当前关于奥地利家庭福利的讨论——表明对欧盟法律解释的主要分歧

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
A. Balthasar
{"title":"当前关于奥地利家庭福利的讨论——表明对欧盟法律解释的主要分歧","authors":"A. Balthasar","doi":"10.17573/CEPAR.2020.2.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In early 2018, Austria amended its family benefits law by introducing ‘indexation’ according to the average living costs of the country where the child actually resides. What seems to be, at first sight, a flagrant breach of EU law (in particular of Article 7 of Regulation [EC] 883/2004) is, when looking deeper, much more complicated and might very well be only a symptom of deeply rooted differences in the interpretation of current, post-Lisbon Union law, \n(i)        in particular with regard to the relationship between the traditional prohibition of “discrimination on grounds of nationality” (Article 18 TFEU, Article 21(2) CFR; the  ‘Leitmotiv’ of the Treaties) and the “citizenship of the Union” (Article 9 second sentence TEU, Article 20(1), first and second sentence) on the one hand and the further role of the “nationality of a Member State” on the other, which shall, pursuant to Article 9 TEU, third sentence, as well as Article 20(1) TFEU, third sentence, not be replaced by the “citizenship of the Union”, \n(ii)       but also with regard to Article 352 TFEU, the scope of which is, most \nprobably, much smaller than that of its predecessor, Article 308 TEC, \n(iii)      and last but not least, with regard to a proper understanding of the principle of equal treatment, requiring not to treat alike factually different situations. \nGiving a full picture not only in abstract terms but demonstrating the relevance of the said differences on the concrete example of the interpretation of the above mentioned secondary legislation, the author aims at contributing to bridging gaps and, thus, fostering a better mutual understanding as a vital precondition for the future legal cohesion of the EU.","PeriodicalId":53802,"journal":{"name":"Central European Public Administration Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Current Discussion on Austrian Family Benefits – Indicating a Major Dissensus on the Interpretation of EU Law\",\"authors\":\"A. Balthasar\",\"doi\":\"10.17573/CEPAR.2020.2.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In early 2018, Austria amended its family benefits law by introducing ‘indexation’ according to the average living costs of the country where the child actually resides. What seems to be, at first sight, a flagrant breach of EU law (in particular of Article 7 of Regulation [EC] 883/2004) is, when looking deeper, much more complicated and might very well be only a symptom of deeply rooted differences in the interpretation of current, post-Lisbon Union law, \\n(i)        in particular with regard to the relationship between the traditional prohibition of “discrimination on grounds of nationality” (Article 18 TFEU, Article 21(2) CFR; the  ‘Leitmotiv’ of the Treaties) and the “citizenship of the Union” (Article 9 second sentence TEU, Article 20(1), first and second sentence) on the one hand and the further role of the “nationality of a Member State” on the other, which shall, pursuant to Article 9 TEU, third sentence, as well as Article 20(1) TFEU, third sentence, not be replaced by the “citizenship of the Union”, \\n(ii)       but also with regard to Article 352 TFEU, the scope of which is, most \\nprobably, much smaller than that of its predecessor, Article 308 TEC, \\n(iii)      and last but not least, with regard to a proper understanding of the principle of equal treatment, requiring not to treat alike factually different situations. \\nGiving a full picture not only in abstract terms but demonstrating the relevance of the said differences on the concrete example of the interpretation of the above mentioned secondary legislation, the author aims at contributing to bridging gaps and, thus, fostering a better mutual understanding as a vital precondition for the future legal cohesion of the EU.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Public Administration Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Public Administration Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17573/CEPAR.2020.2.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/CEPAR.2020.2.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2018年初,奥地利修订了家庭福利法,根据儿童实际居住国的平均生活成本引入了“指数化”。乍一看,公然违反欧盟法律(特别是《条例》[EC]883/2004第7条)的行为,从更深层次来看,要复杂得多,很可能只是对当前后里斯本联盟法律的解释存在根深蒂固分歧的一个症状,(i)特别是关于传统上禁止“基于国籍的歧视”之间的关系(TFEU第18条,CFR第21(2)条;条约的“主旨”)和“欧盟公民身份”(第9条第二句标准箱,第20条第(1)款,第一句和第二句),以及“成员国国籍”的进一步作用,根据第9条标准箱第三句以及TFEU第20条第一款第三句,不应被“欧盟公民身份”所取代,(ii)也应被《过渡联邦欧盟法》第352条所取代,该条的范围很可能远小于其前身《技术执行委员会法》第308条,(iii)以及最后但并非最不重要的是,对平等待遇原则的正确理解,要求不在事实上对待相同或不同的情况。作者不仅从抽象的角度全面介绍了上述差异,而且以解释上述二级立法的具体例子证明了上述差异的相关性,其目的是帮助弥合差距,从而促进更好的相互理解,这是欧盟未来法律凝聚力的重要先决条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Current Discussion on Austrian Family Benefits – Indicating a Major Dissensus on the Interpretation of EU Law
In early 2018, Austria amended its family benefits law by introducing ‘indexation’ according to the average living costs of the country where the child actually resides. What seems to be, at first sight, a flagrant breach of EU law (in particular of Article 7 of Regulation [EC] 883/2004) is, when looking deeper, much more complicated and might very well be only a symptom of deeply rooted differences in the interpretation of current, post-Lisbon Union law, (i)        in particular with regard to the relationship between the traditional prohibition of “discrimination on grounds of nationality” (Article 18 TFEU, Article 21(2) CFR; the  ‘Leitmotiv’ of the Treaties) and the “citizenship of the Union” (Article 9 second sentence TEU, Article 20(1), first and second sentence) on the one hand and the further role of the “nationality of a Member State” on the other, which shall, pursuant to Article 9 TEU, third sentence, as well as Article 20(1) TFEU, third sentence, not be replaced by the “citizenship of the Union”, (ii)       but also with regard to Article 352 TFEU, the scope of which is, most probably, much smaller than that of its predecessor, Article 308 TEC, (iii)      and last but not least, with regard to a proper understanding of the principle of equal treatment, requiring not to treat alike factually different situations. Giving a full picture not only in abstract terms but demonstrating the relevance of the said differences on the concrete example of the interpretation of the above mentioned secondary legislation, the author aims at contributing to bridging gaps and, thus, fostering a better mutual understanding as a vital precondition for the future legal cohesion of the EU.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信