This thesis, by evaluating the EU Anti-Corruption Report 2014 and its impact, analyses the development of EU anti-corruption as a policy field. In order to identify key factors that shape anti-corruption policy in Europe, it applies the theory of reflexive governance to anti-corruption policymaking in the EU. The approach of reflexive governance focuses on the new form of interaction between the EU, Member States and Candidate States, in particular the dialogical nature of their relationships and how they influence each other in building ground and incentives for the sustainable development of anticorruption as a policy field. The dissertation begins with an examination of the four stages of the development of anti-corruption as a policy field in the EU so far. Questions are asked about the involvement of non-state actors in anti-corruption policy making and to what extent Member States and Candidate States have involved non-state actors in shaping anti-corruption policy in the national context. The main part of the thesis is devoted to presenting and applying the theory of reflexive governance in analysing the EU Anti-Corruption Report and its impact and achievement in the UK, Romania and Albania. In its last part, the thesis discusses insufficiencies of the EU Anti-Corruption Report 2014 and offers recommendations for future EU Anti-Corruption Reports, in particular by making proposals how the legal framework can be improved in relation to the protection of whistleblowers. The thesis also makes suggestions how the EU, Member States and Candidate States can make further use of reflexive governance in order to enhance their anti-corruption policies.

<p>Denna uppsats strävar efter att besvara frågorna: Har systembolaget rätt att som ensam aktör bedriva detaljhandel av alkohol i Sverige? Strider nuvarande reglering av svensk import och export av vin och sprit mot EG-rätten?</p><p>EG-domstolen har i flera fall rörande offentliga monopol fastslagit att dessa i sig inte utgör något brott mot EG-rätten, under förutsättning att de anpassas till övrig EG-rätt på konkurrensrättens område. Det är därför med anledning av detta fullt möjligt för Systembolaget att ensam bedriva detaljhandel av alkohol i Sverige. Ytterligare praxis på området visar på att monopolet i sig inte är otillåtet utan fokus ligger snarare på de faktorer som finns runt om monopolet t.ex. att det inte får verka diskriminerande mot utländska varor.</p><p>Då det fortfarande inte finns något avgörande i frågan om import- och exportreglerna strider mot EG-rätten, så finns inget svar på denna fråga. Vad som sagts är att de import- och exportregler som Systembolaget tvingas rätta sig efter, till följd av Franzéndomen inte strider mot EG-rätten. Men i dagsläget</p><p>påverkas dessa regler också av frågan om privatimport. På den punkten råder ännu osäkerhet kring vad som faktiskt gäller.</p>

Denna uppsats strävar efter att besvara frågorna: Har systembolaget rätt att som ensam aktör bedriva detaljhandel av alkohol i Sverige? Strider nuvarande reglering av svensk import och export av vin och sprit mot EG-rätten? EG-domstolen har i flera fall rörande offentliga monopol fastslagit att dessa i sig inte utgör något brott mot EG-rätten, under förutsättning att de anpassas till övrig EG-rätt på konkurrensrättens område. Det är därför med anledning av detta fullt möjligt för Systembolaget att ensam bedriva detaljhandel av alkohol i Sverige. Ytterligare praxis på området visar på att monopolet i sig inte är otillåtet utan fokus ligger snarare på de faktorer som finns runt om monopolet t.ex. att det inte får verka diskriminerande mot utländska varor. Då det fortfarande inte finns något avgörande i frågan om import- och exportreglerna strider mot EG-rätten, så finns inget svar på denna fråga. Vad som sagts är att de import- och exportregler som Systembolaget tvingas rätta sig efter, till följd av Franzéndomen inte strider mot EG-rätten. Men i dagsläget påverkas dessa regler också av frågan om privatimport. På den punkten råder ännu osäkerhet kring vad som faktiskt gäller.

Thesis (M.A.)--Lehigh University, 2009. / Adviser: Kate Crassons.

This thesis compares the implementation of European Council Directive 2000/43 prohibiting discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in Britain and Germany. In order to shed light on the factors that shape anti-discrimination policy in Europe, it tests the theory that anti-discrimination law and policy making in Europe takes place as a cyclical process of ‘cross-fertilisation’. This policy process is characterised by the interaction between the European and the national level and the influence each level exerts on the other proving inspiration or incentives for the continuous development of anti-discrimination and equality law. In proving this thesis, the study begins with an examination of the coverage and the concepts of the Directive as well as its interaction with existing national approaches providing protection from racial discrimination. Questions are asked about the ability of the Directive to reach its goal of aiding the understanding of racism throughout Europe, of creating common tools to combat it and of instigating action at the European level that aid developments at national level. The main part of the project is devoted to a comparison of the implementation of the Race Directive in the UK and Germany. Since the Directive only constitutes a framework it provides scope for differences in the legal systems to influence the implementation process. The study compares in both countries their original position prior to the drafting of the Directive and assesses the legal and wider implementation of the Directive by analysing the national implementing measures and shifts in national anti-discrimination policy as result of EU equality law in the area of racial discrimination. The study shows that national narratives of race and ethnicity in Germany and the UK shape their discrimination legislation, including proactive approaches to the integration of ethnic minorities. The European anti-race discrimination framework is argued to contain mechanisms through which national implementation outcomes can re-influence European law and policy making, completing the cross-fertilisation cycle.

