Two English-language videos by DCTP.TV on online and offline journalism worth watching:
(via Philip Banse where you find more interviews)
Brexit: on becoming a "third country"
8 hours ago
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Bipartisan Health Care Reform Summit 2010 - Government Unity|
"3. Industrial and innovation dimension - The European Commission encourages industry-academia partnerships sharing research roadmaps. (does someone know what the last four are ?) For instance five European Technology Platforms are currently active in coordinating among their constituency Future Internet-related technologies and systems."To repeat the question: "Does someone know what the last four are?" - Answers are welcome, maybe we can help the Commission answering its own pertinent questions in its own information documents...
The EDPS strongly encourages the European Commission to establish a public and transparent dialogue on ACTA, possibly by means of a public consultation, which would also help ensuring that the measures to be adopted are compliant with EU privacy and data protection law requirements.and
Insofar as the current draft of ACTA includes or at least indirectly pushes for three strikes Internet disconnection policies, ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the protection of personal data and privacy.What is also notable is that the EDPS complains that he has not been consulted so far - a clear attack on an institution that is meant to protect us citizens against misuse of our private data.
"[J]e tenais à rencontrer les ONGs dès les premiers jours car elles sont – Concord mais aussi bien d’autres – des acteurs et des experts incontournables dans notre domaine. Ainsi, bon nombre des projets que nous finançons sont mis en œuvre par les ONG sur le terrain. Elles sont aussi un aiguillon qui soutient ou critique notre action, et qui nous est nécessaire."But this move towards more transparency is appreciated, and I hope the rest of the Commissioners will follow the example of Piebalgs, reporting what they do, whom they meet and, if they know, why.
"[T]he principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation"and the judges went even further and became more clear:
"By reason of the principle of the primacy of European Union law, which extends also to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, contrary national legislation which falls within the scope of European Union law must be disapplied"But the case is not only a European case because it involves the EU court and European legal principles, it is also dealt with by European and national bloggers from different member states.
"I am afraid Kücükdeveci is Mangold II: an even bolder, but simultaneously also more porously argued decision. At least for me this is not the right way of redefining the very fundamentals of EU law. Just wait and see."Pescatories, referring to the fact that the Court used the Charta of Fundamental Rights for his reasoning although the case is pre-Lisbon underlines in his article "Making History, Making Law":
"[T]he Court has interpreted that Lisbon has reinforced its authority in a way that it has never enjoyed in the past. After all, a Charter of fundamental rights is not the ordinary type of thing you run into every day.and he ends his post with the bold statement
Maybe the Charter is a momentous text that has given the Court the will and drive to legitimize its decision-making process and reinforce thus its judgments. And if so, the Court can not afford to simply look towards the future. In that circumstance, the Court MUST apply the Charter even when the cases are coming from the distant (and not so distant) past."
Long live Kücükdeveci. And long live (very long, please) the European Court of Justice.And in the third post of the series titled "In Defence of Paragraph 22", Cartesio also underlines the new importance of the Charta of Fundamental Rights in the EU's legal system:
"We have now the Kücükdeveci scenario in which a national horizontal situation fall within the scope of EU law when a non-implemented Directive contains a general principle/ EU fundamental rights. This is very far-reaching…. Kücükdeveci will be both hated and glorified…"The bloggers from EU Law (Typepad), who link to the three articles mentioned above, summarise the ruling, starting from the conclusion that
"The Court of Justice has handed down a major judgment on the horizontal direct effect of directives."and also Bulgarian euroblogger Viharg in his blog EU Law (Wordpress) finds that
"[t]his is really interesting, because the ECJ actually says that any directive can “give expression” to a general principle of EU law, and thus have horizontal direct effect."At the bloggers of The European Journal, Margarida took the time to write an extensive article about the case, highlighting that
(there is also a Bulgarian version of the article)
"[t]his is another example of the ECJ expanding the scope of EU law.As I have noted short after the ruling was published some weeks ago, Verfassungsblog predicted that this ruling will cause an "arms race" between the German Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. The seriousness of this argument is taken up by the Kartellblog, checking how the case of Kücükdeveci could effect cartel adjudication.
In this case, a Directive giving expression to a general principle of EU law, prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age, applies to a national horizontal situation binding not only the Member States but also individuals and due to the primacy doctrine national courts must not apply the national provision contrary to the general principle as expressed in the directive.
Hence, the provisions of directives expressing general principles of European Union law have full direct effect, even in horizontal situations."
"De mon point de vue, cet arrêt reconnaitrait plutôt l'invocabilité d'exclusion d'un directive dans un litige entre particuliers. Il n'est absolument pas certain qu'il soit question ici d'effet direct. Le principal apport serait alors que la Cour généralise l'hypothèse posée dans son arrêt Unilever s'agissant de "l'effet procédural" des directives. Il s'agirait alors d'une preuve supplémentaire de la distinction entre effet direct et invocabilité..."So we have European and national blog reactions (plus the comments to all these posts) from more than eight countries on a case that is European in content and European in scope - a strong example of an emerging European public sphere and the existence of a European blogosphere as well!
