From here
chflyer wrote:
Unfortunately, most/all on this forum don’t have the deep pockets to fight the AoE requirement and those with them aren’t here and just pay the price.
Yes, that is the injustice in such cases, that it takes lots of moneys to pay lawyers to fight this through, when it should be a question of informing the EU that a country is not conforming to their standards via an ombudsman or something like that and they sort it out. Hence my remark that the EU often is a toothless tiger when it comes to such stuff. The only thing such countries understand is if the EU decides to put subsidies on hold until they get their act cleaned up. Money again.
question of informing the EU that a country is not conforming to their standards via an ombudsman or something like that and they sort it out
Brussels couldn’t care less. This kind of stuff is way below their radar horizon.
Right now they are busy legislating mandatory USB-C, on all portable devices IIRC 
Peter wrote:
Brussels couldn’t care less. This kind of stuff is way below their radar horizon.
One wonders what is actually above their level of concience.
Peter wrote:
Right now they are busy legislating mandatory USB-C, on all portable devices IIRC
YES.
(And I actually have to admit that when my wife brought back her new company Ipad and it had USB-C I was stumped but happy. Micro USB was a disaster, lightning, if you must, but USB-C appears to just work fine. You can stick it both ways and it still charges and the EU has just reduced the amount of spaghetti cabling in our kitchen by 4/6ths. And me who can’t find back the charger for my favorite photo cam because that standard of plug has gone out of fashion about 10 years ago, I am just happy that in 10 years I’ll still be able to hook up my current stuff. )
There are certain regulations which are EU law and need to be applied across all EU countries otherwise the EU should and will take action.
But action also needs agreement across the board..Eg.witholding funds.
However not all EU law is applied in the same way across all countries. In many cases, where unanimity cannot be reached but perhaps a majority can, the overriding principle is set in EU law to be applied across the board but how to apply that law becomes a delegated law.
Each country’s parliament, therefore, introduces into it’s own law the basic principle law and then adds to that its method of achieving that principle ie the part which has been delegated to them.
Eventually, all countries and the EU Parliament might reach unanimity and the rewritten law will be enforced (eventually) across all member states.
If it sounds very much like a veto that’s because it is. But the veto meant nothing could be done. This quasi veto allows for compromise otherwise no laws would be passed across all member states.
Airports (or the majority of services an airport is expected to provide and how) is delegated law.
That doesn’t mean that the airport owner is going to apply the total of the law if it doesn’t suit him/her. It is then up to country or even local government to take action on that part that is delegated law and not the EU.
Customs is a prime example of that as I found out when I tried to get answers to questions on this forum for a different thread.🙃
But this is not just EU. The USA has similar dividing lines between States and between what is federal law and what is state law.
What chance does the EU have and still maintain sovereign states?
gallois wrote:
However not all EU law is applied in the same way across all countries. In many cases, where unanimity cannot be reached but perhaps a majority can, the overriding principle is set in EU law to be applied across the board but how to apply that law becomes a delegated law.
Each country’s parliament, therefore, introduces into it’s own law the basic principle law and then adds to that its method of achieving that principle ie the part which has been delegated to them.
Eventually, all countries and the EU Parliament might reach unanimity and the rewritten law will be enforced (eventually) across all member states.
If it sounds very much like a veto that’s because it is. But the veto meant nothing could be done. This quasi veto allows for compromise otherwise no laws would be passed across all member states.
Airports (or the majority of services an airport is expected to provide and how) is delegated law.
By “delegated law”, do you mean directives? What rules for airports are directives? Customs rules are regulations and not directives. So are all EASA regs.
No I do not mean directives. If you look through many EU laws there is often a section which comes under “delegated law”. IIRC when I researched the laws regarding customs from a Schengen but non EU country many of the laws pointed to by posters were in fact “delegated law”.
Which is why Sweden handles it in a different way to France and that is different to Germany.
At present much of customs law (not the base law) is a delegated law until it is revisited in 2025.
In 2025 a new IT systems covering things like trusted trader schemes and goods from Switzerland into the EU is supposed to come into being. Then there will be no need for the current delegated laws. In the EU library these laws IIUC carry the same number as the base law but have a section within it marked delegated law.
It all got very complicated, including when it was explained by a customs administrator and by someone at the EU commission. I switched off when they started spouting EU law numbers and the numbers they became under French law.
gallois wrote:
No I do not mean directives. If you look through many EU laws there is often a section which comes under “delegated law”. IIRC when I researched the laws regarding customs from a Schengen but non EU country many of the laws pointed to by posters were in fact “delegated law”.
Which is why Sweden handles it in a different way to France and that is different to Germany.
You learn something new every day. But when I read up on delegated acts, it says the delegation is to the European Commission, not to the individual member states.
This is the definition I was referred to for a “Delegated Act”
This legally binding act of the European Union establishes a set of objectives which all member states of the European Union must fulfil. The member states are free to choose the manner they see fit to fulfil the required objectives.
gallois wrote:
Customs is a prime example of that as I found out when I tried to get answers to questions on this forum for a different thread.
So if I understand you correctly, any EU country has the right to impose customs checks onto goods entering through fellow memberstates despite the fact that the EU exlicitly is a customs union?
gallois wrote:
This legally binding act of the European Union establishes a set of objectives which all member states of the European Union must fulfil. The member states are free to choose the manner they see fit to fulfil the required objectives.
I am no lawyer but to me this is a contradiction.
So in theory, each Eu state could re-invent customs check at every single border and demand that e.g. people pass through customs airports or even customs check points without violating the customs union? So the Customs Union only hinders them to actually levy import taxes but not free circulation per se?
What Greece does is claim that due to their local laws, any AIRPLANES (and boats I believe) must enter the country via an official customs airport, regardless of their nationality, registration or right of free circulation within the EU. To me that is a violation of the customs union,but if they are allowed to do this as delegated law, then who is hindering anti EU governments within the EU to do similar stuff?
gallois wrote:
The USA has similar dividing lines between States and between what is federal law and what is state law.
They sure do but I’ve never heard of any state in the US which demands interstate travel to pass through designated airports of entry. I think if they tried that, they would be shot down really fast.
gallois wrote:
This is the definition I was referred to for a “Delegated Act”
This legally binding act of the European Union establishes a set of objectives which all member states of the European Union must fulfil. The member states are free to choose the manner they see fit to fulfil the required objectives.
No. Maybe something is getting lost in translation from French to English.
In English, what you describe is a directive, but that is also “une directive” in French.
In English, a Delegated Act (acte délégué) or Implementing Act (acte d’exécution) is when a EU Regulation gives the power to the Commission to make additional binding legislation with clearly defined limits. Exactly like a national law may empower the national government, or a specific minister, to make a decree to legislate within clearly defined limits. E.g. the delegated act / ministerial decree may set/change a specific numeric threshold that the law established, or establish specific rules or a specific administrative process to get a right that the regulation/law gives or fulfil an obligation that the regulation/law creates.
More broadly, and more applicable to us, the EASA regulatory framework is made of a “basic regulation” passed by the legislator (EU Parliament and Council jointly by codecision) which empowers the commission to very broadly set the rules for aircrew licensing, airworthiness, maintenance, etc and the commission does that with “delegated acts” such as e.g. the ones that establishes Part-FCL, Part-ORO, etc.
I here gloss over the difference between Delegated Act and Implementing Act.
