Право Европейского Союза

Население ЕС составляет 448 миллионов человек. вторая по величине совокупная экономика в мире и очень высокий уровень человеческого развития . Лауреат Нобелевской премии мира 2012 года , ЕС привержен « человеческому достоинству , свободе , демократии , равенству , верховенству закона и уважению прав человека ».

Право Европейского Союза – это система правил, действующих в государствах-членах Европейского Союза (ЕС). С момента основания Европейского сообщества угля и стали после Второй мировой войны ЕС разработал цель «содействовать миру, своим ценностям и благополучию своих народов». В ЕС есть политические институты, социальная и экономическая политика, которые выходят за рамки национальных государств с целью сотрудничества и человеческого развития . По мнению Суда ЕС , ЕС представляет собой «новый правовой порядок международного права ».

Правовой основой ЕС являются Договор о Европейском Союзе и Договор о функционировании Европейского Союза , которые в настоящее время единогласно согласованы правительствами 27 государств-членов. Новые члены могут присоединиться, если согласятся следовать правилам союза, а существующие штаты могут выйти из него в соответствии со своими «собственными конституционными требованиями». Граждане имеют право участвовать через Парламент и правительства своих штатов через Совет в формировании законодательства, принимаемого ЕС. Комиссия представляет избранные правительства государств-членов , имеет право предлагать новые законы ( право инициативы ), Совет Европейского Союза Парламент избирается европейскими гражданами, а Суд призван поддерживать правило закон и права человека . Как заявил Суд, ЕС является «не просто экономическим союзом», но призван «обеспечивать социальный прогресс и стремиться к постоянному улучшению условий жизни и труда своих народов».

История

Основные статьи: История Европейского Союза , Идеи европейского единства до 1945 года и Расширение Европейского Союза.

Идея Европейского Союза для человеческого развития и мира восходит к Средневековью. Виллема Блау На карте изображена Европа в 1644 году, когда закончилась Тридцатилетняя война , до Вестфальского мира 1648 года.

Демократические идеалы интеграции международных и европейских стран так же стары, как и современное национальное государство . Древние концепции европейского единства, как правило, были недемократичными и основывались на доминировании, как, например, Империя Александра Великого , Римская империя или католическая церковь, контролируемая Папой в Риме. В эпоху Возрождения средневековая торговля процветала в таких организациях, как Ганзейский союз , простиравшийся от английских городов, таких как Бостон и Лондон , до Франкфурта , Стокгольма и Риги . Эти торговцы разработали lex mercatoria , распространяя основные нормы добросовестности и честного ведения бизнеса в своем бизнесе. В 1517 году протестантская Реформация спровоцировала столетний кризис и нестабильность. Мартин Лютер прибил список требований к церковным дверям Виттенберга , король Генрих VIII объявил об одностороннем отделении от Рима Актом о верховенстве 1534 года , и конфликты вспыхивали по всей Священной Римской империи до тех пор, пока Аугсбургский мир 1555 года не гарантировал каждому княжеству право на выбранная им религия ( cuius regio, eius religio ). Это нестабильное поселение рухнуло во время Тридцатилетней войны (1618–1648 гг.), В результате которой погибла около четверти населения Центральной Европы. Вестфальский договор 1648 года , который принес мир в соответствии с системой международного права, вдохновленной Гуго Гроцием , обычно считается началом системы национального государства. Даже тогда гражданская война в Англии вспыхнула , которая закончилась только Славной революцией 1688 года, когда парламент пригласил Уильяма и Марию из Ганновера на трон и принял Билль о правах 1689 года . В 1693 году Уильям Пенн , квакер из Лондона, основавший Пенсильванию в Северной Америке, утверждал, что для предотвращения продолжающихся войн в Европе необходим «европейский диет, или парламент».

Французский дипломат Шарль-Ирене Кастель де Сен-Пьер , который участвовал в переговорах по Утрехтскому договору в конце войны за испанское наследство , предложил через « Вечный союз » «вечный мир в Европе». проект, реализованный Жан-Жаком Руссо , и Иммануил Кант после него. После наполеоновских войн и революций 1848 года в XIX веке Виктор Гюго на Международном конгрессе мира в 1849 году предвидел день, когда «Соединенные Штаты Америки и Соединенные Штаты Европы встретятся лицом к лицу, протягивая друг другу руку помощи». другой за моря». Первая мировая война опустошила европейское общество и экономику, а Версальский договор не смог создать работоспособную международную систему в рамках Лиги Наций , никакой европейской интеграции и наложил суровые условия репараций для проигравших стран. После очередного экономического коллапса и подъема фашизма, приведшего ко Второй мировой войне, европейское гражданское общество было полно решимости создать прочный союз, гарантирующий мир во всем мире посредством экономической, социальной и политической интеграции.

, Римский договор подписанный в Капитолийском музее, был первым международным договором , который предусматривал социальную, экономическую и политическую интеграцию в ограниченных областях национальных государств.

Чтобы «избавить последующие поколения от бедствий войны, которая дважды… принесла человечеству невыразимое горе», Устав Организации Объединенных Наций был принят в 1945 году, а Бреттон-Вудская конференция создала новую систему интегрированного Всемирного банка , финансов и торговли . Кроме того, Совет Европы , образованный Лондонским договором 1949 года , принял Европейскую конвенцию по правам человека , надзор за которой осуществлял новый транснациональный суд в Страсбурге в 1950 году. Уже в 1946 году Уинстон Черчилль , потерпевший поражение на посту премьер-министра Великобритании в В 1945 году призывал к созданию « Соединённых Штатов Европы », хотя это не означало, что Великобритания разорвет свои связи с Содружеством . В 1950 году министр иностранных дел Франции Робер Шуман предложил, начиная с интеграции французского и немецкого производства угля и стали, создать «организацию, открытую для участия других стран Европы», где «солидарность в производстве» позволила бы создать «организацию, открытую для участия других стран Европы». война «не просто немыслима, но и материально невозможна». создал Парижский договор 1951 года первое Европейское сообщество угля и стали (ЕОУС), подписанное Францией, Западной Германией, Бельгией, Нидерландами, Люксембургом и Италией, Жан Монне президентом которого стал . Его теория заключалась просто в том, что война будет невероятно дорогостоящей, если собственность и производство в экономике каждой страны будут смешаны. Он учредил Ассамблею (ныне Европейский парламент ) для представления народа, Совет министров государств-членов, Комиссию в качестве исполнительной власти и Суд для толкования закона. На Востоке Советский Союз установил диктаторские правительства, контролируя Восточную Германию и остальную часть Восточной Европы. Хотя Сталин умер в 1953 году, а новый генеральный секретарь Никита Хрущев осудил его в 1956 году, Советские танки подавили демократическую Венгерскую революцию 1956 года и подавили все остальные попытки ее народа завоевать демократию и права человека.

В 2013 году ЕС превратился из Сообщества угля и стали , состоящего из 6 государств-членов, в союз из 28 государств-членов. Референдум в Великобритании привел к тому, что Великобритания вышла из блока в 2020 году, в результате чего общее количество государств-членов снова сократилось до 27.

На Западе решение было принято в Римском договоре 1957 года о создании первого Европейского экономического сообщества . Он разделил Ассамблею и Суд с Сообществом угля и стали, но создал параллельные органы для Совета и Комиссии. Основываясь на докладе Спаака 1956 года, он стремился разрушить все барьеры в торговле на общем рынке товаров, услуг, труда и капитала, а также предотвратить искажение конкуренции и регулировать области общих интересов, такие как сельское хозяйство, энергетика и транспорт. был подписан отдельный договор Для Европейского сообщества по атомной энергии об управлении ядерным производством. В 1961 году Великобритания, Дания, Ирландия и Норвегия подали заявку на членство, но в 1963 году на них наложил вето французский президент Шарль де Голль . Испания также подала заявку, но была отклонена, поскольку ею все еще управляла диктатура Франко . В том же году Суд провозгласил, что Сообщество представляет собой «новый правовой порядок международного права». Договор о слиянии окончательно поместил ЕОУС и Евратом в состав ЕЭС. Вскоре после этого де Голль бойкотировал комиссию, которая, по его мнению, слишком сильно продвигала наднационализм. Люксембургский компромисс 1966 года согласовал, что Франция (или другие страны) могут накладывать вето на вопросы, представляющие «очень важные национальные интересы», особенно касающиеся общей сельскохозяйственной политики , вместо принятия решений « квалифицированным большинством ». Но после майских событий 1968 года во Франции и отставки де Голля путь к присоединению в 1973 году был открыт для Великобритании, Ирландии и Дании. Норвегия отказалась от присоединения на референдуме 1972 года , в то время как Великобритания подтвердила свое членство на референдуме 1975 года .

Помимо самого Европейского экономического сообщества, европейский континент пережил глубокий переход к демократии. Диктаторы Греции и Португалии были свергнуты в 1974 году, а диктатор Испании умер в 1975 году, что позволило им присоединиться к ним в 1981 и 1986 годах. В 1979 году в Европейском парламенте прошли первые прямые выборы, отражающие растущий консенсус в отношении того, что ЕЭС должно быть менее союзным. государств-членов и, более того, союз народов. Единый европейский акт 1986 года увеличил количество договорных вопросов, в которых голосование квалифицированным большинством (а не консенсусом) будет использоваться для принятия законов, как способ ускорить торговую интеграцию. Шенгенское соглашение 1985 года (первоначально не подписанное Италией, Великобританией, Ирландией, Данией или Грецией) разрешало перемещение людей без каких-либо пограничных проверок. из Советского Союза Тем временем, в 1987 году Михаил Горбачев объявил о политике «прозрачности» и «реструктуризации» ( гласности и перестройки ). Это выявило глубину коррупции и расточительства. В апреле 1989 года Польская Народная Республика легализовала организацию «Солидарность», которая на июньских выборах получила 99% доступных мест в парламенте. Эти выборы, на которых кандидаты-антикоммунисты одержали поразительную победу, положили начало серии мирных антикоммунистических революций в Центральной и Восточной Европе, кульминацией которых в конечном итоге стало падение коммунизма. В ноябре 1989 года протестующие в Берлине начали сносить Берлинскую стену , которая стала символом падения « железного занавеса» , когда большая часть Восточной Европы провозгласила независимость и приступила к проведению демократических выборов к 1991 году.

После опроса о Брексите 2016 года прошли протесты как за, так и против выхода Великобритании из ЕС, и возникли значительные разногласия по поводу того, как следует проводить Брексит. Британия окончательно вышла из союза в 2020 году, когда правительство решило ограничить отношения международным соглашением о свободной торговле.

переименовал Маастрихтский договор ЕЭС в « Европейский Союз » и расширил его полномочия, включив в него социальную главу , учредив механизм европейского валютного курса и ограничив государственные расходы. Великобритания сначала отказалась от участия в социальных положениях, а затем вышла из валютного союза после кризиса фунта стерлингов 1992 года («Черная среда»), когда спекулянты делали ставки против британской валюты . Швеция, Финляндия и Австрия присоединились к ней в 1995 году, но Норвегия снова предпочла не делать этого после референдума 1994 года , вместо этого оставаясь частью Европейской зоны свободной торговли (ЕАСТ) и, следовательно, Европейской экономической зоны (ЕЭЗ), соблюдая большинство законов ЕС, но без какого-либо права голоса. По Амстердамскому договору с новым лейбористским правительством Великобритания присоединилась к социальной главе. Обрел уверенность в себе, ЕС затем стремился к расширению. Во-первых, Ниццкий договор сделал вес голосов более пропорциональным численности населения. Во-вторых, евро вошла в обращение в 2002 году. Третьим стало присоединение Мальты, Кипра, Словении, Польши, Чехии, Словакии, Венгрии, Латвии, Эстонии и Литвы. В-четвертых, в 2005 г. Был предложен договор о создании Конституции Европы . Эта предложенная «конституция» носила во многом символический характер, но была отвергнута референдумами во Франции и Нидерландах . Большинство его технических положений были включены в Лиссабонский договор без эмоциональных символов федерализма или слова «конституция». В том же году к нему присоединились Болгария и Румыния.

Во время кризиса субстандартного ипотечного кредитования и финансового кризиса 2007–2008 годов европейские банки, инвестировавшие в деривативы, оказались под серьезным давлением. Правительства Великобритании, Франции, Германии и других стран были вынуждены превратить некоторые банки в частично или полностью государственные банки. Некоторые правительства вместо этого гарантировали долги своих банков. В свою очередь, европейский долговой кризис развился, когда международные инвестиции прекратились, а в Греции, Испании, Португалии и Ирландии международные рынки облигаций установили неприемлемо высокие процентные ставки по государственному долгу. Правительства еврозоны и сотрудники Европейского центрального банка считали, что необходимо спасти свои банки, взяв на себя греческий долг, и ввести « жесткой экономии » и « структурной перестройки меры » в отношении государств-должников. Это усугубило дальнейшее сокращение экономики. были подписаны два новых договора: Европейское финансовое соглашение и Европейский механизм стабильности В 2011 году между девятнадцатью государствами еврозоны . В 2013 году Хорватия вступила в союз. Однако новый кризис разразился после того, как Великобритания Консервативное правительство решило провести референдум в 2016 году, и сторонники «выхода» (или «Брексита») получили 51,89 процента голосов при явке в 72,2 процента. Великобритании Этот референдум был политически безрезультатным, учитывая систему парламентского суверенитета , без какого-либо соглашения после выборов 2017 года, пока всеобщие выборы в Великобритании 2019 года не принесли консервативное большинство с манифестным обязательством провести Брексит. Великобритания вышла из ЕС в феврале 2020 года, что повлекло за собой неопределенные экономические, территориальные и социальные последствия.

Конституционный закон

См. также: Конституционный закон , Конституционный закон Соединенного Королевства , Основной закон Федеративной Республики Германия , Конституция Франции и конституционный закон США.

Европейский парламент , избираемый гражданами ЕС, принимает новые законы совместно с Комиссией и Советом . Чтобы решить проблему заявленного в ЕС « дефицита демократии », Парламент все больше получал больше прав в законодательном процессе. Еще не были приняты предложения, позволяющие ему инициировать законодательство, требовать, чтобы комиссия была из парламента, и ограничивать полномочия Суда .

Хотя Европейский Союз не имеет кодифицированной конституции , как и у любого политического органа, у него есть законы, которые «составляют» его базовую структуру управления. Основными конституционными источниками ЕС являются Договор о Европейском Союзе и Договор о функционировании Европейского Союза , которые были согласованы или соблюдены правительствами всех 27 государств-членов. Договоры устанавливают институты ЕС, перечисляют их полномочия и обязанности, а также объясняют области, в которых ЕС может принимать законы, с помощью директив или постановлений . Европейская комиссия имеет право предлагать новые законы, формально называемое правом законодательной инициативы . В ходе обычной законодательной процедуры Совет ( который состоит из министров правительств государств-членов) и Европейский парламент (избираемый гражданами) могут вносить поправки и должны давать свое согласие на принятие законов.

Комиссия курирует департаменты и различные агентства, которые исполняют или обеспечивают соблюдение законов ЕС. « Европейский совет » (а не Совет Европейского Союза , состоящий из министров различных правительств) состоит из премьер-министров или исполнительных президентов государств-членов. Он назначает членов Комиссии и правление Европейского центрального банка . Европейский суд является высшим судебным органом, который интерпретирует законодательство ЕС и развивает его на основе прецедентов. Суд может проверять законность действий институтов ЕС в соответствии с Договорами. Он также может принимать решения по искам о нарушении законов ЕС со стороны государств-членов и граждан.

Договоры

Основная статья: Договоры Европейского Союза

Участие в еврозоне

Государства-члены Европейского Союза

( особые территории не показаны)

  20 в еврозоне

  1 место в ERM II , без отказа ( Болгария )

  1 место в ERM II, с возможностью отказа ( Дания )

  5 стран не входят в ERM II, но обязаны присоединиться к еврозоне при соблюдении критериев конвергенции ( Чехия , Венгрия , Польша , Румыния и Швеция )

Страны, не входящие в ЕС

  4. использование евро по валютному соглашению ( Андорра , Монако , Сан-Марино и Ватикан )

  2 использование евро в одностороннем порядке ( Косово и Черногория )

Договор о Европейском Союзе (TEU) и Договор о функционировании Европейского Союза (TFEU) являются двумя основными источниками права ЕС. Представляя соглашения между всеми государствами-членами, ДФЭ больше фокусируется на принципах демократии, правах человека и обобщает институты , в то время как ДФЕС расширяет все принципы и области политики, в которых ЕС может принимать законы. В принципе, договоры ЕС подобны любому другому международному соглашению, которое обычно интерпретируется в соответствии с принципами, кодифицированными Венской конвенцией 1969 года . В него могут быть внесены поправки единогласным решением в любое время, но сам ДЕС в статье 48 устанавливает процедуру внесения поправок путем внесения предложений через Совет и Конвент представителей национального парламента. Согласно статье 5(2) ДЕС, «принцип передачи» гласит, что ЕС не может делать ничего, кроме того, на что у него есть явные полномочия. Пределы его компетенции регулируются Судом , а также судами и парламентами государств-членов.

Поскольку Европейский Союз вырос с 6 до 27 государств-членов, четкая процедура вступления членов изложена в статье 49 ДЕС. Европейский Союз открыт только для «европейского» государства, которое уважает принципы « человеческого достоинства , свободы». демократия, равенство , верховенство закона и уважение прав человека, включая права лиц, принадлежащих к меньшинствам ». Поэтому страны, чья территория полностью находится за пределами европейского континента, не могут подать заявку. Ни одна страна не может существовать без полностью демократических политических институтов, которые гарантируют преобладание стандартов « плюрализма , недискриминации, толерантности , справедливости, солидарности и равенства между женщинами и мужчинами». Статья 50 гласит, что любое государство-член может выйти в соответствии «со своими конституционными требованиями», путем переговоров «договоренностей о его выходе, принимая во внимание рамки его будущих отношений с Союзом». Это указывает на то, что ЕС не имеет права требовать выхода и что государства-члены должны следовать конституционным процедурам, например, через парламент или кодифицированный конституционный документ. После вступления в силу статьи 50 существует двухлетний срок для завершения переговоров, процедура, которая оставит выходящего члена без какой-либо переговорной силы на переговорах, поскольку издержки отсутствия торгового договора будут для отдельного государства пропорционально выше, чем издержки отсутствия торгового договора. оставшийся блок ЕС.

Статья 7 позволяет приостанавливать членство государств-членов из-за «явного риска серьезного нарушения» ценностей, изложенных в статье 2 (например, демократия, равенство, права человека), при наличии четырех пятых голосов Совета Европейского Союза , и согласие Парламента . В рамках договоров подгруппы государств-членов могут устанавливать дополнительные правила, которые применяются только к тем государствам-членам, которые этого хотят. Например, Шенгенские соглашения 1985 и 1990 годов позволяют людям передвигаться без каких-либо проверок паспортов или удостоверений личности в любой точке ЕС, но это не распространяется на Великобританию или Ирландию. Во время европейского долгового кризиса Договор о создании Европейского механизма стабильности 2012 года и Договор о стабильности, координации и управлении 2012 года («Фискальный договор») были приняты только для государств-членов, у которых было евро (т.е. не Дания, Швеция, Великобритания, Польша, Чехия, Венгрия, Румыния или Болгария). Для этого, среди прочего, потребовалось обязательство сбалансировать государственный бюджет и ограничить структурный дефицит до 0,5 процента ВВП, а также штрафы за несоблюдение требований. Юрисдикция этих правил остается за Судом.

Исполнительные учреждения

Основные статьи: Европейская комиссия , Европейская государственная служба и Европейский центральный банк.

Европейская Комиссия является главным исполнительным органом Европейского Союза . Статья 17(1) Договора о Европейском Союзе гласит, что комиссия должна «продвигать общие интересы Союза», а статья 17(3) добавляет, что члены Комиссии должны быть «полностью независимыми» и не «получать указания от какого-либо правительства». Согласно статье 17(2), «Законодательные акты Союза могут быть приняты только на основе предложения Комиссии, за исключением случаев, когда Договорами предусмотрено иное». Это означает, что комиссия имеет монополию на инициирование законодательной процедуры, хотя совет или парламент являются « факто катализаторами многих законодательных инициатив».

Европейский центральный банк , чья штаб-квартира во Франкфурте открылась в 2015 году, осуществляет исполнительный контроль в рамках своих полномочий в области денежно-кредитной политики. Он стал мишенью движения Blockupy из-за его роли в европейском долговом кризисе .

Председатель комиссии (с 2021 г. Урсула фон дер Ляйен ) устанавливает повестку дня своей работы. Решения принимаются простым большинством голосов, часто посредством «письменной процедуры» распространения предложения и его принятия, если нет возражений. В ответ на первоначальный отказ Ирландии от Лиссабонского договора было решено сохранить систему одного комиссара от каждого из государств-членов, включая президента и Верховного представителя по внешней политике и политике безопасности (в настоящее время Жозепа Борреля ). Президент-комиссар избирается Европейским парламентом абсолютным большинством его членов после парламентских выборов каждые пять лет на основе предложения Европейского совета. Последний должен принять во внимание результаты европейских выборов, на которых европейские политические партии объявят имя своего кандидата на этот пост. Таким образом, в 2014 году был предложен и избран Юнкер, кандидат от Европейской народной партии , получившей большинство мест в парламенте.

Остальные члены комиссии назначаются по соглашению между избранным президентом и правительством каждого национального правительства, а затем, как блок, подлежат утверждению квалифицированным большинством голосов совета и одобрению большинства парламента. Парламент может только утвердить или отклонить всю комиссию, а не отдельных членов комиссии, но проводит публичные слушания с каждым из них перед голосованием, что на практике часто приводит к изменениям в отдельных назначениях или портфелях. Статья 248 ДФЕС гласит, что президент может менять членов комиссии, хотя это и редкость, без одобрения государств-членов. Предложение о том, чтобы члены комиссии набирались из избранного парламента, не было принято в Лиссабонском договоре , хотя на практике некоторые из них неизменно отказываются от своего места, чтобы исполнять свои обязанности. Члены Комиссии имеют различные привилегии, такие как освобождение от налогов государств-членов (но не налогов ЕС), и наличие иммунитета от судебного преследования за совершение официальных действий. Иногда выяснялось, что члены комиссии злоупотребляли своими служебными полномочиями, особенно после того, как Комиссия Сантера подверглась осуждению парламента в 1999 году и в конечном итоге ушла в отставку из-за обвинений в коррупции. В результате было рассмотрено одно главное дело: Комиссия против Эдит Крессон. Европейский суд постановил, что комиссар, предоставивший ее дантисту работу, для которой он явно не обладал квалификацией, на самом деле не нарушил никакого закона. В отличие от строго законнического подхода Европейского суда, Комитет независимых экспертов обнаружил, что сложилась культура, в которой лишь немногие члены Комиссии имели «даже малейшее чувство ответственности». Это привело к созданию Европейского бюро по борьбе с мошенничеством . В 2012 году оно расследовало деятельность комиссара здравоохранения Мальты Джона Далли , который быстро подал в отставку после обвинений в том, что он получил взятку в размере 60 миллионов евро в связи с Директивой о табачных изделиях .

Помимо комиссии, Европейский центральный банк имеет относительную исполнительную автономию в проведении денежно-кредитной политики с целью управления евро . У него есть правление из шести человек назначаемое Европейским Советом , по рекомендации Совета . Президент совета и комиссар могут присутствовать на заседаниях ЕЦБ, но не имеют права голоса.

Законодательная власть

Основные статьи: Законодательная процедура Европейского Союза , Европейский Парламент , Совет Европейского Союза и Европейский Совет.

Парламент . избирается каждые пять лет, стремясь к «принципу равенства своих граждан» Его полномочия ограничены по сравнению с Комиссией и Советом .

Хотя Комиссия обладает монополией на инициирование законодательства, Европейский Парламент и Совет Европейского Союза имеют право вносить поправки и вето во время законодательного процесса. Согласно статьям 9 и 10 Договора о Европейском Союзе , ЕС соблюдает «принцип равенства своих граждан» и должен быть основан на «представительной демократии». На практике равенство и демократия все еще находятся в стадии развития, поскольку избранные представители в парламенте не могут инициировать законопроекты вопреки желанию комиссии. граждане самых маленьких стран имеют больший вес при голосовании в парламенте, чем граждане крупнейших стран, и для принятия законов требуется «квалифицированное большинство» или консенсус совета. Этот « дефицит демократии » породил многочисленные предложения по реформам и обычно воспринимается как пережиток прежних дней интеграции, возглавляемой государствами-членами. Со временем парламент постепенно приобрел больше голоса: от неизбираемого собрания до первых прямых выборов в 1979 году и к наделению все большим количеством прав в законодательном процессе. Таким образом, права граждан ограничены по сравнению с демократическим государством во всех европейских государствах-членах: согласно статье 11 ДЕС, граждане и ассоциации имеют право публиковать свои взгляды и право выдвигать инициативу , которая должна быть рассмотрена Комиссией, если она получила не менее миллиона подписей. Статья 227 ДФЕС содержит дополнительное право граждан обращаться в парламент с петициями по вопросам, которые их затрагивают.

Выборы в Парламент проводятся каждые пять лет, и голоса членов Европейского парламента (MEP) в государствах-членах должны быть организованы по пропорциональному представительству или по одному передаваемому голосу . В Европарламенте 750 депутатов, и их число «дегрессивно пропорционально» размеру государства-члена. Это означает – хотя совет должен быть органом, представляющим государства-члены – в Парламенте граждане меньших государств-членов имеют больше голоса, чем граждане более крупных государств-членов. Депутаты Европарламента, как и в национальных парламентах, разделились по политическим партийным линиям: консервативная Европейская народная партия в настоящее время является крупнейшей, а Партия европейских социалистов возглавляет оппозицию. Партии не получают государственные средства от ЕС, поскольку Суд постановил в деле Экологическая партия «Les Verts» против Европейского парламента , что этот вопрос полностью должен регулироваться государствами-членами. В полномочия парламента входит проведение расследований по фактам плохого управления или назначение омбудсмена до завершения судебного разбирательства. Он может потребовать от Комиссии ответить на вопросы и большинством в две трети голосов осудить всю Комиссию (как это произошло с Комиссией Сантера в 1999 году). В некоторых случаях Парламент имеет явные права на консультации, которым Комиссия должна искренне следовать. Однако его участие в законодательном процессе по-прежнему остается ограниченным, поскольку ни один член не может фактически принимать законы без Комиссии и Совета, а это означает, что власть («кратия») не находится в руках непосредственно избранных представителей народа («демос»): в В ЕС еще не верно, что «управление находится в руках многих, а не немногих».

Государства-члены представлены министрами в Совете во время законодательных процедур . Кроме того, « Европейский совет », в состав которого входят главы правительств стран-членов, призван определять общее политическое направление ЕС.

Вторым основным законодательным органом является Совет Европейского Союза, в состав которого входят министры различных стран-членов. Главы правительств государств-членов также созывают « Европейский совет » (отдельный орган), который в статье 15 ДЕС определяется как обеспечивающий «необходимый импульс для его развития и определяющий общие политические направления и приоритеты». Он собирается каждые шесть месяцев, и его президент (в настоящее время бывший премьер-министр Бельгии Шарль Мишель ) призван «продвигать вперед его работу». но он сам по себе не выполняет «законодательные функции». Совет делает это: по сути, это правительства стран-членов, но на каждом заседании будет другой министр, в зависимости от обсуждаемой темы (например, по экологическим вопросам присутствуют и голосуют министры окружающей среды стран-членов; по иностранным делам). делами, министрами иностранных дел и т. д.). Министр должен иметь полномочия представлять и обязывать государства-члены принимать решения. Когда происходит голосование, его вес обратно пропорционален размеру государства-члена, поэтому в меньших государствах-членах не доминируют более крупные государства-члены. Всего имеется 352 голоса, но для большинства актов должно быть квалифицированное большинство , если не консенсус. Статья 16(4) ДЕС и статья 238(3) ДФЕС определяют это как минимум 55 процентов членов Совета (не голосов), представляющих 65 процентов населения ЕС: в настоящее время это означает около 74 процентов, или 260 из 352 голосов. Это имеет решающее значение в ходе законодательного процесса.

Место в Страсбурге Европейского парламента , которое депутаты Европарламента посещают наряду с местами в Брюсселе , подверглось критике из-за его дороговизны. Президент Франции ранее отказался разрешить его закрытие.

Для принятия нового законодательства статья 294 ДФЕС определяет « обычную законодательную процедуру », которая применяется к большинству актов ЕС. Суть в том, что существует три чтения, начиная с предложения Комиссии, где Парламент должен проголосовать большинством всех депутатов Европарламента (а не только присутствующих) за блокирование или предложение изменений, а Совет должен проголосовать квалифицированным большинством за одобрение изменений, но единогласно заблокировать поправку Комиссии. Если различные институты не могут прийти к согласию на каком-либо этапе, созывается « Примирительный комитет», в состав которого входят депутаты Европарламента, министры и комиссия, чтобы попытаться достичь согласия по совместному тексту: если это сработает, он будет отправлен обратно в Парламент и Совет для рассмотрения. одобрить абсолютным и квалифицированным большинством. Это означает, что законодательство может быть заблокировано большинством в парламенте, меньшинством в совете и большинством в комиссии: труднее изменить закон ЕС, чем оставить его прежним. Для бюджетов существует другая процедура. Для «расширения сотрудничества» между, по крайней мере, группой государств-членов, разрешение должно быть дано Советом. Правительства государств-членов должны быть проинформированы Комиссией с самого начала, прежде чем любые предложения начнут законодательную процедуру. ЕС в целом может действовать только в пределах своих полномочий, изложенных в Договорах. В статьях 4 и 5 ДЕС говорится, что полномочия остаются за государствами-членами, если они не были переданы, хотя ведутся споры по вопросу о Компетенц-Компетенц : кто в конечном итоге обладает «компетенцией» определять «компетенцию» ЕС. Суды многих стран-членов ЕС считают, что они принимают решения, парламенты других стран-членов считают, что они принимают решения, тогда как внутри ЕС Суд считает, что последнее слово остается за ним.

судебная власть

Основные статьи: Суд Европейского Союза и Европейская счетная палата

Судебная система ЕС сыграла важную роль в развитии права ЕС. Он интерпретирует договоры и ускорил экономическую и политическую интеграцию. Сегодня Суд Европейского Союза (СЕС) является основным судебным органом, в составе которого есть Суд высшей инстанции , рассматривающий дела, имеющие большую общественную значимость, и Общий суд , рассматривающий вопросы детализированные, но не имеющие общего характера. значение, а затем отдельная Счетная палата . В соответствии со статьей 19(2) Договора о Европейском Союзе в Суде ЕС и Генеральном суде имеется по одному судье от каждого государства-члена (в настоящее время по 27 судей в каждом государстве). ). Судьи должны «обладать квалификацией, необходимой для назначения на высшие судебные должности» (или, для Генерального суда, «способностями, необходимыми для назначения на высшие судебные должности»). Президент избирается судьями сроком на три года. Хотя в статье 19(3) ДЕС говорится, что Суд является высшей инстанцией, которая интерпретирует вопросы законодательства ЕС, на практике большинство законов ЕС применяется судами государств-членов (например, английский Апелляционный суд , немецкий Bundesgerichtshof , Бельгийский суд) . родов и др.). Суды государств-членов могут передавать вопросы в СЕС для вынесения предварительного решения . Обязанность СЕС состоит в том, чтобы «обеспечивать соблюдение закона при толковании и применении договоров», хотя на самом деле он имеет возможность расширять и развивать право в соответствии с принципами, которые он разрабатывает в соответствии с демократическими ценностями. Примеры знаковых и часто противоречивых решений включают Ван Генд эн Лоос (полагающий, что законы ЕС создали новый правовой порядок, и граждане могут подавать в суд за договорные права), Мангольд против Хелма (установление равенства в качестве общего принципа права ЕС ), и Кади против Комиссии (подтверждение того, что международное право должно соответствовать основным принципам права ЕС). До 2016 года существовал Трибунал по государственной службе Европейского Союза , который занимался кадровыми вопросами институтов ЕС.

Суд ЕС в Люксембурге

Статут Суда и ДФЕС требуют, чтобы судьи назначались только в том случае, если они не занимались политической деятельностью, а их независимость «вне всякого сомнения». Они избираются на возобновляемый шестилетний срок по «общему согласию» правительств по рекомендации семи судей ЕС или государств-членов, которых выбирают Совет и Парламент. В статье 11 Регламента Суда говорится, что суд обычно состоит из палат по 3 или 5 судей в каждой. «Большая палата», состоящая из еще 15 старших судей, рассматривает вопросы «сложности или важности» или вопросы, запрошенные государствами-членами. Председатель и вице-председатель суда избираются другими судьями на возобновляемый трехлетний срок тайным голосованием. Судьи могут быть уволены только в том случае, если все остальные судьи и генеральные адвокаты единогласно согласятся. Генеральные адвокаты назначаются судом для дачи мотивированных представлений по делам, особенно связанным с новыми вопросами права. В отличие от судей Суда, они пишут мнения самостоятельно, а не коллективно, и часто владеют прозой и аргументами и, хотя и не являются обязательными, часто следуют им на практике. Кроме того, у каждого судьи есть секретари или референдумы , которые проводят исследования и пишут. В отличие от Великобритании, где судьи всегда высказывают свое собственное мнение, референдумы часто помогают в составлении решений Суда. Управление переводов Суда переведет каждое окончательное решение на 24 официальных языка Европейского Союза . Три основных вида решений, которые Суд выносит: (1) предварительные решения, запрошенные судами государств-членов, (2) принудительные действия, возбужденные комиссией или государствами-членами против ЕС, государства-члена или любой другой стороны, которая предположительно нарушает законодательство ЕС, и (3) другие прямые действия, когда ЕС или государство-член участвует в споре в качестве стороны и выносит окончательные решения. Правила процедуры Суда, созданные по образцу Международного Суда , начинаются с подачи письменных дел в суд, за которыми следует короткое устное слушание. В каждом случае назначается судья, который активно руководит слушанием (называемый докладчиком ) и составляет решение (вероятно, с помощью референдумов ). Суд всегда совещается и голосует перед тем, как будет написано и опубликовано окончательное решение. Дела в Генеральном суде могут быть обжалованы в Суде по вопросам права. Хотя формальной процедуры апелляции в Суде нет, на практике его действия подлежат проверке как верховными судами государств-членов, так и Европейским судом по правам человека , даже если окончательный баланс сил не урегулирован.

Коллизия законов

Основные статьи: Примат права Европейского Союза и коллизия законов

С момента своего основания ЕС действует среди растущего множества государств-членов и глобализирующихся правовых систем. Это означало, что и Европейскому суду , и верховным судам государств пришлось разработать принципы разрешения коллизий законов между различными системами. В самом ЕС, по мнению Суда, если право Союза противоречит положениям законодательства штата, то право Союза имеет преимущественную силу . В первом крупном деле в 1964 году Коста против ENEL , миланский юрист и бывший акционер энергетической компании по имени г-н Коста отказался оплатить счет за электроэнергию Enel в знак протеста против национализации итальянских энергетических корпораций. Он заявил, что итальянский закон о национализации противоречит Римскому договору . и просил сделать ссылку как на Конституционный суд Италии , так и на Суд в соответствии со статьей 267 ДФЕС . Конституционный суд Италии постановил, что, поскольку закон о национализации был принят в 1962 году, а договор вступил в силу с 1958 года, Коста не имел претензий. Напротив, Суд постановил, что в конечном итоге Римский договор никоим образом не препятствовал национализации энергетики, и в любом случае в соответствии с положениями договора только комиссия могла предъявить иск, а не г-н Коста. Однако, в принципе, г-н Коста имел право заявить, что Договор противоречит национальному законодательству, и суд был бы обязан рассмотреть его требование сделать ссылку, если бы его решение не было обжаловано. Суд, повторяя свою точку зрения в деле Ван Генд эн Лоос , заявили, что государства-члены «ограничили свои суверенные права, хотя и в ограниченных областях, и, таким образом, создали свод законов, который связывает как их граждан, так и их самих» «на основе взаимности». Закон ЕС не будет «отменяться внутренними правовыми положениями, как бы они ни были сформулированы... без того, чтобы правовая основа самого сообщества не была поставлена ​​под сомнение». Это означало, что любой «последующий односторонний акт» государства-члена неприменим. Аналогичным образом, в деле Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA компания Simmenthal SpA заявила, что плата за инспекцию общественного здравоохранения в соответствии с итальянским законом 1970 года за импорт говядины из Франции в Италию противоречила двум Постановлениям 1964 и 1968 годов. В соответствии с принципом приоритета права Сообщества", - заявил Суд, "прямо применимые меры институтов" (таких как Регламент по данному делу) "автоматически делают неприменимыми любые противоречащие положения действующего национального законодательства". Это было необходимо, чтобы предотвратить «соответствующее отрицание» договорных «обязательств, взятых на себя безоговорочно и бесповоротно государствами-членами», что могло бы «поставить под угрозу сами основы» ЕС. Но, несмотря на мнение Суда, национальные суды государств-членов не приняли тот же анализ.

