My lecture in Italy

As mentioned before, I gave a lecture at the Italian National Research Council about Hungary’s actions regarding refugees and the connection of legislative/political changes to European human rights (esp. EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights) in Rome.  The lecture was given in the framework of a joint research project of the Institute for International Studies and the Hungarian Acadey of Sciences on refugee protection.

I am grateful for the colleagues at the Institute for International Studies for their cooperation and their support. The slides of my lecture can be downloaded here. They can be useful for anyone who wants to have a draft about Hungary and the international/European standards regarding asylum seekers.

Will visit the Institute for International Legal Studies in Rome

We (ie. the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Institute for International Legal Studies) have a joint research project on refugee protection and EU law/international law standards, I will give a lecture this week on Friday. I am extremely happy to visit Rome, the Institute and the Italian colleagues!

 

Report on barriers of EU citizens’ free movement is out now.

I participated in the works of a report for the bEUcitizen fp7 project (the website of the project is available here),  which was basically a project focusing on the possible barriers EU citizens have to face when moving to another country. Why I liked this project was that it tried to give answers to the actual problems of free movement within the EU, i.e. it tried to focus on barriers and how EU citizen’s life could be helped. As a result, there are some nice reports published which addressed real life problems, many of which are related to administrative procedures or private international law/private international procedural law isues.

I created the country report about Hungarian law in a longer report. Just like the other parts of the work, this chapter focused on many important and interesting questions like family relations in Hungary,  the right to register a name, rules on obtaining citizenship, problems occuring of double citizenships, domestic rules of family unification and their connection to EU law, status of registered partners, some issues of the public register and acceptance of foreign judgments and public documents. The report is available here (for my part see page 220 et seq) or by clicking on the image below.

The slides of my lectures at the University of Bergen (Faculty of Law)

I am very grateful to the Bergen University community, had a wonderful time at the university, the city was beautiful, the discussion was inspiring and I enjoyed my stay a lot. 

I attach the slides of my lectures below:

  • The slides of the first lecture (given for the Research Group in Competition & Market Law) about the connection between EU single market rules, non-discrimination of foreign companies and the new system of oligarchs (Nationalism vs. the single European market – the case of Hungary) can be accessed here.
  • The slides of the second one, a more general lecture (given for Project Group on Constitutional law and Democracy) about the changes of rule of law in Hungary and their connection with EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights (Constitutionalism, rule of law and the Hungarian phenomenon)  can be accessed here.

Please find my blog entry about the collection of related publications in these fields here, they can serve of interest to anyone who wants to know more abut Hungary’s position within the EU. I also added some more pictures of the university. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Hungary and the EU – a collection of articles

I wrote quite a lot of articles about the conflict between Hungary and the EU in the last 5-6 years.  I also know some articles written by colleagues which can be interesting for scholars worldwide, so I decided to make a collection of them (please find them below).

 

  • Balázs Horváthy, Tamas Dezso Ziegler: Europeanisation Of The Hungarian Legal Order – From Convergence To Divergence. In: REVIEWING THE 10 YEARS OF CEE ACCESSION: SPILLOVER EFFECTS, UNEXPECTED RESULTS, AND EXTERNALITIES. (Hrsg. William B. Simons & Tom Hashimoto). Brill, Leiden-Boston. (soon to get published)
  • The Links Between Human Rights and the Single European Market – Discrimination and Systemic Infringement. Comparative Law Review, Vol 7, 2016 No 1 1-23. available here.
  • When The European Moral Vacuum Meets The Hungarian Autocratic Regime. SOCIAL EUROPE – Occasional paper, 2014 October, available hereAn extended version of this article (which also includes some references), published on Open Democracy,  can be accessed here.
  • Protectionism – A Side Effect of Hungarian Nationalism. SOCIAL EUROPE, available here.
  • In Defence of Today’s Anti-Fascist Protesters. OPEN DEMOCRACY, available here.
  • An introduction into Hungarian national thinking about history and comparison to the UK national thinking: together w/ Izolda Takacs: Myth of History, Euro-scepticism and Fundamental Rights) written for OPENDEMOCRACY, available here.

I also wrote a series of blog entries for London School of Economics – EUROPP back in 2012, when anti-democratic legislation started to flourish in Hungary:

  • The Anti-Democratic Tendencies Now Prominent In Some Parts Of Eastern Europe May Soon Become An Even Bigger Headache For The EU Than The Eurozone Crisis, available here
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: Hungary is Sleepwalking Into an Authoritarian state. But the European Union Is Limited In the Pressure It Is Able To Exert, available here.
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: With the Ruling Party’s Legislative Tsunami, Hungary May Now Be Sleepwalking Into An Authoritarian State, available here.
  • w/ Izolda Takacs: Hungary is Now a Distorted Democracy, available here.

Some other works of my colleagues can also be of interest for you. Please note these are only a handful of articles which I came across in the last months/years, but they contain some really interesting information:

