The article aims at resolving the issue whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has an exclusive jurisdiction under Article 344 of the Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to resolve disputes between Member States, stemming from provisions of an international treaty, a party to which is the EU. This problem is especially relevant in cases when a mixed international agreement envisages independent institutions of dispute resolution. The position of the CJEU is expressed in the (...) case of Mox Plant. The European Commission applied to the CJEU against Ireland, because it considered that Ireland, which started an arbitration procedure against United Kingdom under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has infringed the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU under Article 344 of the TFEU. The EU is also a Contracting Party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore according to the consistence case practice of the Court, the provisions of the Convention that fall under the competence of the Union constitute an indivisible part of the EU legal system. Only in such case when a provision of a treaty is attributed to exclusive competence of the Member States, the jurisdiction of the CJEU regarding that provision can be negated. Thus, when deciding on the issue of exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU in principle, a problem of attribution of the EU and Member States’ competences arises. (shrink)

Straipsnyje apžvelgiamos Lietuvoje nuo 1992 m. veikiančio nepriklausomo lotyniškojo tipo notariato nūdienos aktualijos, patirtis, iššūkiai bei perspektyvos Lietuvos teisės kontekste, taip pat atsižvelgiant į tarptautines notariato veiklos teisinio reglamentavimo tendencijas. Straipsnyje aptariamas daug diskusijų sukėlęs ir Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismą pasiekęs pilietybės reikalavimas asmenims, norintiems tapti notarais, notarų atliekamų funkcijų įvairovė bei jų spektro pokyčiai skirtingose valstybėse ir laiko požiūriu, e. notaro koncepcija, notarinių paslaugų tarptautiškumo didėjimas bei naujausios Europos Sąjungos notarų veiklos teisinio reglamentavimo iniciatyvos, notariškai (...) patvirtintų autentiškų dokumentų galiojimas. (shrink)

Although the Lisbon Treaty maintained the general exclusion of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) matters from ECJ jurisdiction, it introduced a number of changes into this area, including an explicit statement that the Court is competent to review the legality of the Council decisions imposing restraining measures on persons. The article analyzes the nature and origin of those changes and considers the legal implications for the level of the protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. For this purpose (...) the author firstly considers the context of the exclusion of CFSP matters from the ECJ jurisdiction, including discussions on the issue at the European Convention, and, secondly, takes a closer look at the separate heads of jurisdiction over which the Court is competent to act after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. A conclusion is made that the Lisbon Treaty did not introduce significant changes to ECJ jurisdiction. Similarly to the pattern of previous amendment treaties, the Lisbon Treaty again gave recognition to the practice of the ECJ on relevant questions. Nonetheless, the amendments made by the Lisbon Treaty should be welcome for introducing more clarity into the legal regulation of the matter, thus boosting the legal certainty and protection of fundamental rights in the European Union. (shrink)

This essay deals with conditions, challenges and perspectives concerning the legal system of the European Union after the Lisbon treaty has entered into force. It starts out by recalling constitutional principles such as primacy, direct effect and consistent interpretation of the European legal order on the one hand and the relationship of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts – notably pointing out the importance of the preliminary procedure (Article 267 TFEU) – on the other hand. In addition, (...) characteristics of the legal system of the European Union such as the integration of national legal systems are highlighted. It is accentuated that the legal community of the European Union depends on the acceptance by all 27 Member States. Furthermore, the normative quality of European law-making is discussed as well as the necessity for a sufficient democratic legitimation of European Law. As impressively illustrated by the financial crisis, the European Union is much better equipped with possibilities to effectively fulfil regulatory tasks than any Member State. The author shows developments with regard to European Union citizenship, non-discrimination, the Charter of Fundamental Rights - that is now equipped with binding character – and the vertical distribution of competences between the European Union and the Member States, including explanations relating to subsidiarity requirements and their judicial review. Moreover, challenges to the institutions of the European Union are discussed. (shrink)

