Call for proposals IX-2011/01 — ‘Grants to political parties at European level’; OJEU 24.6.2010 C 164/12 – The total sum, subject to approval by the budgetary authority, is EUR 17 400 000, in order to be eligible, the political party at European level must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, the closing date for forwarding the applications is 1 November 2010.

Call for proposals IX-2011/02 — ‘Grants to political foundations at European level’; OJEU 24.6.2010 C 164/17 – the closing date for forwarding the applications is 1 November 2010.

Curious about the meaning of the terms “political parties at European level” and “political foundations at European level“, I looked in the Treaties, and found that political parties at European level are regulated:

● by Article 10(4) TEU:

4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.

 ● by Article 224, TFEU:

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, by means of regulations, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level referred to in Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in particular the rules regarding their funding.

The Treaties do not further define or explain the concepts „political parties at European level“ and „political foundations at European level“. The definition of „political party at European level” can be found in Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 that also defines „political party“ and „alliance of political parties” as follows:

1. “political party” means an association of citizens:

- which pursues political objectives, and

- which is either recognised by, or established in accordance with, the legal order of at least one Member State;

2. “alliance of political parties” means structured cooperation between at least two political parties;

3. “political party at European level” means a political party or an alliance of political parties which satisfies the conditions referred to in Article 3.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003, and Section 2.2. of the Call for Proposals lay down the conditions of eligibility for a grant:

A political party at European level shall satisfy the following conditions:

(a) it must have legal personality in the Member State in which its seat is located;

(b) it must be represented, in at least one quarter of Member States, by Members of the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments or regional Parliaments or in the regional assemblies, or it must have received, in at least one quarter of the Member States, at least three per cent of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections;

(c) it must observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law;

(d) it must have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so.

I would appreciate recommendations for further research (Chapters in books, articles), because I think that the above is not enough to explain the area of EU law to students.

• Economy, employment and social policy;

• Health, environment and energy;

• Justice and security;

• Citizenship, culture and education;

• Europe in the world.

The second phase was devoted to the National Advisory Councils, including at the level of the Communities and the Regions, were given the opportunity to put their expectations and priorities for the Belgian Presidency to the government.

The third step consisted of a series of thematical seminars on seven themes:

• The financial-economic crisis;

• Energy, environment and climate change;

• Citizenship, culture and education;

• Justice, security and judicial cooperation;

• Conflict prevention and management Europe and the challenges in terms of development cooperation;

• Expansion, neighbourhood policy and European borders;

• The Lisbon Strategy.

These seminars, inter alia, offered an opportunity for the NGOs to express their concerns and formulate policy suggestions.

The fourth phase was organized to satisfy the wish of civil society to engage in dialogue with the political authorities.

The Presidency also lies on the legacy programme, consisting of 5 theme clusters:

1)      Combating the economic crisis and promoting economic and financial modernization;

2)      Combating global warming and the environmental aspects in the broader sense;

3)      Expansion of the EU;

4)      Further strengthening of the social dimension in the EU;

1)      Implementation of the Stockholm Programme’s action plan for justice and home affairs, asylum and migration.

Belgium has also promised to pay particular attention to an important horizontal theme – the implementation and correct application of the new rules of the Treaty of Lisbon, and to promote a smooth working relationship between the President of the European Council, the rotating Presidency, the Commission and the High Representative.

Of course, an impetus comes from the previous Spanish Presidency – Belgium is completing the regulation of the European Citizens’ Initiative, and continuing advancement of the negotiations for the accession of the EU to the ECHR.

But then I started to think that can it be as simple as that? Perhaps the answer to the question should be connected with the new rules on Council Presidency in the Lisbon Treaty, according to which rules the President of the European Council is elected. The Council that prior to the Lisbon Treaty was only setting the guidelines for the EU, is now defining the EU’s directions and priorities, and its President chairs and drives forward the European Council’s work; ensures preparation and continuity of the European Council’s work in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the General Affairs Council; presents a report to the European Parliament after each European Council meeting; ensures external representation of the EU on issues under the CFSP. But what could be the impetus for the new European Council President?

Conference hall.

I attended the conference „New Values after the Lisbon Treaty“ today, 7 July 2010, organized by the Pázmány Péter Catholic University.

