Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Criminal procedure – European Union countries'

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, September 2003.
Thesis advisor(s): Daniel Moran, David S. Yost. Includes bibliographical references (p. 93-102). Also available online.

El principio de publicidad de las actuaciones judiciales se encuentra consagrado como un derecho fundamental en el artículo 24.2 de nuestra Constitución. Este derecho no es de carácter absoluto y se encuentra sometido a ciertas limitaciones previstas legalmente. La publicidad del proceso penal implica que tengan conocimiento de las actuaciones, no solo los propios interesados, sino también extraños al proceso. Esta actividad de difusión de la noticia, garantía de funcionamiento del Poder Judicial en una sociedad democrática, se efectúa principalmente por los medios de comunicación. El problema se produce cuando se informa sobre un hecho noticiable que se encuentra sub iudice y los Mass Media, a través de un “juicio paralelo”, pretenden, de forma continua y sesgada, examinar y valorar el proceso judicial, las pruebas y las personas implicadas en los hechos y asumen así el papel de juez e inducen a éste a un veredicto anticipado de culpabilidad o inocencia ante la opinión pública. Esta actividad colisiona con posiciones subjetivas de los individuos, que también tienen la consideración de derechos fundamentales como son los derechos a: (i) un proceso justo; (ii) un juez imparcial; (iii) la presunción de inocencia y (iv) recibir y comunicar información. Con esta tesis doctoral se ha procedido a estudiar dicha problemática así como las respuestas que la legislación, la jurisprudencia y la doctrina dan, en nuestro Ordenamiento jurídico y en derecho comparado, para conciliar estos derechos fundamentales con los intereses mediáticos de le prensa, así como las garantías previstas legalmente en el ámbito penal, civil y contencioso- administrativo para la salvaguarda de los mismos. En la parte final del trabajo se apuntan posibles soluciones al problema de los “juicios paralelos” que puedan dar respuesta al interés general de la sociedad en su pretensión de obtener una justicia eficaz en la represión del delito a la vez que respetuosa con los derechos de todos los ciudadanos que se pueden ver involucrados en el proceso judicial.
El principi de publicitat de les actuacions judicials es troba consagrat com un dret fonamental en l’article 24.2 de la nostra Constitució. Aquest dret no és de caràcter absolut i està sotmès a determinades limitacions previstes legalment. La publicitat del procés penal implica que tinguin coneixement de les actuacions, no només els propis interessats, si no també estranys al procés. Aquesta activitat de difusió de la notícia, garantia del funcionament del Poder Judicial en una societat democràtica, és realitzada, principalment, pels mitjans de comunicació. El problema es produeix quan s’informa d’un fet que és notícia i que es troba sub iudice, i els mass media, mitjançant un “judici paral·lel”, pretenen de forma continuada i esbiaixada examinar i valorar el procés judicial, les proves i les persones implicades en els fets, assumint el paper de jutge, induint a un veredicte anticipat de culpabilitat o innocència a aquest en front de l’opinió pública. Aquesta activitat topa amb posicions subjectives dels individus que també tenen la consideració de drets fonamentals com són els drets a: (i) un procés just; (ii) un jutge imparcial; (iii) la presumpció d’innocència i (iv) rebre i comunicar informació. Amb la present tesis doctoral s’ha procedit a estudiar la referida problemàtica així com les respostes que la legislació, la jurisprudència i la doctrina donen en el nostre Ordenament Jurídic i en dret comparat, per tal de conciliar aquests drets fonamentals amb els interessos mediàtics de la premsa, així com les garanties previstes legalment en l’àmbit penal, civil i contenciós – administratiu per a la salvaguarda dels mateixos. En la part final del treball s’apunten possibles solucions al problema dels “judicis paral·lels” que poden donar resposta a l’interès general de la societat en la seva pretensió d’obtenir una justícia eficaç en la repressió del delicte a la vegada que respectuosa amb els drets de tots els ciutadans que es puguin veure involucrats en el procés judicial.
The principle of publicity of judicial actions is set forth as fundamental right in article 24 of the Spanish Constitution. Nevertheless, this is not an absolute right: it has some legal limitations. The publicity of the criminal procedure implies that not only those directly affected by the procedure know the state of acts but third people. Information disclosure, which serves as a warranty of the functioning of the judicial system, is done in a democratic society by the media. The problem arises when mass media start a parallel trial while reporting on case which is still sub iudice, assessing and judging with a biased viewpoint the procedure, its participants and the evidences submitted, assuming the judge’s role and, therefore, trying to induce him/her to an anticipate judgement before the public opinion. Such activity collides with the position of the defendant, who has his/her own fundamental rights such as the right to (i) a fair trial; (ii) an impartial judge; (iii) the presumption of innocence and (iv) receive and communicate certain information. In the present thesis, the problem of parallel trials and the collision of rights have been studied taking into account the solutions provided by Law, case law and scholars both of Spanish Legal System and comparative Law in order to reconcile such fundamental rights with media’s interest and also the legal guarantees for defendants in civil, criminal and administrative procedures. In the final part of this thesis, there are some possible solutions to the problem of parallel trials which try to give an answer to society’s general interest to find an efficient justice system in punishing crimes which also respects the rights of all citizens which may be part of the process.