Вообще говоря, хотя все государства-члены признают, что право ЕС имеет приоритет над национальным законодательством, если это согласовано в договорах, они не признают, что Суд имеет последнее слово по основополагающим конституционным вопросам, затрагивающим демократию и права человека. В Соединенном Королевстве основной принцип заключается в том, что парламент, как суверенное выражение демократической легитимности, может решать, желает ли он принимать законы, прямо противоречащие законам ЕС. Однако это произойдет только в случае явного желания людей выйти из ЕС. было установлено В деле Р. (Factortame Ltd) против министра транспорта , что «любое ограничение своего суверенитета, принятое Парламентом при принятии Закона о Европейских сообществах 1972 года, было полностью добровольным», и поэтому «всегда было ясно», что британские суды имеют обязанность «отменять любую норму национального права, которая находится в противоречии с любой прямо применимой нормой права Сообщества». В 2014 году Верховный суд Соединенного Королевства отметил, что в деле R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) против государственного секретаря транспорта хотя конституция Великобритании не кодифицирована, в ней могут существовать «основополагающие принципы» общего права, и парламент «не рассматривал и не санкционировал отмену» этих принципов, когда принимал Закон о Европейских сообществах 1972 года . По мнению Конституционного суда Германии, основанного на решениях Соланж I и Соланж II , если ЕС не соблюдает свои основные конституционные права и принципы (в частности, демократию, верховенство закона и социального государства), принципы ), то он не может иметь преимущественную силу над немецким законодательством. Однако, как говорится в прозвищах решений, «пока» ЕС работает над демократизацией своих институтов и имеет структуру, защищающую фундаментальные права человека, он не будет пересматривать законодательство ЕС на предмет совместимости с немецкими конституционными принципами. Большинство других государств-членов выразили аналогичные оговорки. Это говорит о том, что легитимность ЕС опирается на высшую власть государств-членов, его фактическую приверженность правам человека и демократическую волю народа.

ЕС соблюдает международное право и Европейскую конвенцию по правам человека при условии, что институты международного права, такие как сама Организация Объединенных Наций, соблюдают основные права человека.

В отличие от государств-членов, обсуждается соотношение права ЕС и международного права, особенно в отношении Европейской конвенции по правам человека и Организации Объединенных Наций. Все отдельные государства-члены ЕС являются участниками обеих организаций посредством международных договоров. Статья 6(2) Договора о Европейском Союзе требовала от ЕС присоединения к ЕКПЧ, но «не затрагивала компетенцию Союза, определенную в Договорах». это считалось необходимым До Лиссабонского договора для обеспечения адекватной защиты прав человека под надзором внешнего Европейского суда по правам человека в Страсбурге . Однако в Заключении 2/13 , после запроса комиссии о пересмотре их плана присоединения, Суд (в Люксембурге ) привел пять основных причин, по которым он считал, что соглашение о присоединении в его нынешнем виде несовместимо с договорами. Это рассуждение было расценено большинством комментаторов как плохо завуалированная попытка Суда ухватиться за свою власть. но это означает, что комиссия пересматривает новое соглашение о присоединении. Согласно статьям 3(5), 21, 34 и 42 ДЕС, ЕС также должен уважать принципы Устава Организации Объединенных Наций . После терактов 11 сентября на Всемирный торговый центр в Нью-Йорке принял Совет Безопасности ООН резолюцию о замораживании активов подозреваемых террористов, связанных с Усамой бен Ладеном . Среди них был гражданин Саудовской Аравии г-н Кади. Швеция заморозила его активы в соответствии с постановлением ЕС, которое привело в действие резолюцию Совета Безопасности ООН . В деле «Кади против Комиссии » г-н Кади заявил, что не было никаких доказательств того, что он был связан с терроризмом, и что суд над ним не был справедливым : это фундаментальное право человека. Мнение А.Г. Мадуро напомнило Аарону Бараку из Верховного суда Израиля , что «именно тогда, когда грохотают пушки, нам особенно нужны законы». Суд постановил, что даже член ООН не может противоречить «принципам, которые составляют часть правового порядка самого сообщества». По сути, ЕС разработал правило, согласно которому в рамках определенных принципов jus cogens другие суды могут иметь преимущественную силу. Содержание этих основных принципов остается открытым для постоянного судебного диалога между высшими судами Союза.

Административное право

Смотрите также: Административное право и административное право США.

Европейский суд по правам человека в Страсбурге , высший орган Европы по правам человека, использует флаг Европы , но не является частью ЕС. Все государства-члены ЕС участвуют в Европейской конвенции , и договоры ЕС требуют ее присоединения, но Суд задержался .

В то время как конституционное право касается структуры управления Европейским Союзом , административное право обязывает институты ЕС и правительства государств-членов следовать этому закону. И государства-члены, и Комиссия имеют общее юридическое право или «правоспособность» ( locus standi ) предъявлять иски против институтов ЕС и других государств-членов за нарушение договоров. С самого основания ЕС Суд также постановил, что Договоры позволяют гражданам или корпорациям подавать иски против ЕС и институтов государств-членов за нарушение Договоров и Регламентов , если они были правильно истолкованы как создающие права и обязанности. Однако в 1986 году в соответствии с Директивами гражданам и корпорациям не разрешалось подавать иски против других негосударственных сторон. Это означало, что суды государств-членов не были обязаны применять закон Союза в случае противоречия законам штата, даже несмотря на то, что на правительство государства-члена можно было подать в суд, если оно налагало обязательства на другого гражданина или корпорацию. Эти правила « прямого действия » ограничивают степень, в которой суды государств-членов обязаны применять законодательство ЕС. Все действия институтов ЕС могут подлежать судебному контролю и оцениваться по стандартам пропорциональности , особенно когда затрагиваются общие принципы права или фундаментальные права. Средством правовой защиты для истца в случае нарушения закона часто является денежный ущерб, но суды также могут потребовать конкретных действий или вынести судебный запрет, чтобы обеспечить максимальную эффективность закона.

Прямой эффект

Основные статьи: Прямой эффект и Locus Standi

Хотя общепризнано, что право ЕС имеет приоритет, не все законы ЕС дают гражданам право предъявлять претензии: то есть не все законы ЕС имеют « прямое действие ». Дело Ван Генд эн Лоос против Налоговой администрации Нидерландов было признано, что положения Договоров ( и Регламентов ЕС ) имеют непосредственную силу, если они (1) ясны и недвусмысленны, (2) безусловны и (3) не требуют от ЕС или национальных властей принятия дальнейших мер по их реализации. . Van Gend en Loos Почтовая компания заявила, что статья 30 TFEU не позволяет таможенным органам Нидерландов взимать тарифы. когда она импортировала карбамидоформальдегидные пластмассы из Германии в Нидерланды. После того, как голландский суд сделал ссылку, Суд постановил, что, хотя договоры «прямо» не наделяют граждан или компании правом подавать иски, они могут это сделать. Исторически международные договоры позволяли государствам только предъявлять юридические требования об их исполнении, но Суд провозгласил, что «Сообщество представляет собой новый правовой порядок международного права». Поскольку в статье 30 четко, безоговорочно и сразу говорилось, что никакие количественные ограничения не могут быть наложены на торговлю без веского обоснования, Ван Генд эн Лоос мог вернуть деньги, уплаченные за тариф. В этом смысле правила ЕС аналогичны положениям Договора, поскольку, как гласит статья 288 ДФЕС, они «непосредственно применяются во всех государствах-членах». Государства-члены обязаны не повторять Правила в своем законодательстве во избежание путаницы. Например, в деле Комиссия против Италии Суд постановил, что Италия нарушила обязательства по Договорам, не применив схему выплаты фермерам премии за убой. коров (для сокращения перепроизводства молока), так и воспроизведя правила в указе с различными дополнениями. «Правила», постановил Суд, «вступают в силу исключительно в силу их публикации», и их реализация может «поставить под угрозу их одновременное и единообразное применение на территории всего Союза». С другой стороны, некоторые правила могут сами по себе прямо требовать принятия мер по реализации, и в этом случае следует соблюдать эти конкретные правила.

Дело Ван Генд эн Лооса впервые позволило гражданам ЕС заявить о правах, основанных на законодательстве ЕС. Несмотря на влиятельные мнения трёх генеральных адвокатов , За исключением крупных исключений, по-прежнему считается, что Директивы не создают прямых прав среди частных лиц.

Хотя Договоры и Постановления будут иметь прямое действие (если они будут четкими, безоговорочными и немедленными), Директивы обычно не дают гражданам (в отличие от государства-члена) права предъявлять иски другим гражданам. Теоретически это происходит потому, что в статье 288 ДФЕС говорится, что директивы адресованы государствам-членам и обычно «оставляют национальным властям выбор формы и методов» реализации. Частично это отражает то, что директивы часто устанавливают минимальные стандарты, оставляя государствам-членам применять более высокие стандарты. Например, Директива о рабочем времени требует, чтобы каждый работник имел как минимум 4 недели оплачиваемого отпуска каждый год, но в большинстве стран-членов ЕС согласно национальному законодательству требуется более 28 дней. Однако согласно нынешней позиции, принятой Судом, граждане имеют право подавать иски на основании национальных законов, реализующих Директивы, а не самих Директив. Директивы не имеют так называемого «горизонтального» прямого действия (т.е. между негосударственными сторонами). Эта точка зрения сразу же вызвала споры, и в начале 1990-х годов три генеральных адвоката убедительно утверждали, что директивы должны создавать права и обязанности для всех граждан. Суд отказал, но есть пять крупных исключений.

Во-первых, если срок реализации Директивы не соблюден, государство-член не может обеспечить соблюдение противоречащих законов, и гражданин может полагаться на Директиву в таких действиях (так называемый «вертикальный» прямой эффект). Так, в деле «Pubblico Ministryo v Ratti» , поскольку итальянское правительство не выполнило Директиву 73/173/EEC об упаковке и маркировке растворителей к установленному сроку, оно было лишено права применять противоречивый национальный закон 1963 года против бизнеса г-на Ратти по производству растворителей и лаков . Государство-член «не может полагаться, в отличие от отдельных лиц, на свое невыполнение обязательств, которые влечет за собой Директива». Во-вторых, гражданин или компания также может ссылаться на Директиву в качестве защиты в споре с другим гражданином или компанией (а не только с государственным органом), которая пытается обеспечить соблюдение национального закона, противоречащего Директиве. Так, в деле CIA Security против Signalson и Securitel Суд постановил, что компания под названием CIA Security могла защитить себя от обвинений конкурентов в том, что она не соблюдала бельгийский указ 1991 года о системах сигнализации на том основании, что она не была уведомлено в комиссию, как того требует директива. В-третьих, если Директива отражает «общий принцип» права ЕС, на нее можно ссылаться в отношениях между частными негосударственными сторонами до истечения срока ее реализации. Это следует из дела Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG , где §622 Гражданского кодекса Германии гласит, что годы, проработанные людьми в возрасте до 25 лет, не будут учитываться при увеличении установленного законом уведомления перед увольнением. До своего увольнения г-жа Кюджюкдевечи проработала 10 лет, с 18 до 28 лет, в компании Swedex GmbH & Co KG. Она утверждала, что закон, не учитывающий ее годы до 25 лет, является незаконной возрастной дискриминацией в соответствии с Рамочной директивой о равенстве в сфере занятости . Суд постановил, что она может опираться на Директиву, поскольку равенство также является общим принципом права ЕС . В-четвертых, если ответчик является представителем государства, пусть даже и не центрального правительства, он все равно может быть связан Директивами. В деле Фостер против British Gas plc Суд постановил , что г-жа Фостер имела право подать иск о дискриминации по признаку пола против своего работодателя, British Gas plc , который обязывал женщин выходить на пенсию в возрасте 60 лет, а мужчин - в 65 лет, если (1) в соответствии с законом штата мера, (2) он предоставлял государственную услугу и (3) имел особые полномочия. Это также может быть правдой, если предприятие будет приватизировано , поскольку оно принадлежало компании водоснабжения, которая отвечала за базовое водоснабжение.

В-пятых, национальные суды обязаны интерпретировать внутреннее законодательство «насколько это возможно в свете формулировки и цели директивы». В учебниках (но не в самом Суде) это часто называется « косвенным эффектом ». В деле Marleasing SA против La Comercial SA Суд постановил, что испанский суд должен был интерпретировать общие положения Гражданского кодекса о контрактах, не имеющих обоснования или обманывающих кредиторов, чтобы они соответствовали статье 11 Первой Директивы о законах о компаниях : что необходимые регистрации будут аннулированы только по фиксированному списку причин. Суд быстро признал, что обязанность толкования не может противоречить простым словам национального закона. Но если государство-член не выполнило Директиву, гражданин может не иметь возможности предъявлять претензии другим негосударственным сторонам. Вместо этого он должен подать в суд на само государство-член ЕС за неисполнение закона. В целом, позиция Суда по прямому эффекту означает, что правительства и налогоплательщики должны нести издержки частных лиц, в основном корпораций, за отказ следовать закону.

Ссылки и средства правовой защиты

Основные статьи: Предварительное решение и истребование дела

Судебные разбирательства часто начинаются и разрешаются судами государств-членов. Они интерпретируют и применяют законодательство ЕС, а также назначают средства правовой защиты в виде компенсации и реституции (восстановление убытков или лишение прибыли), судебных запретов и конкретных действий (заставление кого-либо остановиться или сделать что-то). Однако если позиция законодательства ЕС окажется неясной, суды государств-членов могут передать вопросы в Суд для вынесения « предварительного решения » о правильной интерпретации законодательства ЕС. В статье 267 ДФЕС говорится, что суд «может» обратиться «если считает» это «необходимым для вынесения решения» и «передаст дело в Суд», если нет возможности дальнейшего обжалования и возмещения ущерба. Любой «суд или трибунал государства-члена» может обратиться. Это широко интерпретируется. Очевидно, что в него входят такие органы, как Верховный суд Великобритании , Высокий суд или Трибунал по трудовым спорам . В Вассене против Беамбтенфондса Мейнбедрейфа Суд также постановил , суд по пенсиям горняков что арбитражный может сделать ссылку. Напротив, как ни странно, в деле Майлз против европейских школ Суд постановил, что Совет по жалобам европейских школ, созданный в соответствии с международным соглашением, Конвенцией европейских школ, не может ссылаться, поскольку, хотя это и был суд, он не принадлежал «государству-члену» (хотя все государства-члены подписал эту Конвенцию).

Courts around the EU, like the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, may refer questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice at any time. Some member states are more active than others in doing so.

On the other side, courts and tribunals are theoretically under a duty to refer questions. In the UK, for example, Lord Denning MR considered it appropriate to refer if the outcome of a case depended on a correct answer, and the Civil Procedure Rules entitle the High Court to refer at any stage of proceedings. The view of the Court of Justice in the leading case, CILFIT v Ministry of Health is that a national court has no duty to refer if the law is an acte clair (a clear rule), or "so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved". In Kenny Roland Lyckeskog the Court of Justice held that the duty to refer existed for the Swedish Court of Appeal, the hovrätt, since Sweden's Supreme Court (Högsta domstol) had to give permission for appeals to continue. The practical difficulty is that judges differ on their views of whether or not the law is clear. In a significant case, Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England the UK House of Lords felt confident that it was clear under the First Banking Directive that depositors did not have direct rights to sue the Bank of England for alleged failure to carry out adequate prudential regulation. Their Lordships highlighted that while some uncertainty might exist, the costs of delay in making a reference outweighed the benefits from total certainty. By contrast, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, a majority of the Supreme Court apparently felt able to declare that the law under Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive was acte clair, and decline to make a reference, even though a senior Law Lord delivered a powerfully reasoned dissent. However, in addition to a reluctance to make references, a general scepticism has grown among senior member state judiciaries of the mode of reasoning used by the Court of Justice. The UK Supreme Court in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport devoted large parts of its judgment to criticism, in its view, an unpredictable 'teleological' mode of reasoning which, could decrease confidence in maintaining a dialogue within a plural and transnational judicial system. It added that it might not interpret the European Communities Act 1972 to abridge basic principles and understanding of constitutional functioning – in effect implying that it might decline to follow unreasonable Court of Justice judgments on important issues. Similarly, the German Constitutional Court in the Outright Monetary Transactions case referred a question for preliminary ruling on whether the European Central Bank's plan to buy Greek and other government bonds on secondary markets, despite the Treaty prohibition on buying them directly, was unlawful. In a highly unusual move, the two most senior judges dissented that the ECB's plan could be lawful, while the majority closely guided the Court of Justice on the appropriate mode of reasoning.

If references are made, the Court of Justice will give a preliminary ruling, in order for the member state court to conclude the case and award a remedy. The right to an effective remedy is a general principle of EU law, enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights article 47. Most of the time Regulations and Directives will set out the relevant remedies to be awarded, or they will be construed from the legislation according to the practices of the member state. It could also be that the government is responsible for failure to properly implement a Directive or Regulation, and must therefore pay damages. In Francovich v Italy, the Italian government had failed to set up an insurance fund for employees to claim unpaid wages if their employers had gone insolvent, as the Insolvency Protection Directive required. Francovich, the former employee of a bankrupt Venetian firm, was therefore allowed to claim 6 million Lira from the Italian government in damages for his loss. The Court of Justice held that if a Directive would confer identifiable rights on individuals, and there is a causal link between a member state's violation of EU and a claimant's loss, damages must be paid. The fact that the incompatible law is an Act of Parliament is no defence. So, in Factortame it was irrelevant that Parliament had legislated to require a quota of British ownership of fishing vessels in primary legislation. Similarly, in was Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany the German government was liable to a French beer company for damages from prohibiting its imports, which did not comply with the fabled beer purity law. It was not decisive that the German Parliament had not acted willfully or negligently. It was merely necessary that there was (1) a rule intended to confer rights, (2) that a breach was sufficiently serious, and (3) there was a causal link between the breach and damage. The Court of Justice advised a breach is to be regarded as 'sufficiently serious' by weighing a range of factors, such as whether it was voluntary, or persistent. In Köbler v Republik Österreich the Court of Justice added that member state liability could also flow from judges failing to adequately implement the law. On the other hand, it is also clear that EU institutions, such as the commission, may be liable according to the same principles for failure to follow the law. The only institution whose decisions appear incapable of generating a damages claim is the Court of Justice itself.

Judicial review

Main articles: Judicial review and Preliminary ruling

As well as preliminary rulings on the proper interpretation of EU law, an essential function of the Court of Justice is judicial review of the acts of the EU itself. Under Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) article 263(1) the Court can review the legality of any EU legislative of other "act" against the Treaties or general principles, such as those in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This includes legislation, and most other acts that have legal consequences for people. For example, in Société anonyme Cimenteries CBR Cementsbedrijven NV v Commission the commission made a decision to withdraw an assurance to a Dutch cement company that it would be immune from competition law fines, for vertical agreements. The cement company challenged the decision, and the Commission argued this was not really an "act", and so could not be challenged. The Court of Justice held a challenge could be made, and it was an act, because it "deprived [the cement company] of the advantages of a legal situation... and exposed them to a grave financial risk". Similarly in Deutsche Post v Commission the Commission demanded information on state aid given by Germany to Deutsche Post within 20 days. When both challenged this, the Commission argued that the demand for information could not be an act as there was no sanction. The Court of Justice disagreed, and held judicial review could proceed because the request produced "binding legal effects" since the information supplied or not could be relied upon as evidence in a final decision. By contrast, in IBM v Commission the Court of Justice held that a letter from the commission to IBM that it would sue IBM for abusing a dominant position contrary to competition was not a reviewable act, but just a preliminary statement of intent to act. In any case, if a reviewable act of an EU institution is not found compatible with the law, under article 264, it will be declared void.