The paper analyses the relevant issue of the relationship of international law and European Union law. Therefore, independent systems of law exist, which inevitably arise the issue of relationship and interaction of these systems. Legal literature analyses the question of the relationship of these two systems of law on the basis of various aspects. The author has chosen the following structure of the paper: first, the general problem of the relationship of international and European Union law is discussed. While describing (...) the problem, the nature of the European Union and international law, as well as the distinguishing features of these systems of law, is analysed. The paper also provides a discussion about the decisions of the Strasbourg court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which provide the basis of solving the problem of the relationship of these systems of law. In the second part of this paper, the main theories are analysed: the monistic, dualistic and coordination theories, which can be used to answer the issue of interaction of the two systems of law – international law and European Union law. (shrink)

This article analyses the legal basics of the Member States liability in damages for the breach of European Union law and the conditions for liability. It is emphasized that the Member States liability in damages for the breach of European Union law has three different grounds—one direct legal background (Article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union) and two indirect basics—principles of direct effect and that of effectiveness of European Union law. The author subsequently examines the content of each (...) condition for liability established in the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union —the intention of the rule of European Union law infringed to confer rights on private parties, the sufficiently seriousness of the breach and the direct causal link between the breach and the damage. It is stated that in order to prove that a Member State is liable for the breach of European Union law, one more condition for liability should be established—a private party must prove that he has incurred particular damage. It is also highlighted that the second condition for the Member States liability in damages for the breach of European Union law —sufficiently seriousness of the breach—restricts the right of a private party to obtain compensation. (shrink)

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas Lietuvos Respublikos darbo ginčų instituto reformavimas ir kaita Nepriklausomybės laikotarpiu atskirų Europos Sąjungos valstybių patirties kontekste. Darbo ginčų reforma Lietuvoje minimu laikotarpiu vyko keliais etapais, iš jų paskutinysis, prasidėjęs 2013 m. sausio 1 d., pakeitė darbo ginčų komisijų organizavimo tvarką, šias komisijas pradėjus kurti teritoriniu principu, prie veikiančių Valstybinės darbo inspekcijos teritorinių padalinių, nustačius, kad į darbo ginčų komisiją su skundu gali kreiptis ne tik darbuotojas, bet ir darbdavys, įvedus kitas naujoves. Tačiau šie pokyčiai vis dar (...) neatspindi europinių tendencijų, kiek įmanoma mažiau institucionalizuoti ikiteisminę individulių darbo ginčų nagrinėjimo tvarką. Straipsnyje akcentuojama mintis, jog darbo ginčų instituto reforma laikytina nebaigta ir, tikėtina, bus tęsiama, remiantis pažangiausia kai kurių ES valstybių praktika šioje srityje, tačiau išlaikant nacionalinį teisinio reguliavimo ypatumą. (shrink)

Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty set out that in carrying out the duties assigned to it by Article 89 and by provisions adopted under Article 87 of the Treaty, the officials authorized by the EU Commission were empowered inter alia to enter any premises, land and means of transport of undertakings. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 (...) and 82 of the Treaty has expanded Commission’s powers stating that Commission can by decision order an inspection to be conducted in any other premises, land and means of transport, including the homes of directors, managers and other members of staff of the undertakings and associations of undertakings concerned. Such an expansion of the investigative powers of the Commission raises a question of the balance between effectiveness of the EU competition law and a person’s right to privacy, which is guaranteed to everyone by the Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless this right is not absolute and the conditions for the possible limitations of the exercise of it are enshrined in paragraph 2 of the same article. For this reason the aim of this article is to find out whether Commission’s power to carry out searches in private homes meet the requirements set in Article 8(2) of the Convention, i.e., whether the Commission’s power to conduct such searches could be justified under the ECHR Article 8(2). In this study, the authors analyse the Commission’s extended investigative powers, clarify what is covered by the concept of “privacy”, evaluate the requirements set in Article 8(2) of the Convention, analyse conditions of exercising Commission’s extended investigative power and thus qualify if the latter satisfies the requirements set in Article 8(2) of the ECHR. (shrink)