Defence date: 30 March 2007
Examining Board: Prof. Philip Alston (European University Institute) ; Prof. Francesco Francioni (European University Institute) ; Prof. Olivier de Schutter (University of Louvain) ; Prof. Kevin Boyle (University of Essex Colchester)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses

Булатін, Д. О. Адміністративно-правові засади здійснення превентивної діяльності поліцією: порівняння досвіду України та країн ЄС : дис. ... д-ра філос.: 12.00.07, 081 / Дмитро Олексійович; МВС України, Харків. нац. ун-т внутр. справ. - Харків, 2020. - 247 с.
У дисертації міститься теоретичне узагальнення актуальної наукової проблеми, пов’язаної із визначенням адміністративно-правових засад здійснення превентивної діяльності поліцією через порівняння досвіду України та країн ЄС, а також шляхів їх удосконалення. В результаті проведеного дослідження сформульовано низку положень та висновків котрі спрямовані на досягнення поставленої мети.
The dissertation contains a theoretical generalization of the current scientific problem related to the definition of administrative and legal principles of preventive activities by the police through a comparison of the experience of Ukraine and the EU, as well as ways to improve them. As a result of the research, a number of provisions and conclusions have been formulated which are aimed at achieving the set goal.
В диссертации содержится теоретическое обобщение актуальной научной проблемы, связанной с определением административно-правовых основ осуществления превентивной деятельности полицией через сравнение опыта Украины и стран ЕС, а также путей их совершенствования. В результате проведенного исследования сформулирован ряд положений и выводов которые направлены на достижение поставленной цели.

Defence date: 15 June 2012
First made available online on 29 July 2019
Examining Board: Professor Neil Walker, EUI / University of Edinburgh (Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, EUI; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary, University of London; Professor Kimmo Nuotio, University of Helsinki.
This thesis shall contribute to European Criminal Procedure, a rapidly evolving area of EU policy that has attracted much attention, but has also been subject to criticism. The research will first identify and analyse the main rationales of this area. Since the Tampere European Council of 1999, mutual recognition has become the most fundamental concept of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and has experienced a steep career, having been adopted by Art. 82 TFEU. When the principle of mutual recognition was introduced, it was based on an analogy to the free movement of goods. This analogy has often been regarded as flawed. Moreover, there has always been a notion of mutual recognition in judicial cooperation as well. The study will show how these two factors have influenced the development of the area, and how policy concepts, such as the principle of mutual trust, have had a greater influence on the development of the law than any legal doctrine. The lack of a coherent approach to the area of judicial cooperation and the unsystematic combination of different legal orders have caused unforeseen frictions for the individual. These will be illustrated by an analysis of the law of transnational evidence-gathering according to the European Evidence Warrant and the proposed European Investigation Order. It will be shown that most of the problems result from the lack of a uniform allocation of jurisdiction and from an overly confined understanding of fundamental rights in the context of judicial cooperation. By analysing the nature and purpose of jurisdictional rules in a national and a European context, the thesis aims at uncovering the theoretic foundations on which a uniform allocation of jurisdiction could be built. Finally, the thesis analyses the role of fundamental rights in judicial cooperation. It will uncover the ineptness of a nation-state oriented interpretation of fundamental rights to adequately address the problems of mutual recognition and argue for a European understanding of transnational judicial rights.

