Search results

Flexibility (enhanced cooperation) has arisen in the European Union (EU) agenda as a function of recent enlargement rounds and is now one of the key issues in the construction of the EU polity with respect to diversity management. Whether enlargement has provoked normative reform in the EU, taking flexibility as an example is the focus of this article. The author argues that the flexibility case indicates that pressures of enlargement have not produced radical normative change in the EU. Tracing the evolution of enhanced cooperation from the 2000 Treaty of Nice onwards, the evidence points towards the continued existence of the traditional ‘frame’ of the integration process rather than its rejection in favour of more radical and innovative solutions to the EU's governance problems.

“Re‐shaping” policy provides the opportunity for an inclusive approach to decision‐making in dialogue with existing member‐states and anticipated new members. The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the governance process that underpinned the modernisation of EC competition policy (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003, effective 1 May 2004) can be considered inclusive.

A multi‐level genre is used to describe EC governance with respect to the implementation of revised competition policy. The process is evaluated through the levels of involvement of the key stakeholders, i.e. firms (national, European and non‐European), consumers, national competition authorities (NCAs), the European Commission, and member states. The main explanatory vehicles relied on are institutionalism governance, policy network analysis and inter‐governmentalist models of governance.

Multi‐level governance was apparent as member states established national working parties and committees that paralleled similar consultation in Brussels. Good governance was evident through the democratic process that involved interest groups in policy network analysis. Ultimate authority, however, remains vested in the Commission, vouchsafed through legislation and institutionalism.

This paper contributes to the small but growing literature that illustrates the complex interaction between governance and implementation of public policy.

In The Times (10th July 1992) the following by line appeared on p1 ‘Body Shop wins unholy row with businesswoman’; announcing that Sir Peter Pain, sitting as a High Court judge, had granted an injunction restraining a Mrs Pauline Rawle, who was described as ‘an evangelical Christian woman’ from using the ‘Body Shop’ name in respect of six franchised shops in Bromley, Maidstone, Canterbury, Romford and Croydon (2 branches). It was alleged that the ‘close relationship’ essential to the franchise contract between Mrs Rawle and the Body Shop ‘had clearly broken down’. Mrs Rawle allegedly told staff to have nothing to do with Body Shop representatives and alleged a conspiracy against her and comparing herself with God and the Body Shop organisation to Satan! Mass dismissals of staff followed and the franchises were temporarily closed and re‐opened with inferior standards. This case is one of the few reported decisions on franchise operation in the UK.

Notes that the notion of a “substantial part” of the Common Market (European Union) has significance in terms of European competitive regulation and policy. Points out that without this term European competition policy would be limited to cases involving the whole of the Community. Examines a range of competing interpretations of this key term and reveals that the European Court and the European Commission have adopted different interpretations in dealing with the issue of a “substantial part”. Considers the reasons for this divergence and suggests that proposals for revisions to Article 9 of the Merger Control Regulation may end the divergence.

Asks whether nuclear power is viable as a clean source of energy and an independent energy source and whether it should be used to attain targeted reductions in fossil fuels or as a method of electricity generation. Also considers whether nuclear energy should be used in preference to energy from a third country. Discusses problems such as technological safety, nuclear waste, costs and the individual energy policies of Member States. Cites the main issue as public perception as the subject is regarded as dangerous and secretive. Outlines how the debate in Europe is being re‐evaluated and with the evolution of new science and technology, the positive contribution of nuclear energy to sustainable development is a factor to be weighed in the balance.

This paper is largely based on the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) judgment of 26th June, 2003 in Case C‐422/01 Skandia and Ramtedt v Riksskatteverket (the judgment). The author was counsel for Skandia and Ramstedt in the ECJ. In the judgment the ECJ has maintained that national tax legislation regarding employer‐paid occupational pension insurance contravenes EC law by discriminating against insurance taken out with an insurance company in another member state. This legislation is, therefore, illegal and may not be applied by national courts and authorities. In its judgment the ECJ rejects the argument that fiscal discrimination is necessary in order to ensure fiscal cohesion, the effectiveness of fiscal controls, the need to preserve the tax base or competitive neutrality. The judgment concerned Swedish tax legislation but the ruling is applicable in all member states.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. The concept of “lender liability” is one of the more critical issues which seems to be ready to upset the “apple cart” of environmental calm, which the English law enjoyed until recently. Why should banks be held liable for pollution and clean-up costs? The banks’ responsibility should end when it has granted the loan to the borrower to carry out its commercial activities. It is argued that a lender who becomes involved in the borrower’s financial management is unlikely to incur a clean-up liability, but it will become liable to clean it up if it forecloses or takes possession of the land. Can the bank be regarded as the “owner” of the land? In some English statutes, there is no definition of the word “owner”. Does a mortgagee in possession entitle him to ownership of the property to hold him responsible for liabilities for environmental harm?

The development of domestic environmental liability and the Trans-Atlantic position with the USA will be examined. The “owner” concept will also be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be examined. This will all be analysed and criticised in this paper.

This paper aims to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. It will also discuss “owner” concept to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property.

In this paper, the “owner” concept will be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be critically analysed and compared with different legal systems.

Purpose– The article aims to examine principles of fair trade in public procurement in Europe, focusing on legal dimensions related to the European Public Procurement Directives. Design/methodology/approach– The article situates public procurement of fair trade products in relation to the rise of non‐state regulatory initiatives, highlighting how they have entered into new governance dynamics in the public sector and play a part in changing practices in sustainable procurement. A review of the legal position on fair trade in procurement law is informed by academic research and campaigning experience from the Fair Trade Advocacy Office. Findings– Key findings are that the introduction of fair trade products into European public procurement has been marked by legal ambiguity, having developed outside comprehensive policy or legal guidelines. Following a 2012 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is suggested that the legal position for fair trade in procurement has become clearer, and that forthcoming change to the Public Procurement Directives may facilitate the uptake of fair trade products by public authorities. However potential for future expansion of the public sector “market” for fair trade is approached with caution: purchasing fair trade products as a marker of sustainability, which started to be embedded within procurement practice in the 2000 s, is challenged by current European public austerity measures. Research limitations/implications– Suggestions for future research include the need for systematic cross‐institutional and multi‐country comparison of the legal and governance dimensions of procurement practice with regard to fair trade. Practical implications– The paper provides a clarification of current state‐of‐play with regard to legal aspects of fair trade in public procurement of utility for policy and advocacy discussion. Originality/value– The article provides needed elaboration on an under‐researched topic area of value to academia and policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the real reasons behind the widely accepted view that the European Anti‐Fraud Office (OLAF) is not performing to its full potential.

The approach takes the form of consideration of the main points of the regulatory framework and analysis of lacunae in the current and proposed framework.

The paper attributes ineffectiveness, in part, to the conflicting and vague regulatory framework within which OLAF is requested to operate.

The paper provides a list and an analysis of the main lacunae in OLAF's regulatory framework, an operation which has been neglected in the academic literature.

This paper critiques the recent anti‐money laundering (AML) legislation in Turkey and the European Union (EU) in order to determine whether there is convergence between them. Given the fact that Turkey is a candidate country for the EU membership, harmonisation of Turkish and the EU AML frameworks has become increasingly important. These AML laws pose important responsibilities for the financial and legal sectors.

In order to facilitate the evaluation process, the AML regimes examined are compared in regards to various aspects, such as criminalisation of money laundering, recording and reporting obligations, enforcement and sanctions mechanisms. Findings from activity reports from the regulatory bodies as well as semi‐structured interviews conducted with relevant professionals are incorporated into the discussion.

It can be argued that the Turkish AML regime is in line with the EU AML framework. However, there is a need for government authorities to coordinate their efforts with the relevant independent regulatory professional bodies that represent the liable professionals in Turkey. While it is evident that each national regime in the EU has adopted a unique AML framework, minimum standards provided by international (e.g. the Financial Action Task Force) and regional (e.g. EU) instruments have been the main driving force behind all national laws.

The involvement of professional regulatory bodies will enhance competence to monitor compliance and provide training mechanisms and guidance for liable professionals pertaining to AML regulations.

Effectiveness of AML initiatives will enhance with improved cooperation and communication between the executive, law enforcement agencies and businesses. This will improve the reporting of suspicious financial activities and subsequent enforcement.

The paper provides an up‐to‐date account of the Turkish legal regime pertaining to AML and demonstrates its shortcomings whilst assessing it against the EU AML framework. The findings of the study contribute to the existing literature and shed light on areas for reform.