Browsing by Author "Parol, Agnieszka"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item
    Dyskryminacja nauczycieli religii. Glosa do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 13 stycznia 2022 roku (C-282/19)
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2023) Parol, Agnieszka
    Glosa poddaje analizie orzeczenie prejudycjalne Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej zapadłe w sprawie C-282/19, YT i in. przeciwko MIUR i Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania, z dnia 13 stycznia 2022 r. Włoski sąd krajowy wystąpił z odesłaniem prejudycjalnym, kwestionując zgodność prawa krajowego z prawem UE. Naruszenie prawa UE miało wynikać z nadużywania kolejnych umów o pracę na czas określony i braku skutecznych środków przeciwdziałania dyskryminacji włoskich katechetów ze względu na religię. Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej, dokonując wykładni prawa, potwierdził, iż normy krajowe wykluczające nauczycieli religii katolickiej w szkołach publicznych z zakresu stosowania przepisów mających na celu wyciągnięcie konsekwencji z nadużywania kolejnych umów na czas określony – gdy w wewnętrznym porządku prawnym nie istnieje żaden inny skuteczny środek pozwalający na osiągnięcie tego celu – stanowią naruszenie prawa UE. Stwierdził także, że obowiązek posiadania misji kanonicznej nie stanowi przesłanki znoszącej zakaz dyskryminacji pracowniczej. Glosowane orzeczenie stanowi jedną z wielu spraw dotyczących nadużyć praw pracowniczych we włoskim sektorze publicznym, w którym to obszarze TSUE zasadniczo kontynuuje dotychczasową linię orzeczniczą. Novum w komentowanej sprawie stanowi wykładnia zakazu dyskryminacji ze względu na religię w dostępie do zatrudnienia i pracy. Wbrew wykładni dokonanej przez sąd krajowy, TSUE nie potwierdził istnienia bezpośredniej dyskryminacji ze względu na religię, która jest zakazana na mocy dyrektywy 2000/78 i art. 21 Karty praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Wydaje się, że wyjątkowo wyważone i wstrzemięźliwe stanowisko TSUE wynika z chęci zachowania możliwie szerokiej neutralności w obszarze ściśle związanym z pozycją prawną kościołów i innych wspólnot religijnych, której kształtowanie pozostaje w wyłącznej kompetencji państw członkowskich, zgodnie z art. 17 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. This commentary analyzes the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case C-282/19, YT and Others v. MIUR and Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Campania, issued 13 January 2022. The referring court made a request for a preliminary ruling, questioning the compliance of Italian law with EU law. The infringement of EU law was allegedly due to the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts and lack of effective measures to prevent discrimination of Italian Catholic religion teachers on the grounds of religion. When interpreting the law, the Court of Justice confirmed that the national norms excluding Catholic religion teachers in public education establishments from the scope of the provisions intended to penalise abuse of successive fixed-term contracts – where there is no other effective measure in the domestic legal system – constitute a breach of EU law. The Court also stated that the obligation to hold missio canonica cannot constitute an objective reason precluding the prohibition of employment discrimination. The commented judgment is one of many cases concerning the abuse of workers’ rights in the Italian public sector, in which the Court basically continues the previous line of jurisprudence. A novelty in the commented case is the interpretation of the prohibition of discrimination based on religion in employment and occupation. Contrary to the interpretation made by the national court, the Court of Justice did not confirm direct discrimination based on religion, which is prohibited under Directive 2000/78 and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The extremely balanced and restrained position of the Court seems to result from the desire to maintain the broadest possible neutrality in the area closely related to the status of churches and other religious communities, which remains within the exclusive competence of member states, as established by Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union.
  • Item
  • Item
    The European Citizens’ Initiative Reform: Does it Matter?
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2020) Parol, Agnieszka
    The reform of the entered into force at the beginning of 2020. The changes are intended to popularize and to give effect to the ECI, especially through the strengthening of the position of this tool as an instrument of e-democracy and the reinforcing of the principle of subsidiarity and the model of multi-level governance. The reform is a step in the right direction, however, it is rather unlikely that it could boost the ECI as an instrument of indirect legislative initiative, which so far has had little impact. The sheer scale of this issue can be illustrated by the juxtaposition of the over seventy registered ECIs with the merely two initiatives in which the EC decided to follow up with legislative proposals. Such a situation results from the fact that the ECI is treated as a subsidiary tool to the instruments of representative democracy, generally accepted as the basis of the system. This is also the effect of the way the quasi-monopoly of the European Commission in the area of legislative initiative is interpreted. In consequence, the effectiveness of the ECI is currently perceived through the prism of collecting over one million signatures and conducting noncommittal dialogue. Nevertheless, in this context it should be remembered that the most effective form of encouraging the civil society to participate in political activity is to reinforce its agency. Indeed, increasing the impact of the ECI on decision-making processes is not dependent on potential changes in primary or secondary law. The change of attitude will suffice. Indeed, an increased number of legislative proposals stemming from the ECIs might be the result of a change in EU political culture and a greater respect for democratic rules.
  • Item
    The European Citizens’ Initiative “One of us”. A Gloss to the Judgment of the CJEU of 19 December 2019 in Case C-41818 P. Puppinck and Others v. Commission
    (Wydawnictwo KUL, 2024) Parol, Agnieszka
    In December 2019, the Court of Justice issued a judgment in Case C-418/18 P. Puppinck and Others v. European Commission, ending a long-standing dispute between the organizers of the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us” and the EuropeanCommission. Ruling in the appeal proceedings, the CJEU dismissed in its entirety the application to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 23 April 2018 in case T 561/14 One of Us and Others v. Commission. The “One of Us” organizing committee requested the repeal of the European Commission’s communication following the public initiative on the grounds that it lacked follow-up. The aim of the “One of Us” initiative was to strengthen the protection of dignity, the right to life and the integrity of every human being from conception in the EU’s areas of competence. The initiative proposed amendments to three legislative acts on research, humanitarian cooperation and their funding. The judgment under discussion is important for the interpretation of EU law in two areas. First, this is the first judgment that interprets the systemic position of the European Citizens’ Initiative in such a comprehensive manner. The case confirms that the ECI is an autonomous institution of EU law, whose systemic position is shaped by the principle of institutional balance and participatory democracy. The ECI is a form of emanation of deliberative democracy. Second, the judgment may be considered as confirming the exclusive competence of the Member States in the area of protecting human life at the prenatal stage. On the one hand, this means that EU law cannot impose its own standards on the right to life on Member States. On the other hand, in the area of its competences, it seems that the EU can have its own ethical position, allowing, while respecting the triple lock system, research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells and financing abortions as part of the package of medical assistance offered to the developing countries.