Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 items :

  • "free movement of goods" x
Clear All

. 2679/98 of 7 December 1998, on the functioning of the internal market in relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States, L 337/8, Official Journal of the European Communities, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998R2679&from=EN. 9. Deleanu, Sergiu, Drept european al afacerilor, Piaţa internă a Uniunii Europene, Universul Juridic, Bucureşti, 2013. 10. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Directive 2015/1535/EU, Guidance for Officials, January 2016, https

?’ Journal of Business Law , pp. 82–89. Fennelly, N. (2003), ‘Rules and exceptions: freedom of movement and intellectual property rights in the European Union,’ in H. C. Hansen (ed.) International Intellectual Property Law & Policy , vol. 5, ch. 33, New York: Juris Publishing LLC. First Council Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, OJ L 40, 21.12.1988. Forrester, I. & Nielson, A. (1997), ‘Pharmaceuticals: test bed for European themes on trademarks and the free movement of goods,’ Fordham Intellectual Property

Abstract

Public Procurement is an important element of the Internal Market and a basic method of public spending and ensuring the free movement of goods, services and works by domestic and foreign companies. Through the adoption and implementation in the national legislation of the Member States of a package of Directives 2014, a new Public Procurement regime is settled. The purpose of the new Directives is to exclude the risk of giving national tenderers an advantage. There are a number of issues, including the kind of legal protection contractors can expect in Public Procurement procedures. This article analyses one of the mechanisms for controlling Public Procurement - their appeal. It relates to the judicial control exercised by the relevant national institutions in the Member States and the conditions and procedures for appeal that are governed by the national laws, once the Directives have been transposed into national legal systems. Despite a limited number of cases, the Court of Justice of EU (CJEU) also exercises judicial review within the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, where a national court hearing an appeal against a Public Procurement procedure, has referred a question to the CJEU.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present the results of a preliminary assessment of Poland’s export expansion policy in relation to the export of commodities, which is a result of the Government’s Plan for Responsible Development, in the context of existing barriers and the external and internal conditions reported by small and medium‑sized enterprises sector (SMEs). In the latest ranking of its competitive position in the global market for the period 2016-2017, Poland ranked 36th in the world. It should also be stressed that in this most recent world ranking Poland held the 16th position among EU Member States. A positive phenomenon in relation to Poland’s foreign trade in 2016, as compared to previous years, was that the value of export exceeded import, which allowed for a turnover surplus of nearly EUR 4.8 billion, i.e. two times higher than in 2015. In 2016 (and also in the first half of 2017) there was a favorable diversification of Polish export, demonstrating an increase in export to non‑EU markets of economically developed countries. After two years of relatively slow growth, export to this group of countries in 2016 increased by 5.6% (to EUR 12 billion), i.e. nearly 2.5 times faster than the total export. Despite the tariff‑free and quota‑free access to the single European market, there are still limits and barriers to the free movement of goods, and especially services. There are also many internal barriers in small and medium‑sized enterprises’ export to foreign markets, which limit their export expansion. Despite the gradual increase in export observed in recent years, the internationalization of non‑Polish enterprises is still much lower than in Western European countries. As a result, the share of Polish SMEs in the EU market is one third smaller than the EU average.

Abstract

The fast development of ICTs pose new challenges to the European Union and its Member States. Every EU country has its own policies regarding technology transfer, ownership of state e-services, and the possibilities how the state-owned or licensed e-service could be exported. Taking into account the free movement of goods, the EU has created a platform to cooperate and export IT solutions. However, the lack of preparedness of infrastructures, legislation and stakeholders for cross-border exchanges poses a threat to IT transfer and should be taken into consideration in the EU as well. In the coming decades the number of outsourced ICT solutions, strategically important ICT solutions, public services and critically important information exchange platforms developed on behalf of the states, will grow exponentially. Still, digital development is uneven across the EU, they grow at different speeds and the performance is quite splintered. There are legal provisions which are outdated and therefore impede technological cooperation and export of IT solutions. A Member State may restrict the ICT licensing based on national security and policy reasons and the ownership of intellectual property might pose a threat to technology transfer or further development of the IT solution. There are examples of strategically important export of ICT solutions, the experience at which can be expanded to cover other EU Member States. Strong collaboration would enable mutual learning from past experiences along with the opportunities for better use of technology. Parallels can be drawn with military technology transfers, as the policies and legal framework was first developed and mostly used with them.

This introduces a question of what are the conditions for exporting strategically important ICT solutions from one Member State to another, given that there is no common legal framework developed yet, and who should decide whether to transfer or not?

REFERENCES Tushevska, B. (2015). Cross border merger of trade companies in European Union, Law School , Ohrid; Klenovski, P. (2010). Free movement of goods in non-harmonized area – Mutual Recognition Principle, Legal Metrology & EU directives, New Legislative Framework , Croatia; GRUBEŠIĆ, I. (2009). Compliance of share capital legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Ordinance of European company in the world of amendments of national legislation of trade companies, Contemporary issues, (2009) Vol. 2, No. 1 , Bosnia-Hercegovina; Craig, P.P. Búrca G

. Legisvakancia v právnom poriadku Slovenskej republiky. Bratislava, Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave; 2009 [9] Mucha B et al. Podnikateľské prostredie na Slovensku so zameraním na malé a stredné podniky. Paper presented at: 9. Mezinárodní vědecká konference dotorandů a mladých vědeckých pracovníků; November 10, 2016; Opava, ČR [10] Nováčková D, Milošovičová P. Medzinárodné ekonomické právo. Bratislava, Eurounion; 2011 [11] Peráček T et al. Free movement of goods (pharmaceuticals) in the European Union versus protection of health of population. Paper presented at: 17th

movement of goods: mapping the frontiers of market deregulation’, Common Market law Review , XXXVI(1): 51-85. • Weatherill Stephen, 2013, ‘Consumer image: linguistic, cultural and social differences’, in Terryn Evelyne and Straetmans Gert e.a. (eds), Landmark cases of EU Consumer Law , Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerp, 5-20. • Weatherill Stephen, 2015, ‘The Court’s Case Law on the Internal Market: “A Circumloquacious Statement of the Result, Rather than a Reason for Arriving at It’?”’, in Adams Maurice, de Waele Henri, Meeusen Johan and Straetmans Gert (eds), Judging

by the Court of Justice. In its seminal decision 203/80 Casati5 Court pointed out that the free movement of capital, in addition to the free movement of goods, persons and services, forms the fundamental freedom within the Community. But in one breath it refused to admit a direct eff ect of the provisions of former Article 67 of the Treaty establish- ing the European Economic Community. Th us Court halted the liberalization of capital movements and rather left that question to the Member States or other Community institutions. Its negative opinion was built

of their efforts [is an] accelerated and sustained economic development of their states and the creation of a homogeneous society, leading to the unity of the countries of West Africa, by the elimination of all types of obstacles to the free movement of goods, capital and persons”2. Two main conclusions may derive from this statement: the regional integration process in West Africa is determined by economic development objectives, these objectives attained through free movement, one of the key elements that describe a Common Market. In 1975