  • Veronika Czina: Member State Particularism within the EU: an Analysis Based on the Most Recent Developments of the “Hungarian affair” UACES Conference Paper, available here.
  • The website of the `Lendulet Research Group on EU law` also contains a great amount of interesting materials including reports and articles. It can be accessed here.
  • A nice and really detailed report on single market and Hungary (called ‘The Legal and Regulatory Environment for Economic Activity in Hungary: Market Access and Level Playing-field in the Single Market’) can be accessed here.
  • A nice collection of articles on the change of the general constitutional framework in Hungary published in the journal Südost-Europa (Hungary’s Path Towards an Illiberal System Volume 63 no. 2 2015): the content and introduction is  available here.
  • It can be worth to read the chapter of Balazs Majtenyi (pp. 51-74) on the constitutional changes in Hungary (The EU and the Hungarioan National Cooperatrion System) in an FP7 report called `EU Human rights, democracy and rule of law: from concepts to practice`  (available here).
  • Balazs Majtenyi: Legislative Stupidities in the New Hungarian Constitution originally published in Rivista Pace Diritti Umani (Peace, Human Rights) is available here
  • Balazs Majtenyi: A Game of Values: Particular National Identities Awaken in Europe, published on Verfassungsblog, available here.
  • Gabor Halmai: An Illiberal Constitutional System in the Middle of Europe, published in European Yearbook of Hunar Rights, can be accessed here.
  • Kim Lane Scheppele wrote a huge amount of articles on the constitutional changes in Hungary, see the Princeton’s repository here.
  • Bojan Bugarič: Protecting Democracy and the Rule of Law in the European Union: The Hungarian Challenge. LSE discussion paper, available here. 
  • Boldizsar Nagy: Parallel realities: refugees seeking asylum in Europe and Hungary’s reaction (EU Migration Law Blog),  available here.
  • Boldizsar`s article `Hungarian Asylum Law and Policy in 2015–2016: Securitization Instead of Loyal Cooperation`published in German Law Journal can be accessed here.
  • Gabor Halmai: The Invalid Anti-Migrant Referendum in Hungary, published on verfassungsblog, available here.
  • Cass Mudde and Erin K. Jenne: Hungary’s Illiberal Turn: Can Outsiders Help? available here.

How primitive again – judicial demagoguery at its best

This is the case (did not see such “questions” before) in which a preliminary procedure becomes an insult. It also shows how the judicial branch in Hungary accepts the xenophobic, homophobic, racist, paranoid narrative of the Hungarian government regarding the refugee crisis. Privacy and human dignity is not important  any more. What kind of physical examination do they talk about? Sad and very primitive.

” CJEU: C-473/16 F – Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative and Labour Court Szeged (Hungary), 29 August 2016

Date:
Friday, October 21, 2016
The Administrative and Labour Court Szeged (Hungary) has referred a request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the interpretation to be given to Article 4 of the Qualification Directive. The case relates to a Nigerian national, who had submitted an application for international protection based on sexual orientation in Hungary.

The Administrative and Labour Court Szeged has referred two question to the CJEU:

Should Article 4 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted in light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as not precluding that, when LGBTI’s apply for international protection, advice by a psychologist, based on projective personality tests, is taken into account when assessing the application for asylum, even if the opinion was drawn up without any questions asked by the applicant about his sexual habits and without being subjected to a physical examination?

If the expert opinion referred to in the first question cannot be used as evidence, should Article 4 of the Qualification Directive be interpreted that, in the light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, when the applicant puts forward, in support of his application, that he is being persecuted because of his sexual orientation, neither the administrative authorities nor the courts have the ability to investigate the credibility of the asylum seeker on the basis of an expert’s report, regardless of the specific characteristics of the methods used in this report?”

A kérdőívező diktatúra #IstandwithCEU #aCEUvalvagyok

Hétfőn az ELTE TáTK-on tiltakozó előadásokat tartottunk a CEU, illetve az akadémiai szabadság elleni barbár kormányzati támadásra reagálva. Jómagam arról beszéltem, hogy hogyan deformálta az autoriter szemlélet az elmúlt években a kormány tevékenységét. E szerint a primitív szemlélet szerint az élet kérdéseire csupán egy jó válasz adható, miközben egy, a szabadságra épülő, nyitott társadalomban az emberek tisztában vannak azzal, hogy tolerancia szükséges az együttélés kereteinek megteremtéséhez. Ilyen értelemben pedig a FIDESz elnyomó rendszere nem a liberálisokkal áll szemben, hanem a demokratákkal, legyenek azok liberálisok, szociál-demokraták, vagy éppen konzervatívok. Nem véletlen, hogy utóbbi csoportból is egyre többen vetik fel, hogy szép fokozatosan utóbbi párt egy elnyomó, korrupt, szélsőjobboldali mozgalommá alakította át magát, a demokratikus értékekre épített konzervativizmus helyett.

Az előadásom diái itt, vagy a fenti képre kattintva is elérhetőek.

Szerencsére sokan voltak:

The Role of Human Rights in EU-US bilateral Relations

Created a part of a report on the European Union’s external relations. This report aims to analyse the different dimensions and levels of EU-US relations, to survey the instruments the EU uses in this relation and to provide some recommendations for future EU actions. It provides an overview of the main similarities and differences between the EU and the US regarding human rights, and measures the influence of the EU on the state and practice of human rights in the United States. Likewise, it analyses how the United States may affect human rights in the EU and its Member States, notably in light of US policies that are strongly criticised by the EU from a human rights-based perspective. To conduct this analysis, we selected three case-studies: 1) capital punishment 2) data protection and surveillance programmes and 3) the problem of extraordinary rendition.

The report can be accessed here on by clicking on the image above.

New article – TTIP and Its Public Criticism: Anti-Globalist Populism Versus Valid Dangers



The provisions of the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the major trade agreement between the EU and the US received serious criticism from the public, some NGOs and even some scholars. Disputes surrounding many of its special provisions got highly emotional, with extreme commentaries in the media. There is a high chance the conclusion of the deal will be blocked because of public opposition. This article tries to analyse four of the most important questions, namely the transparency of negotiations, the issue of investor-state dispute settlement, and the agreement’s effects on environment-sustainable development and regulatory issues/consumer standards. Based on the analysis, it concludes that even though TTIP may contain some serious pitfalls, there is a high chance it would not lead to the devastating results as is regularly portrayed, and most of the problematic points could be settled relatively easily.

You can access the article here or by clicking of the image above. 

Published a new article on populsim, human rights and the single European market in Hungary

clr

 

THE LINKS BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SINGLE EUROPEAN MARKET: DISCRIMINATION AND SYSTEMIC INFRINGEMENT

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to prove that the legal system of an EU member state in which weakening of democratic rights and distortion of the constitutional system of checks and balances takes place also hurts the frameworks of the single market. The best example for this situation can be seen in Hungary nowadays. The connection between constitutional principles and single market regulations is not as obvious as it seems. Many would claim that multinational companies do not need basic rights to perform well. However, this is not true. Anti-democratic developments create a framework that not only results in institutional, legal and sociological changes, but also hurts free competition leading to a loss in profit. There is a great chance that a country rife with breaches of fundamental rights will, as a spill-over effect, also face a large number of single market regulation breaches. 

