Workshop on strategic planning for Critical Legal Thinking Group on 30 November 2014

គោរពអញ្ជើញ សមាជិក ចូលរួមសិក្ខាសាលារៀបចំផែនការយុត្តិសាស្រ្តក្រុម ក្រុមគិតត្រិះរិះគតិយុត្តិ ( Critical Legal Thinking / CLT ) ដែលជាបណ្តាញសង្គម អ្នកច្បាប់ សូមជម្រាបជូនដំណឹង ដល់សមាជិកក្រុមទំាងអស់ឲ្យបាន ជ្រាបថា ដើម្បីលើកកម្ពស់ការអនុវត្តន៍ច្បាប់ប្រកបដោយប្រសិទ្ធិភាព និងមានប្រព័ន្ធតុលាការឯករាជ្យសំដៅឈានទៅរកសង្គមមួយដែលមាននីតិរដ្ឋបរិបូរនិងសន្តិភាព ក្រុម CLT នឹងរៀបចំ ផែនការយុត្តិសាស្រ្ត៥ ឆ្នាំរបស់ខ្លួន ដែលនឹងប្រព្រឹត្តទៅនៅថ្ងៃទី ៣០ ខែ វិច្ឆិកា ឆ្នាំ២០១៤ វេលាម៉ោង៨ ព្រឹកដល់ ១១:៣០នាទី នៅ ទីស្នាក់ការអង្កការយុវសន្តិភាព/ វិទ្យាស្ថានសន្តិភាពកម្ពុជា ផ្ទះលេខ ៤-៦G ផ្លូវលេខ ៥១៣ សង្កាត់បឹងកក់១ ខណ្ឌទួលគោក ភ្នំពេញ ។ អាស្រ័យហេតុនេះ សូមគោរពអញ្ចើញសមាជិកក្រុម មេត្តាចូលរូម ក្នុងកម្មវិធីនេះឲ្យបានច្រើនកុះករ ។ ដើម្បីងាយស្រួលរៀបចំ សូមមេត្តាផ្តល់ព័តមានពីការចូលរួមរបស់លោក លោកស្រីមកអ្នករៀបចំមុនថ្ងៃទី២៦ ខែវិច្ឆិកា តាមរយៈទូរស័ព្ទមកលោក នូ វ៉ា លេខ ០១៦ ៣១៤ ៩៦៤ ឬ ០៣១​ ៧៧៧៧៨០០ Facebook ឬ email nouvakrt@gmail.com/ cambodianlawjournal@gmail.com ។ សូមអរគុណ !

We cordially invite the group members of Critical Legal Thinking Group to attend a five year strategic planning to identify issues and determine future action plan. Your attendance is valuable to reach the common goal to solve our currently problem in Cambodia, particular, human rights and judicial independent. The event will be held on November 30, 2014 at Youth For Peace office #4-6 G Street 513, Sangkat Boeungkak 1, Phnom Penh. Please confirm your participants before 26 November 2014.

The foreigners are also welcome to attend the forum. We will conduct simultaneous interpretation for this workshop.

We would like you to confirm your attendance to Mr. Nou Va, tel 016 314 964, 031 7777 800, facebook and/this page before 26 November 2014.

.......................................................
Law Journal of Cambodia(LJC) is a non-political and independent team who volunteer working for disseminating laws and information regarding development and human rights situation in Cambodia. All comment or idea of LJC cannot be claimed in front of court and other purpose. LJC just provide ways for people to understand the context of law and other issues. LJC wants people to understand the law and live in peaceful means. If you need inquiry, please drop your e-mail to cambodianlawjournal@gmail.com. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/law.cambodia If you want to join with group to discuss law please link here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/405507152815204/ Welcome all comments on this blog ព្រឹតិ្តបត្រច្បាប់កម្ពុជា (ព ច ក)គឺជាក្រុមឯករាជ្យ និងមិនមែនជាបក្សនយោបាយ ទេ ជាក្រុមស្ម័គ្រចិត្តដែល ធ្វើការ​ សម្រាប់ធ្វើ ការផ្សព្វផ្សាយអំពីច្បាប់ និងព័តមាន ដែលទាក់ទងនឹងការអភិវឌ្ឍ និងស្ថានភាព សិទ្ធិមនុស្សនៅកម្ពុជា។ រាល់មតិ យោបល់នៅក្នុងព្រឹត្តនេះមិនអាចយកទៅធើ្វជាអំណះ អំណាង ចំពោះមុខ តុលាការ រឺក្នុងគោលបំណងអ្វីផ្សេងទៀតឡើយ។ ព​ ច ក​ គ្រាន់ផ្តល់ នូ​វ​ចំណេះដឹងច្បាប់ និងចំណេះដឹងផ្សេងៗទៀតដល់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឌប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ប្រសិនលោក អ្នកចង់ដឹងព័តមានបន្ថែមអំពី ព ច ក សូមផ្ញើអីម៉ែលមកយើងខ្ញុំ។​ យើងខ្ញុំសូមស្វាគមន៌រាល់មតិលំអដល់ ព ច ក៕

By Pedro Caro de Sousa

Abstract

Read the Full Contribution as a PDF

Suggested Citation: Pedro Caro de Sousa, Negative and Positive Integration in EU Economic Law: Between Strategic Denial and Cognitive Dissonance?, 13 German Law Journal 979-1012 (2012), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1450

A.  Introduction

It is a generally held assumption that the EU economic free movement rights  are tools in the creation of a European internal market; and that their main goal is the (negative) market integration of different national markets.  Yet these freedoms do not determine how market integration is to proceed, or which kind of integrated European market will emerge.  The resulting market may be more or less regulated, and the creation of the relevant regulatory rules may be allocated to a variety of sources.  These options are reflected in the different proposed tests used to determine whether a national measure prima facie infringes one of the market freedoms.   The proposed tests fall into two main categories—broad tests and narrow tests—and each type has its own implications for European integration.  Broad tests, usually associated with obstacle tests or even with economic due process clauses, tend to be seen as having three main outcomes.  One result of broad tests is centralization, implying that ultimate decisions concerning the legitimacy of national law rests with EU institutions, and particularly with the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the Court” or “CJEU”).  Another outcome of broad tests is the possible harmonization of national laws through the European political process by increasing the amount of national legislation susceptible to being harmonized under Articles 114 to 118 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  (“TFEU”).   A third consequence of broad tests is deregulation through the elimination of national rules creating obstacles to trade.   Alternatively, narrow approaches—usually associated with discrimination or typological tests—are usually coupled with regulatory pluralism via a greater degree of control of the harmonization competences of the EU, decentralization through the protection of a greater sphere of Member States’ autonomy, and economic agnosticism.   Views on the potential...

Read the Complete Contribution as a PDF Document