Review of European and Comparative Law, 2021, Vol. 46, No 3

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12153/2187

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 14
  • Item
    Review of Erik Ringmar, History of International Relations: A Non-European Perspective, Open Book Publishers, Cambridge 2019, pp. 206, ISBN 978-1-78374-022-2
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2021) Nabożny, Marcin Krzysztof
    Book Review: Review of Erik Ringmar, History of International Relations: A Non-European Perspective, Open Book Publishers, Cambridge 2019, pp. 206, ISBN 978-1-78374-022-2
  • Item
    Causal Effect Relationship in Medical Cases. An Old Problem in a New Scenario. Commentary to CJEU Judgment (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2017, N.W. & Others V. Sanofi Pasteur MSD & Others, Case C-621/15, EU:C:2017:484. Approbative Gloss
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2021) Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska, Agata; Drozdowska, Urszula Dorota
    This commentary evaluates the problem in assessing the role of a causal connection between damage and the use of a defective medical product, specifically a vaccine. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Sanofi Pasteur Case, which allowed the possibility of recognizing damage claims, even in cases where the prevailing scientific theory claims that there is no scientific evidence of a causal link between a vaccination and the disease, became a base for consideration. Consequently, procedural solutions (such as the standard of proof required, the admissibility of prima facie evidence reasoning and other solutions in cases of an uncertain causation) remain to be decided by national law. The authors assessed two legal systems: the French and Polish legal systems in the context of how to resolve these dilemmas and to describe the impact of the above-mentioned judgment on the case-law of French and Polish courts as regards the application of Directive 85/374/EEC. As a result, they concluded that the most important interpretative motive has become the individual interest of the vaccination’s victim as a consumer of medical services. It seems to be in accordance with Directive 85/374/EEC, which is motivated by the necessity of approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning the liability of the producer for damage caused by the defectiveness of his products. However, since the existing divergences may distort competition and affect the movement of goods within the common market and entail a differing degree of protection of the consumer against damage caused by a defective product to his health or property, in countries belonging to the European Union, the authors wonder how the commented judgment will affect the further development of consumers protection against defective vaccines.
  • Item
    United States Supreme Court Approach to First Amendment Freedom of Religion in Response to the COVID Pandemic
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2021) Swenson, Delaine Russell
    The 2020-21 Covid 19 Pandemic has raised many legal challenges as governments world-wide have struggled to deal with the public health and safety challenges of Covid. At the center of many of these decisions is the need to balance public health protections against other rights that have been infringed by legislation related to Covid Pandemic restrictions. One of the most important rights that have been implicated by Covid restrictions in the United States has been in the area of restrictions on religious worship, which implicates the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in the United States Constitution. During the time of the Pandemic the United States Supreme Court, as the final arbiter of the United States Constitution, has had to work to balance the interests of the government in protecting public health and safety with the right to freedom of religion. The Supreme Court’s approach to these cases reflects the difficulties inherent in balancing two such important interests in difficult circumstances, and also represents the reality of the shifting majority in the Court as a result of new Justices appointed under the administration of Donald Trump. The Court has transitioned from a majority that opposed restrictions on governmental action during COVID to a majority that is more willing to stop governmental action that is deemed to be in violation of the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.
  • Item
    The Evolution of Cybersecurity Regulation in the European Union Law and Its Implementation in Poland
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2021) Szpor, Grażyna Maria
    The 2013 European Union Cybersecurity Strategy, the 2016 Directive, and the 2019 Regulation mark the next steps in strengthening the protection of cybersecurity by European Union bodies, linked to changes in member states’ laws. The rapid increase in threats, referred to as the “cyberpandemic”, requires prompt adaptation of legal instruments to new needs, but at the same time complicates ensuring consistency of multi-level regulation. The analysis of changes in the legal status in Poland shows that this concerns terminology, subject matter scope and the structure of cyber security systems. In order to reduce difficulties, it is worth considering introducing immediate amendments to those provisions in force which were negatively assessed during works on drafting new acts. Such a conclusion is prompted by the evolution of the definition of cybersecurity, which, according to the 2019 Regulation as well as the draft amendments to the Polish Act on National Cyber Security System and the draft of the new Directive, is to be understood as activities necessary to protect networks and information systems, users of such systems and other persons against cyber threats such as any potential circumstance, event or action that may cause damage, disruption or otherwise adversely affect networks and information systems. Another example is the maintenance of the distinction between key service operators and digital service providers in the 2019 EU Regulation and the 2021 draft amendment to the Polish law, although the 2020 NIS 2 directive draft recognizes that it has become irrelevant and replaces it with a distinction between essential and relevant entities. Also, other changes currently proposed are justified by the blurring of the boundaries between virtual and real space.
  • Item
    Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality in the Freedom of Movement of Persons within the EU in the Light of Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2021) Bator-Bryła, Monika Patrycja
    The subject of this article is to analyze the meaning of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality in the light of the provisions of primary and secondary European Union law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is inherent to the functioning of the internal market and EU citizenship. The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality is undoubtedly one of the main goals of the European Union in the social and economic context, which was reflected in the localization of the matter in question in the primary law of the European Union, in secondary law and in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) indicate equality as one of the EU values (Article 2 TEU), require it to be promoted and combat all discrimination (Articles 8 and 10 TFEU) and prohibit discrimination due to the criteria indicated therein (Articles 18 and 19 TFEU). In secondary law, this principle was expressed primarily in the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 492/2011 on the free movement of workers within the Union and in art. 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their relatives to move freely. A special role in this area is played by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which stated that all authorities of the Member States are obliged to refuse to apply a provision of national law that is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of citizenship (Article 18 TFEU). Moreover, national measures may be examined in the light of art. 18 TFEU, but only to the extent that they apply to situations not covered by specific non-discrimination provisions included in the Treaty. The author puts forward the thesis that the analysis of CJEU jurisprudence reveals a visible dissonance between the application of national regulations of the Member States and the provisions of EU law in this matter, which significantly hinders the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination in practice. Discrepancies mainly occur in domestic legal acts due to the improper drafting of national legal provisions and / or their misinterpretation by national judicial or administrative authorities. It should be emphasized that the Member States are obliged to comply with EU law, which is not tantamount only to the obligation of state authorities to respect directly applicable acts, or to implement required regulations into internal law, but also the obligation to interpret and apply internal law in a manner that does not violate the requirement resulting from EU law. Judicial and administrative authorities of the Member States should therefore interpret national law as far as possible, in line with EU law, because the limits of the pro-EU interpretation will be determined by the powers conferred by domestic law. The study uses the legal-comparative method, consisting in a comparative analysis of the legal systems of the Member States and the European Union in the field of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, rights and restrictions on the freedom of movement of authorized entities. Comparative verification of EU acts with the internal standards of individual EU Member States allows to reveal the degree of advancement of the implementation process of EU law provisions under the free movement of EU citizens and their family members in the discussed area in the legal systems of European Union Member States. The purpose of this analysis is to, inter alia, diagnose areas in which these countries have not implemented or improperly implemented EU regulations, or have misinterpreted them. The second method used is the method of analyzing the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union - the rulings of the CJEU constitute a significant part of the study. The case law in question covers the period from the establishment of the Treaties of Rome to the present day. The use of the latter obligated the author to apply the comparative method of judgments based on same or similar legal bases in similar circumstances from different stages of the evolution of the free movement of citizens of the European Union and their family members under the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality.