UPORABA IN UINKOVANJE DIREKTIV S PODROJA VARSTVA OKOLJA V UPRAVNIH IN SODNIH POSTOPKIH APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT OF DIRECTIVES FROM THE SPHERE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The article discusses the principles of direct effect, direct applicability and consistent interpretation, applied for EU directives on environmental protection. It further analyses why it is necessary to apply these principles ex ofcie by state authorities and courts. Environmental protection is mostly regulated with directives which, however, are designed to protect the environment in public interest. This characteristic inuences the understanding of direct effect, since the right of an individual is not in the forefront and hence questions the direct effect's applicability. Still, there is no signicant deviation from general rules on direct effect. Additionally, the author explains that the application of these principles is not only an obligation but often a welcome help as well.
Giving Effect to Public International Law and European Community Law before Domestic Courts. A Comparative Analysis of the Practice of Consistent Interpretation
This paper explores the differences between and the similarities of how domestic courts - mainly the Dutch - apply two distinct forms of non-domestic law: public international law and European Community law. The article focuses on the application of the principle that in both areas dominates practice: the principle that courts should, whenever possible, construe national law in conformity with, respectively, public international law and European Community law. The article systematically compares how courts employ this principle. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the relevant national case law and the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), it is argued that there is no fundamental divide between the application of public international law and EC law (despite the theoretically opposing starting points); differences in application are a matter of degree not of principle. The principle of consistent interpretation proves to be effective and of great practical importance in both areas and further testifies of the similarities in the impact of the two areas on domestic law.
History, criminology and the ‘use’ of the past
This article considers why, despite an apparent congruence of subject matter and methodologies, the disciplines of sociological criminology and criminal justice history are not more closely aligned. It contends that intellectual traffic between the two fields is not usually limited by institutional barriers, nor is it a legacy of the disciplinary antipathy which existed between history and sociology in Britain during the mid-twentieth century. Rather, it is due to the different ‘purposes’ with which sociological criminologists and criminal justice historians imbue their work and to the differing disciplinary perceptions of the relationship between the past, present and future which result from this. These different ‘purposes’ are traced via a consideration of the paths of development of the two disciplines from the 1940s. The article concludes by proposing an arena for future collaboration between criminal justice historians and sociological criminologists.