I am really grateful to the colleagues at Warwick University, it was really inspiring to meet them, had a great time at the School of Law. I gave sereval lectures/seminars. One of them was about disintegration within the EU and the occurance of negative (reverse) spillovers in EU law (it was called Negative (reverse) spillovers in EU law – First thoughts on a theoretical framework – the slides are available here). Another lecture was about conflict-of-laws issues, it was called The magic evolution of conflict of laws – Internationalisation, interdependence and the role of tolerance (the slides are available here).
Reviewing European Union Accession
Tom Hashimoto and Michael Rhimes
The year 2017 has been an uneasy one for the EU, with so-called Brexit on the horizon and the rise of populist euroskepticism in a number of Member States. This year, with the tenth anniversary of the Romanian and Bulgarian accession to the Union, is a good year to pause and reflect over the life and future of the Union. In this work, we envision the next decade with Europe 2020 strategy and review the fruits of the 2004 accession in Central and Eastern Europe. What has the Union achieved? Which policy areas are likely to change and how? How successful, and by what measure, has the accession of the 10 Member States in 2004 been? Reviewing European Union Accession addresses a wide range of issues, deliberately without any thematic constraints, in order to explore EU enlargement from a variety of perspectives, both scientific and geographical, internal and external. In contrast to the major works in this field, we highlight the interrelated, and often unexpected, nature of the integration process – hence the subtitle, unexpected results, spillover effects and externalities.
I wrote a book review about a book on the democratisation efforts of the EU in Eastern Europe (about Luca Tomini’s Democratizing Central and Eastern Europe – Successes and Failures of the European Union. 2015. Routledge).
The book is an interesting attempt to summarize the actions of governments in certain countries of the region. It presents an analysis to the reader about the major changes of governance in some Eastern European countries (like Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia). This analysis can be very useful for readers who do not know too much about these countries, and want to have a basic sketch.
The review can be accessed here, or by clicking on the image above.
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.
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. 🙂
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 here. An 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.
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.
THE LINKS BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SINGLE EUROPEAN MARKET: DISCRIMINATION AND SYSTEMIC INFRINGEMENT
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University; University of Groningen – Faculty of Law
Middlesex University – School of Law
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.
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.
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.
(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)
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.
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)’. SUT claims that its listing should be annulled.
In today’s judgment, the General Court upholds the action for annulment.
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.
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).
 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.
Found two new important cases on the application of the EU Charter on Fundamental rights.
“In its judgment in AMS (15 January 2014), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can apply in a dispute between private parties, holding that the Charter is applicable ‘in all situations governed by European Union law’.”
Available here or by clicking on the image above.
2) The Austrian Constitutional Court’s judgement on the Charter
I recently noticed that TWO Hungarian language articles we wrote together with Balázs Horváthy can be found on the internet about the Lisbon Treaty and the system of justice and home agffairs. The articles can serve as general introduction into the topic as well as for a comprehensive analysis on the institutions and legal system of JHA after Lisbon.
You can reach them here or by cliking on the image above.
* * *
Észrevettem, hogy az intereneten elérhető KÉT írásunk a bel- és igazságügyi együttműködés Lisszaboni Szerződést követő rendszeréről. A munkák itt, vagy fenti logóra klikkelve érhetőek el, és a Jog, Állam politika c. lapban jelentek meg. Előzőleg a Lamm Vanda emlékkötetben ugyanennek a kérdésnek egy hasonló ám máshogyan strukturált vizsgálatát végeztük el (ld. a list of publications részt ezen az oldalon).
“Even though the human rights court in Strasbourg and the convention it enforces are never far from the headlines these days, it is rare to find any mention of another important human rights agreement – the European Union’s charter of fundamental rights. This is understandable: although the charter was “proclaimed” by the EU institutions more than 13 years ago, it did not become legally binding until the Lisbon treaty took effect in December 2009. Even then, the charter applies only to EU member states when they are implementing EU law. That’s stressed in a discussion paper just published by the European Commission ahead of a major conference on EU justice policy next month (at which I have been invited by the commission to make a short introductory speech)…
…The ruling demonstrates once again that EU law trumps laws passed by parliament. Despite all the attention paid to human rights law, EU law is much more powerful. And it’s a decision that may make life more difficult for ministers. The foreign office will have to tell embassies in London that they can’t sack their domestic staff without paying the compensation to which those staff are entitled under EU law. But what’s wrong with that?”
You can reach the article here or by clicking on the image above.
The study can be reached here or by clickin on the picture below.
You can find a short summary of the program on the website of EESC.
I wrote about the danger of mixing politicians and students at universities (in Hungarian). You can find the article here or by clicking on the image above.
Found an interesting piece written by our director on the character of the EU Charter on Fundamental rights. You can download it here or by clicking on the image above.
Enjoyed reading it (even though, in the European Union, the essence of an e-commerce contract is NOT the concept of characteristic performance as it can be found in the Rome Convention, but the solution which can be found in Art 3-4-6 Rome I regulation).
However, it still is a nice piece to read.
You can download the article here or by clicking on the picture.
Recently, I published two new articles.
The first one, published in the Yearbook of Private International Law summarizes the different conflicting private international law provisions of the EU. It classifies the rules by making several subgroups in order to understand the attributes of different regulations/directives. In fact, it is similar to my former works, but instead of only finding the provisions, it tries to make groups and make some statements based on the findings.
For the table of contents, please click here.
You can find the article on ssrn here.
The second one, published in the Hungarian journal Külgazdaság, was written in Hungarian together with Katalin Raffai from Pázmány Péter Catholic University (I am really happy to have a common article with her). This is its abstract:
“Several new laws which deal with the international aspects of family law issues have been adopted in the European Union in the recent years. According to the statements of the European institutions, these rules are important in order to strengthen the background of the free movement of EU citizens. Numerous problems had to be solved, like the question of the law applicable in case of a divorce proceeding or the procedure of maintenance payments. The article summarizes the provisions of the most important legal sources, with special regard to the private international law aspects of such cases. Furthermore, it also deals with the basic differences between the related domestic substantive family law regimes.”
“Az Európai Unióban az elmúlt években több olyan jogszabály is elfogadásra került, amely családjogi kérdésekkel foglalkozik. E normák megalkotására a belső piac logikája miatt, az uniós polgárok szabad mozgásának biztosítása végett volt szükség. A szabad mozgás folyományaképpen rendezni kellett számos kérdést, így például, hogy a házasság felbontására milyen jogot alkalmazzanak, vagy a tartásdíjakat milyen keretek között kelljen fizetni. E szabályok nemzetközi magánjogi (más néven: nemzetközi kollíziós) normák, azaz azt határoznák meg, milyen eljárási rendben kell végrehajtani és végrehajtatni a tagállami anyagi jogi családjogi szabályokat, illetve részletesen leírják, mely állam jogát alapul véve kell eljárni. Az írás kimondottan az alkalmazandó jog megállapításával foglalkozik, ám röviden kitér az anyagi jogi háttérszabályokra is.”
You can find the article on my SSRN profile here.
Pls find below the slides of a lecture on the weaknesses and possible development of EU consumer law.
The slides can be reached here.
The students continously protest against the present anti-democratic government. I recapped the present situation of Hungary with especial regard to the provisions of the European Union and the possible protection provided by the CoE.
A short Hungarian language summary can be found here.
In the European Union Regulation No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (the so called Rome I regulation) governs which law to apply to contracts containing international elements. With the continuing internalization of business activities, such rules have elementary importance. However, beside the unified rules of the regulation, numerous EU rules exist, which also have relevance. This is because of a provision in Rome I, which states that the regulation shall not prejudice the application or adoption of rules of the institutions of the EU which lay down rules concerning particular areas of contractual law. As an effect, several rules exist which override the provisions of Rome I. Thus, the present system of rules is fragmented, which may cause serious malfunctions in the legal practice. Most of these provisions can be found in consumer law directives, but other fields like employment law may also be of relevance. The article tries to collect these „hidden” provisions and analyse their effect on the Hungarian legal regime.
The article can be found here.
Twelve countries have joined the EU since 2004, with Croatia’s accession expected in 2013. Tamas Dezso Czigler argues that while the Eurozone’s economic problems are currently dominating attention, the EU is also facing a growing crisis in the new accession countries, with a number of Eastern European states exhibiting anti-democratic tendencies. The article warns that problems in Eastern Europe also threaten to derail wider reform processes within the EU.
The article can be found here.
Tamas Dezso Czigler & Izolda Takacs: The Law Applicable To Contracts In The European Union – A Competition Between Rome I Regulation, Other Sources of EU Law and Directive Law As Implemented. CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 20, No. 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2012, 21-53.