The conference began with registration and welcome buffet (Hungarian kitchen – food as part of identity), and was structured as follows:

14.00-14.10 Welcoming words by György Fodor, Rector of the Pazmany Catholic University

14.10-14.30 Message of H. E. László Sólyom, President of the Republic of Hungary (not read personally by the president)

14.30-15.30 Joseph H. H. Weiler: Values, virtues and vices of European Integration – what we can learn from Aristotle and Aquinas

15.30-16.00 Catherine Barnard: The implications of the phrase „social market economy“ for a new vision of the internal market after Lisbon

16.00-16.15 Coffee break

16.15-16.45 Damian Chalmers: Lisbon and a certain idea of freedom

16.45-17.05 Robert Schütze: Democratic deficit after Lisbon?

17.05-17.30 Petra Bárd: Rejuvenating The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice after the Entry into Force of the Lisbon Treaty

17.30-17.50 Marcel Szabó: International Responsibility of the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty

17.50-18.00 Closing remarks by Prof. Péter Kovács, Judge, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Hungary

György Fodor first stressed the foundational values of the EU, and the importance of political participation. The President’s message stressed the importance of integration, protection of fundamental rights, included the national minorities’ rights, values, Joseph H. H. Weiler talked about non-instrumental aspects of law. He brought clean air law as an example – we want policy issues into law. He reminded that law has always been in our culture, shaped by the culture and has itself shaped the culture. The EU has evolved from economic to political project. Weiler stressed the spiritual objective of the EU to bring people together in a „new way“, for what reason the EU’s success depends on how it looks empirically to and expresses the values. Weiler sees two trilogies of values: Peace-Prosperity-Supranationalism, and Democracy-Human Rights-The Rule of Law. Some more important remarks: If people believe in values, it means that they do not live in a community of hypocracy; (as common people do not understand values in the philosophical sense of ethics and morality); Value of honesty (how far could that go – should we monitor, what a man does in privacy?); Subsidiarity as meaning that people should be on the level of government; If there exist social problems and it is not the problem of NGOs to address social problems, who should address social problems; Voluntarism in Europe is the lowest in the world, being spread in church organizations; How do people experience universal human rights? Catherine Barnard talked about three values – social justice, solidarity, and social market economy, and analysed the cases Viking, and Laval, and the right to strike. Damian Chalmers started with the logical presumption that a government’s interest is to have healthy well-educated people, and therefore it guarantees rights to development (self-realization) and education. Still, some rights may seem illusory. For example, only 45 percent of people in the EU have mobile phones, the number of unemployed people is sufficiently big, and each year people get injured. We should take better responsibility for ourselves. Robert Schütze talked about creating democratic legitimacy in the EU. If government cannot do something properly, it can delegate some powers away. The same characterizes the European Commission that delegates powers. The question, then, is how to control that delegated legislation forming about 70 per cent of all EU legislation. Petra Bárd talked about mutual trust and mutual recognition in the framework of the Hague, Tampere, and Stockholm programmes, and fragmentation in the area. Marcel Szabó talked about the EU in the context of the 1996 Convention on the law of international organizations, he visualized the EU as a multi-layered entity, or Matryoshka, where the international law norms lie above, followed by the primary and secondary norms of EU law. He also talked about the case Kádi, in which case the CJEU allowed interpretation by it of the norms of a Security Council Regulation that have been incorporated in EU law norms, because the CJEU must have power to interpret EU law (even if basing on Security Council’s norms). Finally, Péter Kovács raised the question, whether a judge should interpret legal concepts „like that“, or should the interpretation base on philosophical basis.

The day was actually a very good example of how to gain political popularity and win, knowing human psychology, some economic and social facts, etc.

On July, the 4th, I depart for Budapest, with the aim to participate in the Advanced Course in European Union Legal Practice (Special Lisbon Treaty edition). The course has been worked out and is conducted by the Department of Legal Studies, and the Summer University of Central European University (CEU), and the Total Law Team. The course takes place from 5-17 July 2010, and ends with an examination.

How did the first day (5 July 2010) at the Central European University (CEU) look like?

During the day a welcome lecture and two “main” lectures were held.

