| General note |
It includes Index Pages.<br/><br/>Description<br/><br/>In this book, legal scholars from the EU Member States (with the addition of the UK) analyse the development of the EU Member States' attitudes to economic, fiscal, and monetary integration since the Treaty of Maastricht.<br/><br/>The Eurozone crisis corroborated the warnings of economists that weak economic policy coordination and loose fiscal oversight would be insufficient to stabilise the monetary union. The country studies in this book investigate the legal, and in particular the constitutional, pre-conditions for deeper fiscal and monetary integration that influenced the past and might impact on the future positions in the (now) 27 EU Member States.<br/><br/>The individual country studies address the following issues:<br/>- Main characteristics of the national constitutional system, and constitutional culture;<br/>- Constitutional foundations of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) membership and related instruments;<br/>- Constitutional obstacles to EMU integration;<br/>- Constitutional rules and/or practice on implementing EMU-related law; and<br/>- The resulting relationship between EMU-related law and national law<br/><br/>Offering a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the legal and constitutional developments concerning the Economic and Monetary Union since the Treaty of Maastricht, this book provides not only a study of legal EMU-related measures and reforms at the EU level, but most importantly sheds light on their perception in the EU Member States.<br/><br/>Table of Contents<br/><br/>1. Analytical Report on the Legal Background of Member States' Positions towards Economic and Fiscal Integration<br/>Stefan Griller, University of Salzburg, Austria<br/>2. EMU Integration against the Backdrop of EU Law and Jurisprudence<br/>Elisabeth Lentsch, formerly of Horizon 2020 Project<br/>3. Bulgaria: EMU Integration and the Bulgarian Constitution: 'Missing Constitution' or EU Friendliness and Open Statehood Masquerading Implicit Sovereigntist Strategies in the Context of Multilevel Constitutional Games?<br/>Martin Belov, St Kliment Ochridski University of Sofia, Bulgaria<br/>4. EMU Integration and the Czech Constitution: Doctrinal Openness and Political Reluctance<br/>Tomaš Dumbrovsky, Charles University Prague, Czech Republic<br/>5. Denmark<br/>Ulla Neergaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark<br/>6. Germany<br/>Stefan Korioth, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Germany, and Jonas Marx, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Germany<br/>7. Estonia<br/>Andres Tupits, Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia<br/>8. Ireland<br/>Gavin Barrett, University College Dublin, Ireland<br/>9. Greece: Further EMU Steps Require a Democratic Eurozone Architecture<br/>Lina Papadopoulou, Aristotle University, Salonica, Greece<br/>10. Spain: The Impact of the EMU on the Spanish Constitution Following the Euro Crisis: A Stress Test for the Europeanisation of the Constitutional Order<br/>Diane Fromage, University of Maastricht, the Netherlands, Maribel Gonzalez Pascual, Secretary of State for Territorial Policy of the Spanish Government, Madrid, Spain, Joan Solanes Mullor, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Aida Torres Perez, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain<br/>11. France: The Paradox of Constitutional Adaptability in a Member State Running Budget Excessive Deficits<br/>Laetitia Guilloud-Colliat, Université Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France and Fabien Terpan, Science Po Grenoble, France<br/>12. Croatia<br/>Tamara Capeta, University of Zagreb, Croatia and Iris Goldner Lang, University of Zagreb, Croatia<br/>13. Italy<br/>Monica Bonini, Bicocca University, Milan, Italy, and Stefania Ninatti, Department of Bicocca University, Milan, Italy<br/>14. Cyprus<br/>Nikos Skoutaris, University of East Anglia, UK<br/>15. Latvia<br/>Dita Plepa, Riga Stradinš University, Riga, Latvia<br/>16. Lithuania<br/>Irmantas Jarukaitis, Court of Justice of the EU in Luxembourg<br/>17. Luxembourg<br/>Jorg Gerkrath, University of Luxembourg<br/>18. Hungary<br/>Attila Vincze, Andrássy University Budapest, Hungary, Pal Sonnevend, Eötvös Lórant University ELTE in Budapest, Hungary and Andras Jakab, University of Salzburg, Austria<br/>19. Malta: The Assimilation of the EU's Economic, Fiscal and Monetary Governance Acquis in the Maltese Legal Framework<br/>Joseph Bugeja, Gauci-Maistre Xynou in La Valetta, Malta<br/>20. The Netherlands<br/>Jan-Herman Reestman, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Monica Claes, Maastricht University, the Netherlands<br/>21. Austria<br/>Rainer Palmstorfer, University of Salzburg, Austria<br/>22. Poland<br/>Dariusz Adamski, University of Wroclaw, Poland<br/>23. Portugal<br/>Ana Maria Guerra Martins, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France and Joana de Sousa Loureiro, Centre for Judicial Studies in Lisbon, Portugal<br/>24. Romania<br/>Dr Mihaela Vrabie, University of Bucharest, Romania<br/>25. Slovakia: (Seemingly) No Legal Obstacles to Deepening EMU Integration<br/>Robert Zbiral, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic<br/>26. Slovenia<br/>Matej Avbelj, Graduate School of Government and European Studies at Kranj, Slovenia and Erazem Bohinc, Higher Court in Ljubljana, Slovenia<br/>27. Finland<br/>Tuomas Ojanen, University of Helsinki, Finland<br/>28. Sweden<br/>Joakim Nergelius, Örebro University, Sweden and Eleonor Kristoffersson, Örebro University, Sweden<br/>29. United Kingdom<br/>Paul Craig, University of Oxford, UK <br/> |
