Search results

• 

  Criminal procedural laws across the European Union
  A comparative analysis of selected main differences and the impact they have over the development of EU legislation. Annex I, Country reports

  • Published: 2018-09-11
  • Corporate Author(s): Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union (European Parliament)
  • Subject: comparative analysis, criminal law, criminal procedure, cross-border cooperation, drafting of EU law, EU law, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, help for victims, Hungary, international criminal law, Ireland, Italy, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual assistance, mutual recognition principle, Netherlands, right to information, right to justice, Romania, Spain
• 

  Criminal procedural laws across the European Union
  A comparative analysis of selected main differences and the impact they have over the development of EU legislation

  This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines to what extent differences between national procedural criminal laws hinder the negotiations and the operation of cross-border co...

  This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines to what extent differences between national procedural criminal laws hinder the negotiations and the operation of cross-border cooperation instruments. It is based on a comparative analysis of a representative sample of nine Member States. It identifies several forms of “hindrances” to cross-border cooperation, ranging from mere delays to the suspension and the non-execution of assistance requests, alongside the striking underuse of some of the existing instruments. There is no simple or single answer to these challenges. Therefore, several non-legislative and legislative recommendations are put forward for the short- and long-term horizon.

  • Published: 2018-09-11
  • Corporate Author(s): Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union (European Parliament)
  • Subject: comparative analysis, criminal law, criminal procedure, cross-border cooperation, drafting of EU law, EU law, European Union, help for victims, international criminal law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual assistance, mutual recognition principle, right to information, right to justice
• REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the application in 2017 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents

  • Published: 2018-10-03
  • Corporate Author(s): European Commission ; Secretariat-General (European Commission)
  • Subject: access to EU information, application of EU law, Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, right to information
• Case T-402/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament

  • Published: 2018-07-03
  • Corporate Author(s): General Court (Court of Justice of the European Union)
  • Subject: collective bargaining, collective redress, indemnification, information profession, right to information, right to justice, worker consultation
• 

  Surveillance by intelligence services
  Fundamental rights safeguards and remedies in the European Union. Volume II : summary

  • Published: 2018-07-23
  • Corporate Author(s): European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EU body or agency)
  • Subject: civil rights, data collection, data protection, EU Member State, protection of privacy, report, right to information, rights of the individual, secret service, threat to national security, video surveillance
• Case T-401/18: Action brought on 3 July 2018 — SFIE-PE v Parliament

  • Published: 2018-07-03
  • Corporate Author(s): General Court (Court of Justice of the European Union)
  • Subject: collective bargaining, collective redress, indemnification, information profession, right to information, right to justice, worker consultation
• Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of persons reporting on breaches of Union law

  • Published: 2018-07-12
  • Corporate Author(s): Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (European Commission) ; European Commission
  • Subject: disclosure of information, infringement of EU law, right to information, whistleblowing
• 

  Citizen's guide to access to justice in environmental matters
  

  On 28 April 2017, the European Commission adopted a Notice on access to justice in environmental mattersa to explain in detail what the European Court of Justice has had to say about how national judges should handle legal challenges brought by members of the public against decisions, acts or om...

  On 28 April 2017, the European Commission adopted a Notice on access to justice in environmental mattersa to explain in detail what the European Court of Justice has had to say about how national judges should handle legal challenges brought by members of the public against decisions, acts or omissions of public authorities of the Member States that affect the environmentb. Using a ‘frequently asked questions’ format, this Citizen’s Guide provides a summary of the main findings of the Notice. The Notice itself is the parent source of information and should be consulted for more detailed explanations. Cross-references are provided throughout the text of the Guide. The Citizen’s Guide was prepared by the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission. It is not binding or intended in any way to depart from the substantive content of the Notice.

  • Published: 2018-09-28
  • Corporate Author(s): Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission)
  • Subject: access to the courts, citizens' Europe, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental policy, EU law - national law, right to information, right to justice
• 

  IP enforcement case-law collection on the balance between the right of information and fundamental rights in the European Union
  

  This document provides a collection of case-law consisting of decisions of the CJEU as well as national court decisions in the selected Member States relating to the relationship between the right of information, as provided by Article 8 IPRED, and fundamental rights. The CJEU clarified in sever...

  This document provides a collection of case-law consisting of decisions of the CJEU as well as national court decisions in the selected Member States relating to the relationship between the right of information, as provided by Article 8 IPRED, and fundamental rights. The CJEU clarified in several of its decisions that the right of information should be interpreted at national level in such a way which allows for the full respect of the various applicable fundamental rights or other general principles of European Union law, such as the principle of proportionality. The CJEU provided guidance on particular issues relating to the right of information as provided by Article 8 IPRED. However, it has only outlined general principles on how to balance fundamental rights and how to apply the principle of proportionality in doing so. The actual weighing and balancing of fundamental rights, however, is left to the national courts.

  • Published: 2018-06-12
  • Corporate Author(s): European Union Intellectual Property Office (EU body or agency)
  • Subject: case-law, EU law, Europe, human rights, intellectual property, right to information
• 

  Possible action at EU level for an open, efficient and independent EU administration
  Impact assessment

  EU administrative law is highly fragmented and has never evolved into a consistent set of rules applicable across the EU administration. This fragmentation impinges on the EU’s ability to consistently uphold standards of good governance and administration, as well as to protect citizens’ rights ...

  EU administrative law is highly fragmented and has never evolved into a consistent set of rules applicable across the EU administration. This fragmentation impinges on the EU’s ability to consistently uphold standards of good governance and administration, as well as to protect citizens’ rights when they interact with the administration. This impact assessment compares the option of 'doing nothing' with two alternative policy options: making the 2001 Code of Good Administrative Behaviour binding vs. adopting the regulatory framework proposed by the European Parliament in 2016. The study concludes that adopting the European Parliament’s regulatory framework would be the preferred option, since it would lead to clear advantages in terms of cost savings for the public, as well as the accessibility, transparency, legal certainty and predictability as well as the legitimacy of, and trust in, EU institutions. This option would also offer additional advantages in terms of its compatibility with Member States’ administrative law and readiness for the transition towards e-government and e-administration tools, which promises further efficiency increases in the EU administration.

  • Published: 2018-08-09
  • Corporate Author(s): Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union (European Parliament)
  • Subject: access to EU information, administrative code, administrative law, administrative structures, administrative transparency, citizen-authority relations, code of conduct, electronic government, EU institution, EU law - national law, right to information