The article is dedicated to determine de iure and de facto binding force of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the ECJ) and its place in the system of legal sources in Latvia. The author concludes that the case law of the ECJ consists of legally important statements, which are included in judgements of the ECJ, namely, of an interpretation of legal norms, made by the ECJ, and of judge-made law norms, which the (...) ECJ has found in legal system by use of a further law-making. Therefore, it follows from the above that the case law of the ECJ is regarded as binding independent addition legal source in Latvia. This publication concerns not only Latvia, but also other European Union (hereinafter the EU) member states of the continental Europe or Romano-Germanic legal system. (shrink)

The main aim of this research is to analyse the peculiarities of legal regulation of metrology and the problems arising in this area. The content of the article is divided into two parts. The first part of the article analyses the concept of metrology, reveals the relation between fundamental and legal metrology and accentuates problems of metrology as well as repressive means applied in the metrological procedure. The second part analyses the European Union as well as national legislation regulating the (...) implementation of metrology in Lithuania and peculiarities of harmonisation of national law with the European Union legislation. (shrink)

The main subject of the present research is the enforcement of the European Union law in the domestic legal order. This topic was chosen considering the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and especially its declaration No. 17 on primacy of EU law. This article will explain the meaning of primacy of the European Union law and the resulting problems in some EU Member States, as well as possible solutions (...) to tackle the problems. The primacy of the European Union law over the national law was recognised as one of the constitutive principles of the European Union. The article includes relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty that deal with the rules concerning the legal requirements of the primacy of the European Union law in the EU primary law. The European Court of Justice has developed the meaning of the principle of primacy, which means that the European Union law should take precedence over national law (even over constitutional provisions) and should there be any conflicts between EU law and national law, every national court is obliged to apply the law of the European Union. The main issue of this article is analysing the principle of primacy of the European Union law over the Lithuanian law. (shrink)

World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement includes the Annex 2 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) that reveals with WTO dispute settlement rules and procedures. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is hereby established to administer these rules and procedures. The article analyses the problematic issues of the direct effect of the DSB decisions in the European Union (EU) legal order. ECJ concluded that an individual does not have the right to challenge, the incompatibility of Community measures with WTO rules, even if the DSB (...) had previously declared the EU legislation to be incompatible with those rules. The position of the ECJ is based on the WTO dispute settlement system specifics—the importance of the negotiation between the parties, even after the DSB decision-making and lack of reciprocity, which means that major commercial partners of the EU does not recognize the direct effect of DSB decisions. (shrink)

Whilst the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which became part of binding primary EU law on 1 December 2009, constitutes an important codification and clarification of fundamental rights as they exist in the European Union, the field of application of the Charter is limited in a significant way: the Charter only applies when EU law is at stake. When national courts and authorities in the EU Member States are confronted with problems of purely national law, they are (...) not obliged to apply the Charter but should instead rely on the national constitutional Bill of Rights as well as the international human rights instruments which are binding on the Member State in question. The borderline between EU law and national law is not always easy to establish in a concrete case. This article discusses theoretical and practical problems arising out of the application and interpretation of Article 51(1) of the Charter, according to which the Charter is addressed to the Member States ‘only when they are implementing Union law’. It is suggested to adopt a pragmatic case-by-case approach, asking oneself if there is another norm of Union law than a Charter provision which is directly relevant to a case in concreto. If the answer is yes, also the Charter should be applied, supposing that there is a Charter provision which could influence the outcome of the case. If the answer is in the negative, national courts and authorities are only obliged to apply national law, including the constitutional Bill of Rights and the international human rights obligations of the Member State concerned. (shrink)