Plaumann & Co v Commission required that claimants must be individually and directly concerned by an EU law to request judicial review. Being adversely affected by rising clementine duties was not enough.

However, only a limited number of people can bring claims for judicial review. Under TFEU article 263(2), a member state, the Parliament, Council or Commission have automatic rights to seek judicial review. But under article 263(4) a "natural or legal person" must have a "direct and individual concern" about the regulatory act. "Direct" concern means that someone is affected by an EU act without "the interposition of an autonomous will between the decision and its effect", for instance by a national government body. In Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission, a group of Greek textile businesses, who exported cotton products to France, challenged a Commission decision allow France to limit exports. The Commission argued that the exporters were not directly concerned, because France might decide not to limit exports, but the Court of Justice held this possibility was "entirely theoretical". A challenge could be brought. By contrast in Municipality of Differdange v Commission a municipality wanted to challenge the Commissions decision to aid steel firms which reduced production: this would probably reduce its tax collections. But the Court of Justice held that because Luxembourg had discretion, and its decision to reduce capacity was not inevitable, the municipality had no "direct" concern (its complaint was with the Luxembourg government instead). "Individual" concern requires that someone is affected specifically, not as a member of a group. In Plaumann & Co v Commission the Court of Justice held that a clementine importer was not individually concerned when the Commission refused permission to Germany to stop import custom duties. This kept it more expensive for Mr Plaumann to import clementines, but it was equally expensive for everyone else. This decision heavily restricted the number of people who could claim for judicial review. In Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, Advocate General Jacobs propose a broader test of allowing anyone to claim if there was a "substantial adverse effect" on the claimant's interests. Here, a group of Spanish olive oil producers challenged Council Regulation No 1638/98, which withdrew subsidies. Because Regulations are not implemented in national law, but have direct effect, they argued the requirement for individual concern would deny them effective judicial protection. The Court of Justice held that direct actions were still not allowed: if this was unsatisfactory the member states would have to change the treaties. Individual concern is not needed, however under article 263(4), if an act is not legislation, but just a "regulatory act". In Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Parliament and Council the Court of Justice affirmed that a Regulation does not count as a "regulatory act" within the Treaty's meaning: it is only meant for acts of lesser importance. Here, a Canadian group representing the Inuit wished to challenge a Regulation on seal products, but were not allowed. They would have to show both direct and individual concern as normal. Thus, without a treaty change, EU administrative law remains one of the most restrictive in Europe.

Human rights and principles

Main articles: General principles of European Union law, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and European Convention on Human Rights

Although access to judicial review is restricted for ordinary questions of law, the Court of Justice has gradually developed a more open approach to standing for human rights. Human rights have also become essential in the proper interpretation and construction of all EU law. If there are two or more plausible interpretations of a rule, the one which is most consistent with human rights should be chosen. The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 made rights underpin the Court of Justice's competence, and required the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, overseen by the external Strasbourg Court. Initially, reflecting its primitive economic nature, the treaties made no reference to rights. However, in 1969 particularly after concern from Germany, the Court of Justice declared in Stauder v City of Ulm that 'fundamental human rights' were 'enshrined in the general principles of Community law'. This meant that Mr Stauder, who received subsidised butter under an EU welfare scheme only by showing a coupon with his name and address, was entitled to claim that this violated his dignity: he was entitled not to have to go through the humiliation of proving his identity to get food. While those 'general principles' were not written down in EU law, and simply declared to exist by the court, it accords with a majority philosophical view that 'black letter' rules, or positive law, necessarily exist for reasons that the society which made them wants: these give rise to principles, which inform the law's purpose. Moreover, the Court of Justice has clarified that its recognition of rights was 'inspired' by member states' own 'constitutional traditions', and international treaties. These include rights found in member state constitutions, bills of rights, foundational Acts of Parliament, landmark court cases, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter 1961, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, or the International Labour Organization's Conventions. The EU itself must accede to the ECHR, although in Opinion 2/13 the Court of Justice delayed, because of perceived difficulties in retaining an appropriate balance of competences.

In Deutsches Weintor eG, wine growers wanted to market their wine as "easily digestible", but the food regulators thought this would mislead consumers. The Court of Justice applied the right to health in the Charter, in support of good consumer information.

Many of the most important rights were codified in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in 2000. While the UK has opted out of direct application of the Charter, this has little practical relevance since the Charter merely reflected pre-existing principles and the Court of Justice uses the Charter to interpret all EU law. For example, in Test-Achats ASBL v Conseil des ministres, the Court of Justice held that Equal Treatment in Goods and Services Directive 2004 article 5(2), which purported to allow a derogation from equal treatment, so that men and women could be charged different car insurance rates, was unlawful. It contravened the principle of equality in CFREU 2000 articles 21 and 23, and had to be regarded as ineffective after a transition period. By contrast, in Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz wine producers claimed that a direction to stop marketing their brands as 'easily digestible' (bekömmlich) by the state food regulator (acting under EU law) contravened their right to occupational and business freedom under CFREU 2000 articles 15 and 16. The Court of Justice held that in fact, the right to health for consumers in article 35 has also to be taken into account, and was to be given greater weight, particularly given the health effects of alcohol. Some rights in the Charter, however, are not expressed with sufficient clarity to be regarded as directly binding. In AMS v Union locale des syndicats CGT a French trade union claimed that the French Labour Code should not exclude casual workers from counting toward the right to set up a work council that an employing entity must inform and consult. They said this contravened the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive and also CFREU article 27. The Court of Justice agreed that the French Labour Code was incompatible with the Directive, but held that article 27 was expressed too generally to create direct rights. On this view, legislation was necessary to make abstract human rights principles concrete, and legally enforceable.

Beyond human rights, the Court of Justice has recognised at least five further 'general principles' of EU law. The categories of general principles are not closed, and may develop according to the social expectations of people living in Europe.

1. Legal certainty requires that judgments should be prospective, open and clear.
2. Decision-making must be "proportionate" toward a legitimate aim when reviewing any discretionary act of a government or powerful body, for example, if a government wishes to change an employment law in a neutral way, yet this could have disproportionate negative impact on women rather than men, the government must show a legitimate aim, and that its measures are (1) appropriate or suitable for achieving it, (2) do no more than necessary, and (3) reasonable in balancing the conflicting rights of different parties.
3. Equality is regarded as a fundamental principle: this matters particularly for labour rights, political rights, and access to public or private services.
4. Right to a fair hearing.
5. Professional privilege between lawyers and clients.

Free movement and trade

See also: European Single Market, World Trade Organization, European Free Trade Association, and United Nations

The EU's internal market for trade exports, like those passing through its largest Port of Rotterdam, totals over €2840 billion.

While the "social market economy" concept was only put into EU law by the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, free movement and trade were central to European development since the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The standard theory of comparative advantage says two countries can both benefit from trade even if one of them has a less productive economy in all respects. Like the North American Free Trade Association, or the World Trade Organization, EU law breaks down barriers to trade, by creating rights to free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. This is meant to reduce consumer prices and raise living standards. Early theorists argued a free trade area would give way to a customs union, which led to a common market, then monetary union, then union of monetary and fiscal policy, and eventually a full union characteristic of a federal state. But in Europe those stages were mixed, and it is unclear whether the "endgame" should be the same as a state. Free trade, without rights to ensure fair trade, can benefit some groups within countries (particularly big business) more than others, and disadvantages people who lack bargaining power in an expanding market, particularly workers, consumers, small business, developing industries, and communities. For this reason, the European has become "not merely an economic union", but creates binding social rights for people to "ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples". The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union articles 28 to 37 establish the principle of free movement of goods in the EU, while articles 45 to 66 require free movement of persons, services and capital. These "four freedoms" were thought to be inhibited by physical barriers (e.g. customs), technical barriers (e.g. differing laws on safety, consumer or environmental standards) and fiscal barriers (e.g. different Value Added Tax rates). Free movement and trade is not meant to be a licence for unrestricted commercial profit. Increasingly, the Treaties and the Court of Justice aim to ensure free trade serves higher values such as public health, consumer protection, labour rights, fair competition, and environmental improvement.

Goods

Main article: Internal Market (European Union)

Free movement of goods within the European Union is achieved by a customs union, and the principle of non-discrimination. The EU manages imports from non-member states, duties between member states are prohibited, and imports circulate freely. In addition under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 34, 'Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States'. In Procureur du Roi v Dassonville the Court of Justice held that this rule meant all "trading rules" that are "enacted by Member States" which could hinder trade "directly or indirectly, actually or potentially" would be caught by article 34. This meant that a Belgian law requiring Scotch whisky imports to have a certificate of origin was unlikely to be lawful. It discriminated against parallel importers like Mr Dassonville, who could not get certificates from authorities in France, where they bought the Scotch. This "wide test", to determine what could potentially be an unlawful restriction on trade, applies equally to actions by quasi-government bodies, such as the former "Buy Irish" company that had government appointees. It also means states can be responsible for private actors. For instance, in Commission v France French farmer vigilantes were continually sabotaging shipments of Spanish strawberries, and even Belgian tomato imports. France was liable for these hindrances to trade because the authorities 'manifestly and persistently abstained' from preventing the sabotage.

Generally speaking, if a member state has laws or practices that directly discriminate against imports (or exports under TFEU article 35) then it must be justified under article 36. The justifications include public morality, policy or security, "protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants", "national treasures" of "artistic, historic or archaeological value" and "industrial and commercial property". In addition, although not clearly listed, environmental protection can justify restrictions on trade as an overriding requirement derived from TFEU article 11. More generally, it has been increasingly acknowledged that fundamental human rights should take priority over all trade rules. So, in Schmidberger v Austria the Court of Justice held that Austria did not infringe article 34 by failing to ban a protest that blocked heavy traffic passing over the A13, Brenner Autobahn, en route to Italy. Although many companies, including Mr Schmidberger's German undertaking, were prevented from trading, the Court of Justice reasoned that freedom of association is one of the 'fundamental pillars of a democratic society', against which the free movement of goods had to be balanced, and was probably subordinate. If a member state does appeal to the article 36 justification, the measures it takes have to be applied proportionately. This means the rule must be pursue a legitimate aim and (1) be suitable to achieve the aim, (2) be necessary, so that a less restrictive measure could not achieve the same result, and (3) be reasonable in balancing the interests of free trade with interests in article 36.

In Schmidberger v Austria, protests blocked trucks for goods through the Austrian Alps on the Brenner Autobahn. The Court of Justice recognised fundamental rights take priority over free trade.

Often rules apply to all goods neutrally, but may have a greater practical effect on imports than domestic products. For such "indirect" discriminatory (or "indistinctly applicable") measures the Court of Justice has developed more justifications: either those in article 36, or additional "mandatory" or "overriding" requirements such as consumer protection, improving labour standards, protecting the environment, press diversity, fairness in commerce, and more: the categories are not closed. In the noted case Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopol für Branntwein, the Court of Justice found that a German law requiring all spirits and liqueurs (not just imported ones) to have a minimum alcohol content of 25 per cent was contrary to TFEU article 34, because it had a greater negative effect on imports. German liqueurs were over 25 per cent alcohol, but Cassis de Dijon, which Rewe-Zentrale AG wished to import from France, only had 15 to 20 per cent alcohol. The Court of Justice rejected the German government's arguments that the measure proportionately protected public health under TFEU article 36, because stronger beverages were available and adequate labelling would be enough for consumers to understand what they bought. This rule primarily applies to requirements about a product's content or packaging. In Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA the Court of Justice found that a Belgian law requiring all margarine to be in cube shaped packages infringed article 34, and was not justified by the pursuit of consumer protection. The argument that Belgians would believe it was butter if it was not cube shaped was disproportionate: it would "considerably exceed the requirements of the object in view" and labelling would protect consumers "just as effectively".

In a 2003 case, Commission v Italy Italian law required that cocoa products that included other vegetable fats could not be labelled as "chocolate". It had to be "chocolate substitute". All Italian chocolate was made from cocoa butter alone, but British, Danish and Irish manufacturers used other vegetable fats. They claimed the law infringed article 34. The Court of Justice held that a low content of vegetable fat did not justify a "chocolate substitute" label. This was derogatory in the consumers' eyes. A 'neutral and objective statement' was enough to protect consumers. If member states place considerable obstacles on the use of a product, this can also infringe article 34. So, in a 2009 case, Commission v Italy, the Court of Justice held that an Italian law prohibiting motorcycles or mopeds pulling trailers infringed article 34. Again, the law applied neutrally to everyone, but disproportionately affected importers, because Italian companies did not make trailers. This was not a product requirement, but the Court reasoned that the prohibition would deter people from buying it: it would have "a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers" that "affects the access of that product to the market". It would require justification under article 36, or as a mandatory requirement.

In 2002, Rem Koolhaas' proposed "barcode" Flag of Europe, caused uproar as it symbolised the EU becoming no more than a market economy for endless competitive consumption, devoid of social values and rights. It was not adopted.

In contrast to product requirements or other laws that hinder market access, the Court of Justice developed a presumption that "selling arrangements" would be presumed to not fall into TFEU article 34, if they applied equally to all sellers, and affected them in the same manner in fact. In Keck and Mithouard two importers claimed that their prosecution under a French competition law, which prevented them selling Picon beer under wholesale price, was unlawful. The aim of the law was to prevent cut throat competition, not to hinder trade. The Court of Justice held, as "in law and in fact" it was an equally applicable "selling arrangement" (not something that alters a product's content) it was outside the scope of article 34, and so did not need to be justified. Selling arrangements can be held to have an unequal effect "in fact" particularly where traders from another member state are seeking to break into the market, but there are restrictions on advertising and marketing. In Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini the Court of Justice reviewed Swedish bans on advertising to children under age 12, and misleading commercials for skin care products. While the bans have remained (justifiable under article 36 or as a mandatory requirement) the Court emphasised that complete marketing bans could be disproportionate if advertising were "the only effective form of promotion enabling [a trader] to penetrate" the market. In Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB the Court suggested that a total ban for advertising alcohol on the radio, TV and in magazines could fall within article 34 where advertising was the only way for sellers to overcome consumers' "traditional social practices and to local habits and customs" to buy their products, but again the national courts would decide whether it was justified under article 36 to protect public health. Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the EU harmonised restrictions on restrictions on marketing and advertising, to forbid conduct that distorts average consumer behaviour, is misleading or aggressive, and sets out a list of examples that count as unfair. Increasingly, states have to give mutual recognition to each other's standards of regulation, while the EU has attempted to harmonise minimum ideals of best practice. The attempt to raise standards is hoped to avoid a regulatory "race to the bottom", while allowing consumers access to goods from around the continent.

Workers

Main article: Freedom of movement for workers

Since its foundation, the Treaties sought to enable people to pursue their life goals in any country through free movement. Reflecting the economic nature of the project, the European Community originally focused upon free movement of workers: as a "factor of production". However, from the 1970s, this focus shifted towards developing a more "social" Europe. Free movement was increasingly based on "citizenship", so that people had rights to empower them to become economically and socially active, rather than economic activity being a precondition for rights. This means the basic "worker" rights in TFEU article 45 function as a specific expression of the general rights of citizens in TFEU articles 18 to 21. According to the Court of Justice, a "worker" is anybody who is economically active, which includes everyone in an employment relationship, "under the direction of another person" for "remuneration". A job, however, need not be paid in money for someone to be protected as a worker. For example, in Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, a German man claimed the right to residence in the Netherlands, while he volunteered plumbing and household duties in the Bhagwan community, which provided for everyone's material needs irrespective of their contributions. The Court of Justice held that Mr Steymann was entitled to stay, so long as there was at least an "indirect quid pro quo" for the work he did. Having "worker" status means protection against all forms of discrimination by governments, and employers, in access to employment, tax, and social security rights. By contrast a citizen, who is "any person having the nationality of a Member State" (TFEU article 20(1)), has rights to seek work, vote in local and European elections, but more restricted rights to claim social security. In practice, free movement has become politically contentious as nationalist political parties have manipulated fears about immigrants taking away people's jobs and benefits (paradoxically at the same time). Nevertheless, practically "all available research finds little impact" of "labour mobility on wages and employment of local workers".

In Angonese the Court of Justice gave "horizontal direct effect" to free movement, so a bank could not refuse employment to a worker who lacked a Bolzano language certificate.

The Free Movement of Workers Regulation articles 1 to 7 set out the main provisions on equal treatment of workers. First, articles 1 to 4 generally require that workers can take up employment, conclude contracts, and not suffer discrimination compared to nationals of the member state. In a famous case, the Belgian Football Association v Bosman, a Belgian footballer named Jean-Marc Bosman claimed that he should be able to transfer from R.F.C. de Liège to USL Dunkerque when his contract finished, regardless of whether Dunkerque could afford to pay Liège the habitual transfer fees. The Court of Justice held "the transfer rules constitute[d] an obstacle to free movement" and were unlawful unless they could be justified in the public interest, but this was unlikely. In Groener v Minister for Education the Court of Justice accepted that a requirement to speak Gaelic to teach in a Dublin design college could be justified as part of the public policy of promoting the Irish language, but only if the measure was not disproportionate. By contrast in Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA a bank in Bolzano, Italy, was not allowed to require Mr Angonese to have a bilingual certificate that could only be obtained in Bolzano. The Court of Justice, giving "horizontal" direct effect to TFEU article 45, reasoned that people from other countries would have little chance of acquiring the certificate, and because it was "impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means", the measure was disproportionate. Second, article 7(2) requires equal treatment in respect of tax. In Finanzamt Köln Altstadt v Schumacker the Court of Justice held that it contravened TFEU art 45 to deny tax benefits (e.g. for married couples, and social insurance expense deductions) to a man who worked in Germany, but was resident in Belgium when other German residents got the benefits. By contrast in Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg the Court of Justice rejected Mr Weigel's claim that a re-registration charge upon bringing his car to Austria violated his right to free movement. Although the tax was "likely to have a negative bearing on the decision of migrant workers to exercise their right to freedom of movement", because the charge applied equally to Austrians, in absence of EU legislation on the matter it had to be regarded as justified. Third, people must receive equal treatment regarding "social advantages", although the Court has approved residential qualifying periods. In Hendrix v Employee Insurance Institute the Court of Justice held that a Dutch national was not entitled to continue receiving incapacity benefits when he moved to Belgium, because the benefit was "closely linked to the socio-economic situation" of the Netherlands. Conversely, in Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen the Court of Justice held that a Dutch woman living in the Netherlands, but working between 3 and 14 hours a week in Germany, did not have a right to receive German child benefits, even though the wife of a man who worked full-time in Germany but was resident in Austria could. The general justifications for limiting free movement in TFEU article 45(3) are "public policy, public security or public health", and there is also a general exception in article 45(4) for "employment in the public service".

