European citizenship is facing numerous challenges, including fundamental rights and social justice considerations. These get amplified in the context of Brexit and the general rise of populism in Europe today. This book takes a representative selection of these challenges, which raise a multitude of highly complex issues, as an invitation to provide a critical appraisal of the current state of the EU legal framework surrounding EU citizenship. The contributions are grouped in four parts, dealing with constitutional developments posing challenges to EU citizenship; the limits of the free movement paradigm in the context of EU citizenship; EU citizenship beyond free movement; and, lastly, EU citizenship in the context of the outside world, including Brexit, the EEA and Eurasian Economic Union.
Despite the Lisbon Treaty reforming the EU Treaty provisions on external relations, it was argued at the time of the Treaty’s entry into force that ‘mixity was here to stay’. While this has indeed proven to be the case, the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence has nonetheless redrawn the contours within which mixity can thrive and for the first time has confirmed the existence of ‘facultative mixity’. In light of these significant post-Lisbon developments the volume aims to clarify the law and policy of facultative mixed agreements in the EU’s treaty practice and this not only from the perspective of EU (constitutional) law itself but also from the perspective of the EU Member States’ legal systems, that of the EU’s third country treaty partners and that of public international law itself.
This study analyses the modern EU counter-terrorism trends, focusing on two parallel axes: (a) the repressive one, where new criminal offences related to terrorist activity (receiving training for terrorism, terrorist financing, travelling and facilitating travelling for the purpose of terrorism) have been instituted, and (b) the preventive one, where establishing a framework of provisions aiming to deter terrorist financing prevails. After critically evaluating EU's interventions in both axes, the study concludes by noting a ‘paradigm shift’ between repression and prevention in the field of countering terrorism, while suggesting proposals on a transposition of Directive (EU) 2017/541 into national legislations that adheres to the fundamental EU law principles, and a preventive control over terrorist financing that abides by the rule of law.
The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.
This article analyses the foundations of the constitutional and legal orders of selected non-recognized entities in Georgia and Ukraine, namely the so-called “Republic of Abkhazia”, the “Republic of South Ossetia” and the “Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics”. Additionally, this article pursues the objective of clarifying whether the legal systems of these entities can ensure protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of their residents in line with standards of international public law and European law. It is argued that the constitutional orders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Donetsk/Lugansk Peoples’ Republics are distinguished by a few undeniable similarities and “sources of inspiration”. Furthermore, residents of these entities experience similar problems regarding protection of their fundamental rights and application of international conventions on human rights.
The Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, which was adopted in 1994 and entered into force in 1995, was the country’s first post-Soviet Criminal Code. In 2018, the President of Uzbekistan called for adoption of a revised edition of the Criminal Code whose provisions should correspond more closely to international law, and would be more appropriately suited to modern realities. The article offers an overview of the draft Chapter on crimes against the peace and security of mankind, as proposed by the author in his capacity as a member of the Working Group for revision of the Criminal Code. It draws upon the best practices of a number of States, and offers a concise article-by-article commentary on the draft Chapter.
This essay examines methodological nuances connected with historical research of Russian law. These nuances are studied against the backdrop of two books published respectively by Professor Ferdinand Feldbrugge and Professor William Pomeranz on Russian legal history. The methods employed by these authors reveal specific features of Russian legal language and mentality which can be helpful in explaining the dissimilarities between legal and political developments in Russia and the West. They place particular emphasis on the development of legal language and productively analyze many current issues of Russian law through the lens of history of concepts. These books are evaluated as important contributions to comparative analysis of Russian and Western legal cultures. The key events of Russian legal history are considered in a perspective that sheds light on the current challenges faced by Russian law.
This article traces the evolution of the debate on the balancing of federal and regional competences in regulating the use of minority languages in Russia’s education system. Taking into account relevant law and judicial practice, as well as developments in center-periphery relations since 2017, the article argues that the federal center has been increasingly depriving Russia’s republics of the ability to self-regulate in the education sphere – particularly over the question as to whether they may require the compulsory study of republican languages (recognized as co-official with Russian) in schools located within their administrative borders. These processes can be located in the context of the centralization of the education system and a corresponding reduction of multilingualism in Russia’s schools. This can, in turn, be seen as part of an underlying drive to promote national unity through uniformity, through the dilution of the country’s linguistic and cultural diversity and a concurrent emphasis on the primacy of the Russian language. The article further argues that the Russian education system’s centralization has been ongoing: while it has intensified since 2017, the trajectory of the jurisprudence shows an earlier movement towards a concern for ‘unity’ that anticipated it.
This paper discusses the issue of negligent rape and liability for unreasonable belief in the victim`s consent in the context of Croatian criminal law. Modern rape law presents many challenges to both lawmakers and judges, with criminalizing negligence being only one of those challenges. This became more interesting in Croatia after amendments to the Criminal Code in 2011 (in effect since 2013), that criminalized unreasonable mistake of facts in the crime of rape. Croatian rape law has undergone significant changes related to these amendments. However, this paper focuses only on the aspect of unreasonable mistake of consent, this being both the most controversial and of great practical importance. The first section describes the elements of rape according to the Croatian Criminal Code along with an interpretation of those elements in the jurisprudence of the Croatian Supreme Court. Special attention is placed on the problem of mens rea and (un)reasonable belief in consent. The discussion also identifies the reasons for reform and the impact of the Sexual Offences Act of England and Wales (2003), which served as a model for Croatian legislators. The second section analyzes the results of research conducted by Croatian judges on the relevant status of the mistake of facts defense, as well as the importance of the victim`s resistance in terms of achieving a conviction, with special regard to the rate of rape convictions in Croatian law. The third section reviews comparative regional laws (Slovenia, Serbia, and Montenegro) with the goal of positioning the new Croatian rape law in a regional context. The last section discusses the necessity of criminalization of the negligent form of rape from the perspective of trends and standards created in Croatian theory and jurisprudence in the years prior to this amendment of the law.
This study analyses the modern EU counter-terrorism trends, focusing on two parallel axes: (a) the repressive one, where new criminal offences related to terrorist activity (receiving training for terrorism, terrorist financing, travelling and facilitating travelling for the purpose of terrorism) have been instituted, and (b) the preventive one, where establishing a framework of provisions aiming to deter terrorist financing prevails. After critically evaluating EU’s interventions in both axes, the study concludes by noting a ‘paradigm shift’ between repression and prevention in the field of countering terrorism, while suggesting proposals on a transposition of Directive (EU) 2017/541 into national legislations that adheres to the fundamental EU law principles, and a preventive control over terrorist financing that abides by the rule of law.