Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  EU citizenship
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wybrane konstytucyjnoprawne aspekty praw wyborczych obywateli UE niebędących obywatelami polskimi

100%
Kozłowski K.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2020
|
issue 3(67)
54-80
EN
The study concerns the relations between the Polish Constitution of 1997 and the regulations of EU treaties in the area of granting EU citizens who are not Polish citizens electoral rights on the territory of the Polish state. These rights refer to active and passive electoral law with regard to elections to the European Parliament and to local self-government (commune). Electoral rights are treated as an institution intended only for Polish citizens. Thus there is a situation of incompatibility between the constitutional standard and the electoral rights of all EU citizens. This problem has been considered by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, but due to its complexity and its systemic nature has not been resolved.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Obywatelstwo Unii Europejskiej

100%
Wojnowska-Radzińska J.
Studia BAS
|
2015
|
issue 4(44)
39-56
EN
This article deals with the issue of European Union citizenship. Since 1992, both the Treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice have helped to create a direct and evolving bond of citizenship between the individual and the Union. Any person who holds the nationality of an EU member state is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. Moreover, European citizenship is evolving not only as a direct bond between the citizen and the Union but also as a sphere of relationships between the citizen and all the member states. That aspect of citizenship guarantees all the nationals the right to move freely throughout the territory of the Union, as well as the right to reside in any member state.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Pending the Implementation of Article 23 TFEU and Article 35 TEU – Still Incomplete Right of EU Citizens to Diplomatic and Consular Protection

75%
Kozłowski K.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia
|
2020
|
vol. 29
|
issue 5
EN
In 1992, with the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty, a new institution, namely EU citizenship, was created. The treaty introduced a qualitative change in the sphere of political and legal position of citizens of the Member States, who gained in these spheres a number of new powers. One of them is the right to diplomatic and consular protection. The analysis of these two rights leads to a conclusion about the great discrepancy that exists between treaty guarantees and the effective exercise of this right. The Member States did not agree with third countries on this subject, which is a requirement of international law. Secondary law also allows only a partial exercise of the treaty’s right to care in the territory of third countries. It has been reduced only to consular assistance and is still narrowly understood. The treaty law of EU citizens remains therefore at a very early stage of development.
PL
W 1992 r., wraz z przyjęciem Traktatu z Maastricht, powstała nowa instytucja, jaką jest obywatelstwo Unii Europejskiej. Traktat wprowadził jakościową zmianę w sferze pozycji politycznej i prawnej obywateli państw członkowskich, którzy zyskali w tych sferach szereg nowych uprawnień. Jednym z nich jest prawo do opieki dyplomatycznej i konsularnej. Jego analiza prowadzi do wniosku o dużym rozdźwięku, jaki istnieje pomiędzy gwarancjami traktatowymi a efektywnym wykonywaniem tego prawa. Państwa członkowskie nie porozumiały się bowiem z państwami trzecimi w tym przedmiocie, co jest wymogiem prawa międzynarodowego. Także prawo wtórne umożliwia jedynie częściowe wykonywanie traktatowego prawa do opieki na terytorium państw trzecich, ponieważ zostało ono sprowadzone tylko do pomocy konsularnej, i to jeszcze wąsko ujętej. Prawo obywateli Unii Europejskiej znajduje się zatem jeszcze na bardzo wczesnym etapie swojego rozwoju.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The European Citizens’ Initiative: New Participatory Democracy Tool to Reduce the Political Disaffection of the EU or a Simple Unsuccessful Attempt?

75%
Peñarrubia Bañón M.
Polish Journal of Political Science
|
2016
|
vol. 2
|
issue 3
57-75
EN
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is the first transnational instrument of citizen-participation and agenda-setting worldwide and it has been created with the aim to bring citizens to the decision-making process in Europe. Its potential for creating a European public sphere and alleviating the democratic deficit has been emphasized either in EU political level and in Academia level. Thus, it is a participatory democracy mechanism and currently it could be one of the main instruments to increase the legitimacy of the EU. The ECI main goal is to enable citizens to influence the political agenda of the Union inviting the Commission to submit legislative proposals and to create a proper European public sphere. It is, therefore, an attempt to reduce the citizens’ disaffection. Such high expectations reflect normative criteria which form a difficult basis for empirical measurement. This paper analyses the ECI and whether it is a proper tool of participatory democracy. The paper especially answers the question about whether the ECI is the propitious participatory democracy tool aimed at reducing or eliminating the citizens’ disaffection with the main political institutions that is suffering the EU, besides the proposal of enhancement mechanisms. Thus, an in depth legal amendment of the ECI regulation would constitute a measure to be taken to strengthen EU’s and European integration’s legitimacy. This paper provides an overview of the theoretical expectations towards the ECI.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Legal Approaches to ‘Unwanted’ EU Citizens in the Netherlands

