References of "Perspectives on Federalism"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPromoting solidarity in crisis times: Building on the EU Budget and the EU Funds
Pantazatou, Aikaterini UL

in Perspectives on Federalism (2015)

This article examines the evolution of the EU ‘redistributive’ policies in the (post-) crisis EU era. By reviewing the EU cohesion policy, the financial assistance mechanisms, the new economic governance ... [more ▼]

This article examines the evolution of the EU ‘redistributive’ policies in the (post-) crisis EU era. By reviewing the EU cohesion policy, the financial assistance mechanisms, the new economic governance measures and the potentials of attributing the EU fiscal capacity, it aims to conceptualize the notion of solidarity as redistribution as this has evolved by reason of the crisis. The article argues that by virtue of the diverging economies, interests and preferences of the Member States, reciprocal or ‘effects-based solidarity’ is the only type of solidarity that has been exhibited among the Member States during the crisis. It, further, shows how the principle of solidarity has not lived up to its potential in the present crisis context, but it has instead been cropped up in sharply different ways in the rhetorics and communications of political parties of all hues across the Union. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 144 (16 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDeferential dialogues between the Court of Justice and domestic courts regarding the compatibility of the EU Data Retention Directive with (higher?) national fundamental rights standards
Pelin Raducu, Ioana UL

in Perspectives on Federalism (2013), 5(3), 1-23

This article examines the nature, purpose and effect of constitutional dialogues between the Court of Justice of the European Union and constitutional courts taking as example the difficulty encountered ... [more ▼]

This article examines the nature, purpose and effect of constitutional dialogues between the Court of Justice of the European Union and constitutional courts taking as example the difficulty encountered in the implementation of the 2006 Data Retention Directive in several Member States. The cooperative relationship, called “deference”, is based on the autonomy and voluntary willingness of national courts to ask for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice. Avenues of “silent” dialogue, as happens when constitutional courts do not send for a preliminary ruling while still following the Court’s precedents, are also explored. The case-law where constitutional courts exercised their competence to indirectly review the validity of EU legislation is discussed in light of the constitutional pluralism paradigm. Finally, in the particular field of personal data retention, the judicial activism of the Luxembourg Court in upholding the validity of EU legislation is heavily criticized in light of the protection of fundamental rights. For the judicial dialogue to function properly, both the Court of Justice and constitutional courts should show “deference” to each other's sensitivities in light of the principle of loyal cooperation entrenched in the EU Treaties. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 72 (5 UL)