首页> 外文OA文献 >Deterring the State Versus the Firm: Soft and Hard Deterrence Regimes in EU Law
【2h】

Deterring the State Versus the Firm: Soft and Hard Deterrence Regimes in EU Law

机译:威慑国家与企业:欧盟法律中的软性和硬性威慑制度

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper sheds light on the existence of a differential deterrence regime in EU law, depending on whether the State or the firm is the addressee of a legal obligation. To that end, we review two areas of EU law – environmental law and competition law. Both disciplines employ fines to deter the State and the firm respectively from violating their specific duties under the Treaty: the ‘duty to transpose’ with regard to State obligation under environmental law, and the ‘duty to compete’ in relation to firms under competition law. We show how the deterrence regime is softer on the State in at least three ways: functionally (purpose ascribed to the penalties), operationally (method followed to set and liquidate the penalty), and procedurally (requiring prior judicial approval as opposed to having immediate applicability). These findings are significant for two reasons: they suggest a State versus firm discrepancy in the EU’s deterrence regime, and serve to initiate a debate on the desirability of such a divide.
机译:本文阐明了欧盟法律中是否存在差别威慑制度,这取决于国家还是公司是法律义务的收件人。为此,我们回顾了欧盟法律的两个领域–环境法和竞争法。两种纪律都处以罚款,以阻止国家和企业违反条约规定的特定职责:环境法规定的国家义务的“移置义务”,以及竞争法规定的与公司有关的“竞争义务” 。我们以至少三种方式展示威慑制度对国家的软化程度:功能性(归因于刑罚的目的),操作性(遵循设定和清算刑罚的方法)以及程序性(要求事先获得司法批准,而不是立即获得批准)。适用性)。这些发现之所以有意义,有两个原因:它们暗示了欧盟威慑体系中国家与企业之间的差异,并引发了关于这种鸿沟是否可取的辩论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号