Normativity, Fundamental Rights and Legal Ordre in the EU

The current volume gathers the content of the first conferences, circumscribing to important concepts of the theory and practice of the EU construction: normativity, fundamental rights or legal order. Of course the reader's thorough analysis when studying the current volume will get us close or far away from the three concepts, already stated. Thus, the first topic „La Régulation, une forme moderne de la normativité?" of Professor Gérard Timsit debates, from doctrine view, the specific difference between «régulation» and «réglementation», taking into consideration „the crisis of traditional normativity" developing towards „a new social normativity". Considering the societies' complexity, the author identifies another crisis of „the deficit of legitimacy", leading to „the deficit of societies' complexity and their governance systems". Professor Timsit, whose work substantiates the programmes on theory and science of administration within the framework of NSPSPA, reveals the necessity of new changes in view of better understanding the complexity: transforming the bureaucratic state into a strategic state, thus triggering a reshaped administration, able to deal the society's empirical realities in times of crisis or disaster. The issues specific for the transformations of the European institutions after the Lisbon Treaty are approached by Professor Jean Paul Jacqué, who insists on „strengthening the effectiveness of the EU institutional system" through the democratisation of law-making within the Council, enlargement of the scope of the co-decision procedure etc. The comparative analysis between the provisions of the former EU Constitution and those of Lisbon Treaty emphasises the necessity of national parliaments' participation and promotion of participative democracy in view of democratization of law-making within the Council. In the conclusions of the conference, the author presents „the open democratic space that has to be occupied by political actors and citizens", which should abandon the traditional behaviour in the European elections, insisting on relevant matters concerning the competences and contents of the EU policies. The perspective opened by Lisbon Treaty on fundamental rights protection in the European Union provides for the first time a mandatory set of fundamental rights. Corroborating this fact with the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, common questions emerge, finding an answer in Professor Helena Raulus's conference. The questions refer to the meaning of that new fundamental rights system for the Union or Member States as well as to the EU role in strengthening the fundamental human rights and creating a new mechanism for monitoring the human rights infringement by the Member States. A final conclusion, quite interesting for the debated topic refers to the fact that in the emphasised context, the Union does not gain any new competences or tasks on human rights protection and the provisions of the Charter are mainly directed to the Union institutions and to the Member States only when they are acting within the scope of the Union law. Matteo Gnes's conference tries to address other question: „European legal integration: new possibilities for EU and non-EU citizens?" Based on a broad range of relevant cases, Centros, Akrich or Polish plumber, the conclusion of the conference refers to the phenomena due to the convergence of market forces and legal principles embodied in the principles of free movement. Even if some of those phenomena may foster Euro sceptic attitudes, the final conclusion is: „European integration is an extremely positive central aspect of everyday life of every European citizen". In addition to the topics on fundamental rights and freedoms, it emerges the issue of the public contracts in the European law. The debate with legal and economic features, presented by Professor Pierre Nihoul is structured on the principles of competition, transparency and neutrality and it highlights the necessity to take into consideration the social, environmental, ethic and fair concerns on the public markets. In this context, however, it is worth to mention a conclusion. It refers, on one hand, to the fact that the opportunities provided by the legal texts remain limited and, on the other hand, the exercise of public powers does not sufficiently reflect the development of the legal debate. The contents of the other two conferences are complementary, being focused on the EU democratic legal order, respectively the European judiciary. The most important issues addressed by Professor Bertrand Mathiew in his conference refer to the legitimacy of the European legal order and to the interrogation on: „European Parliament, a representation of the European citizens?' We also find the response to those topics or questions in the second part of the presentation concerning the European Parliament which is considered an institution participating in the democratic functioning of the European Union; thus it becomes „an instrument of embryo for separation of powers", and its representative function is challenged by other forms of democratic expression. Professor Thomas Oppermann presents his arguments and the structures triggering the European judiciary. As a cross-national democracy observing the rule of law, the EU needs an independent judiciary system - the third power, the constitutive Treaties legitimate the fact that the EU is a „Union of law", interpreting and enforcing the European law. The European legislation is mandatory in all Member States.