i dispositivi mobili Android volte a rafforzare la posizione dominante del motore di ricerca di Google

The European Commission has fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.

IP-18-4581_IT

IP-18-4581_EN

 

 

Pubblicato in sanctions | Lascia un commento

ICJ: Iran institutes proceedings against the United States for the “8 May sanctions”


Iran institutes proceedings against the United States with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States, and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures

Iran claims that, through the “8 May sanctions” and further sanctions that have been announced, the United States “has violated and continues to violate multiple provisions” ofthe 1955 Treaty.

175-20180717-PRE-01-00-EN

Pubblicato in sanctions | Contrassegnato | Lascia un commento