The amanded Television without frontiers directive
THE AMENDED TELEVISION WITHOUT FRONTIERS DIRECTIVE Television without frontiers directive: it sounds quite like an international organisation providing TVs for poor people. Actually, not at all; this directive emanated from the European Commission in 1984 (but changed until 1989) and came into effect in October 1991.This directive comes within the scope of the broadcasting and audio-visual policy of the early eighties following the Hahn report on Radio and Television Broadcasting in the European Community .It supports that mass media and television are instruments through which the Community could become a 'genuine political' and unification could be advanced. The European Parliament adopted the report which then emphasised on the importance of new technologies in the audio- visual sphere. This project obviously gave rise to two challenges (stated in the Commission's information paper 1984): * The harmonisation of television transmission standards, * Fostering television programme production. (Richard Collins) Several forces played a major role in the establishment of such a directive and before stating what were the main issues regarding television without frontiers, it is helpful to explain what that directive is about and why European Institutions decided to set it up. Later on, I will explain how the European Union set up the directive and more generally the whole
Discussion of the quotation from Advocate General Jacobs in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council.
The quotation from Advocate General Jacobs in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council 1 arises as a result of a challenge to annul a regulation2 that had an adverse impact upon their businesses. The issues before the court were whether the requirements that for applicants to have sufficient Locus Standi to bring such an action the measure contested must be of "Direct and individual concern"3 to the applicants. The starting point in discussing the context of the quote is to establish what requirements must be met in order for such an action to be brought under Art 230. Firstly, there are three categories of applicants, Privileged, including Member States, The Council or Commission; those institutions protecting their prerogatives such as the European Parliament and European Central Bank, who all have standing and those, as in the present case, that concern individuals or Non-Privileged applicants who must establish such standing. In order for individuals or non-privileged applicants to acquire the necessary standing three facts must be present; the measure must be a "decision", it must be of direct concern to the applicant, and it must be of individual concern to the applicant. A "Decision" has a far wider definition than that under Art 249 EC (Measures binding in their entirety upon those to whom it is addressed)4 and may include the "decision" to close a file5 or not
Company Law and Corporate Governance
"The knock on effect of Enron on European Initiatives in the area of Corporate Governance has been immeasurable and promises to revitalise the whole of the company law harmonisation agenda" Discuss Background and Introduction "Company Law and Corporate Governance are right at the heart of the political agenda, on both sides of the Atlantic"1. The extent of Enron's ruin was enormous, being the largest American company ever to file for bankruptcy2. Justifiably the tragedy sparked an enormous United States Senate Investigation and it was shown that directors of Enron intentionally ignored high risk accounting procedures that led to the energy company's collapse3. After the Enron misfortune, few people doubted the need to re-examine corporate governance globally. Corporate Governance is a contentious issue for lawyers, accountants, politicians and businesses alike4 and in the last decade corporate governance has been a priority on the agenda of several governments and has been firmly under the spotlight. Corporate scandals such as Enron have exposed companies' susceptibility to mismanagement, conflicts of interest and corruption5. As a result, corporate governance has moved up from being a mere exercise to becoming a considerable concern for companies. Corporate Governance is an incredibly extensive area of Company Law, and so for this reason it would be impractical to
European Court of Justice has consistently refused to award EU law protection.
The European Court of Justice has consistently refused to award EU law protection to cases it defines as purely internal to a Member State (Maduro, 2000). This non-involvement by the ECJ has brought about numerous problems and criticism. Maduro, (2000) suggests that the concept of purely internal situations has been mainly used to justify the lack of protection granted by EU law to numerous cases of reverse discrimination where a state does not extend to its own nationals the same treatment it is required by EU law to award to national of Member States. The ECJ first established its approach to reverse discrimination and purely internal situations in the cases of Knoors1, Auer2 and Saunders3. Purely internal situations were first given voice in Knoors but were applied foremost in Saunders. It was held by the ECJ that there was no factor connecting Saunders with any of the situations envisaged by Community law. Therefore Miss Saunders was prevented from relying upon the former Article 48 (now 39) to challenge a binding order which excluded her from part of the national territory for a period of three years. A comparable conclusion appeared in Morson4, where two Dutch nationals wished to bring their parents who were non EC members into the Netherlands to live with them. In the judgement it was stated that their parents would have been covered by Article 10, Regulation 1612/68
How far has the creation of a single market in goods resulted in the limitation of powers of community member states in the field of commercial activity?