Pasibaigus Šaltajam karui smarkiai išaugęs tarptautinių konfliktų skaičius bei identifikuotos naujos grėsmės paskatino tarptautines organizacijas, tokias kaip Jungtinių Tautų organizacija (toliau – JTO) ir Šiaurės Atlanto sutarties organizacija (toliau – NATO) peržiūrėti Šaltojo karo metu taikytą jėgos panaudojimo praktiką, poreikį ir priemones reaguoti į konfliktus. Tokiomis priemonėmis kaip tik ir tapo vadinamieji „mėlynieji šalmai“, kurie Jungtinių Tautų valstybių narių yra priskiriami Jungtinių Tautų Saugumo Tarybos sankcionuotoms operacijoms vykdyti. Nors priskirtos pajėgos vykdydamos tarptautines operacijas dėvi Jungtinių Tautų simboliką, tačiau jų pavaldumas (...) savo valstybei išlieka visą laiką. Analizuodami valstybių dalyvavimo tarptautinių organizacijų sankcionuotose tarptautinėse operacijose teisinius pagrindus, straipsnio autoriai per jėgos panaudojimo prizmę analizuoja Jungtinių Tautų Saugumo Tarybos ir apskritai tarptautinių organizacijų vaidmenį sankcionuojant jėgos panaudojimą pagal Jungtinių Tautų Chartijos nuostatas bei tarptautinių operacijų vykdymo raidą. Straipsnyje taip pat detaliai apžvelgiami siuntimo į tarptautines operacijas nacionaliniai teisiniai pagrindai ir procedūros bei Lietuvos Respublikos praktika. Šis straipsnis yra skirtas visiems besidominties tarptautinėmis operacijomis ir jų sankcionavimo nacionaliniais ir teisiniais pagrindais. Straipsnio struktūra susideda iš trijų dalių. Pirmojoje šio straipsnio dalyje yra nagrinėjamas jėgos panaudojimas pagal Jungtinių Tautų Chartijos nuostatas, antroje ‒ aptariami dalyvavimo Jungtinių Tautų Organizacijos ir Šiaurės Atlanto Sutarties Organizacijos vadovaujamose tarptautinėse operacijose raida ir teisiniai pagrindai, o paskutinėje dalyje yra nagrinėjamas nacionalinis siuntimo į tarptautines operacijas reglamentavimas. (shrink)

Starting from 2009, national courts of the EU Member States for the first time gained a “real” right to request the EU Court of Justice for preliminary rulings in asylum matters. First judgments of this Court demonstrate equivocal tendencies: some are blaming the Court for incompetence in asylum matters, others believe that the adoption of authoritative decisions at the European level will assist in developing consistent practice of applying asylum law in the European Union, something that failed at international level (...) due to absence of a single authoritative body to provide guidance on interpretation and application of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Considering that the judgments of the EU Court are part of the EU law, the Member States should develop their national asylum law with due regard being taken to those judgments. By the beginning of 2012, the Court has issued eight judgments on the interpretation of various problematic issues of EU asylum law. This Article analyses the jurisprudence of the EU Court in asylum cases, related to the granting of refugee status and subsidiary protection. It also provides a critical evaluation of those judgments. The main objective of the Article is to familiarise the relevant Lithuanian institutions and lawyers with the first judgments of the EU Court in asylum cases and encourage discussions concerning the application of rules established by the Court in the Lithuanian context. Due to limited size, this Article presents the analysis of two EU Court judgments adopted on interpretation of the 2004 Qualification Directive: Elgafaji v. The Netherlands (2009) dealing with granting of subsidiary protection, and Abdulla and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010), dealing with cessation of refugee status. The value of those judgments first of all lies in the guidance they provided to the Member States on such concepts as: protection in a situation of an armed conflict, agents of protection, effectiveness of protection; as well as determination of a relationship between refugee status and subsidiary protection, relationship of the Qualification Directive with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), also cessation of protection. Elgafaji decision, while quite liberal with regard to persons seeking international protection, is not so liberally applied in the Member States’ practice and does not in itself guarantee positive outcome of the application of a concrete individual fleeing from an armed conflict, or a liberal approach to granting subsidiary protection in the Member States. Based on Elgafaji judgment it is clear that: Art. 15(b) of the Qualification Directive correspond to Art. 3 ECHR, while Art. 15(c) provides additional protection and in that it expands the Member States’ obligations beyond the ECHR to provide protection to persons fleeing in situations of armed conflict. While not every person arriving from an armed conflict situation would automatically fall under the granting of subsidiary protection, in certain exceptional situations indiscriminate violence may amount to individual threat without invoking personal circumstances. The EU Court departed from the individualisation requirement applied by the European Court of Human Rights in Art. 3 cases and did not also rely on international humanitarian law, by introducing a “sliding scale” formula for establishing an individual threat in armed conflict situation instead. This formula addressed the alleged internal discrepancy between “individual threat” and “indiscriminate violence”. The Abdulla decision brought in the human rights and law enforcement perspectives to the interpretation of cessation clauses, however it represents a rather superficial approach in the context of the analysed concepts (e.g. towards effectiveness of protection provided by the multinational armed forces) and is likely to be incompatible with the latest legislative trends in the EU asylum instruments (e.g. determination of refugee status and subsidiary protection by means of a single procedure) and the recent jurisprudence under the ECHR (e.g. failure to ensure a minimum standard of living may violate the ECHR). (shrink)