 

The article can be accessed by clicking here or on the image above.

Declaration on the upcoming referendum

 

Hungarian Academics’ declaration on the Hungarian referendum on the European asylum quota  

We, undersigned academics concerned over the future of our country and of Europe adopt the following declaration as a sign of protest:

The quota referendum initiated by the government is senseless, unconstitutional and inhuman.

The referendum is senseless because there is no European initiative for ‘forced resettlement.’ The possible European quota regulation would aim at sharing asylum seekers in proportion to the Member States’ capabilities, in contrast to the standing rules that put disproportionate burden on border states, including Hungary. Under a quota system, Hungary should receive not more but less asylum seekers than under the current Dublin regime. The quota referendum and the governmental campaign — that misinforms rather than informs voters — are inadequate to address pressing moral and political questions raised by asylum.

It is unconstitutional, because a referendum can concern questions that are within the powers of the Parliament. European norms are adopted not by the Hungarian Parliament, but by the European institutions that include Hungarian representatives. The fact that the question could be put to a referendum is itself a sign that formerly independent institutions are now under undue political influence. The initiative of the government is discrediting the institution of the referendum.

The referendum is inhuman because it aims at denying support to people who are seeking to save their lives. Helping fellow human beings is a basic norm of European as well as universal human culture, a fundamental tenet of religious teachings, something that we considered self-evident at better times of our history. Those years when we turned against this solidarity are now remembered as the darkest pages of our history. The initiative of the government and the surrounding hate campaign is not only an impediment to the European quest for a common solution, but is also a move to turn the Hungarian nation against its noble traditions.   As teachers and researchers, we cannot even tacitly provide support to this.

1. Ádám Zoltán
2. Ambrus Mónika
3. Antal Attila
4. Barát Erzsébet
5. Barna Ildikó
6. Bartha Ildikó
7. Bencze Mátyás
8. Bíró Judit
9. Borbély Viktor
10. Boreczky Ágnes
11. Boros Judit
12. Bozóki András
13. Braun Gabriella
14. Braunitzer Gábor
15. Czinderi Kristóf
16. Csáki Tibor
17. Csákó Mihály
18. Császár Ivett
19. Csereklye Bözse
20. Cserne Péter
21. Darvas Ágnes
22. Deák Dániel
23. Erdélyi Eszter
24. Feischmidt Margit
25. Fekete Mária
26. Fekete Mariann
27. Felkai Gábor
28. Fleck Gábor
29. Fleck Zoltán
30. Fodor László
31. Fokasz Nikosz
32. Forrai Réka
33. Fóti Péter
34.  Gecser Ottó
35.  Gedő Éva
36.  Gerő Márton
37.  Gregor Anikó
38.  Győrfi Tamás
39.  Háberman Zoltán
40.  Halmai Gábor
41.  Hammer Ferenc
42.  Heller Mária
43.  Horváth Ágnes
44.  Hungler Sára
45.  Huszár Ágnes
46.  Indries Krisztián
47.  Jon Fox
48.  Kállai Péter
49.  Kazai Viktor Zoltán
50.  Kende Gábor
51.  Kispéter Erika
52.  Kóczé Angéla
53.  Kollányi Zsófia
54.  Kondor Péter
55.  Kopper Ákos
56.  Kovács Ágnes
57.  Kovács Kriszta
58.  Könczöl Miklós

59. Körtvélyesi Zsolt

60.  Kürti Judit
61.  Laczkovich Miklós
62.  Laczó Ferenc
63.  Lakner Zoltán
64.  Láncos Petra Lea
65.  Láng Eszter
66.  Lengyel György
67.  Majtényi Balázs
68.  Majtényi László
69.  Máté András
70.  Mestyán Ádám
71.  Mészáros György
72.  Mészáros Márton
73.  Miklós Barbara
74.  Miklósi Zoltán
75.  Mink Júlia
76.  Misetics Bálint
77.  Nagy Alíz
78.  Nagy Boldizsár
79.  Nagy Péter Tibor
80.  Neményi Mária
81.  Németh Krisztina
82.  Neumann László
83.  Olay Csaba
84.  Orosz Éva
85.  Örkény Antal
86.  P.Tóth Tamás
87.  Padisák Judit
88.  Pál Eszter
89.  Pap András László
90.  Patakfalvi-Czirják Ágnes
91.  Peragovics Tamás Ferenc
92.  Putnoky Péter
93.  Rafael Pablo Labanino
94.  Ropolyi László
95.  Salát Orsolya
96.  Schweitzer András
97.  Schweitzer Gábor
98.  Seláf Levente
99.  Selmeczi Anna
100.  Semjén András
101. Síklaki István
102. Sik Domonkos
103. Simonovits Bori
104. Sólyom Péter
105. Somody Bernadette
106. Susánszky Pál
107. Sz. Kristóf Ildikó
108. Szuhay Péter
109. Szalai András
110. Szalai Júlia
111. Szántó Diana
112. Szegedy-Maszák Zoltán
113. Szente Zoltán
114. Szigeti Péter
115. Szőllősi Gergely
116. Szűcs Zoltán Gábor
117. Szűcs-Zágoni Bella
118. Takács Erzsébet
119. Takács Judit
120. Tesfay Sába
121. Tóth Gábor Attila
122. Tóth István János
123. Tóth Zita Veronika
124. Törzs Edit
125. Unger Anna
126. Vadkerti Ildikó
127. Vajda Júlia
128. Valuch Tibor
129. Váradi Mónika Mária
130. Varju Márton
131. Vásárhelyi Mária
132. Végh Zsuzsanna
133. Vidra Zsuzsanna
134. Virág Tünde
135. Vokó Zoltán
136. Vörös Imre
137. Vörös Zoltán
138. Ziegler Dezső Tamás
139. Zsadányi Edit
140. Zsigó Frank Thomas
141. Zsugyó Virág

Two new judgments of the CJEU

 Case C‑165/14 Alfredo Rendón Marín v Administración del Estado

Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires a third-country national to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record where he is the parent of a minor child who is a Union citizen and a national of a Member State other than the host Member State and who is his dependant and resides with him in the host Member State.

