Biomedicine, Environmental Protection and Law

Link to this page

info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MESTD/Basic Research (BR or ON)/179079/RS//

Biomedicine, Environmental Protection and Law (en)
Биомедицина, заштита животне средине и право (sr)
Biomedicina, zaštita životne sredine i pravo (sr_RS)
Authors

Publications

Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations

Radivojević, Zoran; Knežević-Predić, Vesna

(Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš, 2018)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2018
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/671
AB  - After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion.
AB  - Posle stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora postupak zaključivanja međunarodnih ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacija pretrpeo je značajne promene. Najznačajniju novinu na proceduralnom planu predstavlja uspostavljanje redovnog postupka kojim su obuhvaćeni gotovo svi sporazumi EU sa trećim subjektima. Prema slovu Lisabonskog ugovora, ovaj postupak podrazumeva faze pregovora, potpisivanja sporazuma i donošenje odluke o zaključivanju sporazuma. Za zaključivanje sporazuma čiji predmet isključivo ili pretežno spada u oblast zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike predviđeno je nekoliko odstupanja od jedinstvenih pravila procedure. Istom odredbom osnivačkog ugovora regulisani su postupci za izmene i dopune i suspenziju sporazuma na snazi, kao i postupak pravosudne kontrole sporazuma koji tek treba da budu zaključeni. Izvan redovne procedure ostala su dva posebna postupka koji se odnose na zaključenje sporazuma u oblasti zajedničke trgovinske politike i sporazuma o kursu evra u odnosu na valute država nečlanica. Na institucionalnom planu kao najvažniji akteri u postupku zaključivanja ugovora EU pojavljuju se Savet, Komisija i Evropski parlament. Centralno mesto u svim vrstama ugovorne procedure zadržao je Savet koji odlučuje o svim bitnim pitanjima vezanim za tok i ishod ugovornog procesa. Komisija je ostala glavni, ali ne više isključivi inicijator i pregovarač u ugovornom procesu, jer se kao novi učesnici u toj ulozi, zavisno od predmeta ugovora, pojavljuju Visoki predstavnik za spoljne poslove i politiku bezbednosti i Evropska centralna banka. Evropski parlament ojačao je svoju poziciju u postupku zaključenja ugovora, posebno kroz povećanje broja slučajeva u kojima je njegov pristanak neophodan za donošenje konačne odluke o zaključenju sporazuma. Značajan položaj u ovom postupku ima i Sud pravde EU, čiji je zadatak da kontroliše saglasnost sporazuma sa osnivačkim ugovorima pre nego što budu zaključeni.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
T1  - Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations
T1  - Postupak zaključivanja ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacijama
EP  - 66
IS  - 78
SP  - 47
VL  - 57
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfni1878047R
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2018",
abstract = "After the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, the process of concluding treaties between the EU and third countries or international organizations has sustained significant changes. The most important procedural novelty is the establishment of the ordinary procedure that covers almost all agreements the EU concludes with third parties. Under the Lisbon Treaty, this procedure involves a number of stages: negotiations, signing the agreement, and decision to conclude the agreement. For agreements whose subject matter exclusively or predominantly falls into the domain of common foreign and security policy, there are several derogations from the uniform rules of the ordinary procedure. The same provision of the founding treaty regulates the procedures for amending and suspending the agreement in force, as well as the judicial control procedure of those agreements that are yet to be concluded. The ordinary procedure does not cover two subject-specific proceedings pertaining to relatively narrow areas of EU action. More specifically, they refer to the conclusion of agreements in the area of common trade policy and agreements on the exchange rate of the Euro against the currencies of non-member states. The exclusion of trade agreements is probably the result of the differences that still exist in the division of competencies between the Member States and