Even though the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) does not explicitly address the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, the case law of the European Human Rights Court (ECtHR) confirms that their rights can be successfully defended under this mechanism. In parallel, in its evolving jurisprudence on asylum the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) refers to the Strasbourg case law, where there is a certain interrelationship between these two jurisdictions, in particular (...) given the recent ECtHR pronouncement on “EU Dublin transfers”. The article aims at evaluating protection available for asylum seekers and refugees under the ECHR, while comparing it with protection of asylum relevant fundamental rights under the EU legal order and the most recent jurisprudence of the CJEU in asylum cases. The authors also analyze which of the two systems is more favourable and what are their limitations. Thus, the article offers to students and practitioners a detailed analysis of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence in asylum cases through a comparative perspective, as well as the key problematic aspects arising in both jurisdictions and their junction. The jurisprudence of the ECtHR reveals that despite the most developed protection from expulsion under Article 3 of the ECHR, it does not sufficiently secure status for the concerned persons. Effective remedy requirements under the ECHR allow for filling the gaps of national asylum procedures, while recognition of vulnerability and special status of asylum seekers by the ECtHR assist in addressing still commonly prevailing detention problems of asylum seekers in Europe. In the context of family protection, the recognition of positive obligations by states to reunite the refugee families is still rudimentary, thus, clearly Article 3 protection in expulsion cases takes over Article 8. At the same time, the jurisprudence of the CJEU in asylum cases is still inconsistent, as the court sometimes takes decisions without including human rights into its’ analysis (Kadzoev, Arslan, K.), while in other cases refers to the Charter (MA and others), verifies if its’ own decision is in line with the ECtHR jurisprudence (Elgafaji) or shapes secondary legislation in line with Strasbourg arguments and findings (N.S.). Quite likely, the ECtHR practice will have an important influence on the developments of subsidiary protection in the EU, at least in the context of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, and serve as an important reference for interpretation of various concepts under the EU Qualification and Procedures Directives. The comparative analysis of pros and cons of the two mechanisms demonstrates that the main advantage of the ECtHR is individual justice possibility, which is not yet accessible under CJEU preliminary judgement procedure and its input in developing asylum law concepts, such as non-state agents of persecution, internal protection or even subsidiary protection regime under EU asylum law. Thanks to the ECtHR, the realistic possibility to question the application of certain EU norms has emerged (Dublin Regulation). While the ECtHR does not have such a specific competence over asylum issues as the CJEU and is clearly a slow and seriously overburdened mechanism, the pilot judgement procedure seems to be increasingly capable of providing guidelines to the states concerning systematic problems in their asylum procedures. Thus, both jurisdictions in their own ways contribute to strengthening asylum seekers’ protection while forming a common oasis for these individuals in Europe. (shrink)

The 6th of February 2005 marks the deadline of transposition of the EU Council Directive No. 2003/9/EC (Reception Conditions‘ Directive) into national legislation. This article is the second in a series of articles on transposition of the European Union Asylum Directives in Lithuania and remaining concerns. It analyses the transposition of the Reception Conditions Directive in the country, the impact of the directive‘s provisions on the development of the Lithuanian asylum law and draws attention to the remaining concerns in relation (...) to implementation of this directive in Lithuania. The authors illustrate the remaining concerns with practical and live examples/stories from Lithuania. (shrink)

The system of the European Convention on Human Rights created in 1950 is still regarded as the most important and effective regional system for the protection of human rights in the whole world. However, the experience of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has clearly showed that the steady growth in the number of cases brought before the ECHR makes it increasingly difficult to keep the length of proceedings within the acceptable limits and to maintain the effectiveness of the (...) ECHR. This aspect is becoming extremely important due to the fact that the European Union (EU) will join the Convention system in the near future. The legal basis for the EU accession to the Convention system has been made possible after the entering into force of the EU Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, and, from the Convention’s perspective, the new Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, and which, in Article 17 (amending Article 59 of the Convention), stipulates that the EU may accede to this Convention. (shrink)

The article deals with the question whether a state might be held liable for the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights if its national court of last instance fails to implement the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union under the conditions laid down in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed in the case-law of the Court. Relying on well-established (...) practice that an arbitrary decision not to refer a question for a preliminary ruling theoretically could infringe the right to a fair trial, the author analyses the practical application of the “arbitrariness rule” and discusses whether the European Court of Human Rights has established any specific criteria that national courts are required to bring into play in order to substantiate the decision not to refer. (shrink)

The article deals with the concept of the court’s fault in the action for damages against a state suffered due to infringement of European Union law. The author searches for the right position of the criterion in the system of the conditions of state liability and discusses whether European Union law establishes a uniform standard of fault, or at least the guidance on the application of the criterion that would enable uniform national judicial practices concerning state liability for the infringements (...) attributable to the courts of last instance. The article also analyses national legal regulation and jurisprudence of several Member States such as France, Belgium and Italy, providing the definitions of different forms of fault and (or) examples of their practical implementation. (shrink)

The article deals with the question whether a state might be held liable for the infringement of constitutional law if its national court of last instance violates the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union under the conditions laid down in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed in the case-law of the Court. Relying on the well-established practice of the European Court (...) of Human Rights, which accepts that in theory an arbitrary decision not to refer a question for a preliminary ruling could infringe the right to a fair trial established in the ECHR, the author analyses whether constitutional courts of Germany, Czech Republic, Spain and Lithuania have elaborated the equivalent practice and if so, whether they have established any specific criteria that national courts are required to bring into play in order to substantiate the decision not to refer. (shrink)

The article discusses the possible consequences that can be faced by a Member State of the European Union if its national court does not comply with the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. The TFEU does not specify any sanctions applicable to a state when its national court disregards its obligation under Article 267 TFEU. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the practice of the Court of Justice and its interpretation by scholars. At (...) the outset, the author analyses whether refraining from making a reference for a preliminary ruling can lead to the duty to pay damages to an individual. Taking into account the criteria of a sufficiently serious breach formulated in the Köbler case, the author comes to the conclusion that the infringement of the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling is one of the most important criteria in assessing whether a Member State has to pay damages for any loss suffered by an individual, but the infringement itself is not sufficient to make a state liable. (shrink)

The present article analyses the issues of the legal definition of the European Union. It has been noticed a while ago that the EU has outgrown the “gown” of a typical international organisation and that it has acquired some features specific to a State-like entity. It is no coincidence that some authors accentuate that the EU is a specific, unconventional international organisation, some – that it is an entity, very similar to a State (an incomplete federation, a post-modern State), others, (...) not being satisfied with the traditional distinction between an international organisation and a State, are trying to develop the third category, calling the EU sui generis organisation or supranational organisation. The arguments concerning the EU model of integration continue even after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Not being able to fit this legal phenomenon into the usual typological scheme we need to consider the development of a new theory enabling to define the new phenomenon. The definition of this kind of category meets several obstacles: it is a unique legal phenomenon, it is constantly changing and, furthermore, the hybrid nature of the Union induces to qualify the EU following either the criteria of international or of national constitutional law while elaborating the abovementioned synthetic category. (shrink)