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the same national legislation which requires a third-country national who is a parent of minor children who are Union citizens in his sole care to be automatically refused the grant of a residence permit on the sole ground that he has a criminal record, where that refusal has the consequence of requiring those children to leave the territory of the European Union.

Case C‑304/14

Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires a third-country national who has been convicted of a criminal offence to be expelled from the territory of that Member State to a third country notwithstanding the fact that that national is the primary carer of a young child who is a national of that Member State, in which he has been residing since birth without having exercised his right of freedom of movement, when the expulsion of the person concerned would require the child to leave the territory of the European Union, thereby depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his rights as a Union citizen. However, in exceptional circumstances a Member State may adopt an expulsion measure provided that it is founded on the personal conduct of that third-country national, which must constitute a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat adversely affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society of that Member State, and that it is based on consideration of the various interests involved, matters which are for the national court to determine.

What Happens After Brexit? Some Thoughts

How should life be after Brexit? Even though the academic and intellectual communities, just like the public, got highly emotional after the Brexit referendum, we assume that it can serve as the start of something new and functioning both for the UK and the EU. Here are some pointers for the future already visible.

se logo

Wrote an article about Brexit for Social Europe Journal together with Anna Unger. The article can be accessed here or by clicking on the image above.

 

 

 

Interesting news – UK government launched sharia review

I personally think religion should strictly be separated from state law. On the other hand, state introduction into religion seems to be problematic to me: the terrain of religion belongs to individual freedom, even if followers of a religion abolish some of their fundamental rights, differentiate between man and women (like all of the monotheist religions do). I am really curious and sceptical about the outcome of this project:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/independent-review-into-sharia-law-launched

“An independent review into the application of Sharia Law in England and Wales has been launched by Home Secretary Theresa May today.

s300_scales-of-justice-pic

The review will be chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui, an internationally renowned expert in Islamic and inter-religious studies who was appointed OBE for her services to inter-faith relations. Professor Siddiqui will lead a panel of experts that includes experienced family law barrister Sam Momtaz, retired high court judge Sir Mark Hedley and specialist family law lawyer Anne Marie Hutchinson OBE QC.

The panel will be advised by 2 religious and theological experts – Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi and Imam Qari Asim. They will ensure the panel has a full and thorough understanding of the religious and theological issues relating to specific aspects of Sharia Law, and the way it is applied.

The Home Secretary committed to an independent review of the application of Sharia Law as part of the government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy. The strategy notes that many people in England and Wales follow religious codes and practices, and benefit from the guidance they offer. However, there is evidence some Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. It will also seek out examples of best practice among Sharia councils.

The terms of reference set out the review’s intention to explore whether, and to what extent, the application of Sharia law may be incompatible with the law in England and Wales. It will examine the ways in which Sharia may be being misused, or exploited, in a way that may discriminate against certain groups, undermine shared values and cause social harms.

The panel will begin work immediately and is expected to complete its review in 2017. It is expected to issue a call for evidence to provide an opportunity for groups and individuals to contribute to the review.

Home Secretary Theresa May said:

Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer.

A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern. There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen.

Professor Siddiqui, supported by a panel with a strong balance of academic, religious and legal expertise, will help us better understand whether and the extent to which Sharia law is being misused or exploited and make recommendations to the government on how to address this.

Chair of the Sharia Law Review, Professor Mona Siddiqui, said:

It’s a privilege to be asked to chair such an important piece of work. At a time when there is so much focus on Muslims in the UK, this will be a wide ranging, timely and thorough review as to what actually happens in Sharia councils.

 

A highly important new judgment of EU migration law – Persons entering illegally may not be imprisoned

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

7 June 2016 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Police custody — National legislation providing for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of illegal entry — Situation of ‘transit’ — Multilateral readmission arrangement)

In Case C‑47/15,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), made by decision of 28 January 2015, received at the Court on 6 February 2015, in the proceedings

Sélina Affum

v

Préfet du Pas-de-Calais,

Procureur général de la cour d’appel de Douai,

1.      Article 2(1) and Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as meaning that a third-country national is staying illegally on the territory of a Member State and therefore falls within the scope of that directive when, without fulfilling the conditions for entry, stay or residence, he passes in transit through that Member State as a passenger on a bus from another Member State forming part of the Schengen area and bound for a third Member State outside that area.

2.      Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which permits a third country national in respect of whom the return procedure established by that directive has not yet been completed to be imprisoned merely on account of illegal entry across an internal border, resulting in an illegal stay.

That interpretation also applies where the national concerned may be taken back by another Member State pursuant to an agreement or arrangement within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the directive.

[Signatures]

A nice summary of the Phillip Morris v Australia BiT case – plain packaging decision

Available here:


“Award Name and Date: Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (PCA Case No. 2012-12) Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015

Case Report by: Marina Kofman** and Erika Williams*** Edited by Ignacio Torterola

Award Name and Date: Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (PCA Case No. 2012-12) Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015 Case Report by: Marina Kofman** and Erika Williams*** Edited by Ignacio Torterola Summary: Claimant brought a claim against Respondent under the bilateral investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia in respect of Respondent’s introduction of legislation mandating the plain packaging of tobacco products. Claimant undertook a restructure in 2011 whilst Respondent was considering the introduction of plain packaging measures. Following the restructure, Claimant became the sole shareholder of the Australian entities which were a part of the global group of companies. The Tribunal found that Claimant’s restructure was for the principal, if not the sole, purpose of gaining protection under the Treaty. The Tribunal held that the claims were inadmissible and it was precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute.”