the EU regarding trade in the area of some services. On the other hand, the enactment of a special procedure for agreements on the Euro exchange rate in relation to the national currency rates of third countries stems from the need to ensure the Union's unique position in this field. On the institutional level, the most important actors in the process of concluding EU agreements are the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. The Council has retained the central role in all types of treaty procedures, and it decides on essential issues related to the course and outcome of the process. The Commission has retained the major role in initiating and negotiating the agreements, but it is no longer the exclusive initiator and negotiator in the agreement process. Namely, depending on the subject of the treaty, new entrants in that role are the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has strengthened its position in the procedure for concluding EU agreements and can, therefore, be considered the largest 'net' winner of the Lisbon Treaty reform. This is partly due to its new role in the course of negotiations, which implies the right to be immediately and fully informed about all stages of the proceedings, but to a much greater extent it refers to the powers that this body has in the final stage preceding the conclusion of the agreement. Finally, the EU Court of Justice has an important role in this process; its task is to control the compliance of the EU agreements with the founding treaties prior to their conclusion., Posle stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog ugovora postupak zaključivanja međunarodnih ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacija pretrpeo je značajne promene. Najznačajniju novinu na proceduralnom planu predstavlja uspostavljanje redovnog postupka kojim su obuhvaćeni gotovo svi sporazumi EU sa trećim subjektima. Prema slovu Lisabonskog ugovora, ovaj postupak podrazumeva faze pregovora, potpisivanja sporazuma i donošenje odluke o zaključivanju sporazuma. Za zaključivanje sporazuma čiji predmet isključivo ili pretežno spada u oblast zajedničke spoljne i bezbednosne politike predviđeno je nekoliko odstupanja od jedinstvenih pravila procedure. Istom odredbom osnivačkog ugovora regulisani su postupci za izmene i dopune i suspenziju sporazuma na snazi, kao i postupak pravosudne kontrole sporazuma koji tek treba da budu zaključeni. Izvan redovne procedure ostala su dva posebna postupka koji se odnose na zaključenje sporazuma u oblasti zajedničke trgovinske politike i sporazuma o kursu evra u odnosu na valute država nečlanica. Na institucionalnom planu kao najvažniji akteri u postupku zaključivanja ugovora EU pojavljuju se Savet, Komisija i Evropski parlament. Centralno mesto u svim vrstama ugovorne procedure zadržao je Savet koji odlučuje o svim bitnim pitanjima vezanim za tok i ishod ugovornog procesa. Komisija je ostala glavni, ali ne više isključivi inicijator i pregovarač u ugovornom procesu, jer se kao novi učesnici u toj ulozi, zavisno od predmeta ugovora, pojavljuju Visoki predstavnik za spoljne poslove i politiku bezbednosti i Evropska centralna banka. Evropski parlament ojačao je svoju poziciju u postupku zaključenja ugovora, posebno kroz povećanje broja slučajeva u kojima je njegov pristanak neophodan za donošenje konačne odluke o zaključenju sporazuma. Značajan položaj u ovom postupku ima i Sud pravde EU, čiji je zadatak da kontroliše saglasnost sporazuma sa osnivačkim ugovorima pre nego što budu zaključeni.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu",
title = "Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations, Postupak zaključivanja ugovora Evropske unije sa trećim državama i međunarodnim organizacijama",
pages = "66-47",
number = "78",
volume = "57",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfni1878047R"
}
Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2018). Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš., 57(78), 47-66.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1878047R
Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 2018;57(78):47-66.
doi:10.5937/zrpfni1878047R .
Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "Procedure for conclusion of EU treaties with third states and international organizations" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, 57, no. 78 (2018):47-66,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1878047R . .

Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state

Knežević-Predić, Vesna; Radivojević, Zoran

(Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš, 2016)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
PY  - 2016
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/553
AB  - The distinctive character of the European Union (EU) is indisputable. May it be denoted as a supranational or as a sui generis organization (which is a preferred designation of the European Court of Justice), it is considered to be the result of particular features pertaining to the competences, structure and decision making-process of the EU. It is a truism that other international intergovernmental organizations do share some or all of these features. Almost all of them have at least one institution which is obliged to act independently of the member states; at least some of their decisions are rendered by majority voting, at least some of which are legally binding. What makes the EU truly and genuinely a unique phenomenon in the field of inter-state organization is a strong and independent judicial system, established to 'ensure that in the interpretation and application of this treaty the law is observed'. In effect, it implies establishing a strong and independent judicial system able to enforce the EU law against all those who are under its domain and, above all, to enforce it against the EU Member States. In order to enable the European Court of Justice (the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialized courts) to perform this duty, the Court has been conferred a range of specific powers under the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in particular. The Court is empowered to declare that a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation under the Treaties. The founding fathers of the EU designed three different procedures leading to that effect. The first one has proved to be fairly effective; on the grounds of an action brought by the Commission, it enables the Court to adjudge whether a Member State did comply with its obligations stemming from the EU law. The next one provides légitimation active for the other Member State but it has been very rarely used in the whole history of EU integration and can hardly be considered effective. The last one, possibly the most effective in terms of the accomplishment of the Court's paramount goal, enables the Court to respond to questions referred to the Court by national courts about the effect of EU law in cases pending before the national courts. Having in mind that the procedure before the Court is just part of the litigation proceeding pending in the national court, in this analysis we will set aside the preliminary ruling procedure and focus on the so-called direct actions: Commission v. Member state, and Member State v. Member State. In this paper, we will also focus on Member State's légitimation active versus EU institutions. The founding treaties provide for the procedures that enable Member States to initiate judicial review of the EU institution compliance with EU law. The action for annulment, the action for failure to act, and the claims relating to compensation for damage caused by the EU institutions or its civil servants in performance of their duties proved to be effective tools for keeping the EU institutions within the limits of competences coffered upon them by the Treaties. In view of the extensive legislative powers which the Treaties have vested in political institutions and given the fact that their scope has been a matter of great controversy, légitimation active of a Member State has proved to be an important element of a sophisticated and balanced system of judicial control.
AB  - Osobeni karakter Evropske unije danas više niko ne dovodi u pitanje. Bez obzira na to da li se naziva supranacionalnom ili sui generis organizacijom, ono što Uniju čini jedinstvenom pojavom u oblasti međudržavnog organizovanja jeste snažan i nezavistan sistem pravosudne kontrole uspostavljen sa ciljem da se'obezbedi poštovanje prava u tumačenju i primeni' osnivačkih ugovora. U njegovom središtu nalazi se Sud pravde kome osnivački ugovori poveravaju niz posebnih ovlašćenja. Sud je pre svega ovlašćen da presudi da li je država članica propustila da izvrši obaveze koje proističu iz Ugovora. Tvorci Unije su stvorili nekoliko postupka koji vode tom cilju. Prvi omogućava Sudu da po tužbi Komisije presudi da li je država članica poštovala obaveze koje proističu iz prava EU. Sledeći, koji je tokom čitave istorije evropskih integracija krajnje retko upotrebljavan, dodeljuje aktivnu legitimaciju drugoj državi članici. Treći postupak, koji ovom prilikom ostavljamo po strani, ovlašćuje Sud da odgovori na pitanja koja su mu postavili nacionalni sudovi o učincima prava EU na postupke koji se vode pred njima. Pored slučajeva kada se država članica pojavljuje pred Sudom kao pasivno legitimisana strana, osnivački ugovori propisuju nekoliko postupakau kojima se državama članicama omogućava da pokrenu pravosudnu kontrolu poštovanja prava EU od strane njenih institucija. Tom prilikom državama članicama kao aktivnolegitimisanim subjektima stoje na raspolaganju tri vrste pravnih sredstava koje mogu podneti Sudu. To su tužba za poništaj, tužba zbog propuštanja i tužba za naknadu štete koju su prouzrokovale institucije EU ili njihovi službenici u vršenju svojih ovlašćenja.
PB  - Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
T1  - Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state
T1  - Pravosudna kontrola u Evropskoj uniji - procesna legitimacija države članice
EP  - 111
IS  - 74
SP  - 91
VL  - 55
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfni1674091K
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Knežević-Predić, Vesna and Radivojević, Zoran",
year = "2016",