Defence date: 6 November 2015
Examining Board: Professor Loïc Azoulai, EUI (Supervisor); Professor Marise Cremona, EUI; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary University, London; Professor Niamh Níc Shuibhne, University of Edinburgh
The aim of this thesis is to analyse the extent to which criminal law can contribute towards our understanding of Union citizenship and of the political community of the Union. In carrying out this task it adopts a particular perspective on both criminal law and Union citizenship. Firstly, it adopts the criminal law theory developed by RA Duff, premised on the notions of citizenship and community; crimes are viewed as public wrongs, committed against the community. Individuals are held responsible as citizens and are called to account before the community. Secondly, it adopts a particular account of Union citizenship based on a distinction between transnational dimensions and supranational dimensions. The transnational dimension is then broken into two sub-dimensions based on the concepts of social integration and autonomy or a space of free movement. The role of criminal law in these dimensions of Union Citizenship is analysed in the main body of the thesis. Two chapters consider the role of criminal law in social integration in the context of the acquisition of residence rights and the serving of sentences. Two chapters consider the parallels between the autonomy of Union citizens that results in a single space of movement, and the area of justice as it is constructed through the European Arrest Warrant and the operation of a transnational ne bis in idem principle. A final substantive chapter details the competence of the Union to adopt legislation criminalising certain conduct and the extent to which this can be said to contribute to the formation of a community at a supranational level. A conclusion brings together the findings of the thesis in relation to Union citizenship and considers the implications for the structure of the political community in the Union. It is suggested the national remains the main site for communities in the Union. However, transnational processes associated with Union citizenship trigger the emergence of certain supranational norms and ultimately a composite, complementary supranational community.

Defence date: 15 September 2017
Examining Board: Professor Giorgio Monti, EUI (supervisor); Professor Dennis Patterson, EUI; Professor Davíð Þór Björgvinsson, University of Iceland; Professor Ioannis Lianos, UCL
The question of procedural fairness in EU’s competition procedure has been discussed widely in the academic literature based on the traditional positivistic legal method; so far without a success in producing a consensus on where the practical limitations of the concept of procedural fairness ought to lie. This thesis sets out to approach the problem more fundamentally by propping beyond the concept of procedural fairness in the legal positivistic sense, and venture into the territory of moral and political philosophy for establishing a practical understanding of the more general concept of fairness in human relations. Once the concept of fairness has been properly revealed in practical terms, the thesis attempts to quantitatively translate this concept of fairness into the laws to facilitate the composition of a fair legal rule. To achieve this, a novel methodological model is constructed based on microeconomic tools. This model, the model of fair rules, is then used to assess two dilemmas of procedural fairness in the context of EU’s competition procedure that have been solved by the CJEU based on the traditional juridical method. The results of the assessment suggest that methodological improvements can be made in the design of competition procedures with regards to facilitating procedural fairness. Such improvements would also have implications for the legal interpretive methodologies used by the EU courts.

Defence date: 26 September 2014
Examining Board: Professor Giorgio Monti, European University Institute (Supervisor); Professor Loïc Azoulai, European University Institute; Professor Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary University of London; Professor Damian Chalmers, London School of Economics
The question posed by this thesis is how limits can be constructed to the exercise of EU powers. While there are limits to the exercise of EU competences in the Treaties and in the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence, it is argued that those limits suffer from conceptual and practical problems. In particular, the Court does not have appropriate criteria to examine whether the limits of the Treaties have been exceeded by the Union legislator. The thesis uses one of the new, and controversial, competences that the Union has obtained, the power to impose criminal sanctions, as a case study to propose a mechanism by which legislative powers can be kept in check. This is an illuminating and relevant case study. Firstly, it nicely illustrates the limits to the exercise of EU competences. Secondly, legislative practice and political statements suggest that this competence will be used regularly in the future. The thesis makes two proposals. First, by interpreting the scope of the EU’s powers under the Treaties to impose criminal sanctions the thesis shows the limits to the exercise of EU competences. It demonstrates the scope of EU’s competences by analyzing current and proposed criminal law measures. Secondly, noting that a construction of the limits to EU competences also needs to tackle the institutional challenges of judicial review, it develops an argument for a more intense and evidence-based judicial review. It constructs a procedural standard of legality which demands that the EU legislator shows that it has adequately reasoned its decisions and has taken into account relevant evidence. By testing the legality of discretely chosen criminal law measures on the basis of this standard, it is demonstrated how the Court can enforce the limits of the Treaties.