The first lecture, held by Petra Bard, was about forensic biobanks and human rights protection, and the relevant shift of paradigm in understanding of our liberties. The lecturer referred to case S. and Marper vs. the United Kingdom, applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, judgment of 3 December 2008, ECtHR, where the ECtHR established disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life that could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. The lecturer gave an overview of development of the principle of availability (exchange of data without formalities) and the Prüm Treaty, and international regulation of the forensic biobanks under the UNESCO, Council of Europe, and EU law. The lecturer did also “draw” out the structure of the ECtHR’s test under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR:

● prescribed by law;

● legitimate aim;

● necessary in a democratic society;

● pressing social need;

● proportionality;

● relevancy;

● sufficiency.

The second lecture was held by Joseph H. H. Weiler, and this lecture was about the citizenship of the EU in the context of the connection between democracy and the EU decisionmaking institutions (whose activities depend on the conferral of powers on them). Questions such as “How to set up mechanisms in order to avoid direct democracy in its worst forms (The Christ, Socrates’ death; execution of the kings, etc.)?” were raised. On the other hand the society needs democratic legitimacy. Therefore, the most important question (to my mind) is perhaps not only who are the citizens (with their identity and with that what forms that identity (culture, religion, political ideology, language, geography, food, etc.)), but having a just mechanism that could avoid the referred worst forms of direct democracy, being at the same time legitimate – public power should be legitimately given. Professor Weiler raised also the question, whether the citizens of the EU have only rights, or also obligations.

After the lectures was held a public panel “Integrity in Political Security. How can political WILL overcome bureaucratic WON’T?” The panelists were Vaira Vike-Freiberga (former Latvian President), Abdul Tejan-Cole (head of the Corruption Council at Sierra Leone; Director of the Open Society Institute), and Hadeel Qazzaz (Palestinian civil society activist; expert of gender issues).

The public panel was introduced by the CEU with the question: “What is more important in legal education – to teach values, or to teach regulations? The panelists brought out different aspects connected with the balance between civil society and government – “Should everything base on people’s will?”; “How much should privacy, access to news, internet be regulated?”; “Should freedoms and liberties be constrained?”

The interesting and thematically harmonizing day ended with SUN welcome reception with Hungarian food and drinks. The big plates with foods were provided with labels. 

● The second day (6 July 2010): Two seminars held by Joseph H. H. Weiler on European Citizenship and the meaning of demos and its interpretation of it by different nations.  „Where do I belong?“; „How do I feel?“ (feelings are part of humanity and cannot be ignored); „What is my individual identity?“; „Who do I share my identity with?“; „What form collective identities?“… Weiler’s one point of departure was that we define our civilization by how we treat The Other, which he considers indispensable part of our sense of identity. But if we think – how do we define the Otherness? The people who are not me? For the beginning, one could list his /her similarities and differences. During the second seminar professor Weiler presented a really critical analysis of case C-413/99: Baumbast, and began with the critical analysis of the case C-148/02: Garcia Avello vs. Belgium. After the seminars, the participants were invited to library tour. In the end of the day, the students were invited to a local pub named „Ellátó Kert“ for a social event with Joseph H. H. Weiler. The event was supposed to begin at 20.00, but I unfortunately just managed to get a bit tired by that time after the flight.

● The third day (7 July 2010): The day began with two seminars held by Damian Chalmers: „Crowding and Agenda-Setting: The Commission and the Presidents“. Connected with the right of the people to know who makes laws for us, and on what principles should such activities be based, the first seminar began with analysis of the European Commission as agenda-setter, and in the end raised questions about the relationship between lobbying and citizens’ initiative in the EU. When my thought reached the conclusion that as they actually try to control the lobbyists’ work in the EU by specific registration requirements and financing, which do not directly and that way constrain the citizens’ initiative, Damian Chalmers had already initiated the idea of comparing the citizens’ initiative with voting in the Euopean Council.

After the seminars, the students were invited to the conference „New Values after the Lisbon Treaty“, organized by the Pazmany University. But I introduce the conference in a separate posting.

● The fourth day (8 July 2010): Professor Damian Chalmers did hold two seminars about European Parliamentarism and Representative Democracy after Lisbon. Mostly the details of the legislative procedures – the consultation procedure, ordinary legislative procedure, and consent procedure, were critically discussed. Questions as: “How many MPs are in the EP per area?”; “Is the representation proportionate?”, and many more were brought up.

