12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 645 (2006) Peter L. Strauss, Betts Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. This Article stems from a project on European Union Administrative Law undertaken by the American Bar Association’s Section on Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice. It explores the generation of normative texts by the Commission of the European Union, its executive body, from the perspective of Americans familiar with notice and comment rulemaking. Legislative drafting (an exclusive responsibility of the Commission), subordinate measures corresponding to American rules and regulations, and soft law generated by the Commission are all considered In creating legislative proposals, the […]
Volume 12, Issue 3
7 posts
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 695 (2006) Giuseppe B. Abbamonte. Head of the unit in the Health and Consumer Department of the European Commission dealing with the regulation of unfair commercial practices and other consumer protection legislation. This Article describes the structure, objectives, and justification of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in terms of improved regulation, the liberalization of the Internal Market, and consumer protection. It then reviews the main provisions of the Directive and briefly compares them with the corresponding provisions of the US. Federal Statements on Deception and Unfairness. The tests of the General Prohibition set out in […]
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 713 (2006) Francesca Strumia, S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School. This Article explores the judicial application of the doctrines of free movement and citizenship in the European Union and in the United States. A comparative examination of the case law on these two doctrines shows remarkable similarities in the European and American courts’ combination of citizenship and free movement in resolving analogous judicial issues. Further investigation, however, reveals that behind a first sight affinity of judicial formulas, different rationales and diverging constitutional roots can be found in the two systems. In order to spell out more […]
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 751 (2006) Cyril Ritter, Member of the Brussels Bar. This Article explains the rules and customs governing the office of Advocate-General. In addition, it examines the practical role and impact of Advocates-General and the legal value and usefulness of their opinions. It presents statistics on individual Advocates-General as well as possible interpretations and explanations for these statistics.
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 775 (2006) Mel Kenny, Marie Curie Fellow at the Centre for European Law and Politics at Bremen University. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?-Who will guard us from our guardians?-expresses one of the central dilemmas of decision-making: the tendency for the bounds of power to be abused in modern states. This Article argues that a similar process is observable in the EU-where governance is becoming ever more informal, ad hoc, and disorganized-and is exemplified in the Commission’s strategy to improve the coherence of EC law where, despite the ostensible rejection of a European civil code, a broad […]
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 809 (2006) Dionysios V. Tsiros. Associate, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates; Doctoral Candidate, Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II); LL.M., NYU School of Law; DEA, Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris it); J.D., University of Athens School of Law. A. Importance and Types of EU Law Enforcement Enforcement of EU law has always been one of the quintessential objectives of the Community legal order. From the establishment of the direct effect of Community Law to the recognition of its supremacy vis-a-vis the national law of Member States, the European Court of Justice (ECJ or Court) has […]
12 Colum. J. Eur. L. 827 (2006) Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou, J.S.D. candidate in International Law, Columbia Law School. The European Community (EC) adopted a Regulation on June 27, 2005 regarding its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) scheme, which aims to give to developing countries preferential access to the European Union (EU) market through lower tariffs. GSP schemes favor trade with less developed and least developed countries (LDCs) and function as a legal exception to the most-favored-nation (MFN) principle embodied in the first article of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) by application of the GATT Enabling Clause of 1979. […]