Sažetak ▼

The legislative process in the European Union is complex and characterised by the strict legal framework in which it is implemented. The founding treaties provisions and related procedural acts have established the normative approach exercised within the trialogue of the main EU institutions – the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament. The position of the three main institutions developed with time and the biggest increase of competences is visible in the case of Parliament. Up until now, we can see the balance of legislative powers between the three institutions – the European Commission in drafting the legislation, and both the European Parliament and the Council in its adoption. Meanwhile, as a result of the proper implementation of legislative competences by the EU institutions according to treaties, there was formulated need to observe the principle of transparency to make the whole process of trialogue understandable and the subject of the external control of the Member States or EU citizens. This principle was more precisely interpreted in the last years, especially thanks to the attitude of the Court of Justice of the EU, by providing interpretation needed to understand that the formal cooperation between EU institutions in the legislative process cannot prevail the principle of transparency in their work and that the documents proposed in the legislative process have to be available for the public and the Member States. As the transparency principle was also set in explanation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, we focus in the paper on the analysis of the progressive work of the Court of Justice of the EU in relation to the development of the principle of transparency according to competences assignment in the Lisbon Treaty, in different but connected areas of decision-making, the legislative process and ordinary legislative procedure. The main focus is on the ordinary legislative procedure, as the root of the transparency requested by founding treaties.

Sažetak ▼

The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has been used as the main framework for the EU financial assistance to candidates and potential candidates since 2007. Now, at the moment of preparation of the third financial perspective, which is to provide more financial means for the preparation for membership for the beneficiaries, it is necessary to consider the experience with the support that has been provided up to now within the enlargement policy of the EU. This paper provides an insight into the earliest pre-IPA programmes (PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD, OBNOVA, CARDS), and presents the reasons for the introduction of IPA, the proposed financial amounts, and the basic features of IPA through the previous, present and future financial perspectives. EU. The paper also points to the positive and negative experiences of using the financial support programmes available so far, as well as presents recommendations for the preparation and the best use of IPA III in the light of the fact that the enlargement process will take some time, therefore creating the need for the sustainable mid-term policies to be carefully thought about in the context of using the pre-accession support for the membership preparation as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sažetak ▼

The issue of the protection of human rights of asylum seekers is still a significant topic within the EU, although it has been slightly less important since the end of the migrant crisis in 2015 and 2016. It seems that after this serious warning, the EU failed to respond adequately. The EU wants to be seen as an entity that respects the human rights of asylum seekers, but also as an entity that protects the interests of the majority of the EU member states in the light of unwanted migration. This is certainly a difficult task. Agreements with the safe third countries cannot be regarded as the almost exclusive basis of asylum policy. Such agreements can be easily broken when the burden for that state becomes too large, compared to the potential benefits that the EU could offer. New regulations must ensure fair burden-sharing among the member states since some EU member states have an almost exclusive obligation in receiving migrants. The main problem with the protection of human rights of asylum seekers is severely overcrowded reception centers, or a large number of migrants stopped at the border since such conditions almost always lead to significant human rights violations. In addition, it is necessary to examine other specific problems in human rights protection (in other member states, as well in the states considered to be safe). The practice of the European Court of Justice may certainly be of importance. The EU has shown efforts to regulate the Common European Asylum System in a more adequate way, but primarily in the light of the protection of the interests of member states. The principle of solidarity, which would have, in turn, a positive impact on the protection of human rights, was to some extent taken into account in the proposed regulations. However, the proposed regulations, due to lack of consensus, were never adopted.

Sažetak ▼

Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention) protects the right to a fair trial, which also encompasses the right to an independent and impartial tribunal. This guarantee of the right to a fair trial is enshrined in all international documents concerning human rights protection, while in the domestic legal order, it is one of the fundamental constitutional guarantees and is incorporated in procedural codes. The introductory part of this paper sets out the general features of Article 6 of the European Convention, as well as of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, in order to individually analyze notions of court, independence and impartiality in the following three parts. The basis of this paper is the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (the European Court, the Court) in civil proceedings, as well as the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court in the same field. The analysis of the European Court’s jurisprudence shows that besides acquiring the autonomous meaning of the notion of ‘court’, it also considers the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary when examining the independence of domestic courts, while in examining impartiality it also considers the specificities of the case at hand and the substantive right(s) in question. The analysis of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court indicates that the standards of the European Court regarding the underlying procedural guarantees have been successfully applied in the domestic practice. However, it is concluded that, although the approach adopted in the domestic civil procedure, in fact, enables the judges to participate in different stages of the civil proceedings between the same parties, both the jurisprudence of the European and the Constitutional Court suggest that the best solution for the judges would be to limit their participation in the proceedings in which there is a risk of doubt as to their impartiality to the greatest possible extent, so as not to impair the fairness of the civil proceedings in question.

Sažetak ▼

Following the outbreak of the European migration crisis in 2015, the Member States of the European Union started imposing certain limitations on the right to family reunification of international protection beneficiaries with the aim of protecting their national securities and territorial integrities. In a considerable number of cases, the Member States used their discretionary powers disproportionately, which adversely affected the international protection beneficiaries. With regard to the proportionality of discretionary powers, it is necessary to analyse relevant instruments of the EU secondary legislation (Family Reunification Directive, Qualification Directive and the current Dublin III Regulation) but also their practical implementation by the Member States. The analysis conducted stipulates that the EU offers an incomplete legal framework, thus leaving an open space for different interpretations. Additionally, the lack of political will among the Member States has created an incoherent approach in terms of i) definition of a family, ii) the status of subsidiary protection beneficiaries and iii) procedural conditions for family reunification. In the absence of an adequate approach, the case-law of the CJEU and the ECHR continues to play a significant role in contributing to the system of international protection in the Union. However, the lack of implementation mechanisms remains a significant issue. The Member States and the Union could improve their policies and overcome existing obstacles by redefining their goals and legislations, along with harmonization of national practices in accordance with court verdicts. Nevertheless, poor political cooperation seems to be the greatest obstacle at this point.