After the classes I took a Budapest City-tour (as part of identity course) by bus. The tour lasted for 2,5 hours and was a real  fun. Alternatively, you can take the virtual tour of Budapest: http://www.citytour.hu/otherpage/9/virtual_tour_of_budapest By 8 p. m., all course participants were invited to the place Most Jelen for a social event with the professors Chalmers and Jose M. de Areilza.

● The fifth day (9 July 2010): Professor José M. De Areilza conducted two seminars on Institutional Changes and Balance of Power in the EU. The balance of powers and the rules governing the interaction between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, and the European Council, were analysed. After the seminars, the participants had the possibility to visit the Hungarian Constitutional Court. I visited the library. 

● The sixth day (10 July 2010) – Professor José M. De Areilza’s two seminars on Institutional Changes and Balance of Power.

● The seventh day (11 July 2010) – This is Sunday, and the participants are invited to boat trip to Szentendre.

● The eighth day (12 July 2010): Guest lecturer Marie-Pierre Françoise Granger talked about the political aspects of the CJEU (social aspects of litigation, institutional pressures, judicial policies, possibilities to influence decision-making by the courts, intergovernmentalism and the CJEU), how do the legal scholars view decision-making in the CJEU, methodological challenges to studying EU litigation, etc. issues.

● The ninth day (13 July 2010): Associate Professor Imola Streho made the participants think about free movement of goods, beginning with concepts, Treaty provisions, structures, classical case-law, and ending up with application of classical case-law (Cassis, Dassonville, Keck) in recent litigation (C-110/05: Commission vs. Italy).

● The tenth day (14 July 2010): Professor Imola Streho very professionally demonstrated how to conduct case study in free movement of goods (included the arguments that should be expected from law school students), and talked about the free movement of services (case law, Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, and its transposition).

● The eleventh day (15 July 2010): The Head of Unit of the Legal Service of the European Parliament, Kieran St. C. Bradley, talked about the CJEU, its architecture, organization, and jurisdiction. The participants made presentations on the CJEU’s evolving case law.

● The twelfth day (16 July 2010): Kieran St. C. Bradley continued with the  political role of the CJEU, direct effect, primacy, and conferral and exercise of competences in their dynamics, The participants again made presentations on the CJEU’s evolving case law, me on the case C-70/88, Parliament vs. Council, 1990, ECR I-2041. The participants received diplomas after the seminar, group photos were taken, and the farewell reception followed.

● The thirteenth day (17 July 2010) – Exam. To demonstrate the actual knowledge acquired. After the exam I can say that we were expected to critically reflect on the developments of the CJEU’s case law on citizenship, based on a concrete example; agenda-setting in the EU; the impact of the institutional changes on the EU’s foreign policy; and /or the problems in the CJEU related to the accession of the EU to the ECHR.

What did I learn during the course?

Dimension of humanity in EU citizenship law; critical analysis of the case C-413/99: Baumbast; interaction between the EU decision-making institutions and their interaction with the civil servants of the Member States and with the other members of civil society; the balance of powers and the rules governing the interaction between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, and the European Council; that the next Presidency in the European Council belongs to Hungary; the new rules on Council Presidency after the Lisbon Treaty; Commission Work Programme 2010; Report to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso by Mario Monti of 9 May 2010; new developments in free movement of goods jurisprudence; how to conduct case study in law school in EU law.

Why was the course useful?

The judicial part was useful for my Ph.D. Dissertation about judicial and extra-judicial remedies in EU law, and I can complement the relevant law faculty course materials.

The policy and decision-making part was extremely useful for the general EU law courses that I read to the political science and governance students. The course gave a comprehensive and expert overview of the latest developments. 

Sunday morning I am returning home, being very happy for having had the possibility to attend the course.

Khan, Ali (2003) A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History

I am revising one of my articles that I had proposed years ago to an Estonian social science journal. The article is about making of primary and secondary laws in the European Union in the context of universal and state-centred theories. Looking for the appropriate contextual framework, and hoping to bring clearly out distinction between human rights and rights, I found an interesting book on the notions of universal democracy and liberal democracy. Universal democracy as good for everyone’s value, something on which the idea of global governance bases, and liberal democracy as connected with single states and cultural traditions, private property, separation of powers, and separation of religion and state. (Khan, Ali (2003) A Theory of Universal Democracy: Beyond the End of History. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, inspired by Francis Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.) Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=M7-I5cJF81AC&lpg=PP1&ots=s1umH1-p6e&dq=%22a%20theory%20of%20universal%20democracy%22&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false (The book is worth reading, as it, inter alia, brings in also the dimension of Islam; and is full of thoughtful sentences, such as at pp. 79-80: “… even democracy, when separated from universal values, can be brutal form of government” – that may bring up questions about who determines the values.)

If one in that context thinks about the European Union, one notices that EU law (which is supranational law) on the one hand contains human rights, but on the other hand contains property rights and separation of powers – the latter two are not solely connected with states’ laws any more. Which indicates also the universal dimension of property rights and separation of powers. That way, one can understand the EU as an entity in between universal and liberal democracies?

The article is about the role of regionalism in the context of globalization. Globalization – being a fashionable word in contemporary political and academic discourse, sometimes seems to forget the importance of local dimensions as parts of global networks. The author of the article ideally sees the UN as an attempt of impartial (in the sense of the whole mankind’s interest / global governance) centralized coordination of maintenance of peace and security by regional organizations and arrangements that all could that way be visualized as a wide networking structure. The article, thus, tries to assess, whether regionalism is a good solution for imposing and developing the international legal order in the context of globalization, and through which mechanisms could regionalism become part of the global networking. The article focuses on the status of the EU in the context of maintenance of peace and security, asking whether the EU is an independent actor with this regard, or does it fit in coordinated networking – could the EU, for example, qualify as a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the UN.

F.: I have also updated my previous posting.

My presentation focuses on aspects of legal (non-contractual) developments. The heading of my presentation that will probably take place on 12 June 2010 is “Remedies for Infringement of EU Law by States”, and it concentrates on state liability with regard to the possible consequences of non transposition and wrong transposition of directives, and failure to notify measures transposing directives. I shall upload here the text of my presentation after having held it. At present, I am working out the text of the presentation, and thinking that the presentation could include the following points:

1. Infringement of EU Law

1.1. What Constitutes an Infringement of EU Law?

-Categories of Infringement

-Transposition of Directives

-Failure to Notify Measures Transposing a Directive

1.2. What Infringements are Attributable to Member States?

-The Concept of Member State as understood by the CJEU

-The Concept of Member State in the Context of the Vertical Direct Effect of Directives

-The Duty to Apply EU Law in National Courts

2. The Strengthened Powers of the CJEU to Sanction Member States

3. Remedies

-Declaration of an infringement

-Declaration of non-compliance with the judgment      

-Lump sum

-Penalty payment

4. Defences

-Non-acceptable

-Acceptable

5. Implementation

-Time limit for compliance

-Failure to comply with the CJEU’s judgment

-Lump sum

-Penalty payment

-Civil liability

– –Practical application of infringement judgments in internal courts

– –Damages

6. Sources

May I have missed something important?

I finally restructured my presentation as follows:

1. Infringement of EU Law

1.1. What constitutes an infringement of EU law?

-Categories of Infringement

-Transposition of directives

-Failure to notify measures transposing a directive

1.2. What Infringements are Attributable to Member States?

-The concept of Member State as understood by the CJEU

-The concept of Member State in the context of the vertical direct effect of directives

2. Infringement Proceedings in the Commission and the CJEU

2.1. Infringement Proceedings

2.2. The Strengthened Powers of the CJEU to Sanction Member States

3. Remedies

-Declaration of an infringement

-Declaration of non-compliance with the judgment      

-Lump sum

-Penalty payment

4. Defences

-Non-acceptable

-Acceptable

5. Implementation

-Time limit for compliance

-Failure to comply with the CJEU’s judgment

-Lump sum

-Penalty payment

-Civil liability

– –Practical application of infringement judgments in internal courts

– –Damages

6. The Duty to Apply EU Law in National Courts

7. Main Sources

The presentation.

Full text of the consolidated European Convention on Human Rights.

F.: Draft Report of the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2009/2241(INI)) 

Draft Opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on institutional aspects of the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2009/2241(INI))  

Draft Opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on institutional aspects of accession by the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (2009/2241(INI))

And now, my entire course in EU Law (that was conducted in English) is accessible with links to the videos and other study materials in the Repository of the Estonian e-Learning Development Centre. I can now see my basic mistakes and learn from those mistakes. I can also compare my lectures with the lectures available under MIT open courseware, or the open courses at Yale University. That way I can improve my presentation skills, but I also have to work with my course materials.