The aim of this paper is to present the concept of Better Regulation (BetReg), in particular its implementation mechanisms in light of the latest documents of EU bodies and its application in the European Union legislative procedures. It will illustrate both viable aspects and shortcomings of this initiative. The authors argue that the better regulation postulate has a horizontal nature. It is an initiative that brings tangible and noticeable effects; however, it must be applied as an EU legislative standard for the whole EU law: not only for that being designed or amended but also for assessing the existing law in all EU law-making institutions and countries implementing European legislation. A question is raised whether BetReg has a real impact on legislative practice or whether it remains predominantly a postulate. The hypothesis is that BetReg is already a mature project and may significantly improve the legislative environment in the EU. It should be noted that the paper covers only a fraction of the problems, the comprehensive examination of which would allow verification of the hypothesis.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
It is notorious that the concept of “effectiveness of law” has, in addition to its dogmatic legal dimension, also a sociological dimension – in terms of compliance with and effectiveness of legal norms. Closely related to this is the topic of non-compliance with the law, respectively illegal conduct. With regard to the examined problem of corrupt behaviour, this article is about the (in)effectiveness of legal regulation of punishment of corruption. On the other hand, the corruption itself can also be one of the reasons for practical ineffectiveness (non-compliance) of law in general. The reason, but also the way to solve both problems may consist in sociological and psychological aspects of corruption, which shows certain specificities in comparison with other crimes.
3
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The article undertakes the current and important issue of balancing between the Member States’ obligations to ensure effectiveness of EU law and to respect fundamental rights, taking as an example the ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The recent case law of the CJEU in Di Puma, Garlsson and others and Menci is analysed. These rulings exemplify the growing importance of the issue of how to balance the two obligations in a situation when the repression undertaken by a Member State in order to ensure the full effect of EU law may infringe a fundamental right provided for in the Charter. The main objective is thus to formulate proposals on how to balance these interests, as well as to define their consequences for national courts.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.