Defence date: 12 September 2008
Examining Board: Professor Marise Cremona, (EUI, Supervisor); Professor Bruno De Witte, (EUI); Professor John Spencer, (University of Cambridge); Professor Judge Françoise Tulkens, (European Court of Human Rights, External Supervisor)
First made available online: 28 July 2021
The principles of the modern criminal law in Europe date back hundreds of years. As we shall see, the first coherent treatises of criminal justice laying down many of the principles to which we still adhere appeared in continental Europe during the mideighteenth century. Enlightenment philosophers, concerned with the relationship between the state and the citizen, between the collective and the individual, found criminal justice a natural area of study. Even before then, however, embryos of principles we today hold as fundamental can be found in charters, bills and constitutions limiting the power of medieval Kings over their subjects. If we then take the concept of the criminal law, the idea that the collective can and should exact punishment for violations of certain pre-determined rules, it dates back to the dawn of civilisation.

Defence date: 9 October 2006
Supervisor: Prof. Jacques Ziller
Awarded the Mauro Cappelletti Prize for the best comparative law doctoral thesis, 2007.
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017
This dissertation examines a burgeoning policy area of the EU - the regulation of cross border civil and commercial litigation. The dissertation analyses the EU's specific legislative measures regulating civil procedure and assesses their impact on litigation, particularly due process rights. The policy is then placed in the broader contexts of European integration and the international codification of civil procedure.

Defence date: 13 June 2018
Examining Board: Professor Deirdre Curtin, European University Institute (Supervisor) ; Professor Miguel Poiares Maduro, European University Institute ; Professor Paul Craig, St. John's College, Oxford ; Professor Herwig Hofmann, University of Luxembourg
The thesis examines how EU courts have addressed the rule of law challenges of composite procedures. Composite procedures are pervasive administrative processes which involve joint decision-making by national and EU authorities. Such procedures fit poorly into the EU’s traditional model of administrative law, EU executive federalism, which is designed for an administrative system where decisional power is exercised separately by the two levels of administration. This mismatch would make it difficult to observe several key requirements of the rule of law in EU administrative law – such as the right to be heard, the right to a reasoned decision, judicial protection, and the control of legality. The thesis argues that EU courts have crafted a series of unprecedented implicit principles that specifically aim at ensuring the observance of rule of law requirements in composite decision-making. In doing so, EU case law has departed from the old doctrine of EU executive federalism. This was however not an easy transition. Indeed, since the EU’s foundational period, EU executive federalism was considered to be a constitutional doctrine, i.e., to immediately flow from the Treaties. Given the almost complete lack of references to administrative issues in the Treaties, this reading was entirely question-begging. Its espousal in the case law is explained in the dissertation as the likely result of a shared federalist conception of the European Union and of the administrative order created under its aegis. The thesis further argues that, just as the doctrine of EU executive federalism, the judge-made law of composite procedures relies on a series of assumptions on the relations between national and EU administration. The principles of composite decision-making do not treat national and EU authorities as two strictly separate spheres of power. Rather, they handle the two levels as a single, integrated administration, where national authorities are treated as an extension of the Commission – as the EU administration’s ancillary bureaucracy.

Defence date: 9 May 1997
Supervisor: Francis Snyder
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017
Con l’istituzione del Tribunale di primo grado, resa possibile dall’Atto unico europeo e realizzata con la decisione 88/951 del Consiglio, è stato introdotto nel sistema comunitario il doppio grado di giurisdizione per le cause trasferite in primo grado alla competenza del Tribunale, A seguito della progressiva espansione delle competenze trasferite, il Tribunale è attualmente giudice di primo grado per tutti i ricorsi diretti proposti dalle persone fìsiche e giuridiche. Il Trattato di Maastricht ha esteso l'ambito delle competenze " potenziali" del Tribunale: l'art. 168A CE consente infatti il trasferimento dei ricorsi diretti proposti dagli Stati membri e dalle Istituzioni comunitarie. Resta riservata alla Corte di giustizia la competenza a conoscere delle questioni pregiudiziali sottoposte ai sensi dell’an. 177 del Trattato.