"Kucukvedeci is about so much more than age disrimination. It is also about the effect of directives containing fundamental principles of EU law [...]. As we know, directives do not have horizontal direct effects. Or do they now? Here we are dealing with a Directive establishing a Fundamenal Principle of EU law, and this one WAS HELD TO BE DIRECTLY EFFECTIVE IN A HORIZONTAL SITUATION!"That was more than explicit...!
Well, Council, why do you draw any conclusion if you don't welcome moves towards transferable pensions or support a concrete directive, erasing the only practical solution included in the original draft conclusions?
WELCOMESTAKES NOTE of the intention of the European Commission to launch a Green Paper on developing a European Framework for adequate and sustainable pensions, and the ongoing work on the portability of supplementary pensions, including those of researchers, that will now be taken forward in this wider context on this issue [...]
INVITES the Commission
, in particular, todrawing on the Green Paper process, to examine the need for a new proposal of a Directiveinitiative on portability of supplementary pensions, taking into account, among other considerations, the specific problems and needs of researchers as highly mobile workers as well as the experiences acquired by supplementary pension providers to overcome mobility disincentives.
Mr Caamano Dominguez suggested that Europe should not show weakness on terrorism, inter alia by adopting the interim agreement on providing data for the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP).There you got it: Commission, Council Presidency, and Council anti-terror representative push in favour of SWIFT, and no supportive voices from MEPs - strange considering yesterday's vote, isn't it?
The questions asked by representatives of political groups mostly revolved around the issue of the "Swift" Agreement on providing data for the TFTP. Mr Busuttil and Ms Vergiat (GUE/NGL, FR) were disappointed about the procedure chosen by the Council while Ms In 't Veld asked for access to an opinion by the Council Legal Service; Ms Vergiat and Mr Romeva i Rueda also raised concerns about the content of the agreement. [...]
In his replies, Mr Caamano Dominguez justified the need for an interim agreement, saying it was important not to lag behind in the fight against terrorism and suggested using the nine-month period for a careful analysis.
Also, many individual speakers made critical remarks about the "Swift" Agreement (inter alia Mr Voss (EPP, DE), Mr Albrecht (Greens/EFA, DE) and Mr de Jong (GUE/NGL, NL)). [...]
[...] Mr de Kerchove preferred to wait for the Commission report on body scanners before taking a position on them. He added that Judge Bruguière would issue a second evaluation report on the "Swift" Agreement the following week. On the latter point, Ms In 't Veld reacted by criticising its timing in the context of the request for the Parliament's consent and its provisional application.
Mr Faull, Director-General of the Commission's Justice, Liberties and Security Directorate- General, recalled that the Parliament had been requested to give its consent to the interim agreement on providing data for the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) ("Swift" Agreement). He added that the provisional application of the interim agreement was a separate matter, but would end if the Parliament refused its consent. In his view, the programme had produced important security leads and should therefore be continued. He announced a general review of the existing legislation as promised by Commissioner-designate Ms Malmström in her hearing and confirmed that Judge Bruguière would present his second evaluation report on the "Swift" arrangement in place at the LIBE meeting the following week.
The discussion focused on the "Swift" Agreement. Several speakers expressed critical views, in particular Mr Alvaro cited several points on which the agreement did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the Parliament's resolution of September 2009. Mr Lambrinidis (S&D, EL) joined Ms In 't Veld's critique of the timing of the new Bruguière report; Mr Tavares and Mr Albrecht expressed critical views about his first report. Mr Strasser (EPP, AT) and Mr Weber (EPP, DE) expressed doubts about the possible "security gap" invoked to justify the provisional application of the interim agreement, Mr Weber expressing concerns that the conclusion of an interim agreement would lower the chances of achieving improvements in a definitive agreement. Mr Busuttil considered that there was not enough information available to scrutinise the draft agreement, while Mr Kirkhope suggested accepting the provisional application and only giving an opinion after thorough reflection.
"Based on the above-mentioned, your rapporteur would recommend Parliament to withhold its consent."This report by the rapporteur is also a clear statement on that the fight against terror may not disproportionately limit our rights - and my impression over the last years was clearly that public authorities have been giving way to much weight to the first!
European Parliament regularly examines the candidates readiness for membership (see bit.ly/enlargeEU). But how ready are EU citizens? Do you feel that enlargement is a good thing? Who is welcome? - Some of your reactions here are to be quoted on the Parliament website this Thursdaynot only produce quite controversial debates but also see very reflected individual comments worth thinking about:
"I think that now is a bad moment to discuss about the enlargement. The financial crisis make people more sensitive to changes, and many can see them as threats.If there are any doubts about going web 2.0 for EU institutions, allowing debates to develop freely while having the power to set the agenda, these should be washed away by the success of what the EP does on Facebook!
In general, the right political parties in Europe are growing due to the approach they make to nacionalists, extreme religious groups and similar. They are the ones receiving more money from the members and their agenda is often determined by economical issues.
I think now the difference between the citizens of all the EU are increased by the downturn and until things are more balanced again, the benefits of expansion will be hardly seen by anybody. And there is a lot of cleaning to do in the "old" members first, before trying to lecture the "new comers".
The corruption in Spain, Italy, UK, Greece, is sky-high and governments infiltrated with far-right members are not going to do much to improve things. And most definetly, countries that have major Human-Rights issues should not be allowed to pleed for the integration in the UE until their address their problems and proof they're working on a solution."