 

 

 

 

ROSSZ VÁLASZOK A MENEKÜLTKÉRDÉSRE: A SZÉLSŐJOBBOLDALI KORMÁNYZAT TALÁLKOZÁSA AZ EURÓPAI ANÓMIÁVAL

ROSZKE, HUNGARY - SEPTEMBER 11: A migrant finds a new pair of boots amongst the debris left on the ground after migrants move on from a holding area at the Hungarian border with Serbia on September 11, 2015 in Roszke, Hungary. Migrants are rushing to the border due to fears and rumours that the borders will soon close. Since the beginning of 2015 the number of migrants using the so-called 'Balkans route' has exploded with migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey and then travelling on through Macedonia and Serbia before entering the EU via Hungary. The number of people leaving their homes in war torn countries such as Syria, marks the largest migration of people since World War II. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

(Fotó: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)


Hozzávetőleg 4-5 hónapja írtam egy cikket, melyet megpróbáltam több helyen megjelentetni, sikertelenül. Az írásban kifejtettem azon véleményemet, mely szerint nem csoda, ha a magyar kormányzat rasszista módon viszonyul a menekültekhez, hiszen amúgy is szélsőjobboldali értékrendje van, mely kihatott az alkotmányos rendszer szétverésére, a választások súlyos manipulálására, a fékek-egyensúlyok rendszerének bedöntésére, antiszemita közírók díjazására, iskolai szegregációra,  az oktatási rendszer megnyomorítására, és nap mint nap támadja a független gondolkodás intézményeit. A munkát egy lap sem hozta le (persze, a terjedelmi korlátok miatt a megcélzott lapok köre is szűkebb).
Ennek megfelelően, végső megoldásként, a cikket itt, a blogomon teszem közé.

Ma Magyarországon egy sajátságos “barbár lázadás”, egyfajta ellen-felvilágosodás zajlik. Az, hogy az őszinte és karakteres véleményeket elhallgatják, hogy a sem a napi sajtóban, sem a tudomány világában nem közlik nyíltan, hogy egy szélsőséges, szélsőjobboldali erő irányítja az országot, mely bárhol Európában a politikai spektrumban izoláltan működne, nagy hiba, és jómagam a magát demokratának és liberálisnak/baloldalinak gondoló értelmiség sajátságos öncenzúrájának gondolom (bár azt is láthattuk, ezen értelmiség egy része örömmel igazodik a rasszista és antidemokratikus megoldásokhoz, ahogyan ellenzéki pártjai sem képeznek valódi ellenzéket, hanem inkább a rendszer házi ellenzékét alkotják, és ugyanez igaz a média jelentős részére is). Ez kihat arra is, hogy a menekültkérdésre vonatkozó konstruktív javaslat (így például a szíriai, vagy az iraki helyzet rendezése) nem merül fel, mintha két opció lenne: mindenkit Európába hozni a háborús térségekből, vagy mindenkit kizárni. Különösen komikus helyzeteket eredményez ez tudományos berkekben, ahol úgy “táncoljuk körbe” a problémákat, hogy a tényeket nem mondjuk ki (“ne címkézzünk”, mondják: ne mondjuk ki, hogy valami szélsőséges, akkor sem, ha elég egyértelmű a minősítés). Ráadásul a humánumot kiszorította valamifajta vélt “igazság” követése, és újfent magyarázni kell, mitől rasszista egy kijelentés. Újra el kell magyarázni, ha egy kisebbségre általánosságokat fogadok el, megvonván tőlük az individualitáshoz való jogukat, az miért káros.

A munka nem tartalmazza a legújabb EU-Törökország megállapodás elemzését, melyről önálló cikket szeretnék írni. Utóbbi megállapodást egyébként nemzetközi és európai jogba ütközőnek tartom, amellett, hogy a nemzetközi egyezményi jellege is kérdéses számomra, ugyanis nem így szokás elfogadni egyezményeket az Európai Unióban.


Az esszé innen tölthető le.

Gave two special lectures for our students

In the first lecture I talked about Hungary’s  illiberal turn and especially about the transformation of the domestic free market into a less competitive, centrally governed market in which state capture and oligarchs dominate. I used examples from Hungarian history to show such actions have historical tradition in the country, and I explained why there is a conflict between EU law and government policies. You find the slides of the lecture here.

hangya

Second, we watched the movie Sin nombre, and after watching it I gave a small presentation (in Hungarian) about US and Central American gangs, and especially about Mara Salvatrucha. Since following gang/maffia related conflicts in the US is one of my hobbies, I enjoyed talking about them a lot, even though this is not srrictly related to my scientific work . You can download the slides here.

sn

Right-wing populism, far right, fascism

Published an article in OpenDemocracy on the connection between new populists like Trump, Putin, Orban, Erdogan and fascism. Tried to overview the most important theories on fascism for non-experts. My statement is that most of these politicians are dangerous to democracy and most of them represent an anti-enlightment attitude. In the future, I intend to mix this area with my original, EU related researches, and especially singe market rules. I would like to do some researches on economic policies in the twenties and thirties, because I have a sense of feeling present anti-market politics have deep roots in our societies, especially in Eastern Europe.

You can reach the article by clicking here or on the picture below.

od960_logo@2x

Must reads – answers to the refugee crisis

I happened to find some genious articles on the internet about the reactions on the refugee crisis.

  • First, the article of Boldizsar Nagy is a detailed analysis of Hungarian rules: http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/parallel-realities-refugees-seeking-asylum-in-europe-and-hungarys-reaction/
  • Second, Steeve Peers reacted really quickly after the nonsensical EU-Turkey deal: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.hu/2016/03/the-final-euturkey-refugee-deal-legal.html
  • Third, another article raises the question: what is the nature of this deal? : http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.hu/2016/04/is-eu-turkey-refugee-and-migration-deal.html

All of them could be interesting for those who want to have a broader view about these problems.

Conference presentation on foreigners as enemies of state/A “külföldiek” ellenségként történő kezeléséről

Attended our regular yearly conference at the university, gave a presentation about discrimination of foreign businesses in Hungary. I focused on EU law/single market rules, corruption and the political background.

