Пошук академічних текстів

Інформація × Реєстраційний номер 2122U005156, Матеріали видань та локальних репозитаріїв Категорія Thesis Назва роботи Legislator’s mistake, which has resulted in the CJEU judgment. Latvia’s example Автор Дата публікації 01-01-2022 Постачальник інформації Сумський державний університет Першоджерело https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/88063 Видання Sumy State University Опис At present, Latvia has been a member of the Union for 18 years, which means that on 1 May 2004, Latvia’s national legal system was adjusted to meet the requirements of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This is because only a national legal system that meets the requirements of a democratic state governed by the rule of law is compatible with the rules of the Union law.2 Upon accession to the Union, a state undertakes to respect and promote the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter referred to as the TEU).3 It is the values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU – human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities – that underpin the Union. On the other hand, when a Member State of the Union decides to derogate from all or some of the values of Article 2 of the TEU, the proceedings provided for in Article 7 of the TEU are initiated against that Member State, as has been the case in the Republic of Poland.4 Therefore, a situation in which the general principles of law and the basic idea of a democratic state governed by the rule of law are or may be disregarded is unacceptable and the Member State has to ensure that its actions do not conflict with the concept of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. This is because ‘in a democratic state governed by the rule of law, a person is a subject served by the state, as opposed to a socialist legal system where the individual is seen as an object in relation to the state apparatus’.5 This means, among other things, that ‘an individual shall be given an opportunity to express their observations and they shall be evaluated before a decision is made’6 all the more so because according to Article 64 of the Satversme the legislator in Latvia is not only the Saeima, but also the People7 who may exercise their legislative rights only in the cases exhaustively indicated in the Satversme. Додано в НРАТ 2025-05-12 Закрити