Citizens

See also: Citizenship of the European Union

Beyond the right of free movement to work, the EU has increasingly sought to guarantee rights of citizens, and rights simply be being a human being. But although the Court of Justice stated that 'Citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States', political debate remains on who should have access to public services and welfare systems funded by taxation. As of now, Union citizenship is criticised for being not inclusive enough and having failed to establish a truly borderless space of social solidarity. In 2008, just 8 million people from 500 million EU citizens (1.7 per cent) had in fact exercised rights of free movement, the vast majority workers. According to TFEU article 20, citizenship of the EU derives from nationality of a member state. Article 21 confers general rights to free movement in the EU and to reside freely within limits set by legislation. This applies for citizens and their immediate family members. This triggers four main groups of rights: (1) to enter, depart and return, without undue restrictions, (2) to reside, without becoming an unreasonable burden on social assistance, (3) to vote in local and European elections, and (4) the right to equal treatment with nationals of the host state, but for social assistance only after 3 months of residence.

The Berlin Wall (1961–1989) symbolised a bordered globe, where citizens of the Soviet Union had no right to leave, and few could enter. The EU has progressively dismantled barriers to free movement, consistent with economic development.

First, the Citizens Rights Directive 2004 article 4 says every citizen has the right to depart a member state with a valid passport. This has historical importance for central and eastern Europe, when the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall denied its citizens the freedom to leave. Article 5 gives every citizen a right of entry, subject to national border controls. Schengen Area countries (not the UK and Ireland) abolished the need to show documents, and police searches at borders, altogether. These reflect the general principle of free movement in TFEU article 21. Second, article 6 allows every citizen to stay three months in another member state, whether economically active or not. Article 7 allows stays over three months with evidence of "sufficient resources... not to become a burden on the social assistance system". Articles 16 and 17 give a right to permanent residence after 5 years without conditions. Third, TEU article 10(3) requires the right to vote in the local constituencies for the European Parliament wherever a citizen lives.

All EU citizens have the right to child support, education, social security and other assistance in EU member states. To ensure people contribute fairly to the communities they live in, there can be qualifying periods of residence and work up to five years.

Fourth, and more debated, article 24 requires that the longer an EU citizen stays in a host state, the more rights they have to access public and welfare services, on the basis of equal treatment. This reflects general principles of equal treatment and citizenship in TFEU articles 18 and 20. In a simple case, in Sala v Freistaat Bayern the Court of Justice held that a Spanish lady who had lived in Germany for 25 years and had a baby was entitled to child support, without the need for a residence permit, because Germans did not need one. In Trojani v Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles, a French man who lived in Belgium for two years was entitled to the "minimex" allowance from the state for a minimum living wage. In Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d'Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve a French student, who had lived in Belgium for three years, was entitled to receive the "minimex" income support for his fourth year of study. Similarly, in R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing the Court of Justice held that it was lawful to require a French UCL economics student lived in the UK for three years before receiving a student loan, but not that he had to have additional "settled status". Similarly, in Commission v Austria, Austria was not entitled to restrict its university places to Austrian students to avoid "structural, staffing and financial problems" if (mainly German) foreign students applied, unless it proved there was an actual problem. However, in Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig, the Court of Justice held that the German government was entitled to deny child support to a Romanian mother who had lived in Germany for three years, but had never worked. Because she lived in Germany for over 3 months, but under five years, she had to show evidence of "sufficient resources", since the Court reasoned the right to equal treatment in article 24 within that time depended on lawful residence under article 7.

Establishment and services

Main articles: Internal Market (European Union), European company law, and European labour law

As well as creating rights for "workers" who generally lack bargaining power in the market, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union also protects the "freedom of establishment" in article 49, and "freedom to provide services" in article 56. In Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano the Court of Justice held that to be "established" means to participate in economic life "on a stable and continuous basis", while providing "services" meant pursuing activity more "on a temporary basis". This meant that a lawyer from Stuttgart, who had set up chambers in Milan and was censured by the Milan Bar Council for not having registered, should claim for breach of establishment freedom, rather than service freedom. However, the requirements to be registered in Milan before being able to practice would be allowed if they were non-discriminatory, "justified by imperative requirements in the general interest" and proportionately applied. All people or entities that engage in economic activity, particularly the self-employed, or "undertakings" such as companies or firms, have a right to set up an enterprise without unjustified restrictions. The Court of Justice has held that both a member state government and a private party can hinder freedom of establishment, so article 49 has both "vertical" and "horizontal" direct effect. In Reyners v Belgium the Court of Justice held that a refusal to admit a lawyer to the Belgian bar because he lacked Belgian nationality was unjustified. TFEU article 49 says states are exempt from infringing others' freedom of establishment when they exercise "official authority". But regulation of an advocate's work (as opposed to a court's) was not official. By contrast in Commission v Italy the Court of Justice held that a requirement for lawyers in Italy to comply with maximum tariffs unless there was an agreement with a client was not a restriction. The Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held the commission had not proven that this had any object or effect of limiting practitioners from entering the market. Therefore, there was no prima facie infringement freedom of establishment that needed to be justified.

The Court of Justice in Centros Ltd held that people can establish a UK company or any other, to do business EU-wide, but must comply with proportionate requirements in the public interest, such as the basic labour right to a voice at work.

In regard to companies, the Court of Justice held in R (Daily Mail and General Trust plc) v HM Treasury that member states could restrict a company moving its seat of business, without infringing TFEU article 49. This meant the Daily Mail newspaper's parent company could not evade tax by shifting its residence to the Netherlands without first settling its tax bills in the UK. The UK did not need to justify its action, as rules on company seats were not yet harmonised. By contrast, in Centros Ltd v Erhversus-og Selkabssyrelsen the Court of Justice found that a UK limited company operating in Denmark could not be required to comply with Denmark's minimum share capital rules. UK law only required £1 of capital to start a company, while Denmark's legislature took the view companies should only be started up if they had 200,000 Danish krone (around €27,000) to protect creditors if the company failed and went insolvent. The Court of Justice held that Denmark's minimum capital law infringed Centros Ltd's freedom of establishment and could not be justified, because a company in the UK could admittedly provide services in Denmark without being established there, and there were less restrictive means of achieving the aim of creditor protection. This approach was criticised as potentially opening the EU to unjustified regulatory competition, and a race to the bottom in legal standards, like the US state of Delaware, which is argued to attract companies with the worst standards of accountability, and unreasonably low corporate tax. Appearing to meet the concern, in Überseering BV v Nordic Construction GmbH the Court of Justice held that a German court could not deny a Dutch building company the right to enforce a contract in Germany, simply because it was not validly incorporated in Germany. Restrictions on freedom of establishment could be justified by creditor protection, labour rights to participate in work, or the public interest in collecting taxes. But in this case denial of capacity went too far: it was an "outright negation" of the right of establishment. Setting a further limit, in Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt the Court of Justice held that because corporations are created by law, they must be subject to any rules for formation that a state of incorporation wishes to impose. This meant the Hungarian authorities could prevent a company from shifting its central administration to Italy, while it still operated and was incorporated in Hungary. Thus, the court draws a distinction between the right of establishment for foreign companies (where restrictions must be justified), and the right of the state to determine conditions for companies incorporated in its territory, although it is not entirely clear why.

The "freedom to provide services" under TFEU article 56 applies to people who give services "for remuneration", especially commercial or professional activity. For example, in Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid a Dutch lawyer moved to Belgium while advising a client in a social security case, and was told he could not continue because Dutch law said only people established in the Netherlands could give legal advice. The Court of Justice held that the freedom to provide services applied, it was directly effective, and the rule was probably unjustified: having an address in the member state would be enough to pursue the legitimate aim of good administration of justice. The Court of Justice has held that secondary education falls outside the scope of article 56 because usually the state funds it, but higher education does not. Health care generally counts as a service. In Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds Mrs Geraets-Smits claimed she should be reimbursed by Dutch social insurance for costs of receiving treatment in Germany. The Dutch health authorities regarded the treatment unnecessary, so she argued this restricted the freedom (of the German health clinic) to provide services. Several governments submitted that hospital services should not be regarded as economic, and should not fall within article 56. But the Court of Justice held health was a "service" even though the government (rather than the service recipient) paid for the service. National authorities could be justified in refusing to reimburse patients for medical services abroad if the health care received at home was without undue delay, and it followed "international medical science" on which treatments counted as normal and necessary. The Court requires that the individual circumstances of a patient justify waiting lists, and this is also true in the context of the UK's National Health Service. Aside from public services, another sensitive field of services are those classified as illegal. Josemans v Burgemeester van Maastricht held that the Netherlands' regulation of cannabis consumption, including the prohibitions by some municipalities on tourists (but not Dutch nationals) going to coffee shops, fell outside article 56 altogether. The Court of Justice reasoned that narcotic drugs were controlled in all member states, and so this differed from other cases where prostitution or other quasi-legal activity was subject to restriction.

If an activity does fall within article 56, a restriction can be justified under article 52, or by overriding requirements developed by the Court of Justice. In Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën a business that sold commodities futures (with Merrill Lynch and another banking firms) attempted to challenge a Dutch law that prohibiting cold calling customers. The Court of Justice held the Dutch prohibition pursued a legitimate aim to prevent "undesirable developments in securities trading" including protecting the consumer from aggressive sales tactics, thus maintaining confidence in the Dutch markets. In Omega Spielhallen GmbH v Bonn a "laserdrome" business was banned by the Bonn council. It bought fake laser gun services from a UK firm called Pulsar Ltd, but residents had protested against "playing at killing" entertainment. The Court of Justice held that the German constitutional value of human dignity, which underpinned the ban, did count as a justified restriction on freedom to provide services. In Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa the Court of Justice also held that the state monopoly on gambling, and a penalty for a Gibraltar firm that had sold internet gambling services, was justified to prevent fraud and gambling where people's views were highly divergent. The ban was proportionate as this was an appropriate and necessary way to tackle the serious problems of fraud that arise over the internet. In the Services Directive a group of justifications were codified in article 16, which the case law has developed.

Capital

Main articles: Capital control, Single Euro Payments Area, and Economic and Monetary Union of the EU

The European System of Central Banks, including the ECB and member state banks like the Banque de France, has been criticised for failing to fulfil its mandate. It interpreted the requirement for price stability as requiring wage suppression and growing inequality in its dealings on the European debt crisis.

Free movement of capital was traditionally seen as the fourth freedom, after goods, workers and persons, services and establishment. The original Treaty of Rome required that restrictions on free capital flows only be removed to the extent necessary for the common market. From the Treaty of Maastricht, now in TFEU article 63, "all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited". This means capital controls of various kinds are prohibited, including limits on buying currency, limits on buying company shares or financial assets, or government approval requirements for foreign investment. By contrast, taxation of capital, including corporate tax, capital gains tax and Financial transaction tax are not affected so long as they do not discriminate by nationality. According to the Capital Movement Directive 1988, Annex I, 13 categories of capital which must move free are covered. In Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingen Particulieren the Court of Justice held that for investments in companies, the capital rules, rather than freedom of establishment rules, were engaged if an investment did not enable a "definite influence" through shareholder voting or other rights by the investor. That case held a Dutch Wealth Tax Act 1964 unjustifiably exempted Dutch investments, but not Mr Baars' investments in an Irish company, from the tax: the wealth tax, or exemptions, had to be applied equally. On the other hand, TFEU article 65(1) does not prevent taxes that distinguish taxpayers based on their residence or the location of an investment (as taxes commonly focus on a person's actual source of profit) or any measures to prevent tax evasion. Apart from tax cases, largely following from cases originating in the UK, a series of cases held that government owned golden shares were unlawful. In Commission v Germany the Commission claimed the 1960 German Volkswagen Act violated article 63, in that §2(1) restricted any party having voting rights exceeding 20% of the company, and §4(3) allowed a minority of 20% of shares held by the Lower Saxony government to block any decisions. Although this was not an impediment to actual purchase of shares, or receipt of dividends by any shareholder, the Court of Justice's Grand Chamber agreed that it was disproportionate for the government's stated aim of protecting workers or minority shareholders. Similarly, in Commission v Portugal the Court of Justice held that Portugal infringed free movement of capital by retaining golden shares in Portugal Telecom that enabled disproportionate voting rights, by creating a "deterrent effect on portfolio investments" and reducing "the attractiveness of an investment". This suggested the Court's preference that a government, if it sought public ownership or control, should nationalise in full the desired proportion of a company in line with TFEU article 345.

The final stage of completely free movement of capital was thought to require a single currency and monetary policy, eliminating the transaction costs and fluctuations of currency exchange between member states but not between member states and third countries (TFEU article 63). Following a Report of the Delors Commission in 1988, the Treaty of Maastricht made economic and monetary union an objective, first by completing the internal market, second by creating a European System of Central Banks to coordinate common monetary policy, and third by locking exchange rates and introducing a single currency, the euro. Today, 19 member states have adopted the euro, while 9 member states have either determined to opt-out or their accession has been delayed, particularly since the European debt crisis. According to TFEU articles 119 and 127, the objective of the European Central Bank and other central banks ought to be price stability. This has been criticised for apparently being superior to the objective of full employment in the Treaty on European Union article 3.

Social and market regulations

See also: Market economy and Stakeholder (corporate)

All enterprises and markets are governed through legal rights for consumers, employees, investors or the public, in laws of property, contract, competition, environmental law and other social and economic rights. EU law harmonises a minimum floor of rights so that stakeholders can fully participate in social progress.

While the European Economic Community originally focused on free movement, and dismantling barriers to trade, more EU law today concerns regulation of the "social market economy". In 1976 the Court of Justice said in Defrenne v Sabena the goal was "not merely an economic union", but to "ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples". On this view, stakeholders in each member state might not have the capacity to take advantage of expanding trade in a globalising economy. Groups with greater bargaining power can exploit weaker legal rights in other member states. For example, a corporation could shift production to member states with a lower minimum wage, to increase shareholder profit, even if production costs more and workers are paid less. This would mean an aggregate loss of social wealth, and a "race to the bottom" in human development. To make globalisation fair, the EU establishes a minimum floor of rights for the stakeholders in enterprise: for consumers, workers, investors, shareholders, creditors, and the public. Each field of law is vast, so EU law is designed to be subsidiary to comprehensive rules in each member state. Member states may go beyond the harmonised minimum, acting as "laboratories of democracy".

EU law makes basic standards of "exit" (where markets operate), rights (enforceable in court), and "voice" (especially through votes) in enterprise. Rules of competition law balance the interests of different groups, generally to favour consumers, for the larger purpose in the Treaty on European Union article 3(3) of a "highly competitive social market economy". The EU is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 345 to "in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership". This means the EU is bound to be neutral to member state's choice to take enterprises into public ownership, or to privatise them. While there have been academic proposals for a European Civil Code, and projects to frame non-binding principles of contract and tort, harmonisation has only occurred for conflict of laws and intellectual property.

Consumer protection

See also: European consumer law and Consumer protection

Protection of European consumers has been a central part of developing the EU internal market. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 169 enables the EU to follow the ordinary legislative procedure to protect consumers "health, safety and economic interests" and promote rights to "information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests". All member states may grant higher protection, and a "high level of consumer protection" is regarded as a fundamental right. Beyond these general principles, and outside specific sectors, there are four main Directives: the Product Liability Directive 1985, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005 and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011, requiring information and cancellation rights for consumers. As a whole, the law is designed to ensure that consumers in the EU are entitled to the same minimum rights wherever they shop, and largely follows inspiration from theories of consumer protection developed in California and the Consumer Bill of Rights proclaimed by John F. Kennedy in 1962. The Court of Justice has continually affirmed that the need for more consumer rights (than in commercial contracts) both because consumers tend to lack information, and they have less bargaining power.

Due to their unequal bargaining power, consumers are entitled to a legislative "charter of rights" to safe and healthy products, fair terms, proper information free from misleading advertising and marketing, and rights of cancellation.

The Product Liability Directive 1985 was the first consumer protection measure. It creates strict enterprise liability for all producers and retailers for any harm to consumers from products, as a way to promote basic standards of health and safety. Any producer, or supplier if the ultimate producer is insolvent, of a product is strictly liable to compensate a consumer for any damage caused by a defective product. A "defect" is anything which falls below what a consumer is entitled to expect, and this essentially means that products should be safe for their purpose. A narrow defensive is available if a producer can show that a defect could not be known by any scientific method, thought this has never been successfully invoked, because it is generally thought a profit making enterprise should not be able to externalise the risks of its activities.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 was the second main measure. Under article 3(1) a term is unfair, and not binding, if it is not "individually negotiated| and "if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer". The Court of Justice has continually affirmed that the Directive, as recital 16 states, "is based on the idea that the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge". Terms which are very skewed, are to be conclusively regarded as contrary to "good faith" and therefore unfair. For example, in RWE AG v Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV clauses in gas supply contracts enabling corporation, RWE, to unilaterally vary prices were advised by the Court of Justice to be not sufficiently transparent, and therefore unfair. In Brusse v Jahani BV the Court of Justice advised that clauses in a tenancy contract requiring tenants pay €25 per day were likely unfair, and would have to be entirely void without replacement, if they were not substituted with more precise mandatory terms in national legislation. In Aziz v Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya, following the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the European Court of Justice advised that even terms regarding repossession of homes in Spain had to be assessed for fairness by national courts. In Kušionová v SMART Capital a.s., the Court of Justice held that consumer law was to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights, including the right to housing, if a home could be repossessed. Because consumer law operates through Directives, national courts have the final say on applying the general principles set out by the Court of Justice's case law.

• Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC
• Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU
• Payment Services Directive 2007/64/EC
• Late Payments Directive 2011/7/EU

Labour rights

Main articles: European labour law, ILO Conventions, UK labour law, German labour law, French labour law, and United States labor law

While free movement of workers was central to the first European Economic Community agreement, the development of European labour law has been a gradual process. Originally, the Ohlin Report of 1956 recommended that labour standards did not need to be harmonised, although a general principle of anti-discrimination between men and women was included in the early Treaties. Increasingly, the absence of labour rights was seen as inadequate given the capacity for a "race to the bottom" in international trade if corporations can shift jobs and production to countries with low wages. Today, the EU is required under TFEU article 147 to contribute to a "high level of employment by encouraging cooperation between Member States". This has not resulted in legislation, which usually requires taxation and fiscal stimulus for significant change, while the European Central Bank's monetary policy has been acutely controversial during the European debt crisis. Under article 153(1), the EU is able to use the ordinary legislation procedure on a list of labour law fields. This notably excludes wage regulation and collective bargaining. Generally, four main fields of EU regulation of labour rights touch (1) individual labour rights, (2) anti-discrimination regulations, (3) rights to information, consultation, and participation at work, and (4) rights to job security. In virtually all cases, the EU follows the principle that member states can always create rights more beneficial to workers. This is because the fundamental principle of labour law is that employees' unequal bargaining power justifies substitution of rules in property and contract with positive social rights so that people may earn a living to fully participate in a democratic society. The EU's competences generally follow principles codified in the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers 1989, introduced in the "social chapter" of the Treaty of Maastricht. Initially the UK had opted-out, because of opposition by the Conservative Party, but was acceded to when the Labour Party won the 1997 general election in the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The European Social Charter 1961 art 2(1) requires "the working week to be progressively reduced" with "increase of productivity". The Working Time Directive 2003 requires 28 paid holidays a year. With two-day weekends, most people in the EU work two-thirds of the year or less.