Author was awarded the European Public Law Group's special distinction 2010 for her PhD thesis.
Defence date: 28 September 2009
Examining Board: Profs. Ulf Bernitz (External Co-Supervisor, University of Stockholm); Gráinne de Burca (Supervisor, former EUI and Fordham University); Bruno De Witte (EUI); Walter van Gerven (University of Leuven)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
Through the judge-made requirements developed in its case-law, the Court of Justice has laid down obligations on national courts to provide effective judicial protection for individuals that seek to enforce Community law claims. This thesis will study the Europeanisation of national remedies and procedures that comes about in this process. I will carry out the analysis in two stages. In the first stage, I will look from a European perspective at the principle of effective judicial protection, which I will view as a Trojan horse containing the judge-made requirements, and establish what is understood by effective judicial protection. I will seek to identify more precise obligations incumbent on national courts in relation to different remedies and procedural rules. Moreover, I will seek to establish the rationale of the Court's intervention into national procedural autonomy. In particular, I will consider if the rationale is a concern to protect individual rights or whether the language of 'rights' is rather used as a legitimizing pretext for enhancing the general effectiveness of Community law and for harmonising remedies and procedures. In a second stage, the thesis will empirically study the Europeanisation of remedies and procedures at the domestic level, by looking at the Swedish judiciary's reaction to those judge-made requirements. It is only by looking at what happens when the Trojan horse unfolds in the national legal system that one can understand its role and whether the principle, in practice, achieves the intended rationales, or whether its complexity in fact hampers effective judicial protection. It will emerge that, in the Swedish context, there is a gap between European theory and national practice. In this respect, the study will highlight the role of the national legal and judicial culture in ensuring the effectiveness of Community law. Conclusions will be drawn from the empirical study on whether the Trojan horse really does serve as a functional and effective tool to achieve Europeanisation of remedies and procedures and the Court's intended rationales. I will call for clarifications, coherence and better 'judicial governance' of this complicated area of law.

Defence date: 10 January 2014
Examining Board: Professor Adrienne Héritier (Supervisor), European University Institute Professor Brigid Laffan, European University Institute Professor Sandra Lavenex, Universität Luzern Professor Wolfgang Wagner, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
An intriguing proposition in the study of the EU’s area of Police and Judicial Cooperation Criminal Matters (PJCCM) has been that Member States’ (governments) institutional choices in this policy area reflect motives to enhance their autonomy/discretion vis-à-vis domestic and/or supranational actors. According to this argument, by cooperating in an intergovernmental setting governments can circumvent domestic institutional constraints, while at the same time keeping the influence of supranational actors at bay. What is the empirical basis of such claims? Do governments’ institutional preferences indeed reflect strategic attempts at increasing their autonomy vis-à-vis domestic actors in law enforcement policies, as suggested by some authors? Moreover, once institutional rules have been put in place, are governments able to use these rules so as to circumvent EU level constraints? To answer these questions this thesis examined institutional preferences and strategies of governments at Treaty negotiations and in the day-to-day policy-making process in the policy area of PJCCM. In the first part of the thesis, the alleged connection between institutional constraints governments face in their domestic arenas and their respective institutional preferences at Treaty negotiations was tested. In a second part, strategic interactions between governments in the EU Council and the European Commission with respect to institutional rules in the legislative process in PJCCM were examined. The empirical results of both parts suggest that while only a moderate connection between domestic constraints and governments’ institutional preference at Treaty negotiations could be identified, there seems to be a systematic relation between rising EU level constraints and strategic institutional choices of actors that reflect motives for autonomy/discretion. The driving factors behind these day-to-day strategic interactions are the ambiguity of and interstitial changes to institutional rules. More specifically, this thesis shows how ambiguous rules over EU competences in PJCCM and changes to these rules via rulings of the Court of Justice lead actors to deploy litigation strategies (Commission), as well as legislative pre-emption strategies (Member States). Furthermore, these conflicts continue to also characterize the policy-making process in PJCCM after formal institutional reforms (post-Lisbon). Going forward, this thesis suggests that more, rather than less, of these strategic interactions will take place in the near future.