Human rights remain an ambiguous and complex subject in the European Union. Although the instances of policies involving human rights issues have attained an increasing presence over the past thirty years there has been an institutional reluctance to mould a unified human rights policy worthy of the name. However, the EU's human rights practices have not been constructed in a wholly random way. They have evolved within discrete policy realms along coherent narrative lines. Specifically they have followed a bifurcated pattern. Internally, human rights are contingent. They are often referred to as "fundamental rights" signifying an underlying conception that owns a restricted definition based on a distinct European heritage. Scrutiny is erratic even casual. Enforcement is left to the Courts and other agencies. Externally, the story is different. Human rights are broad in concept. Collective notions of rights are adopted. Scrutiny can be intrusive and effective. Systems of enforcement, increasingly severe in scope and strength, have been applied. Despite the extent of this internal/external bifurcation, little academic or institutional attention has been paid to the subject. This thesis attempts to rectify the omission. In analysing the history of the EU's human rights stories, it details the extent of the bifurcation phenomenon and reveals the genesis of its central discriminatory practice. It claims that by failing to address human rights in its early period other than in mythical terms the EU's discourse provided an environment whereby rights became implicated in the representation of European identity as superior and non- Europe as morally and ethically deficient. EU human rights practice developed with this key understanding imbedded in its narrative structure. A sense of irony, provoked by double-standards and discrimination, thus accompanies the EU's rights discourse rendering the EU's role in rights action suspect and the prospects for one unified policy remote.

No description available.

This thesis is a critique of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law on the right to a fair trial in criminal cases. It is the result of a focussed and extensive survey of Article 6 case law, and, unlike other work on Article6, does not analyse each component right of Article 6 one-by-one. Instead, the thesis considers ‘cross-cutting’ themes common to all, or many, of the Article 6 component rights: how the Court interprets Article 6, how the Court sees its role in Article 6 cases, how the Court approaches Article 6’s internal structure, the Court’s implied rights jurisprudence, and how the Court assesses alleged Article 6 violations. In considering how the Court assesses alleged violations of Article 6, the thesis charts the Court’s attempts to solve ‘the puzzle of Article 6’: how should violations of Article 6 be assessed in the absence of an express metaprinciple? In this regard the thesis examines notions such as the proceedings as a whole test, counterbalancing and defect-curing, the ‘never fair’ jurisprudence, and the extent to which the public interest may justify restrictions on Article 6. The thesis uses a rule of law framework to test the Article 6 case law for its ability to provide guidance to citizens, lawyers and officials. It argues that the case law is marked by considerable uncertainty, inconsistency, and incoherence, with the result that the ability of that case law to provide guidance is significantly undermined. Indeed, the thesis establishes that there is inconsistency and uncertainty within the various tools and approaches used by the Court, and that there is significant incoherence between those approaches. To the extent the thesis makes a normative argument, it constitutes a robust and targeted call for the Court to adopt in this area of law a renewed, rejuvenated approach that is more consistent, more coherent, and better explained.

The thesis adopts a doctrinal approach to consider how a subsidiarity and proportionality review by the CJEU could be applied to shared competences, and the criteria that the CJEU should take into account in balancing competing interests when determining the residency rights of EU citizens. It will identify limits to the competences of the EU through subsidiarity analysis, including how this should constrain the reasoning of the CJEU, but this has a consequence of better legitimising such genuinely European standards that do have a clear legal basis. Adhering to the rule of law is an important issue for the CJEU to demonstrate its respect for as a core value commonly associated with democracy and with the validity of law itself. A subsidiarity review undertaken by the CJEU involving the CJEU checking whether the Union has competence to act (conferral) and in cases concerning areas of shared competence would also serve to legitimise the CJEU’s ruling to the Member States and address the problem of ultra vires EU action lacking legitimacy in the perspective of the Member States eyes. Adopting a normative approach it considers how a subsidiarity and proportionality review could be anchored in EU law to address competence issues when the CJEU is striking a balance between fundamental principles of EU law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the residency rights of migrant EU citizens who are economically inactive. As subsidiarity in these types of cases relates to the cross border requirement, the CJEU should be explicit about departing from the purely internal rule as well as explaining the substance of rights of EU citizens. The proportionality element of the review relates to the actual consideration and weighing up by the CJEU of the competing interests identified in this context. This requires the CJEU to identify explicitly in its reasoning any competing interests that have been weighed up as well as stating any other particular factors involved in the balancing and the weight accorded to those factors. Although such an approach would not necessarily result in a change in the outcome of the case, it would help to improve the quality of the reasoning of the CJEU and consequently enhance the legitimacy of the CJEU’s ruling.

<p>Abstract</p><p>This thesis show how the European Community, through legislation and case law, is addressing the problem of multiple discrimination and what the possible solutions to it are.</p><p>Multiple discrimination describes a situation where an individual experiences discrimination on more than one ground. This can occur in two different ways; additive or intersectional. Additive discrimination describes a situation where an individual is discriminated against on more than one ground and these grounds are added on top of each other. Intersectional discrimination explains how an individual’s multiple identities may be the cause of discrimination in such a way that the grounds for discrimination cannot be considered separately.</p><p>Expanding the list of grounds in Article 13 EC could help multiple discrimination claims but cannot be seen as the exclusive solution to such a complex problem. Many more problems surround multiple discrimination claims. One is to find an adequate comparator in order to prove discrimination. Another is that the case law shows a higher rate of success for plaintiffs claiming only one ground of discrimination even if they have experienced multiple discrimination, causing a disparity between the facts of the case and the reality experienced by the plaintiffs.</p><p>In conclusion, such a complex matter cannot be solved by one simple solution but the Community would benefit from an explicit prohibition as well as a common definition of multiple discrimination.</p>