Az ELTE TÁTK kulcskérdések 2016 konferenciáján a külföldiek diszkriminációjáról és a belső piac szabályairól beszéltem, röviden kitérve a politikai oldalára illetve a korrupcióra gyakorolt hatásra. Az előadás tulajdonképpen az Állam- és Jogtudományban megjelent egy cikkem alapjául szolgáló kutatásokat (itt elérhető) viszi tovább. Az előadás diái letölthetőek innen.

12973065_10153521593317060_656052631161062520_o 12977197_10153521593242060_376756092324843073_o

 

Fidesz, fasizmus, szélsőjobb / The governing party (Fidesz), fascism, far right politics

A fenti témáról egyrészt megjelent egy írásom a Magyar Narancsban, másrészt Kovács M. Máriával és Friderikusz Sándorral beszélgettünk az ATV-n. Alább elérhető mindkettő:

I published an article in the weekly newspaper Magyar Narancs on the connection between far right ideology and the present government, and also attended a TV interview with Maria M. Kovacs from Central European University on the same topic (both were held/written in Hungarian). 

Web

 

New articles published

ájt
Published a new article on constitutional rights and the free market in Hungary (in Hungarian, available here) in Állam- és Jogtudomány.

cover
Also published another article in Acta Juridica Hungarica (Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, available here). This article summarizes the background of child abduction cases related to Hungary, giving a comprehensive analysis of such cases between the period of 2000 and 2014. In the first section, the reader finds a statistical analysis and the second part deals with the legal and practical background. The final conclusions give some recommendations for the European and domestic legislators. The essay was created as part of a report published by the European Parliament, collected by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law on the actual situation of child abduction in Europe.

Online course – the EU and human rights

The website of the course can be reached here:

About this course

Whether you are an EU citizen or not, this course concerns you! The EU is a major global actor in the field of human rights. EU treaties state that human rights are a fundamental value of the Union, which must be a ‘silver thread’ in all its policies. The EU now acts within an impressive array of competences, and therefore has the potential to impact – positively or negatively – anyone’s human rights.

This EU and Human Rights course teaches the basics of human rights, placing the EU at the centre of investigation. The course will examine a number of key questions:

  • What factors are key to making the EU a positive or a negative force for human rights? An example is the economic crisis: what impact has it had on people’s human rights in the EU and the world?
  • Which actors, friends or foes, must the EU engage with to successfully promote human rights? Examples include NGOs, businesses, or other international organisations like the Council of Europe or the United Nations.
  • In key policy sectors in which the EU is active, what is on balance the impact of the EU? Examples include trade, development, migration social policy or international crisis management.

All of the course activities aim to improve your understanding of how the EU, alone or in combination with other local or global, state or non-state actors, can better promote and uphold human rights worldwide.

The course is intended for anyone interested in human rights and the EU, human rights law, European law, European Studies, international relations, global governance, etc.

It is divided into four modules:

1: The EU and Human Rights: Value Promotion and Coherence

2: Promoting Human Rights inside the EU

3: Promoting Human Rights in EU External Action

4: Capitalising on Success and Remedying Flaws

This MOOC is based on the FRAME project (www.fp7-frame.eu), which has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration. (Grant Agreement No. 320000)

See more about The EU and Human Rights

What you’ll learn

  • How the EU works
  • What the EU does
  • How the EU affects human rights
  • Where the EU can do better to be a positive force for human rights

View Course Syllabus

Meet the instructors

  • bio for Joana Abrisketa Uriarte

    Joana Abrisketa Uriarte

  • bio for Wolfgang Benedek

    Wolfgang Benedek

  • bio for Florence Benoît-Rohmer

    Florence Benoît-Rohmer

  • bio for Zdzislaw Kedzia

    Zdzislaw Kedzia

  • bio for Jeffrey Kenner

    Jeffrey Kenner

  • bio for Eva Maria Lassen

    Eva Maria Lassen

  • bio for Tamara Lewis

    Tamara Lewis

  • bio for Carmen Márquez Carrasco

    Carmen Márquez Carrasco

  • bio for Monika Mayrhofer

    Monika Mayrhofer

  • bio for Elina Pirjatanniemi

    Elina Pirjatanniemi

  • bio for Karolina Podstawa

    Karolina Podstawa

  • bio for Lorena Sosa

    Lorena Sosa

  • bio for Jan Wouters

    Jan Wouters

  • bio for Tamás Ziegler

    Tamás Ziegler

Free access to the best education, open to anyone

  • Real Classes

    The best classes from the best professors and universities

  • New skills

    Learn through cool tools, videos, quizzes and game-like labs

  • On your schedule

    Take courses when you want and at your own pace

Found a highly interesting paper on a new institution

available on ssrn here

Upholding the Rule of Law in the EU: On the Commission’s ‘Pre-Article 7 Procedure’ as a Timid Step in the Right Direction


Dimitry Kochenov


Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University; University of Groningen – Faculty of Law

Laurent Pech


Middlesex University – School of Law

April 2015

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/24
Abstract:

This paper provides a detailed analysis of two institutional reforms, respectively put forward by the European Commission in March 2014 and by the Council of the EU in December 2014 – on how to tackle the problem of Member States’ non-compliance with the principle of the rule of law, which is one of the fundamental values of the Union according to Article 2 TEU. It is submitted that while both proposals definitely represent a timid step in the right direction, the Commission’s ‘light-touch’ proposal falls short of what is required to effectively address ongoing and serious threats to the rule of law within the EU but is however clearly preferable to the Council’s alternative proposal to hold an annual rule of law dialogue among all Member States within the Council itself.

Refugees in Hungary – recent events in light of the migration policy of the EU

!!! Unfortunately, I had to skip the conference below – however, for those who have time, it still could be of interest.

The Project for Democratic Union’s Budapest Office is partnering with AEGEE-Budapest in organizing a Conference on the European refugee crisis. The primary focus of the event will be Hungarian migration and refugee policy in light of general European practice.