Defence date: 15/06/2009
Examining Board: Profs. Hans Lindahl (Tilburg University); Kimmo Nuotio (University of Helsinki); Wojciech Sadurski (EUI); Neil Walker (Supervisor, former EUI and University of Edinburgh)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
This thesis sets out to consider the constitutional implications of a policy of legal integration regarding internal security matters in the EU. It argues that constitutional theory is fundamental to addressing the legality and accountability concerns raised about the developing legal practice of the EU’s ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (AFSJ). Conducting such a study poses important questions about how to pursue a constitutional approach to legal and political practices which do not resemble in any straight forward way the constitutional tradition of the nation state. This thesis advances the argument that constitutional theory cannot properly be construed as a ‘tool-kit’, a set of rules or principles with universal validity to cause a state of affairs or event then dubbed as legality or accountability. Instead it is argued that constitutional theory must work to reveal the issues of restraint, accountability or legality that are in fact part of an ongoing practice, not a one-off settlement; in which the theorist attempts to disclose or reveal the meaningfulness of what is described as the ‘common experience of the political way of life’. Consequently the first part of the thesis outlines how constitutional theory can establish the features of the ‘common experience of the political way of life’ (also referred to as the ‘constitutive function’) and it explains that meaning is situated in a historical background, which is uncovered by the theorist by providing an interpretation of this background. The thesis therefore advances and defends an interpretive theory of legal scholarship. These methodological parameters provide an appropriate means of making sense of the developments in the EU concerning the AFSJ, which thereafter becomes the focus of the thesis. In particular it concentrates on the importance of developing an understanding of public goods that form the basis as to why it is possible to think in constitutional terms about the AFSJ. The approach taken to public goods is that they manifest the meaningful commitments of a political community and therefore cannot be construed in instrumental terms. The thesis outlines that the constitutional issues facing the AFSJ are often collapsed into matters of instrumentalism that conceals the need to engage with the on-going meaning of the practices as forming part of a common political way of life. It is argued in conclusion that the thesis has provided a more robust way of not only considering the challenges facing the emerging internal security policies of the EU but has also provided an appropriate theoretical approach for the study of such issues in constitutional theory.

Defence date: 9 March 2009
Examining Board: Prof. Gráinne De Búrca, EUI- Fordham Law School- Harvard Law School (Supervisor); Prof. Marise Cremona, EUI (Internal Advisor); Prof. Takis Tridimas, Financial Law Unit, Queen Mary, University of London; Prof. Niamh Moloney, London School of Economics and Political Science- Financial Markets Group, University of London
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
Financial markets help allocate capital efficiently across the economy, thereby boosting economic growth- hence the salience of the creation of a single market in financial services within the EU single market project. Nevertheless, despite the EU's financial regulatory programme, it appears that a fully-fledged single European financial market is yet to be achieved. According to some, the substantive context of EU financial regulation is partially to account for this failure. More recently, though, both in policy and academic circles, the focus has been shifting towards the governance of EU financial law. Within this context, this thesis analyses the institutional arrangements for EU financial market regulation and supervision - crystallized in the so-called Lamfalussy framework- and explores the potential and problems of the prospect of institutional consolidation (in the form of one or more EU financial authorities) as an alternative to that framework. The debate, which seemed to have subsided in recent years, is now again coming to the fore, in light of the ongoing international financial crisis. This evidences the close relationship between substance and governance: the quality of rules ultimately depends both on the input that produced them, as well as -if not more- on the quality of the implementation, application and enforcement of the rules. This discussion on the future of EU financial governance is undertaken in two parts. The thesis examines firstly the interaction of 'classical' financial law aims (achieving efficient and stable financial markets) with 'integrationist' aims (the commitment to create a single European financial market, as a response to growing international competition). The thesis then situates the institutional question within the broader context of the EU public law framework in a more deliberate and systematic way than has hitherto been done in the existing scholarly literature. The result is an argument in favour of institutional consolidation in the EU financial sector, with an emphasis on supervision. The case of the US SEC, whose success is arguably based on its enforcement function, is used to illustrate that institutional consolidation is not synonymous with 'one size fits all' solutions, but that flexibility can be incorporated in an authority's regulatory tools. To be sure, further discussion is necessary in order to achieve this balance; but the thesis argues that we do better to focus on the details of the 'how' best to design such institutions, rather than on omphaloskeptical questions of 'whether' they are needed. Indeed, at a closer look, arguments against this approach rarely dispute the need itself for some institutional consolidation, but rather point to the difficulties in its design.