The first group of Directives create a range of individual rights in EU employment relationships. The Employment Information Directive 1991 requires that every employee (however defined by member state law) has the right to a written statement of their employment contract. While there is no wage regulation, the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive 2003 requires that pension benefits are protected through a national insurance fund, that information is provided to beneficiaries, and minimum standards of governance are observed. Most member states go far beyond these requirements, particularly by requiring a vote for employees in who manages their money. Reflecting basic standards in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ILO Conventions, the Working Time Directive 2003 requires a minimum of 4 weeks (totalling 28 days) paid holidays each year, a minimum of 20-minute paid rest breaks for 6-hour work shifts, limits on night work or time spent on dangerous work, and a maximum 48-hour working week unless a worker individually consents. The Parental Leave Directive 2010 creates a bare minimum of 4 months of unpaid leave for parents (mothers, fathers, or legal guardians) to care for children before they turn 8 years old, and the Pregnant Workers Directive 1992 creates a right for mothers to a minimum of 14 weeks' paid leave to care for children. Finally, the Safety and Health at Work Directive 1989 requires basic requirements to prevent and insure against workplace risks, with employee consultation and participation, and this is complemented by specialised Directives, ranging from work equipment to dangerous industries. In almost all cases, all member states go significantly beyond this minimum. The objective of transnational regulation is therefore to progressively raise the minimum floor in line with economic development. Second, equality was affirmed by the Court of Justice in Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG to be a general principle of EU law. Further to this, the Part-time Work Directive 1997, Fixed-term Work Directive 1999 and Temporary Agency Work Directive 2008 generally require that people who do not have ordinary full-time, permanent contracts are treated no less favourably than their colleagues. However, the scope of the protected worker is left to member state law, and the TAWD 2008 only applies to "basic working conditions" (mostly pay, working hours and participation rights) and enabled member states to have a qualifying period. The Race Equality Directive 2000, Equality Framework Directive 2000 and Equal Treatment Directive 2006 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, disability, religion or belief, age, race and gender. As well as "direct discrimination", there is a prohibition on "indirect discrimination" where employers apply a neutral rule to everybody, but this has a disproportionate impact on the protected group. The rules are not consolidated, and on gender pay potentially limited in not enabling a hypothetical comparator, or comparators in outsourced business. Equality rules do not yet apply to child care rights, which only give women substantial time off, and consequently hinder equality in men and women caring for children after birth, and pursuing their careers.

A majority of EU countries have legislation, such the Codetermination Act 1976 or the statute for the École normale supérieure in Paris, which protect employees' right to vote for a corporation's management. This is reflected in the Employee Involvement Directive 2001 for European Companies.

Third, the EU is formally not enabled to legislate on collective bargaining, although the EU, with all member states, is bound by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of association. In Wilson and Palmer v United Kingdom the Court held that any detriment for membership of a trade union was incompatible with article 11, and in Demir and Baykara v Turkey the Court held "the right to bargain collectively with the employer has, in principle, become one of the essential elements" of article 11. This approach, which includes affirmation of the fundamental right to strike in all democratic member states, has been seen as lying in tension with some of the Court of Justice's previous case law, notably ITWF v Viking Line ABP and Laval Un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet. These controversial decisions, quickly disapproved by legislative measures, suggested the fundamental right of workers to take collective action was subordinate to business freedom to establish and provide services. More positively, the Information and Consultation Directive 2002 requires that workplaces with over 20 or 50 staff have the right to set up elected work councils with a range of binding rights, the European Works Council Directive 2009 enables work councils transnationally, and the Employee Involvement Directive 2001 requires representation of workers on company boards in some European Companies. If a company transforms from a member state corporation to incorporate under the European Company Regulation 2001, employees are entitled to no less favourable representation than under the member state's existing board participation laws. This is practically important as a majority of EU member states require employee representation on company boards. Fourth, minimum job security rights are provided by three Directives. The Collective Redundancies Directive 1998 specifies that minimum periods of notice and consultation occur if more than a set number of jobs in a workplace are at risk. The Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001 require that staff retain all contractual rights, unless there is an independent economic, technical or organisational reason, if their workplace is sold from one company to another. Last, the Insolvency Protection Directive 2008 requires that employees' wage claims are protected in case their employer falls insolvent. This last Directive gave rise to Francovich v Italy, where the Court of Justice affirmed that member states which fail to implement the minimum standards in EU Directives are liable to pay compensation to employees who should have rights under them.

Companies and investment

Main articles: European company law, UK company law, German corporate law, and United States corporate law

Like labour regulation, European company law is not a complete system and there is no such thing as a self-standing European corporation. Instead, a series of Directives require minimum standards, usually protecting investors, to be implemented in national corporate laws. The largest in Europe remain member state incorporations, such as the UK "plc", the German "AG" or the French "SA". There is however, a "European Company" (or Societas Europaea, abbreviated to "SE") created by the Statute for a European Company Regulation 2001. This sets out basic provisions on the method of registration (e.g. by merger or reincorporation of an existing company) but then states that wherever the SE has its registered office, the law of that member state supplements the rules of the Statute. The Employee Involvement Directive 2001also adds that, when an SE is incorporated, employees have the default right to retain all existing representation on the board of directors that they have, unless the negotiate by collective agreement a different or better plan than is provided for in existing member state law. Other than this, most important standards in a typical company law are left to member state law, so long as they comply with further minimum requirements in the company law directives. Duties owed by the board of directors to the company and its stakeholders, or the right to bring derivative claims to vindicate constitutional rights, are not generally regulated by EU law. Nor are rights of pre-emption to buy shares, nor rights of any party regarding claims by tort, contract or piercing the corporate veil to hold directors and shareholders accountable. However, Directives do require minimum rights on company formation, capital maintenance, accounting and audit, market regulation, board neutrality in a takeover bid, rules on mergers, and management of cross-border insolvency. The omission of minimum standards is important since the Court of Justice held in Centros that freedom of establishment requires companies operate in any member state they choose. This has been argued to risk a "race to the bottom" in standards, although the Court of Justice soon affirmed in Inspire Art that companies must still comply with proportionate requirements that are in the "public interest".

The Shareholder Rights Directive 2007 requires proxy vote instructions are followed. There EU has not yet acted, as have the Swiss, to prevent asset managers or banks like Deutsche Bank casting votes on company shares bought with other people's money, and to empower the ultimate investors.

Among the most important governance standards are rights vote for who is on the board of directors for investors of labour and capital. A Draft Fifth Company Law Directive proposed in 1972, which would have required EU-wide rights for employees to vote for boards stalled mainly because it attempted to require two-tier board structures, although most EU member states have codetermination today with unified boards. The Shareholder Rights Directive 2007 requires shareholders be able to make proposals, ask questions at meetings, vote by proxy and vote through intermediaries. This has become increasingly important as most company shares are held by institutional investors (primarily asset managers or banks, depending on the member state) who are holding "other people's money". A large proportion of this money comes from employees and other people saving for retirement, but who do not have an effective voice. Unlike Switzerland after a 2013 people's initiative, or the U.S. Dodd-Frank Act 2010 in relation to brokers, the EU has not yet prevented intermediaries casting votes without express instructions of beneficiaries. This concentrates power into a small number of financial institutions, and creates the potential for conflicts of interest where financial institutions sell retirement, banking or products to companies in which they cast votes with other people's money. A series of rights for ultimate investors exist in the Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision Directive 2003. This requires duties of disclosure in how a retirement fund is run, funding and insurance to guard against insolvency, but not yet that voting rights are only cast on the instructions of investors. By contrast, the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive 2009 does suggest that investors in a mutual fund or ("collective investment scheme") should control the voting rights. The UCITS Directive 2009 is primarily concerned with creating a "passport". If a firm complies with rules on authorisation, and governance of the management and investment companies in an overall fund structure, it can sell its shares in a collective investment scheme across the EU. This forms a broader package of Directives on securities and financial market regulation, much of which has been shaped by experience in the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Additional rules on remuneration practices, separating depositary bodies in firms from management and investment companies, and more penalties for violations were inserted in 2014. These measures are meant to decrease the risk to investors that an investment goes insolvent. The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004 applies to other businesses selling financial instruments. It requires similar authorisation procedures to have a "passport" to sell in any EU country, and transparency of financial contracts through duties to disclose material information about products being sold, including disclosure of potential conflicts of interest with clients. The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive 2011 applies to firms with massive quantities of capital, over €100 million, essentially hedge funds and private equity firms. Similarly, it requires authorisation to sell products EU wide, and then basic transparency requirements on products being sold, requirements in remuneration policies for fund managers that are perceived to reduce "risk" or make pay "performance" related. They do not, however, require limits to pay. There are general prohibitions on conflicts of interest, and specialised prohibitions on asset stripping. The Solvency II Directive 2009 is directed particularly at insurance firms, requiring minimum capital and best practices in valuation of assets, again to avoid insolvency. The Capital Requirements Directives contain analogous rules, with a similar goals, for banks. To administer the new rules, the European System of Financial Supervision was established in 2011, and consists of three main branches: the European Securities and Markets Authority in Paris, the European Banking Authority in London and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority in Frankfurt.

Competition law

Main article: European Union competition law

In Microsoft Corp v Commission, Microsoft was fined €497 million for tying sales of its Operating System to its media player, to bankrupt competitor media players. Maximum fines can reach 10% of worldwide turnover.

Competition law aims "to prevent competition from being distorted to the detriment of the public interest, individual undertakings and consumers", especially by limiting big business power. It covers all types of enterprise or "undertaking" regardless of legal form, or "every entity engaged in an economic activity", but not non-profit organisations based on the principle of solidarity, or bodies carrying out a regulatory function. Employees and trade unions are not undertakings, and are outside the scope of competition law, and so are solo self-employed workers, because on long-standing consensus in international law labour is not a commodity, and workers have structurally unequal bargaining power compared to business and employers. A legal professional body setting regulatory standards was held to be outside competition law, and so were the rules of the International Olympic Committee and the International Swimming Federation in prohibiting drugs, because although drugs might increase "competition", the "integrity and objectivity of competitive sport" was more important. EU competition law only regulates activities where trade between member states is affected to an "appreciable" degree, but member states may have higher standards that comply with social objectives. The four most important sets of rules relate to monopolies and enterprises with a dominant position, mergers and takeovers, cartels or collusive practices, and state aid.

First, Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits "abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position". A "dominant position" is presumed to exist with over a 50% market share, and may exist with a 39.7% market share. There may also be dominance through control of data, or by a group of undertakings acting collectively, and a corporate group will be treated as a "single economic unit" for the purpose of calculating market share. The prohibited categories of "abuse" are unlimited, but article 102 explicitly spells out the bans on (a) "unfair purchase or selling prices", (b) "limiting production", (c) "applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions", and (d) imposing unconnected "supplementary obligations" to contracts. In a leading case on (a) unfair prices, United Brands Co v Commission held that, although a banana company had a dominant position in its product and geographic markets (because bananas were not easily substituted with other fruit, and its relevant market share was 40 to 45%), prices 7% higher than rivals were not enough to be an abuse. By contrast prices 25% higher than a company's estimated costs were found to be unfair. Unfair pricing also includes predatory pricing, where a company cuts its own selling prices to bankrupt a competitor: there is a presumption of abuse if a company prices "below average variable costs", namely "those which vary depending on the quantities produced". There is no requirement to show losses might be recouped. A leading case on (b) limiting production is AstraZeneca plc v Commission, where a drug company was fined €60 million for misleading public authorities to secure a longer patent for a medicine it called Losec, so limiting public use. In 2022, in Google LLC v Commission the General Court upheld a €4.125 billion fine against Google for the "obstruction of development and distribution of competing Android operating systems" by paying manufacturers to not install any version other than Google's own. Refusal to supply goods or services may also be abusive, as in Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission where the subsidiary of CSC stopped selling an ingredient for a drug to combat tuberculosis to a competitor after it itself entered the drug market. Similarly in Microsoft Corp v Commission, Microsoft was fined €497 million for, among other things, refusing to give Sun Microsystems and other competitors information needed to build servers after Microsoft itself entered the server market.

In Google LLC v Commission Google was fined €4.125 billion for bribing phone-makers to pre-install only its Operating System version of Android.

Under the third type of abuse, (c) unlawful discrimination, in British Airways plc v Commission it was held that British Airways abused its dominant position by giving some travel agents extra payment to promote its tickets over others. This made "market entry very difficult" and frustrated the ability of "co-contractors to choose between various sources of supply or commercial partners". Under (d) examples of the abuse of imposing supplementary obligations include the Microsoft Corp v Commission case, where Microsoft bundled a pre-installed media player into Windows OS sales, which had the effect of damaging competitor businesses such as RealPlayer. By contrast, in Intel Corp v Commission, Intel was fined €1.06 billion by the commission for giving rebates on x86 computer processors if manufacturers bought over 80% of their chips only from Intel. This had the effect of "tying customers to the undertaking in a dominant position". However the fine was annulled on the ground that the commission had not adequately proven an anti-competitive effect, so in 2023 the Commission imposed a smaller €376 million fine. Second, the Merger Regulation 2004 applies to "concentrations" (any merger or acquisition), that generally have a value of at least €100 million turnover in the EU if it "would significantly impede effective competition" by creating or strengthening a dominant position. While mergers between direct ("horizontal") competitors are carefully scrutinised upon mandatory notification to the commission, vertical or conglomerate mergers are often allowed where a competitor is not removed. This has led to increasingly large business groups, with ever greater power.

Third, Article 101 of the TFEU prohibits cartels or collusive practices, including competitors engaging in (a) price fixing, (b) limiting production, (c) sharing markets, (d) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions, and (e) making contracts subject to unconnected obligations. According to Article 101(2) any such agreements between undertakings are automatically void. Article 101(3) establishes exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints that risk eliminating competition anywhere. For example, in Parker ITR Srl v Commission eleven corporations that manufactured marine hoses for offshore oil rigs were fined €131 million for rigging bids and sharing markets worldwide - they would designate a "bid champion" in each case to raise prices. Secret cartels are often hard to prove, so the courts allow competition regulators to establish collusion where there is no other plausible explanation for price rises. Some agreements among businesses, however, can be highly beneficial. For instance, in a decision on the Conseil Européen de la Construction d'Appareils Domestiques, the Commission held an agreement among washing machine makers to phase out production of low-efficiency machines was lawful, especially since it would lead to "reduced pollution from electricity generation". Fourth, TFEU article 106(1) requires that the state may not grant special or exclusive rights for undertakings that distort competition, and states that (2) competition law applies to services of general economic interest, unless it obstructs their tasks in law or fact (e.g. in providing public services). Under TFEU art 107(1) no state aid that distorts competition is allowed, but aid is allowed (2) for individual consumers, without discrimination, and (3) for economic development, particularly to tackle underemployment. The Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, on government procurement in the EU sets standards for open tenders when outsourcing public services to private companies.

Commerce and intellectual property

Main articles: Conflict of laws, European intellectual property law, EU copyright law, and EU patent law

While EU law has not yet developed a civil code for contracts, torts, unjust enrichment, real or personal property, or commerce in general, European legal scholars have drafted common principles, including Principles of European Contract Law and Principles of European Tort Law that are common to member states. In absence of harmonisation, there is a comprehensive system of conflicts of laws to settle the jurisdiction of courts, and the applicable law, for most commercial disputes. The Brussels I Regulation 2012 determines the jurisdiction of courts depending upon where a person is domiciled or has operations. The applicable law for consensual obligations is then determined by the Rome I Regulation, where article 3 states the principle that a choice of law can be made expressly in a contract, unless this affects provisions that cannot be derogated from, such as employment, consumer, tenancy or other rights. The Rome II Regulation determines applicable law in the case of non-consensual obligations, such as torts and unjust enrichment. Under article 4 the general rule is that the law applies where "the damage occurred", although under article 7 in the case of "environmental damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result" there is a choice to bring an action under the law of the tortfeasor.

Unlike other property forms, intellectual property rights are comprehensively regulated by a series of directives on copyrights, patents and trademarks. The Copyright Term Directive 2006 article 1 states the principle that copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the author. The Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 was passed to regulate copyright over the internet, and the effect of article 5 is that internet service providers are not liable for data they transmit even if it infringes copyright. However under article 6, member states must give "adequate legal protection" for copyrights. The Resale Rights Directive creates a right to royalties for authors where works are resold. The Enforcement Directive requires member states have effective remedies and legal processes. Under the European Patent Convention, which is separate from the EU, the general patent term is 20 years from the date that a patent (of an invention) is filed with an official register, and the development of an EU patent attempts to harmonise standards around these norms. The Trade Marks Directive enables a common system of trade mark registration so that, with exceptions, a registered trade mark applies across all EU member states.

Public regulation

The EU's budget in 2022 was around €170bn. Of this, €54bn subsidised agriculture, €42bn was spent on transport, building and the environment, €16bn on education and research, €13bn on welfare, €20bn on foreign and defence policy, €2bn in finance, €2bn in energy, €1.5bn in communications, and €13bn in administration.

See also: Economics of the public sector, US public service law, UK enterprise law, and Government procurement in the EU

A major part of EU law, and most of the EU's budget, concerns public regulation of enterprise and public services. A basic norm of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, in article 345, is that the "Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership", meaning the EU remains neutral between private or public ownership, but that it can require common standards. In the cases of education and health, member states generally organise public services and the EU requires free movement. There is a unified European Central Bank that funds private banks, and adopts a common monetary policy for price stability, employment and sustainability. The EU's policies on energy, agriculture and forestry, transport and buildings are crucial to end climate damage and shift completely to clean energy that does not heat the planet. Among these, 33% of the entire EU budget is spent on agricultural subsidies to farm corporations and owners. The EU also has an increasing number of policies to raise standards for communications, the internet, data protection, and online media. It has limited involvement in the military and security, but a Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Education and health

See also: Education in the EU and Healthcare in Europe

Most European universities, such as the University of Berlin, are tuition free and funded through fair tax, after the European Social Charter and International Bill of Rights, although their governance does not always give sufficient voting power to staff and alumni.