20689706349_94ebb52bde_o

For many years the migration of European citizens within the EU has been causing worries due to its effect on the European labour market. Due to the high number of foreign job-seekers, governments of some Member States have raised their voices and called for urgent action and the reform of the EU’s migration policy. At the same time, the question of refugees coming from third countries – mainly war-zones – has been brought to the fore, after several accidents have occurred in the Mediterranean Sea.

Initially, only Mediterranean states were concerned by this situation, but lately other border countries of the EU, such as Bulgaria and Hungary, have become affected by the massive flow of often illegal immigrants and refugees. Although the EU is trying to find a coordinated answer to the problem, some countries managed to receive opt-outs and were able to carry out unilateral responses to this unprecedented situation. However, these practices are not far from being dangerous because in countries where extremism and xenophobia are on the rise, such as Hungary or Poland, they can result in a hostile attitude and hatred towards the people in despair.

Hungary’s fence erected on its Serbian border is only one example of the questionable methods EU Member States are using to solve the refugee crisis. The conference will address the Hungarian migration and refugee policy in light of the general European practice. It will also cover the EU’s current attempts to reform its migration policy and to show paths towards an acceptable solution to the situation.

Speakers:

Péter Balázs – Professor at Central European University, former Member of the European Commission, former Foreign Minister of Hungary

Carlos Puente – Economist, Attorney at Law, Political Scientist, Senior Visting Professor

Dezső Tamás Ziegler – Senior Lecturer at Eötvös Loránd University – Faculty of Social Sciences, Research Fellow at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – Institute for Legal Studies

Event audience: Open to Public

For any further questions you may contact: Veronika Czina from PDU Budapest veronika.czina@democraticunion.eu or Péter Sczigel from AEGEE-Budapest peter.sczigel@aegee-budapest.hu

Corvinus University
Fővám tér 8 – Budapest

Date/Time
Date(s) – 23/09/2015
7:10 pm – 8:40 pm

Location
Corvinus University
Fővám tér 8
Budapest, Hungary

Balázs Majtényi on the FRAME blog: Particularism Strikes Back: National Identity versus Human Rights in the Hungarian Fundamental Law

Hungarian parliament_Flickr_artorusrex_small

“Since 2010, the Hungarian government has increasingly committed itself to the majoritarian conception of democracy, meaning that nobody and nothing, not even independent international or state and civil institutions, can stand in the way of the will of the majority serving national interests. In this article I will analyse the constitutional background of the political turn in Hungary.”

You find the original blog post here

Report on child abduction

 

dg2

Created a part of a report on cross-border child abduction in the European Union for the European Parliament’s LIBE Committe. The other parts were written by different scholars, a major part was created by lawyers of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. The report can be accessed here or by clicking on the image above.

Started to work in the FRAME FP7 project

frame
FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world. Our research focuses on the contribution of the EU’s internal and external policies to the promotion of human rights worldwide.

Our job will be to create a report on US-EU relations in the field of human rights. The website of the project can be reached here.

EU common commercial policy – some important links (for students)

Report of CoE on Hungary

An excellent report on Hungary was published recently by CoE. The report can be reached here. It focuses on three topics: 1) Media freedom 2) Fight against intollerance and discrimination 3) Human rights of migrants and refugees

The contents reach a wide range of topics, some of the most important problems we face day-by-day. Pls find below the content of the work.

Summary

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
1 Media freedom ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
1.1 Hungary’s media legislation and the right to freedom of expression ………………………………………………9
1.1.1 Media content regulation…………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
1.1.2 Imposition of sanctions on the media………………………………………………………………………………….10
1.1.3 Protection of journalists’ sources………………………………………………………………………………………..11
1.1.4 Registration requirements …………………………………………………………………………………………………12
1.1.5 Problems relating to the independence of media regulatory bodies ………………………………………12
1.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….13
1.2 Threats to media pluralism………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
1.2.1 Advertising market……………………………………………………………………………………………………………14
1.2.2 Tax on advertising …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
1.2.3 Political party advertising …………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
1.2.4 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….16
1.3 The need to decriminalise defamation………………………………………………………………………………………16
1.3.1 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….17

2 The fight against intolerance and discrimination ……………………………………………………………………….. 18
2.1 The rise of racism and intolerance in Hungary ……………………………………………………………………………18
2.1.1 Anti-Gypsyism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
2.1.2 Antisemitism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19
2.1.3 Xenophobia ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
2.1.4 Extremist organisations……………………………………………………………………………………………………..20
2.1.5 The response of the Hungarian authorities…………………………………………………………………………..21
2.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….23
2.2 The need to fight against Discrimination……………………………………………………………………………………25
2.2.1 General context………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25
2.2.1.1 Conclusion and recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………….25
2.2.2 Discrimination against Roma………………………………………………………………………………………………25
2.2.2.1 Conclusions and recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………..27
2.2.3 Discrimination against persons with disabilities ……………………………………………………………………28
2.2.3.1 Conclusions and recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………..30
2.2.4 Discrimination against LGBTI persons………………………………………………………………………………….32
2.2.4.1 Conclusions and recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………..33
2.2.5 Discrimination on grounds of socio-economic status …………………………………………………………….33
2.2.5.1 Conclusions and recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………..353
3 Human rights of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees …………………………………………………………. 36
3.1 Detention of Asylum seekers……………………………………………………………………………………………………36
3.1.1 Shortcomings of the current detention regime …………………………………………………………………….37
3.1.2 Vulnerable asylum seekers…………………………………………………………………………………………………38
3.1.3 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….38
3.2 Integration of refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection…………………………………..40
3.2.1 Integration framework ………………………………………………………………………………………………………40
3.2.2 Family reunification…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..40
3.2.3 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….41
3.3 Statelessness …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
3.3.1 Conclusions and recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….43

Soon to get published…

I’m expecting several more scientific articles to get published in a couple a months:

  • created a report fot the European Parliament on child abduction in Hungary, with special regard to private international law rules and the application of the 1980 Hague Convention – the report will be published on the website of the Parliament
  • an article on the myths of consumer protecion in the EU in Hungarian Yearbook of International and European Law
  • another article on the change of Hungary’s attitude towards the European Union (will be published in a book on Eastern-European states by Brill in Boston).