Defence date: 23 November 2009
Examining Board: Marise Cremona (EUI, Supervisor), Bruno de Witte (EUI), Jörg Monar (College of Europe), Steve Peers (University of Essex)
First made available online 30 April 2021
This thesis, starting from the premise that territorial borders retain their importance in public international law, examines in detail the EU's regulatory framework for the management of its external borders. It will argue that there are in fact two sets of external borders: those of the area in which the rules on the free movement of persons apply, and those of the Schengen area. The border crossing rights under the two corresponding sets of rules will be examined in detail. The focus will then shift to the broader Schengen rules for the management of the external borders. The thesis will discuss the rationale of the EU's interest in borders, the legislative acquis adopted, and the relation between legislation and executive action. An elaborate discussion on the organisation and functioning of the "European Border Agency" (Frontex) serves to illustrate the importance of operational cooperation in this area. A final chapter will look at the external dimension of this policy field. A distinction is made between the relations with third countries for the purpose of managing the external borders and the exportation of Community standards. Also in the external sphere, the objective of controlling irregular migration and the operational nature of EU action are prominent. It is concluded that the management of the external borders takes places in a much more complex and uncertain legal framework than is often assumed. Whilst border management should be a part or rather complement to a Common European Asylum and Migration policy if now risks to become a substitute for it. Even where legislation is adopted, it has a strong operational character, which carries risks in terms of accountability and legitimacy. The legislation in this area is both far-reaching and ill thought-through at the same time. From this lessons could be drawn for the broader cooperation between law enforcement authorities.

Defence date: 21 June 2017
Examining Board: Prof. Hans-W. Micklitz, EUI (Supervisor) Prof. Marise Cremona, EUI Prof. Laurence Gormley, University of Groningen Prof. Fernanda Nicola, Washington College of Law, American University
The aim of this thesis is to illustrate, on the basis of a socio-legal study presented in three qualitative case studies, the role of hybrid collective remedies in enforcing European socially oriented regulation, in particular environmental law, anti-discrimination law and consumer law, for the creation of a European social legal order, which is able to gradually counter its perceived internal market bias. The hybrid collective remedies at stake in the three case studies – each case study constituted by a preliminary reference to the CJEU – are symptomatic of the three legal-political fields at stake. With the EU taking a leading role in the three fields for the purpose of complementing the creation of an internal market, the EU has decoupled the fields from their national social welfare origin and re-established a policy which is not so much based on ensuring social justice, but more based on procedural mechanisms to ensure access justice. Likewise, the EU left the creation of collective remedies fostering a genuine protective purpose to the Member States. The national and European models of justice underlying the three legal-political fields and their remedies are of a complementary, i.e., of a hybrid nature, and are moving towards the creation of an integrated European social order. The creation of the European social order via national actors using the preliminary reference procedure to implement the three policies at stake goes hand in hand with the creation of a European society.

Defence date: 21 December 2000
Examining board: Prof. Joël Rideau, Directeur de thèse/extérieur, Université de Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, Membre de l'Institut Universitaire de France ; Prof. Renaud Dehousse, Directeur de thèse IUE, Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris ; Prof. Mario Chiti, Université de Florence ; Prof. Fabrice Picod, Université Panthéon-Assas de Florence ; Prof. Jacques Ziller, Institut Universitaire Européen de Florence

Defence date: 27 May 1992
Examining board: Prof. Marie-Chantal Boutard-Labarde (Université de Paris X-Nanterre) ; Prof. Fausto Capelli (Université de Parme) ; Prof. Peter Müller-Graff (Université de Trier) ; Prof. Jürgen Schwarze (Supervisor - EUI) ; Prof. Jean Vergès (Université de Paris I)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017