The article deals with the question how transnational corporations can bear direct responsibility for human rights abuses they commit by analysing the deficiencies of the current international legal background with respect to human rights and transnational corporations, and the solutions offered by national and regional legal tools. By establishing that current international law is incapable of reducing or compensating for governance gaps, the case law analysis shows that the litigation system under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States (...) and ATCA-like litigation possibility in the European Union present a feasible alternative to international law in the field of human rights protection when abuses are committed by transnational corporations. (shrink)

In this article the author analyses specific reservations that are being done to the international documents for the protection of human rights and whether Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties applies to those human rights treaties or not. Also, the author analyses if reservations, which are incompatible with object and purpose of the treaty, can be done or not and what consequences they might bring. For this reason the author describes the practice of the state members under the (...) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These treaties were chosen not only because they laid down the most significant principles of the protection of human rights, but also due to the great number of reservations made to the fundamental provisions of these treaties. The importance of the topic is that in the human rights treaties the implementation of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provisions on reservations brings several issues, even though on theoretical level the regulation of reservations seems unproblematic. Firstly, there is a major group of states (especially Islamic countries, which base their explanation on the incompatibility with Islamic law), which want to become parties to the treaties that protect human rights and make reservations to fundamental provisions of them at the same time. Secondly, the state parties that make objections to the reservations have to decide if the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or not. The regulation that is laid down in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties creates difficulties for the state parties and withdrawal of reservations seems to be more problematic in reality than it is in theory. In order to find the solutions for the above mentioned issues, the author analyses whether the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties regime works properly within the mechanism of making reservations to the human rights treaties or not, what reservations should be kept invalid under the human rights treaties and what could be the solutions for the most effective protection from the invalid reservations that address fundamental rights of human beings in the human rights law. (shrink)

This article investigates the use of natural law in biolaw from the specific perspective of an attorney practising before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting from an exploration of the question of who is a human and thereby to be protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particular emphasis is placed on the right to life under Art. 2(1) ECHR. It is shown that natural law can – and should – impact the interpretation of the European Convention (...) on Human Rights and that concrete consequences follow from this approach, most notably the requirement to ensure that every human being, including the unborn, is actively protected as concerns the right to life. (shrink)

Contract theories may be a useful analytical tool for understanding and explaining contract, as well as for facilitating orientation in a complex and often fragmented legal regulation. The article presents main understandings of contract in various European jurisdictions: contract as free assumption of obligation, contract as a bargain based on the idea of consideration, contract as free assumption of obligation based on sufficient causa. The article inquires as to how universal those theories are, what are the recent trends in the (...) development of European contract law, what philosophy of contract underlies the soft law instruments, such as UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts or Principles of European Contract Law (PECL), what is the stance of the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) in regard to the concept of contract. Under the law of Lithuania the definition of contract comprises elements found in several European countries, but it is argued that the new Lithuanian Civil Code has not received any model in its pure form. However it seems that the prevailing view understands contract as juridical act, as freely assumed obligation and meeting of parties’ intentions with the aim to create legal effects. Following the position of soft law instruments in regard to the elements of the contract, Lithuanian law (at least in its statutory form) does not have any explicit additional requirements, such as consideration or causa. (shrink)

The very idea of the draft European Union (EU) Constitutional Treaty was reexamined after the failed French and Dutch referendums and the Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) was drafted and entered into force on 1 December 2009 after it’s ratification by all 27 member states. The traditional notion of a Constitution as a national legal document establishing the social contract and a moral minimum for a particular socially unified group still prevails in legal and political thinking. (...) Indeed, the European Union has some constitutional elements, but absence of the so called ‘European demos’ prevents us from recognizing the founding treaties as a real ‘European constitution’ in the proper sense of the word. The author agrees with the decision to exclude the term ‘Constitution’ from the title and contents of the new Reform Treaty. The author also suggests that softer terms, like ‘European constitutional order’ and ‘European Constitutionalism’ might better reflect the scope of contemporary European integration than the term of ‘a Constitution for Europe’. A rethinking of the ‘constitutional core’ of the Lisbon Treaty was inspired following the so-called Lisbon judgments of Czech, Latvian and German constitutional courts. (shrink)