abstract = "The distinctive character of the European Union (EU) is indisputable. May it be denoted as a supranational or as a sui generis organization (which is a preferred designation of the European Court of Justice), it is considered to be the result of particular features pertaining to the competences, structure and decision making-process of the EU. It is a truism that other international intergovernmental organizations do share some or all of these features. Almost all of them have at least one institution which is obliged to act independently of the member states; at least some of their decisions are rendered by majority voting, at least some of which are legally binding. What makes the EU truly and genuinely a unique phenomenon in the field of inter-state organization is a strong and independent judicial system, established to 'ensure that in the interpretation and application of this treaty the law is observed'. In effect, it implies establishing a strong and independent judicial system able to enforce the EU law against all those who are under its domain and, above all, to enforce it against the EU Member States. In order to enable the European Court of Justice (the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialized courts) to perform this duty, the Court has been conferred a range of specific powers under the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in particular. The Court is empowered to declare that a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation under the Treaties. The founding fathers of the EU designed three different procedures leading to that effect. The first one has proved to be fairly effective; on the grounds of an action brought by the Commission, it enables the Court to adjudge whether a Member State did comply with its obligations stemming from the EU law. The next one provides légitimation active for the other Member State but it has been very rarely used in the whole history of EU integration and can hardly be considered effective. The last one, possibly the most effective in terms of the accomplishment of the Court's paramount goal, enables the Court to respond to questions referred to the Court by national courts about the effect of EU law in cases pending before the national courts. Having in mind that the procedure before the Court is just part of the litigation proceeding pending in the national court, in this analysis we will set aside the preliminary ruling procedure and focus on the so-called direct actions: Commission v. Member state, and Member State v. Member State. In this paper, we will also focus on Member State's légitimation active versus EU institutions. The founding treaties provide for the procedures that enable Member States to initiate judicial review of the EU institution compliance with EU law. The action for annulment, the action for failure to act, and the claims relating to compensation for damage caused by the EU institutions or its civil servants in performance of their duties proved to be effective tools for keeping the EU institutions within the limits of competences coffered upon them by the Treaties. In view of the extensive legislative powers which the Treaties have vested in political institutions and given the fact that their scope has been a matter of great controversy, légitimation active of a Member State has proved to be an important element of a sophisticated and balanced system of judicial control., Osobeni karakter Evropske unije danas više niko ne dovodi u pitanje. Bez obzira na to da li se naziva supranacionalnom ili sui generis organizacijom, ono što Uniju čini jedinstvenom pojavom u oblasti međudržavnog organizovanja jeste snažan i nezavistan sistem pravosudne kontrole uspostavljen sa ciljem da se'obezbedi poštovanje prava u tumačenju i primeni' osnivačkih ugovora. U njegovom središtu nalazi se Sud pravde kome osnivački ugovori poveravaju niz posebnih ovlašćenja. Sud je pre svega ovlašćen da presudi da li je država članica propustila da izvrši obaveze koje proističu iz Ugovora. Tvorci Unije su stvorili nekoliko postupka koji vode tom cilju. Prvi omogućava Sudu da po tužbi Komisije presudi da li je država članica poštovala obaveze koje proističu iz prava EU. Sledeći, koji je tokom čitave istorije evropskih integracija krajnje retko upotrebljavan, dodeljuje aktivnu legitimaciju drugoj državi članici. Treći postupak, koji ovom prilikom ostavljamo po strani, ovlašćuje Sud da odgovori na pitanja koja su mu postavili nacionalni sudovi o učincima prava EU na postupke koji se vode pred njima. Pored slučajeva kada se država članica pojavljuje pred Sudom kao pasivno legitimisana strana, osnivački ugovori propisuju nekoliko postupakau kojima se državama članicama omogućava da pokrenu pravosudnu kontrolu poštovanja prava EU od strane njenih institucija. Tom prilikom državama članicama kao aktivnolegitimisanim subjektima stoje na raspolaganju tri vrste pravnih sredstava koje mogu podneti Sudu. To su tužba za poništaj, tužba zbog propuštanja i tužba za naknadu štete koju su prouzrokovale institucije EU ili njihovi službenici u vršenju svojih ovlašćenja.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu",
title = "Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state, Pravosudna kontrola u Evropskoj uniji - procesna legitimacija države članice",
pages = "111-91",
number = "74",
volume = "55",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfni1674091K"
}
Knežević-Predić, V.,& Radivojević, Z.. (2016). Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu
Univerzitet u Nišu - Pravni fakultet, Niš., 55(74), 91-111.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1674091K
Knežević-Predić V, Radivojević Z. Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu. 2016;55(74):91-111.
doi:10.5937/zrpfni1674091K .
Knežević-Predić, Vesna, Radivojević, Zoran, "Judicial control in the European Union: Standing of a member state" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Nišu, 55, no. 74 (2016):91-111,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfni1674091K . .