Education and health are provided mainly by member states, but shaped by common minimum standards in EU law. In the case of education, the European Social Charter, like the Universal Declaration, the International Bill of Human Rights, say that "everyone" has the right to education, and that primary, secondary and higher education should be made "free", for instance "by reducing or abolishing any fees or charges" and "granting financial assistance". While the history of education was confined to a wealth elite, today most member states have tuition free university. There are no common rules for university finance or governance, although there is a right to free movement and universities have voluntarily harmonised standards. In 1987, the Erasmus Programme was created to fund students to study in other countries, and with a budget of €30 billion from 2021 to 2027. From 1999, the Bologna Declaration and Process led to the creation of the European Higher Education Area where member state universities adopted a common degree structure (bachelor, master, and doctoral degree) with a goal to have similar expectations in learning outcomes. Member states may not impose different fees on students from other member states or limit their numbers, and this appears to have worked even without a system for countries to reimburse one another if costs differ widely. However, if member states have grants or student loans, R (Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing held there may be a minimum residency requirement, such as three years. Most of the world's best universities enable majority staff, and significant alumni or student voice in university governance. For instance, the French Education Code requires that universities have a board of management with 24 to 36 members, and 8 to 16 elected by professors, 4 to 6 by non-academic staff, 4 to 6 by students, and 8 external members, and have an academic council elected by staff with powers to set important rules, such as on training or examinations. Secondary, primary, and pre-school are generally free from fees. More successful school systems tend to be well-funded and public, and do not have barriers to children based on wealth, such as private fees for school. Most schools enable staff and parents to vote for representatives on their children's school governing bodies.

Most EU countries ensure healthcare is a free public service, or provide public insurance with hospitals operating independently such as at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, while a minority have more costly private provision with worse outcomes.

As in education, there is a universal human right to 'health and well-being' including 'medical care and necessary social services', although human rights law does not say what the best system of health governance is. Among EU member states there are two main traditions of health care provision, based on public service or insurance. First, healthcare may be seen as a public service free at the point of use, with hospitals largely owned by the public health service and doctors publicly funded (the "Beveridge model".) This is the system, for example, in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece or Ireland. Second, healthcare can be provided through insurance, where hospitals and doctors are separately owned and run from the service provider (the "Bismarck model"). There is a large spectrum between systems based mainly on public insurance and usually creating public option hospitals or requiring no profit (such as France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, the Czech Republic or Estonia) and those that allow substantial private and profit-making insurance and hospital or doctor provision (the Netherlands and Germany). In all cases, health is universal, and subsidised or free wherever people cannot afford insurance premiums, unlike the notorious case of the United States which still does not have universal healthcare. The healthcare outcomes vary greatly between different systems, so that while there is generally higher life expectancy with more investment, healthcare tends to have worse outcomes and costs more where there is more private business or profit. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 56 there is the right to receive services, with rules codified into the Patients' Rights Directive 2011. Article 4 requires that people are treated, article 5 requires reimbursement of costs by the person's country of origin, article 6 requires national contact points to connect healthcare providers or insurers and patient organisations, but under article 8 member states may require prior authorisation for people to travel abroad for treatment where the costs are high or planning is needed. A European Health Insurance Card is also available for free to receive health across the EU. This system was developed after R (Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust, where in 2003 Mrs Watts travelled from the UK to France, paid £3900 for a hip replacement operation, and claimed she should be reimbursed. The UK's National Health Service waiting lists were 4 to 6 months at the time. The Court of Justice's Grand Chamber held that health care counted as a 'service' under TFEU article 56, and that in principle there was a right to receive those services abroad. However, high demand could justify waiting lists in a national health system, but individual circumstances of the patient had to be assessed. For non-EU nationals, the European Court of Human Rights held in N v United Kingdom that it was not inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to ECHR article 3 to deport someone to a country where there were unlikely to live longer than two years without treatment. There is no duty 'through provision of free and unlimited health care to all aliens without a right to stay within its jurisdiction' to avoid 'too great a burden on the Contracting States.' However, if someone's death would be imminent the European Court of Human Rights has held that a decision to remove would violate ECHR article 3.

Banking, monetary and fiscal policy

See also: European Central Bank, European Banking Authority, European banking union, and European Investment Bank

Banking, monetary and fiscal policy is overseen by the European Central Bank, member states, and the EU Commission. This is vital for European society as it affects the human rights to full employment, to fair wages, housing, and to an adequate standard of living. When the Eurozone and common currency of the euro was established, there was no political agreement to develop a full EU fiscal policy (i.e. tax and spending), so that governments would pool money and lend to countries in trouble, because it was thought that wealthier member states should not have to subsidise poorer member states. However, there was planned to be a common central bank, which would aim to have common interest rates. The ECB, based in Frankfurt, controls monetary policy that underpins the euro. Member states also have central banks (such as the Bundesbank, Banque de France, Banco de España), and these 19 Eurozone member state central banks have a duty to act compatibly with ECB policy. The ECB has an executive board with a president, vice president and four other members, all appointed by the European Council by qualified majority, after consulting the European Parliament, and the Governing Council of the ECB. The Governing Council is made up of the ECB executive board and member state central banks using the euro, they have 8 year terms, and can be removed only for gross misconduct.

The European Central Bank is meant to maintain "price stability" and full employment, but it has not yet used its monetary policy powers to make banks divest the fossil fuels that cause inflation, to prevent escalating wage inequality, or escalating housing prices.

The European Central Bank's 'primary objective... shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to that objective, it shall support the general economic policies in the Union', such as 'balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.' There are three main powers to achieve these goals. First, the ECB can require other banks to hold reserves proportionate to their type of lending. Second, it may lend money to other banks, or conduct 'credit operations'. Third it may 'operate in the financial markets by buying and selling' securities. For example, in Gauweiler v Deutscher Bundestag a German politician claimed that the ECB's purchase of Greek government debt on secondary markets violated TFEU article 123, which prohibits directly lending money to member state governments. The Court of Justice rejected that the ECB had engaged in 'economic policy' (i.e. fiscal transfers) rather than monetary policy decisions, which it was allowed to do. So far the ECB has failed to use these powers to eliminate investment in fossil fuels, despite the inflation that gas, oil and coal cause given their price volality in international markets.

Beyond the central bank, the Credit Institutions Directive 2013 requires authorisation and prudence provisions in other banks in all EU member states. Under the Basel III programme, created by an international banker group, banks must hold more money in reserves based on the risk-profile that it holds, as determined by the member state regulator. More risky assets require more reserves, and the Capital Requirements Regulation 2013 codifies these standards, for instance by mandating that proportionally less in reserves is needed if more government debt is held, but more if mortgage-backed securities are held. To guard against the risk of bank runs, the Deposit Guarantee Directive 2014 creates an EU wide minimum guarantee of €100,000 for bank deposits, so that if anyone's bank goes insolvent, the state will pay the deposit up to this amount. There are not yet rules requiring higher reserving and accounting practices for climate risk and of gas, oil or coal reserves become worthless as Europe replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy.

European nations by GDP (PPP) per capita in 2019. The EU has not yet updated its GDP measures to discount for harmful goods and services that create greenhouse gas emissions, pollution or ill health.

The budget of the European Union is set in 7 year cycles, and in 2022 around €170bn was spent, of which nearly one-third was agricultural policy, including regional development. EU member state government expenditures are far higher as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product, but are constrained by the Fiscal Compact, which requires no more than a 3% budget deficit compared to GDP in any given year, and aiming for surpluses or balanced budgets. As a result of the Eurozone crisis, a Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism created a fund to assist countries with severe fiscal problems. The results of the "strict conditionality" attached to loans (or so called structural adjustment) that required privatisation, cuts to welfare, and wages in Greece, Spain, Portugal or Ireland was particularly negative. The EU's main metric for economic performance has been GDP, which adds up market exchange values in firm accounts and government expenditures according to the Gross National Income Regulation 2019, even though this fails to discount polluting and harmful economic activities such as energy and industry that damages the climate, the environment and human health. The EU's budget mainly comes from contributions of around 0.7% of GDP per member state, as well as a share of EU value added tax and customs duties. The EU does not yet have a more comprehensive system for preventing tax evasion, or for fair taxation of multinational or financial corporations.

Electricity and energy

Main articles: Energy policy of the EU, Renewable energy in the EU, Environmental policy of the EU, Climate change litigation, and Climate change in Europe

Like the world, the EU's greatest task is to replace fossil fuels with clean energy as fast as technology allows since protection of "life", and "improvement of the quality of the environment" are fundamental rights, and the highest policy goals of the EU. In international law, there is also 'the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources' such as clean air, and the right to 'the benefits of scientific progress', such as clean energy. The EU's overall target is to reduce toxic greenhouse gas emissions by 50-55% by 2030, and be carbon neutral or negative by 2050, and 32% renewable energy by 2030, though a 45% target by 2030 was proposed by the commission and backed by Parliament in 2022. Since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it aims to eliminate Russian fossil fuel imports as fast as possible. However laws such as the Hydrocarbons Directive 1994 still enable gas and oil extraction. It requires that licences are awarded based on technical and financial capability, methods, price, and previous conduct, that applicants are treated equally by objective and non-discriminatory criteria, and advertisements for tenders must be public. It has not yet required that existing licensees pay for the pollution and climate damage they have caused, nor sought to end extraction of gas and oil.

The EU's greenhouse gas emissions are 90% from (1) energy generation from gas, oil and coal, (2) buildings with gas heating, (3) transport using oil, and (4) agriculture. By 2023, clean energy was cheaper from wind, solar or hydro, but EU law has not yet required rapid clean technology adoption.

A growing number of cases seek to enforce liability on gas, oil and coal polluters. In Friends of the Earth v Royal Dutch Shell plc, the Hague District Court held that Shell was bound by the tort provisions of the Dutch Civil Code, Book 6, section 162(2), interpreted in light of the Paris Agreement 2015 article 2(1) and ECHR articles 2 and 8 (rights to life and home), to immediately start cutting all of its emissions by 45% by 2030, whether generated directly by its corporate group (scope 1), indirectly from its purchases (scope 2), or indirectly from its value chain or the purchase and use of its products (scope 3). It emphasised the 'serious and irreversible consequences of dangerous climate change in the Netherlands... pose a threat to the human rights of Dutch residents'. After this loss, Shell dropped "Royal Dutch" from its name, and moved its headquarters to London. In Lliuya v RWE AG Mr Lliuya, who lives in Huaraz, Peru has claimed that RWE AG should pay 0.47% of the costs of flood defences against a melting mountain glacier that increases the size of Lake Palcacocha, because RWE is responsible for 0.47% of historic global greenhouse gas emissions. The Higher Regional Court of Essen gave leave to appeal on whether there is causation of damage, and in 2022 visited the lake. There has also been heightened responsibility on member state governments. In Urgenda v State of Netherlands the Dutch Supreme Court held the Dutch government must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% before 2020, following the IPCC 2007 minimum recommendations, and that failure to do so would violate the right to life and home in ECHR articles 2 and 8. In the Klimaschutz case, the German Constitutional Court held that the German government must speed up its climate protection measures to protect the rights to life, and the environment under the Grundgesetz 1949, articles 2 and 20a. However the EU and member states have so far failed to codify liability to prevent pollution and climate damage by corporations that profit, and the EU Emissions Trading System has failed to adequately price carbon for the damage it causes (prices traded under €98 per metric ton until the end of 2022).

Deforestation in Europe has been driven by "biomass" being classified as "renewable", even though burning wood for power pollutes the air and harms human health more than coal, and drives climate damage.

As clean energy from wind, solar or hydro storage replaces pollution from gas, oil and coal, EU law has standards for generation and distribution networks. First, in generation, the Renewable Energy Directive 2018 still enables biomass and biofuel to count toward "renewable" energy statistics based on the argument that trees or plants absorb greenhouse gases when they grow, even though biomass burning (usually in ex-coal plants) releases more greenhouse gases than coal, biomass transport is not clean, forests take decades to replenish, and smoke damages human health. Second, the EU does not yet have a feed-in tariff system, requiring energy grids and retailers to pay a fair price to households or businesses with solar or wind generation, however in PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG the Court of Justice held that member states could fix any price they chose, so that energy companies would have to reimburse producers for the energy they received. A company now owned by E.ON claimed the feed-in tariff was state aid under TFEU article 107, and should have to pass rules for exemption, as a way to hinder renewable energy funding. The Court rejected this, because although the policy might have 'negative repercussions' for big energy companies it 'cannot be regarded' as giving to small producers 'a particular advantage at the expense of the state'.

The EU's wind, solar and hydro sectors remain a minority, but growing share of energy. It has not yet given a deadline to shut down all gas, oil and coal, although some member states have required fossil fuel companies to convert, such as Denmark's Ørsted.

The third main set of standards is that the EU requires that electricity or gas enterprises acquire a licence from member state authorities. There must be legal separation into different entities of owners of networks from retailers, although they can be owned by the same enterprise, to ensure transparency of accounting. Then, different enterprises have rights to access infrastructure of network owners on fair and transparent terms, as a way to ensure different member state networks and supplies can become integrated across the EU. Most EU operators are publicly owned, and the Court of Justice in Netherlands v Essent NV emphatically rejected that there was any violation of EU law on free movement of capital by a Dutch Act requiring electricity and gas distributors to be publicly owned, that system operators could not be connected by ownership to generators, and limited the level of debt.The Court of Justice held a public ownership requirement was justified by 'overriding reasons in the public interest', 'to protect consumers' and for the 'security of energy supply'. It further pointed to the foundational case of Costa v ENEL, where the Court held in 1964 that the treaties do 'not prohibit the creation of any state monopolies' so long as they do not operate commercially and discriminate. The approach of EU law is that even where energy companies are privatised, they still are subject to the same rules as the state on direct effect, because it remains that they are 'providing a public service'. The evidence suggests "consumers pay lower electricity net-of-tax prices in countries where there are still incumbents owned by national governments." With the sharp rise in fossil fuel prices that came from the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fossil fuel cartel OPEC deciding to restrict supply, the EU Commission proposed a windfall fossil fuel tax. There are not yet common standards on energy enterprise governance, although a number of member states ensure that workers and energy bill payers have the right to vote for directors.

Agriculture, forestry and water

See also: Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and Water supply and sanitation in the EU

Everyone has the right to food and water, and under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU "the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union". The Common Agricultural Policy's origins lay in ensuring that all farm workers had fair wages and everyone had food, since in 1960 a third of employment and a fifth of GDP was in agriculture, and after WW2 Europe had been on the brink of starvation. In 2020, the agricultural workforce was 4.2% of the EU total. The CAP's objectives are still to increase production, "a fair standard of living for the agricultural community", to stabilise markets and supplies, and "reasonable prices" for consumers. In 2021, the CAP was 33.1% of the entire EU budget, at €55.1 billion, however there are no requirements for subsidies to be used so that farm workers (as opposed to owners) have fair pay scales, few requirements for rural development, and minimal standards for environmental improvement.

The Common Agricultural Policy is 33% of the EU budget, but does not yet require fair wages for farm workers, that production stops using fossil fuels, or that reforestation and rewilding takes place.

The CAP has three main parts. First, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund distributes 'direct payments', which are 70.9% of the CAP budget. The Direct Payments Regulation 2013 gives payments to an 'active farmer' that carries out agricultural activity, grazing or cultivation, does not operate airports, rail, waterworks, real estate, sport or recreation grounds, and has the land at their disposal. The farm must have at least 1 hectare and receive €100 for each, though member states can set higher thresholds (e.g. 5 hectares and €200). If payments reach over €150,000 there is a 5% reduction per hectare for each hectare. This favours large farm corporations, and the largest 1% typically receive around 10 to 15% of all subsidies in member states. As conditions of receiving subsidies, farms can be required to keep land in good condition, for public, animal, and plant health, and maintain environment standards. For minimal biodiversity, farmers must have over two crops if they have 10 hectares, not farm at least 5% of lintensively (an 'ecological focus area' over 15 hectares, and have three crops over 30 hectares. Environmentally sensitive grasslands, as designated by the Habitats Directive 1992 and the Wild Birds Directive 2009, should not be more turned into more than 5% agricultural area. The second main part, also carried out by the EAGF, is 'market measures'. Under the Agricultural Products Regulation 2013 certain crops and meat are eligible for purchase by member state authorities, to be 'stored by them until disposed of', with extra aid for storage. The goal of this is to restrict supply and therefore raise prices, particularly in response to unexpected drops in demand, a health scare, or international market volatility. In 2018, this was 4.59% of the CAP budget. The benefits of many of these subsidies go to the parties in the food supply chains with most bargaining power, which is usually supermarkets. The Agricultural Unfair Trading Practices Directive 2019 article 3 prohibits practices such as late payments by buyers of food to suppliers, cancellations at short notice, unilateral alteration of terms, threats of commercial retaliation, and payments by suppliers to the buyers (i.e. from farmers to supermarkets) for stocking, adverts, marketing or staff. These rules limit supermarkets' abuse of a dominant position but do not ensure subsidies reach farm communities. The Food Safety Regulation 2002 article 14 requires that food is not place on the market if it is 'injurious to health' or is 'unfit for human consumption', but there is no requirement that supermarkets or others eliminate harmful packaging such as plastic. The third main part, administered by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, is 'rural development' payments, which are 24.4% of the CAP budget. Following the 'Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development', payments are made for knowledge transfer, advice, asset investment, and business development aid. Priorities may include improving water and energy use. The courts give the EU a wide discretion to implement policy, so judicial review is possible only if agricultural measures are 'manifestly inappropriate'. EU law does not yet have a systematic plan or subsidies to rewild depleted environments, and to move to complete clean energy infrastructure.

Forests, like the Wörschachwald in Austria, once covered 80% of Europe, but now cover only 43.5% of EU land. There is no plan yet to reforest and rewild the continent in the agriculture budget.

Outside farms, forests cover just 43.52% of the EU's land, compared to 80% forest cover historically across Europe. There is no requirement yet to undertake any reforesting or rewilding of land, while the Land Use and Forestry Directive 2018 merely requires that member states keep accounts of land use and forestry changes based on greenhouse gas emissions, and that emissions do not exceed removals of greenhouse gases. Globally, the Timber Regulation 2010 requires that all timber traders know their supply chains and keep records for 5 years, to ensure that any illegally harvested timber is banned in the EU law, however there is not yet any ban on imports of goods (such as beef or palm oil) from countries that continue to deforest their landscape. For water resources, in nature or for drinking, the Water Framework Directive 2000 sets common standards and provides that member states should oversee water industry standards. The Drinking Water Quality Directive 2020 requires water that is "wholesome and clean", and article 4 defines this as free from micro-organisms and parasites dangerous to health, and compliant with chemical and biological standards in Annex I. The Bathing Waters Directive 2006 sets standards for quality of bathing waters, namely riviers and beaches, to be free from toxic waste or sewage. There must be adequate remedies for breaches, so in Commission v United Kingdom (1992) it was held that the UK's approach of accepting undertakings from water companies to behave better in future, instead of using enforcement orders, was inadequate to comply with EU law. Fines can be and often are significant, ranging into hundreds of thousands or millions of euros for breach.