75%
Mantu S., Minderhoud P., Grütters C., Mantu S., Minderhoud P., Grütters C.
Central and Eastern European Migration Review
|
2021
|
vol. 10
|
issue 1
6

The impact of the institution of EU citizenship on the status of migrant citizens

63%
Krzysztofik E.
Przegląd Europejski
|
2023
|
issue 2(68)
45-57
EN
The subject of the considerations undertaken in the article is the impact of the institution of EU citizenship on the status of migrant citizens. The aim of the study is to demonstrate that the introduction of the institution of EU citizenship into the treaties has definitely strengthened the status of an individual in EU law, and in a special way – in the host country. The inclusion of citizens’ rights in the catalogue of fundamental rights has radically changed the way in which one of the citizens’ rights – freedom of movement and residence in the territory of the host country – is exercised. A migrant citizen has been granted special protection in contexts where actions aimed at restricting the right of residence are taken. These conclusions will be confirmed in this article by analysis of the evolution of secondary legislation and the interpretation of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
PL
Przedmiotem rozważań podjętych w artykule jest analiza wpływu instytucji obywatelstwa UE na status obywateli migrujących. Celem podjętych badań jest wykazanie, że wprowadzenie instytucji obywatelstwa UE do traktatów zdecydowanie wzmocniło status jednostki w prawie UE, a w sposób szczególny – w państwie przyjmującym. Włączenie praw obywatelskich do katalogu praw podstawowych zmieniło diametralnie sposób realizacji jednego z praw obywatelskich: swobody przemieszczania się i pobytu na terytorium państwa przyjmującego. Obywatel migrujący uzyskał szczególną ochronę w chwili podjęcia działań zmierzających do ograniczenia prawa pobytu. Wnioski te potwierdzono w niniejszym artykule za pomocą analizy ewolucji aktów prawa wtórnego oraz wykładni Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Glosa do wyroku Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego z dnia 10 października

51%
Sadowski P.
Ius Novum
|
2020
|
vol. 14
|
issue 1
179-193
EN
The gloss deals with Polish Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 10 October 2018 concerning a right to transcribe a British birth certificate (issued to the child holding the Polish citizenship by birth who was born in the United Kingdom) to the Polish civil register. The Polish administration bodies and the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Kraków refused to make the transcript. They claimed that, according to the British document, the child has a mother and “a parent” who is also a woman, hence the transcript would infringe Polish law, provide misleading information, and be against public order. The Supreme Administrative Court changed its previous interpretation by citing the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as international law, which has been ratified by Poland: the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the European Convention of Human Rights and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the judges did not find the case to be “within the EU law”, and they did not submit a request for a preliminary ruling. This judgment exemplifies the clash between “a wide margin of appreciation” and the right of individuals to “translate” decisions issued in other European states into their national legal systems. Thus, the gloss contributes to the discussions on an extent of a state sovereign power in private and family life matters
PL
Glosa dotyczy wyroku polskiego Sądu Najwyższego z 10 października 2018 r. w sprawie prawa do sporządzenia transkrypcji brytyjskiego aktu urodzenia wydanego obywatelowi polskiemu z urodzenia, urodzonemu w Wielkiej Brytanii. Kierownik Urzędu Stanu Cywilnego, wojewoda i Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie odmówiły sporządzenia takiego zapisu. W ich ocenie brytyjski dokument stwierdzający, że dziecko ma matkę i „rodzica”, który także jest kobietą, naruszałby prawo polskie, zawierał informacje wprowadzające w błąd i byłby sprzeczny z porządkiem publicznym. Sąd Najwyższy odstąpił od swojej wcześniejszej linii orzeczniczej i odrzucił tę argumentację. Powołał się przy tym na Konstytucję Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej i na ratyfikowane przez Polskę umowy międzynarodowe: Konwencję o prawach dziecka, Europejską Konwencję Praw Człowieka i na właściwe wyroki Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka. Nie odwołał się jednak do prawa UE (nie zbadał też, czy sprawa pozostaje „w zakresie prawa UE”) i odmówił zadania pytania prejudycjalnego. Glosowany wyrok unaocznia więc praktyczne trudności wynikające ze zderzenia doktryny „szerokiego marginesu oceny” z prawami osób, które próbują „przetłumaczyć” decyzje wydane w innych krajach Europejskich do krajowego systemu prawnego. Stanowi on więc interesujący wkład do dyskusji o zakresie suwerennej władzy państwa w kształtowaniu krajowych regulacji dotyczących prawa do poszanowania życia prywatnego i rodzinnego.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

