Éditorial 593 Philae ou un peu de rêve européen par Florence Chaltiel Liberté de circulation 596 La liberté de circulation des citoyens européens sédentaires à l’aune de la Charte post- Lisbonne par Hélène Pongérard- Payet Droit pénal 612 Quelle( s) place( s) pour la directive « droit à l’information dans les procédures pénales » ? par Marie- Eve Morin 621 Quelle protection par le biais des directives : le droit national protégé contre la protection du droit des personnes par Elena Pacea 626 Directive UE no 2012/ 29 établissant des normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité : aperçu et critique par Richard Lang et Eveline Schenkel Budget 632 Les innovations des procédures budgétaires de l’Union européenne – Onzième partie : le budget de l’Union pour 2014 – La première année du nouveau cadre financier pluriannuel pour 2014- 2020 I. L’environnement budgétaire en 2013 par Ilkka Saarilahti Chronique 641 Chronique des marchés publics – Jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’UE par Christophe Bernard- Glanz, Laure Levi et Stéphane Rodrigues Note de lecture 663 Une jeunesse européenne, de Guillaume Klossa par Florence Chaltiel THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF SEDENTARY EUROPEAN CITIZENS UNDER THE POST- LISBON CHARTER par Hélène Pongérard- Payet p. 596 With a limited scope, the post- Lisbon charter did not contribute much to the emerging of the crite-rion of « deprivation of the effective enjoyment of the main rights granted by the status of citizen of the Union » , a criterion that is revolutionary in theory, but with limited practical efficiency. Can it generate a new boost to the prohibition by Union law of reverse discriminations affecting se-dentary citizens and their families ? Why, when faced with such a situation, do domestic judges often have to apply article 8 § 1 of the EDH agree-ment, and not article 7 of the Charter ? Should the status of European citizen combined with the principle of non- discrimination not be enough, regardless of mobility, to link the situation to Union law and result in the application of the Charter and the end of such discrimination ? WHAT PLACE FOR THE « RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS » DIRECTIVE ? par Marie- Eve Morin p. 612 As it intensifies the relationships between domes-tic and European orders, and comes on top of an already dense legal system in domestic law and in European law, and makes more complicated the implementation of protection mechanisms, the initiation of the reconciliation of procedural gua-rantees by the Union legitimately questions its use and its scope for interested parties, for the crimi-nal system of the Union and that of member countries. In that framework, the passing of the right to information in criminal proceedings « di-rective offers a convenient support. How does it integrate into a policy based on judiciary coope-ration and principle of mutual recognition of court rulings and decisions ? What changes will be or should be made to the criminal proceedings code ? Lastly, by granting rights to the sole bene-ficiaries of the direct effect of directives, what is its gain in value for the accused in criminal pro-ceedings ? WHAT PROTECTION THROUGH DIRECTIVES : DOMESTIC LAW PROTECTED AGAINST PEOPLE LAW PROTECTION par Elena Pacea p. 621 Victims’ rights protection in the territory of the European Union is reinforced, at least quantitati-vely, through a new directive, whose transposi-tion transposi-tion deadline is January 11, 2015. It is Directive EU n ° 201 / 99 of the European parliament and Council dated December 13, relating to the Euro-pean protection decision. However, the signifi-cant references to domestic law regarding regu-lations, and the definition or taking of some mea-sures that are necessary to pass the decision of European protection could limit its effectiveness. In the same time, on top of victim right protec-tion, there is the requirement of respecting the rights of the accused. Thus the mentioned direc-tive translates an older problem which consists in the inevitable conflict of jurisdiction between the national authorities of the various member coun-tries and respect for the non bis in idem princi-ple. EU DIRECTIVE N ° 2012 / 29 ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS REGARDING THE RIGHTS, SUPPORT AND PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME : OVERVIEW AND CRITICISM par Richard Lang et Eveline Schenkel p. 626 This article reviews EU directive n ° 2012 / 29 of the European Union that establishes minimum standards regarding the rights, support and pro-tection of victims of crime, officially passed on October 25, 2012 ; member countries now have until 2015 to transpose the directive into their na-tional legislation. In the first section of the article, we attempt to give an overview of the directive so as to identify the new rights that have come into force ( or former reinforce ones) for victims of crime, and simultaneously, identify the new du-ties that the directive requires from the police and victim support and aid services. We will the focus on a criticism of article 22, which provides for specific rights for victims referred to as vulnera-ble, or according to the final text of the directive, victims with specific protection needs. THE INNOVATIONS OF THE BUDGET PROCEDURES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ELEVENTH PART : THE UNION’S BUDGET FOR 2014 – THE FIRST YEAR OF THE NEW MULTI- ANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK FOR 2014- 2020 – 1. THE BUDGET ENVIRONMENT IN 2013 par Ilkka Saarilahti p. 632 The 2014 budget procedure is only the second budget procedure of the European Union ( EU) during which the budget conciliation procedure introduced by the Lisbon treaty was successfully completed. That budget procedure was difficult, mainly because of the lack of available payment funds to be able to address all payment requests received by the Commission, but also due, inter alia, to uncertainties as to the date of signing and to the contents of the agreement regarding the new multi- annual financial framework for 2014- 2020 ( hereinafter the CFP), following the agree-ment in the European council meeting dated Fe-bruary 7 and 8, 2013. Indeed, the European par-liament ( EP), the Council and the Commission did not reach – after lengthy negotiations – an agree-ment on the Council regulations setting the CFP and on the new inter- institutional agreement ac-companying it before the end of 2013. The uncer-tainty not only prompted the Commission to post-pone the date for introducing its budget bill ( PB) for 2014, but also impacted the contents of the budget negotiation in 2013. PUBLIC CONTRACT CHRONICLE — CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION – JANUARY 1, 2013 – DECEMBER 31, 2013 par Christophe Bernard- Glanz, p. 641 Laure Levi et Stéphane Rodrigues The year 2013 was mainly marked by intense le-gislative activity by the European Union regar-ding public contracts. Thus, there was the end of the negotiations at the Council and European par-liament for the passing of the three new directives covering respectively contacts in sectors referred to as special ( water, energy, transport and postal services), on the signing of public contracts in ge-neral and on the awarding of concession contracts, as well as the passing of new applica-tion thresholds for contract awarding procedures as at January 1, 2014, while the Commission pre-sented in June 2013, a draft directive relating to electronic billing in the framework of public contracts and negotiation went on on the draft re-gulation regarding the access of products and ser-vices from third countries to the domestic market of public contracts in the Union and setting up procedures aimed at facilitating the negotiations relating to the access of products and services ori-ginating from the Union to public contracts in third countries. That regulatory activity somew-hat contrasts with the case law developments that are in line rather with the continuity or confirma-tion of previous case law, like for instance, the one relating to the exception referred to as public- pu-blic ( or horizontal) cooperation for the purpose of an common public interest mission or the one re-lating to the duty of motivation by the awarding authority if an offer is rejected. Attention should be lent however to some relatively unprecedented interpretations, such as the one relating to the concept of direct subsidising of a contract.