Transport and buildings

Main articles: Transport in the European Union and High-speed rail in Europe

Clean road, rail, sea and air transport are fundamental goals of the EU, given its commitment to human rights for 'improvement of the quality of the environment', 'services of general economic interest', and the right to 'the benefits of scientific progress'. However, the pace of reform is slow compared to the urgency of reversing global heating. The Renewable Energy Directive 2018 article 25 requires that final energy consumption in transport in each member state is 'at least 14%' renewable by 2030. This is within the 2030 target for 32% "share of energy from renewable sources in the Union's gross final consumption of energy". In 2022, the EU promised to ban sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles only by 2035, enabling manufacturing corporations to profit from toxic emissions for another 13 years, though many member states have higher standards. There is not yet a plan for full rail electrification, or clean shipping or air travel, even where technology exists.

The market share of Plug-in electric vehicles in Europe was merely 19% in 2021. In the Dieselgate scandal, firms such as Volkswagen, Fiat, BMW and Renault engaged in mass fraud to conceal toxic emissions, leading to thousands of deaths.

In road transport, the Emission Performance Regulation 2019 says manufacturers of "new passenger cars" should not allow emissions to exceed 95 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, and 147 grams of CO₂ per kilometre for new light commercial vehicles, but this is merely an "EU fleet-wide target" rather than requirements for each vehicle. Manufacturers can agree to pool their production quotas, so as to meet their targets on average, but there is no legal sanction for failure to meet the target. Member states are simply required to record the relevant success or failure, and manufacturers' performance is published. By contrast the Vehicles Emissions Regulation 2007 sets the "Euro 6" standards in maximum emissions that car manufacturers can have. Since the 'Euro 1' standard was introduced in 1992, standards became cleaner each 4 to 5 years, but recently stalled. Article 2 states this applies to vehicles under 2,610 kilograms, while the Heavy Vehicle Emission Regulation 2019 applies to heavier vehicles, with looser CO₂ limits. Article 4 states manufacturers must 'demonstrate that all new vehicles sold, registered or put into service in the Community are type approved in accordance with this Regulation'. Article 6 requires manufacturers to 'provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information' should there be any non-compliance. Article 13 requires penalties imposed by member states for breach are 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive', and breaches include any 'false declarations' as well as 'use of defeat devices'. This reference follows the "Dieselgate" scandal where Volkswagen and manufacturers around Europe and the world fraudulently concealed their true emissions. In 2007, Commission v Germany held that the German Volkswagen Act 1959 violated free movement of capital in TFEU article 63 by ensuring that the state of Lower Saxony had a golden share to exercise public control over the company's governance. It limited voting rights of individual shareholder to 20% of the company. The German government's justification that the restrictions were an overriding public interest, for instance, to protect workers was rejected. A justification for environmental protection was not offered. After this, the Porsche family dominated Volkswagen, and in 2007 a new CEO, Martin Winterkorn took up his post and aimed in 'Strategie 2018' to become the world's largest auto-manufacturer, and it began to install cheat devices.

High-speed rail in Europe is coordinated by the commission, and has a patchwork plan to gradually upgrade track for a faster network.

People need to have a driving licence to drive on a road, and there is a common system of recognition around the EU. For delivery vehicle workers, the Road Transport Regulation 2006 limits daily driving time to 9 hours a day, a maximum of 56 hours a week, and requires at least a 45-minute break after 4+1⁄2 hours. Drivers may also not be paid according to distance travelled if this would endanger road safety. Taxi enterprises are usually regulated separately in each member state, and the attempts of the app-based firm Uber to evade regulation by arguing it was not a "transport service" rather than an "Information Society Service" failed. Most bus networks are publicly owned or procured, but there are common rights. If buses are delayed in journeys over 250 kilometres, the Bus Passenger Rights Regulation 2011 entitles passengers to compensation. Under article 19, a delay over two hours must result in compensation of 50% of the ticket price, as well as rerouting and reimbursement. Article 6 says 'Carriers may offer contract conditions that are more favourable for the passenger', although it is not clear many take up this option. Article 7 says member states cannot set maximum compensation for death or injury lower than €220,000 per passenger or €1200 per item of luggage. There is not yet a requirement for the major bus, delivery, taxi enterprises to electrify their fleets even though this would create the fastest reduction of emissions and would be cheaper for business in total operating costs.

Transport and buildings are the EU's two greatest internal sources of fossil fuel use, yet there is no legislative end to gas heating, or and end to polluting motors until 2035, or 2030 in some member states.

In rail transport, the Single European Railway Directive 2012 requires that ownership of tracks and operating companies are separated to prevent conflicts of interest and pricing, particularly to ensure that trains can run from one member state to another. Most European railways are publicly owned, and each train enterprise must have separate accounts and member states should run railways 'at the lowest possible cost for the quality of service required'. The Rail Passenger Rights Regulation 2007 article 17 states that 25% of a ticket price should be refunded if there is a one-hour delay, and 50% over two hours, with a threshold of €4 to claim. Passengers have a right to take bicycles on trains where they are not overcrowded, there must be clear information on tickets, and there are rights to make reservations. Finally, in air transport, under the Flight Compensation Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 there is a minimum right of €250 compensation for 2 hour delay on 1500 km flight, €400 compensation for 3 hour delay or more on a 1500–3500 km flight, and €600 for 4 hours in flights over 3500 km flight, plus the right to refreshments, hotels, and alternative transport. There are not yet duties on airline companies to invest in research for clean fuels, and eliminate unnecessary flight paths when clean land transport alternatives (such as high-speed rail) exist.

Finally, the 'right to housing assistance' is a basic part of EU law. House prices are affected by monetary policy (above), but otherwise the EU's involvement is so far limited to minimal environmental standards. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010 aims to eliminate unclean materials and energy waste to have "nearly zero-energy buildings", particularly by setting standards for new buildings since 2020 and upgrading existing buildings by 2050. There is, however, no requirement yet that all buildings replace gas heating with electric or heat-pumps, have solar or wind energy generation, electric vehicle charging, and particular insulation standards, wherever possible.

Communications and data

See also: Telecommunications in the EU, Internet in the EU, and General Data Protection Regulation

The right 'to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers' is a basic part of freedom of expression, as much as the right against 'arbitrary or unlawful interference with [our] privacy, family, home or correspondence', whether interference is by business, government or anyone else. Communication networks, from the post to telephone lines to the internet, are crucial for friends, families, business and government, and EU law sets standards for their construction and use. For example, the Postal Services Directive 1997 article 3 requires 'universal service' at minimum standards by the main postal provider. For mobile phone access anywhere in the EU, the Roaming Regulation 2022 eliminates extra charges for mobile calls, texts and data when abroad in other member states, and wholesale charges must be fair. To ensure internet service providers do not slow speeds for some websites to gain unfair profit, the Net Neutrality Regulation 2015 states providers 'of internet access services shall treat all traffic equally' but this shall not prevent 'reasonable traffic management measures'.

The new internet backbone is made from optical fibre networks, meaning much faster internet than old copper cables. The EU's pledge is at least 100Mbps internet speed to all households in 2025, and 1000Mbps not until 2030, even though speeds 10 times this were available in 2015.

Since today's communications have mostly merged into the internet, the Electronic Communications Code Directive 2018 is critical for EU infrastructure. Article 5 requires a member state regulator or a "competent authority" is set up that will license use of the radio spectrum, through which mobile and internet signals travel. A regulator must also enable access and interconnection to other infrastructure (such as telecomms and broadband cables), protect end-user rights, and monitor "competition issues regarding open internet access" to ensure rights such as universal service and portability of phone numbers. Articles 6-8 require the regulators are independent, with dismissal of heads only for a good reason, and articles 10-11 require cooperation with other authorities. Articles 12-13 require that use of electronic communication networks is authorised by a regulator, and that conditions attached are non-discriminatory, proportionate and transparent. The owner of a communication network has duties to allow access and interconnection on fair terms, and so article 17 requires that its accounts and financial reports are separate from other activities (if the enterprise does other business), article 74 foresees that regulators can control prices, and article 84 says member states should "ensure that all consumers in their territories have access at an affordable price, in light of specific national conditions, to an available adequate broadband internet access service and to voice communications services". While some EU member states have privatised all, and some part, of their telecomms infrastructure, publicly or community-owned internet providers (such as in Denmark or Romania) tend to have the fastest web speeds.

Data protection is a human right, and personal data cannot be processed by any enterprise except with consent or by law under the General Data Protection Regulation 2016.

Historically to protect people's privacy and correspondence, the post banned tampering with letters, and excluded post offices from responsibility for letters even if the contents were for something illegal. As the internet developed, the original Information Society Directive 1998 aimed for something similar, so that internet server providers or email hosts, for instance, protected privacy. After this the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 also sought to ensure free movement for an "information society service", requiring member states to not restrict them unless it was to fulfill a public policy, prevent crime, fight incitement to hatred, protect individual dignity, protect health, or protect consumers or investors. Articles 12 to 14 further said that an ISS operating as a "mere conduit" for information, doing "caching" or "hosting" is 'not liable for information stored' if the 'provider does not have actual knowledge of illegal activity' and 'is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the illegal activity or information is apparent', but must act quickly to remove or disable access 'upon obtaining knowledge or awareness'. Article 15 states that member states should 'not impose a general obligation on providers... to monitor the information which they transmit or store' nor 'seek facts' on illegality. However the meaning of who was an "ISS" was not clearly defined in law, and has become a problem with social media that was not meant to be protected like private communication. An internet service provider has been held to be an ISS, and so has a Wi-Fi host, the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 recital 11 states email services, search engines, data storage, and streaming, are information society services, and an individual email is not, and the Information Society Directive 2015 makes clear that TV and radio stations do not count as ISS's. None of these definitions include advertising, which is never "at the request of a recipient of services" as the 2015 Directive requires, however various cases have decided that eBay, Facebook, and AirBnB, may count as ISSs, but the cab app Uber does not.

The main rights to data privacy are found in the General Data Protection Regulation 2016. First, there is the right to have data about someone processed only with their 'consent', or based on other justifiable grounds, such as a lawful purpose. It has been held that consent is not given if there is 'a pre-checked checkbox which the user must deselect to refuse'. Under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002 a well-known result is that websites must not install "cookies" into someone's internet browser unless they positively accept cookies. The EU has not yet simply enabled people to block all cookies within a browser, and required that websites give people this option without thousands of annoying buttons to click. Second, people have the right to be informed about data kept on them. Third, there is a right to be forgotten and the data to be deleted. Where legal standards do not exist, Alphabet, Facebook or Microsoft have largely been uncontrolled in privacy invasion, for instance, Gmail pioneering surveillance of emails for ads as its first business model, and Facebook abolishing service-user voting rights over changes to its privacy policies in 2012. There are no rights yet in EU law for service-users to vote for representatives on boards of big tech companies that take their data, or to have decision-rights over use of their data, in contrast to the rights of service-users of websites like Wikipedia.

Media and markets

See also: Media freedom in the European Union and European Broadcasting Union

Pluralism and regulation of the media, such as through 'the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises', have long been seen as essential to protect freedom of opinion and expression, to ensure that citizens have a more equal voice, and ultimately to support the universal 'right to take part in the government'. In almost all member states there is a well funded public, and independent broadcaster for TV and radio, and there are common standards for all TV and radio, which are designed to support open, fact-based discussion and deliberative democracy. However, the same standards have not yet been applied to equivalent internet television, radio or "social media" such as the platforms controlled by YouTube (owned by Alphabet), Facebook or Instagram (owned by Meta), or Twitter (owned by Elon Musk), all of which have spread conspiracy theories, discrimination, far-right, extremist, terrorist, and hostile military content.

The Brexit, Cruz and Trump campaigns in 2016 took personal Facebook and other data without user's consent, built psychological profiles of everyone, and corporations and the Russian military flooded social media with ads or bots to manipulate voters. EU law does not yet regulate web media spreading false news, discrimination or propaganda.

General standards for broadcasting are found in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010. It defines an audiovisual media services to mean those 'devoted to providing programmes, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider, to the general public, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks', either on TV or an 'on-demand' service. An 'on-demand' service involves 'viewing of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider'. Member states must ensure audiovisual services 'do not contain any incitement to hatred' based on race, sex, religion, nationality or other protected characteristics. Article 9 prohibits media with 'surreptitious' communication or 'subliminal' techniques, to 'prejudice respect for human dignity', that would 'promote any discrimination', prejudice health and safety or 'encourage behaviour grossly prejudicial to the protection of the environment'. Social media on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter may be thought to be exempt as they lack 'editorial responsibility', however each use algorithms to exert 'effective control' and profit from arrangement of media. After 2018 new provisions on "video-sharing platform service" providers were introduced, with duties on member states to ensure under article 28b that video-sharing platform providers protect (a) minors from content that "may impair their physical, mental or moral development", (b) the general public from content "containing incitement to violence or hatred", and (c) the general public from content whose dissemination is criminal in EU law, such as terrorism, child pornography or offences concerning racism or xenophobia. Under the Digital Services Act Regulation 2022 the rules from the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 were repeated, so that a platform's or "gatekeeper's" liability is limited unless the platforms have failed to act with due diligence to stop certain illegal content, complying with transparent terms and algorithms. New codes of conduct should be drawn up for best practice. Fines for large platforms go up to 6% of annual turnover. These rules fall short of most TV standards that restrict inaccurate news (such as flat Earth conspiracies or global warming denial), discriminatory content short of incitement to hatred, systematic bias, or propaganda from dictatorships or corporations. By contrast, Wikipedia's online content has user-regulated policies preventing uncontrolled use of bots, preventing personal attacks by suspending or banning users that break rules, and ensuring Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view.

The EU has also begun to regulate marketplaces that operate online, both through competition law and the Digital Markets Act Regulation 2022. First, in a series of Commission decisions, Google and Amazon were fined for competition violations. In the Google Shopping case, the Commission fined Google €2.4 billion for giving preference to its own shopping results over others in Google's search, leading to huge increases in traffic for Google over rivals. In the Google Android case the Commission fined Alphabet Inc (by then Google's rebranded parent name) €4.34 billion, or 4.5% of worldwide turnover, for paying phone manufacturers to pre-install its apps, such as Google search or Chrome, as a condition to license its app marketplace Google Play. In the Google AdSense case, the Commission fined Google €1.49 billion for stopping third-party websites displaying their adverts in Google's embedded search widgets, given that it was dominant in the ad market, and unfairly excluding competitors from results. In the Amazon Marketplace case an investigation for abuse of dominant position was launched for Amazon using other traders' data to benefit its own retail business, and preferencing itself in its "Buy Box" and in access to "Prime" seller status. This was settled after Amazon committed in 2022 "not to use non-public data relating to, or derived from, the independent sellers' activities on its marketplace, for its retail business", and to not discriminate against third parties in its Buy Box and Prime services. The Digital Markets Act codifies many of these standards.

Foreign, security and trade policy

Main articles: Common Foreign and Security Policy, Common Commercial Policy (EU), and World Trade Organization

• Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the Common Security and Defence Policy (funded by the European Defence Fund and European Defence Agency), membership of NATO, the United Nations
• TFEU art 214, Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
• European Neighbourhood Policy
• Common Commercial Policy (EU), European Commissioner for Trade, European Union free trade agreements, World Trade Organization
• TFEU art 218, advisory opinion procedure on international agreements

Security and justice

Main articles: Area of freedom, security and justice and European Arrest Warrant

• Area of freedom, security and justice and European Arrest Warrant, TFEU art 67

In 2006, a toxic waste spill off the coast of Côte d'Ivoire, from a European ship, prompted the commission to look into legislation against toxic waste. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas stated that "Such highly toxic waste should never have left the European Union". With countries such as Spain not even having a crime against shipping toxic waste, Franco Frattini, the Justice, Freedom and Security Commissioner, proposed with Dimas to create criminal sentences for "ecological crimes". The competence for the Union to do this was contested in 2005 at the Court of Justice resulting in a victory for the commission. That ruling set a precedent that the commission, on a supranational basis, may legislate in criminal law – something never done before. So far, the only other proposal has been the draft intellectual property rights directive. Motions were tabled in the European Parliament against that legislation on the basis that criminal law should not be an EU competence, but was rejected at vote. However, in October 2007, the Court of Justice ruled that the commission could not propose what the criminal sanctions could be, only that there must be some.

See also

• EudraLex – EU laws on medicinal products
• Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (European Journal of Business Law)
• European Case Law Identifier – Identifier of court judgements in Europe
• European Legislation Identifier – Uniquely identifies national and EU laws
• Incidental effect – European Union law concept
• Precautionary principle – Risk management strategy
• Unitary patent – Potential EU patent law
• List of European Court of Justice rulings
• List of European Union directives

Ссылки

• Батлер, Грэм; Вессель, Рамзес А. (2022). Закон ЕС о внешних отношениях: примеры в контексте . Оксфорд: Hart Publishing / Bloomsbury . ISBN  978-1-5099-3969-5 .
• Крейг, Пол ; Берка, Грейнн (2020). Право ЕС: текст, дела и материалы (7-е изд.). Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-871492-7 .
• Макгоги, Юэн (2022). Принципы предпринимательского права: экономическая конституция и права человека . Издательство Кембриджского университета. ISBN  978-1-009-04573-5 .
• Тоблер, Криста; Беглингер, Жак (2020). Основные законы ЕС в схемах . Будапешт HVG-ORAC. ISBN  978-963-258-489-8 .
• Вейлер, JHH (1991). «Трансформация Европы». Йельский юридический журнал . 100 (8): 2403–2483. дои : 10.2307/796898 . ISSN   0044-0094 . JSTOR   796898 .
• Барнард, Кэтрин (2013). Материальное право ЕС: четыре свободы (4-е изд.). Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-967076-5 . (доступны более поздние издания)
• Крейг, Пол ; Берк, Грейнн (2011). Эволюция права ЕС (2-е изд.). Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-959296-8 . (доступны более поздние издания)
• Крейг, Пол ; Берк, Грейнн (2015). Эволюция права ЕС (2-е изд.). Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-882118-2 .
• Хартли, Тревор (2014). Основы права Европейского Союза: введение в конституционное и административное право Европейского Союза . Издательство Оксфордского университета. ISBN  978-0-19-873467-3 .

Внешние ссылки

• EUR-Lex – онлайн-доступ к существующему и предлагаемому законодательству Европейского Союза
• Договоры
• Краткое изложение законодательства ЕС
• Эволюция законодательства Европейского Союза
• Принцип лояльности в законодательстве ЕС , 2014 г., Маркус Кламерт, юрист Европейской комиссии