EU citizenship and the member states’ own competence regulating the conditions of obtaining or forfeiting national citizenship

51%
Pączek M.
Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
|
2019
|
vol. 17
|
issue 4
107-126
PL
Zdolność państw do podejmowania samodzielnych decyzji w przedmiocie nabycia i utraty obywatelstwa krajowego zawsze była uważana za nieodzowny element suwerenności państwowej. Na gruncie prawa UE, państwa członkowskie zachowują te uprawnienia. Biorąc natomiast pod uwagę, że obywatelstwo UE zostało oparte na obywatelstwie krajowym, to państwa członkowskie są w istocie władne określać, jakie osoby uzyskają status obywatela UE i związane z tym statusem uprawnienia. Celem niniejszego opracowania jest próba ustalenia, w jakim stopniu ustanowienie obywatelstwa UE wpłynęło na kompetencję państw członkowskich do decydowania o sprawach związanych z obywatelstwem krajowym.
EN
The ability of a state to decide freely on the conditions of obtaining or forfeiting its national citizenship has always been perceived as a core element of sovereignty. Within the legal framework of the EU, the member states have remained competent to regulate the question of who qualifies as a national. However, taking into account that EU citizenship is founded on citizenships of the member states, it is incumbent on them to determine who is to be classified as an EU citizen and consequently, who can enjoy the accompanying rights. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the degree to which the member states’ competence to regulate nationality matters has been affected by the introduction of EU citizenship.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Individual and Collective Identity: Factual Givens and Their Legal Reflection in International Law. Words in Commemoration of Krzysztof Skubiszewski

45%
Tomuschat C.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2017
|
vol. 37
11-34
EN
States and individuals are the essential building blocks of international law. Normally, their identity seems to be solidly established. However, modern international law is widely permeated by the notion of freedom from natural or societal constraints. This notion, embodied for individuals in the concept of human rights, has enabled human beings to overcome most of the traditional ties of dependency and being subjected to dominant social powers. Beyond that, even the natural specificity of a human as determined by birth and gender is being widely challenged. The law has made far­going concessions to this pressure. The right to leave one’s own country, including renouncing one’s original nationality, epitomizes the struggle for individual freedom. On the other hand, States generally do not act as oppressive powers but provide comprehensive protection to their nationals. Stateless persons live in a status of precarious insecurity. All efforts should be supported which are aimed at doing away with statelessness or non­recognition as a human person through the refusal to issue identity documents. Disputes about the collective identity of States also contain two different aspects. On the one hand, disintegrative tendencies manifest themselves through demands for separate statehood by minority groups. Such secession movements, as currently reflected above all in the Spanish province of Catalonia, have no basis in international law except for situations where a group suffers grave structural discrimination (remedial secession). As the common homeland of its citizens, every State also has the right to take care of its sociological identity. Many controversies focus on the distinction between citizens and aliens. This distinction is well rooted in domestic and international law. Changes in that regard cannot be made lightly. At the universal level international law has not given birth to a right to be granted asylum. At the regional level, the European Union has put into force an extremely generous system that provides a right of asylum not only to persons persecuted individually, but also affords “subsidiary protection” to persons in danger of being harmed by military hostilities. It is open to doubt whether the EU institutions have the competence to assign quotas of refugees to individual Member States. The relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2017 was hasty and avoided the core issue: the compatibility of such decisions with the guarantee of national identity established under Article 4(2) of the EU Treaty.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.