In the early days then, there had been only fragmented and miscellaneous conflict-of-laws provisions in the acquis communautaire, focusing on specific areas. Most provisions were to be found in directives dealing with substantive law, i.e. the conflict-of-laws rules were merely extensions to the regulations in certain areas. Adopting such rules was common in the fields of consumer protection (i.e. consumer contract law) and insurance law. Numerous authors had criticized this earlier technique, which resulted in the disintegration of Community conflict-of-laws rules. There were indeed several disadvantages of the early approach. Firstly, the PIL body of law adopted for particular areas became opaque and convoluted. Secondly, in several cases the European legislator only provided a kind of “supra-collisional” rule, or to be more precise, a rule defending some provisions of Community law. That is to say, the Community PIL rules were only to be applied if doing otherwise, some substantive rules of EU/Community law would have been violated. This approach made the system unpredictable. Thirdly, the solutions for implementing these rules into MSs’ national statutes seem rather diverse and sometimes inconsistent with each other. Fourthly, EU/Community rules also disrupted existing and functioning national systems. This was the case for insurance law: EU/Community law reinvented effective national insurance law and in some places, rewrote the rules using ill-chosen constructs. Due to the above, the PIL aquis on insurance contracts became almost chaotic. Adopting regulations with a wider scope or the assembling of such regulations as was done in the Rome I Regulation can be considered to be a great leap forward, even if the methods of codification in the Regulation warrant some criticism. Last but not least, some “hidden” PIL rules were codified in directives: this made their application even more difficult, since the direct effect of directives not implemented by MSs is ambiguous.
The article can be downloaded here: CalBar_ILJ_Vol-20.1_v05
We had a nice little workshop with some excellent scholars from Germany – Prof. Nettesheim from Tübingen and Prof. Bien from Würzburg. I spoke about the fragmentation of EU contract law provisions and the chances of unification (pls find my ppt slides below).
Recently I noticed that some materials from me are available on the internet (all were written Hungarian) :
- an article about private international law rules in EU directive law: http://www.mjsz.uni-miskolc.hu/201002/7_cziglerdezso.pdf
- my PhD dissertation about EU private international law: http://www.sze.hu/~smuk/DoktoriIskola/Fokozatszerzes/CzieglerDT/Disszert%E1ci%F3%20-%20V%E9gleges%20verzi%F3.pdf
- a recension of a fine book – PAUL CRAIG, GRÁINNE DE BÚRCA (eds.): The Evolution of EU Law: http://www.mta-ius.hu/iranytu/5_konyvszemle.pdf
Pls find my latest piece on LSE EUROPP
Hungary is sleepwalking into an authoritarian state. But the European Union is limited in the pressure it is able to exert.
Hungary is a member of the European Union (EU), but the country is sleepwalking into an authoritarian state, argueTamas Dezso Czigler and Izolda Takacs. In their third post on Hungary’s government, they explore measures that the EU could take in order to sanction the country, some which may be more effective than others.
Pls find the second article of the series on London School of Economics – European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) blog about the recent changes in Hungary.
Hungary is a member of the European Union, but the country is sleepwalking into an authoritarian state, argue Tamas Dezo Czigler and Izolda Takacs. In their second of three articles for EUROPP, they argue that the new governing coalition has overhauled the country’s electoral and judicial system, violated the independence of the Hungarian central bank and invaded citizens’ private lives.
Pls find my latest article on Open Democracy about the connections between Euro-scepticism, extremism and history in the UK and in Hungary:
“If we want to develop effective co-operation within and among the member states of the EU, history should be kept at a distance. Living in the past is not feasible, and this is equally true for Euro-scepticism, the application of human rights as well as the fight against racism and extremism…
In our opinion, the future of a state cannot be based solely on emotional foundations. For economic problems, economic measures must take centre stage. Exaggerated emotions should be consigned to where they belong: to museums.”
Pls find my latest article on London School of Economics – European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) blog about the recent changes in Hungary.
“Has Hungary become an authoritarian state? In their first of three articles on the Hungarian government, Tamas Dezso Czigler and Izolda Takacs argue that the country has become a distorted democracy on the brink of autocracy. Worryingly, the vast majority of Hungarians do not seem to be alarmed by these.”
Please find my latest article Jog és realitás [Law and reality] in the Hungarian weekly journal Élet és irodalom [Life and literature] . I discussed the connection between EU fundamental rights policy and the new Hungarian regime (subscription required to read it)…
Pls find my latest article “Protectionism – The Side Effect of Hungarian Nationalism” on Social Europe Journal (Part of Guardian Comment Network)
“Hungary’s government has lately found itself in the cross hairs of critics both international and domestic. Its detractors point to two major issues. First is the barrage of potentially anti-democratic and positively useless laws that have been adopted over a single year, including a new constitution, media law, acts affecting the judicial and electoral systems, governance of the national bank and more – three hundred laws so far… Secondly, due to the economic crisis and the bad and unimaginative economic policies of the present and earlier governments in Budapest, fiscal policy has become subject to harsh criticism… However, besides fears for democracy and worries over economic problems, there is a third issue regarding Hungary which has been overlooked by the media – the conflict between the founding principles of the common European market and nationalistic protectionism: recently, free movement of goods into Hungary, the free establishment of companies and guaranteeing fair competition all seem to have been impaired. ”