The new architecture of the European Union

Radivojević, Zoran; Knežević-Predić, Vesna

(Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad, 2011)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Radivojević, Zoran
AU  - Knežević-Predić, Vesna
PY  - 2011
UR  - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/281
AB  - The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed.
AB  - Lisabonski ugovor doneo je značajne promene u pogledu arhitekture Evropske unije. Najvažniju novinu, svakako, predstavlja njeno značajno pojednostavljenje čime se praktično gube tri stuba na kojima je do sada EU počivala. Uspostavljanje jedinstvene strukture Unije ostvareno je stvaranjem novih i jačanjem postojećih elemenata jedinstva. Nestanak Evropske zajednice, 'osamostaljivanje' Evropske zajednice za atomsku energiju, konstituisanje Evropske unije kao jedinstvenog pravnog subjekta i uvođenje jedinstvenih vrednosti novi su elementi njenog jedinstva. U isto vreme Lisabonskim ugovorom ojačani su već postojeći elementi izraženi kroz jedinstveni institucionalni mehanizam i jedinstvena pravila o izmeni osnivačkih ugovora i članstvu. Međutim, konstituisanje Unije kao jedinstvenog entiteta nije potpuno dokinulo elemente ranije trostubne arhitekture. U oblastima koje su i pre Lisabonskog ugovora odstupale od komunitarnog stuba ostala su značajna odstupanja u pogledu prirode i domašaja ovlašćenja koja su poverena glavnim organima Unije. Reč je najpre o zajedničkoj spoljnoj politici i politici bezbednosti, kojoj je sada pridodata i odbrambena politika, i gde je postojeći model međudržavne saradnje tek neznatno načet. Nasuprot tome, u oblasti policijske i pravosudne saradnje u krivičnim stvarima, koja je postala deo šire oblasti slobode, bezbednosti i pravde, međudržavni model je napušten u nekim svojim najvažnijim elementima, s tim što je odložena primena određenih bitnih elemenata naddržavnog modela saradnje.
PB  - Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad
T2  - Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
T1  - The new architecture of the European Union
T1  - Nova arhitektura Evropske unije
EP  - 37
IS  - 1
SP  - 11
VL  - 45
DO  - 10.5937/zrpfns1101011R
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Radivojević, Zoran and Knežević-Predić, Vesna",
year = "2011",
abstract = "The Lisbon Treaty has brought significant changes into the architecture of the European Union. The most important novelty, however, is the establishment of a full unity of the Union structure achieved by creating new and strengthening the existing elements. The new elements of this unity are the disappearance of the European Community, the 'independence' of the European Atomic Energy Community, constituting the European Union as a single entity and the introduction of EU values. At the same time, the Lisbon Treaty has strengthened the existing elements of the common institutional mechanisms, rules on amending the founding treaties and EU membership. However, constituting the Union as a single entity which has replaced and succeeded the European Communities has not abolished the EU elements of diversity. In the areas that differed, even before the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, from the community pillar, there remain significant differences in the nature and the scope of competences of the Union institutions. This mainly regards the common foreign and security policy, which now includes the defense policy, where the existing model of inter-state cooperation has been only slightly interfered with. In contrast, in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which has become part of a larger Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the inter-state model of cooperation has been abandoned in some of its most important elements. However, the implementation of some of the important elements of the supranational model has been postponed., Lisabonski ugovor doneo je značajne promene u pogledu arhitekture Evropske unije. Najvažniju novinu, svakako, predstavlja njeno značajno pojednostavljenje čime se praktično gube tri stuba na kojima je do sada EU počivala. Uspostavljanje jedinstvene strukture Unije ostvareno je stvaranjem novih i jačanjem postojećih elemenata jedinstva. Nestanak Evropske zajednice, 'osamostaljivanje' Evropske zajednice za atomsku energiju, konstituisanje Evropske unije kao jedinstvenog pravnog subjekta i uvođenje jedinstvenih vrednosti novi su elementi njenog jedinstva. U isto vreme Lisabonskim ugovorom ojačani su već postojeći elementi izraženi kroz jedinstveni institucionalni mehanizam i jedinstvena pravila o izmeni osnivačkih ugovora i članstvu. Međutim, konstituisanje Unije kao jedinstvenog entiteta nije potpuno dokinulo elemente ranije trostubne arhitekture. U oblastima koje su i pre Lisabonskog ugovora odstupale od komunitarnog stuba ostala su značajna odstupanja u pogledu prirode i domašaja ovlašćenja koja su poverena glavnim organima Unije. Reč je najpre o zajedničkoj spoljnoj politici i politici bezbednosti, kojoj je sada pridodata i odbrambena politika, i gde je postojeći model međudržavne saradnje tek neznatno načet. Nasuprot tome, u oblasti policijske i pravosudne saradnje u krivičnim stvarima, koja je postala deo šire oblasti slobode, bezbednosti i pravde, međudržavni model je napušten u nekim svojim najvažnijim elementima, s tim što je odložena primena određenih bitnih elemenata naddržavnog modela saradnje.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad",
journal = "Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad",
title = "The new architecture of the European Union, Nova arhitektura Evropske unije",
pages = "37-11",
number = "1",
volume = "45",
doi = "10.5937/zrpfns1101011R"
}
Radivojević, Z.,& Knežević-Predić, V.. (2011). The new architecture of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Pravni fakultet, Novi Sad., 45(1), 11-37.
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns1101011R
Radivojević Z, Knežević-Predić V. The new architecture of the European Union. in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad. 2011;45(1):11-37.
doi:10.5937/zrpfns1101011R .
Radivojević, Zoran, Knežević-Predić, Vesna, "The new architecture of the European Union" in Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, 45, no. 1 (2011):11-37,
https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns1101011R . .