How far has the creation of a single market in goods resulted in the limitation of powers of community member states in the field of commercial activity? Introduction Free movement of goods is a fundamental part of the single market, although goods have never been defined by the EC treaty, it was left sufficiently vague so as to encompass many products "which shall cover all goods"1. The principle of movement of goods has been described as the "corner stone"2 of the community as defined in Article 143 originally Article 8a of the EEC Treaty: "An area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this treaty"4 The underlying objective permeating through the main provisions of the community concerning free movement of goods political integration. The phrase 'single market' or 'internal market' replaced the term 'common market' by the Single European Act 1986. The primary reason why states joined the community was because of the benefits and exposure it would give their goods in the internal market, a market free of internal restriction on trade5. The philosophy behind the free market was that market forces compete in the world market increasing economic efficiency. This philosophy of included in its definition, products originating from third countries. This can be seen in Article
Parliamentary Supremacy as the dominate characteristic of political institutions
The constitutional theorist A.V Dicey summarised Parliamentary Supremacy as "the dominate characteristic of political institutions", "the very keystone of the law of the constitution."i "The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this....the right to make or unmake any law whatever and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament."ii The magnitude of such an ideal on democratic society can be undisputed, but to explore its relevance today it is necessary to investigate its history and functional mechanisms. The supremacy of Parliament was initially formed by the 1688 Bill of Rights. This followed a period of history known as the "Glorious Revolution." The function of the Bill was to provide dilution of the sovereignty of the monarch, following the forced abdication of James II. It was a time of upheaval and religious division. The power shift towards the sovereignty of parliament aimed to provide a more democratic solution, with representation by the people's representatives. Parliamentary supremacy gives parliament, (which can be summarised as the 3 pillars of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the monarchy,) the ultimate authority for the creation of law. However, this creates a division between those who create the Acts (Parliament)
![Case Critique R. (on the application of Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General. There were two appellants (H and E) and they appealed against a decision ([2007] EWCA Civ 817) that the Hunting Act 2004 was neither incompatible with the European Con](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/885386/listing/885386_1.jpg)
Case Critique R. (on the application of Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General. There were two appellants (H and E) and they appealed against a decision ([2007] EWCA Civ 817) that the Hunting Act 2004 was neither incompatible with the European Con
In this unit I have been asked to critique the case of 'R. (on the application of Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General'. I am going to start by stating the material facts of the case and relevant case history. [1]There were two appellants (H and E) and they appealed against a decision ([2007] EWCA Civ 817) that the Hunting Act 2004 was neither incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 nor inconsistent with the EC Treaty (Nice). The Act prohibited the hunting with dogs of certain wild mammals, including foxes and hares. H included those involved in hunting for their occupation or livelihood, and landowners who either permitted hunting across their land or managed their land for that purpose. E included Irish dog breeders who had formerly sold their dogs in the United Kingdom, and UK providers of livery services and hunting-based holidays for those visiting from other EU member states. The Appellants argued that the hunting ban infringed their rights under Art.8 of the Convention as it adversely affected their private life, cultural lifestyle, the use of their home. They submitted that the Act infringed their rights under Art.11 to assemble and associate to hunt foxes, and interfered with their property rights under Protocol 1 Art.1. They also argued that the Act subjected them to adverse treatment, on the grounds of their "other" status under Art.14
EU institutions
Plan: I Introduction II The nature of the EU institutions III The division of powers theory and the balance of powers in the EU IV Inter-institutional legislative process V Balance of powers between the EU institutions VI Conclusion VII Bibliography "The process of European Union is like the Rhine flowing to the sea. Anyone who stands in its way is crushed against the river bank". Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor History of humanity is continuous chain of conflicts, wars, and attempts to invade neighboring country. Even nowadays there are some States that desire to seize the entire world, but nevertheless the world is changing for the better. Before the colonization policy was prospering, but now it is considered as an indecency. If previously states used to live isolate then now there is a tendency of integration. People have come to the understanding that in order to survive there is a need of unification, universal agreement. Striking example of such unification is European Union. The structure of the European Union itself is illustrated as "Three pillars" which covers tasks, objectives, principles, community and intergovernmental integration method. First pillar embraces European Community; the second pillar is Common and Foreign security policy; the third one is Police and Judicial cooperation in Criminal Matter. European institutions are common to all
Does the EU suffer from a democratic deficit? If so, can it be solved by conferring greater powers on the European parliament?
Jacob W. Petterchak CW8131 Second Coursework European Human Rights Law/EU Law 55200051 - A11/12 Dr Gunnar Beck and Dr Clara Della Croce 23 March 2012 Word Count : 2124 Word Count with Footnotes : 2496 Word Count with Headings and Bibliography : 2828 Does the EU suffer from a democratic deficit? If so, can it be solved by conferring greater powers on the European parliament? The 'standard version' of the democratic deficit formulated by Weiler, consisting of the increased role of the executive Commission in matters of legislation, the weakness of the European Parliament (hereafter the EP), the lack of 'European' elections, EU distance to public scrutiny and voters, and finally 'policy drifting' by the executive non-compliant to voter interests, has and continues to be a major target of criticism within the field of European Union (the EU) law.1 The matter is of utmost importance in light of the implications of such in the EU legislative process involving the EP and its perceived lack of substantive necessity despite reforms seeking to remedy such. Since the establishment of supremacy in EU law by the European Court of Justice in Van Gend en Loos and Costa, it is primarily the law-making process of the EU itself that drives the debate on the perceived lack of democracy.2 Central to all of this is the complexity of the process that casts doubt upon its democratic
What was the relationship between the Factortame case and the Treaty of Rome 1957?
The Factortame[1] case involved the legislative discretion of a Member State, namely the UK, to address an issue which was deemed detrimental to their citizens. Such resulted in a lengthy litigation due to objections to the implementation of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988[2]. Questions: . What was the relationship between the Factortame case and the Treaty of Rome 1957? 2. In consideration of such relationship and the impact thereof on Member States, what was the significance of the Factortame case? The Factortame litigation concerns companies with Spanish interests who had previously enjoyed fishing rights entitling them to fish against UK quotas under the Common Fisheries Policy[3] Rights enjoyed under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894[4] became invalid on introduction of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988[5] which required owners of vessels fishing in UK waters to reside in the UK and that 75% of ownership of shipping vessels were required to be held by British citizens or companies[6]. Registration of vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894[7] would become invalid as of 01 April 1989 and re-registration would be required. Many previously registered vessels were not able to comply with the requirements; such decrease in trade would have a detrimental effect on the fishermen economically and socially[8]. In 1976 the EEC[9] required Members to ensure equal access to and