Furthermore, right now I am working on a piece on the commercial law relationship between the Hungarian illiberal state and the free European market.

 

New article – When The European Moral Vacuum Meets The Hungarian Autocratic Regime

Hungary is obviously moving towards autocracy. But we have to ask ourselves two questions. Would it be useful for the EU to introduce measures against a country with democratic problems? Secondly, is Europe in the moral, political and economic state to be able to act? Both questions require thorough deliberation. 

The article can be reached here, or by clicking on the images below.

opendemocracy_logo

social europe log

 

A Hungarian language version of the article was created by Budapest Beacon (Mikor az európai morális vákum talűlkozik a magyar önkényuralmi rendszerrel), which can be reached here or by clicking below.

beacon

 

 

 

How to apply the Charter? Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Haparanda tingsrätt – Sweden) – Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson
(Case C-617/10)

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Field of application – Article 51 – Implementation of European Union law – Punishment of conduct prejudicial to own resources of the European Union – Article 50 – Ne bis in idem principle – National system involving two separate sets of proceedings, administrative and criminal, to punish the same wrongful conduct – Compatibility)

 

Request for a preliminary ruling – Haparanda tingsrätt – Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National case-law requiring a clear basis in the European Convention on Human Rights or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to disapply provisions of national law liable to be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle – National legislation under which the same conduct contrary to tax law may be punished both administratively by a tax surcharge and criminally by a term of imprisonment – Compatibility with the ne bis in idem principle of a national system involving two separate sets of proceedings to punish the same wrongful conduct

Operative part of the judgment

1.    The ne bis in idem principle laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not preclude a Member State from imposing successively, for the same acts of non-compliance with declaration obligations in the field of value added tax, a tax penalty and a criminal penalty in so far as the first penalty is not criminal in nature, a matter which is for the national court to determine.

2.    European Union law does not govern the relations between the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and the legal systems of the Member States, nor does it determine the conclusions to be drawn by a national court in the event of conflict between the rights guaranteed by that convention and a rule of national law.

European Union law precludes a judicial practice which makes the obligation for a national court to disapply any provision contrary to a fundamental right guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union conditional upon that infringement being clear from the text of the Charter or the case-law relating to it, since it withholds from the national court the power to assess fully, with, as the case may be, the cooperation of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether that provision is compatible with the Charter.

A highly interesting judgment…

The General Court annuls the listing of a university as an entity subject to restrictive measures against Iran

The General Court, however, suspends the effects of the annulment for a period of two months in order to allow the Council the opportunity to correct the irregularities identified

Sharif University of Technology (SUT) is an institution of higher education and research located in Tehran, Iran. Founded in 1966, it specialises in technology, engineering and physical sciences. The Council adopted restrictive measures (freezing of funds) against SUT for the following reasons: ‘Sharif University of Technology … is assisting designated entities to violate the provisions of UN and EU sanctions on Iran and is providing support to Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities. As of late 2011 SUT had provided laboratories for use by UN-designated Iranian nuclear entity Kalaye Electric Company (KEC) and EU‑designated Iran Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA)’.[1] SUT claims that its listing should be annulled.

In today’s judgment, the General Court upholds the action for annulment.[2]

The General Court considers that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to discharge the burden of proof which rests on it. In that regard, the General Court states that a number of documents justifying SUT’s listing were sent to it only after the expiry of the period allowed for bringing proceedings. Further, the General Court finds that the documents sent by the Council contain no information or material which adds anything to the content of the contested acts (the redacted passages in some of those documents not concerning SUT). Moreover, while the Council, on its own admission, took into account other information to be found in a separate confidential document, the General Court observes that the Member State which proposed the listing and supplied that information is opposed to its disclosure, either wholly or in part.

That being the case, the Court holds that the Council finds itself unable to provide additional information beyond that already known to SUT and that the Council has provided no explanation of its inability to disclose the confidential information. The reasons stated by the Council in the contested acts (the only material on which the General Court can base its decision) contain no evidence capable of supporting the Council’s claims: they prove neither that SUT made available laboratories to KEC and TESA nor that those laboratories could be of any value to them for their nuclear activities. Lastly, there is nothing to support the claims that SUT assisted the entities KEC and TESA to violate the restrictive measures adopted against Iran, or provided direct support to Iranian nuclear activities.

The General Court however limits the effects of its judgment for a period of two months from the date of delivery. The General Court considers that SUT’s interest in ensuring that its listing should be annulled immediately must be weighed against the objective of general interest pursued by the European Union’s policy in relation to restrictive measures. An immediate annulment would allow SUT instantly to collect the frozen funds. A further listing of SUT cannot automatically be ruled out, since the Council has the possibility of again listing the applicant on the basis of reasons which are supported to the requisite legal standard. The General Court considers therefore that it is necessary to give the Council a period of two months to enable it to correct the irregularities identified, inter alia by providing sufficient evidence to support the reasons for SUT’s listing.

NOTE: An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of the General Court within two months of notification of the decision.

NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.

[1]Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran(OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55).

[2] By judgments of the same date, the General Court upholds the actions for annulment brought by an Iranian businessman (Mr Babak Zanjani, Case T-155/13) and two legal persons (Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers and National Iranian Tankers Company, respectively Cases T-157/13 and T-565/12). As in the SUT case, the General Court considers that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to discharge the burden of proof which rests on it. In those three cases, the General Court maintains the effects of the annulled acts until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal or, if an appeal has been brought, until the dismissal of the appeal.

The international effect of Jamaican music/A jamaikai zene nemzetközi hatása

Gave a lecture on the effect of Jamaican music on world music herritage. The slides can be downloaded here or by clicking on the image below.

A jamaikai zene nemzetközi hatásáról az ELTE TÁTK-on elhangzott előadás diái a képre kattintva, vagy itt elérhetőek. Mindenkinek köszönöm a részvételt, és a tanszéki kollégáknak is a sok szervezést!

diakép