DOCSLIB.ORG

Flash Reports on Labour Law June 2020 Summary and Country Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flash Reports on Labour Law June 2020 Summary and Country Reports Flash Reports on Labour Law June 2020 Summary and country reports Written by The European Centre of Expertise (ECE), based on reports submitted by the Network of Labour Law Experts June 2020 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Contact: Marie LAGUARRIGUE E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Flash Report 06/2020 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person/organisation acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of any information contained in this publication. This publication has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" (2014-2020). For further information please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2020 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 06/2020 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Ulla Liukkunen France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Tamás Gyulavári Iceland Leifur Gunnarsson Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Hanneke Bennaars Suzanne Kali Norway Marianne Jenum Hotvedt Alexander Næss Skjønberg Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Barbara Kresal Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Flash Report 06/2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1 Austria ............................................................................................................. 8 1 National Legislation .................................................................................... 8 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................. 9 3 Implications of Rulings of the CJEU and the ECHR ..........................................11 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................12 Belgium ...........................................................................................................13 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................13 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................15 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................15 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................17 Bulgaria ..........................................................................................................18 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................18 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................18 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................18 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................19 Croatia ............................................................................................................20 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................20 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................21 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................21 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................23 Cyprus ............................................................................................................24 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................24 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................25 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................25 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................26 Czech Republic .................................................................................................31 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................31 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................33 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................35 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................37 Denmark .........................................................................................................38 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................38 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................39 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................39 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................42 Estonia ............................................................................................................43 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................43 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................43 Flash Report 06/2020 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................43 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................44 Finland ............................................................................................................45 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................45 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................45 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................46 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................47 France .............................................................................................................48 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................48 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................53 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................58 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................60 Germany .........................................................................................................61 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................61 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................62 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................63 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................65 Greece ............................................................................................................66 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................66 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................66 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................66 4 Other Relevant Information ........................................................................67 Hungary ..........................................................................................................68 1 National Legislation ...................................................................................68 2 Court Rulings ............................................................................................68 3 Implications of CJEU Rulings and ECHR ........................................................68 4 Other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Rule of Law Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators
    Sustainable Governance Indicators SGI 2014 Rule of Law Report Legal Certainty, Judicial Review, Appointment of Justices, Corruption Prevention SGI 2014 | 2 Rule of Law Report Indicator Legal Certainty Question To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty. 8-6 = Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration. 5-3 = Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory. 2-1 = Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other. Estonia Score 10 The rule of law is fundamental to Estonian government and administration. In the period of transition from communism to liberal democracy, most of the legal acts and regulations had to be amended or introduced for the first time. Joining the European Union in 2004 caused another major wave of legal reforms. These fast and radical changes, which occurred in a short timespan, caused some inconsistencies and unexpected legal amendments (for example the increase of the VAT in 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • No. 2138 BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS
    No. 2138 BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWEDEN and SWITZERLAND International Convention to facilitate the crossing of fron tiers for passengers and baggage carried by rail (with annex). Signed at Geneva, on 10 January 1952 Official texts: English and French. Registered ex officio on 1 April 1953. BELGIQUE, FRANCE, ITALIE, LUXEMBOURG, NORVÈGE, PAYS-BAS, SUÈDE et SUISSE Convention internationale pour faciliter le franchissement des frontières aux voyageurs et aux bagages transportés par voie ferrée (avec annexe). Signée à Genève, le 10 janvier 1952 Textes officiels anglais et français. Enregistrée d'office le l* r avril 1953. 4 United Nations — Treaty Series 1953 No. 2138. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION1 TO FACILI TATE THE CROSSING OF FRONTIERS FOR PASSEN GERS AND BAGGAGE CARRIED BY RAIL. SIGNED AT GENEVA, ON 10 JANUARY 1952 The undersigned, duly authorized, Meeting at Geneva, under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe, For the purpose of facilitating the crossing of frontiers for passengers carried by rail, Have agreed as follows : CHAPTER I ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF FRONTIER STATIONS WHERE EXAMINATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE TWO ADJOINING COUNTRIES Article 1 1. On every railway line carrying a considerable volume of international traffic, which crosses the frontier between two adjoining countries, the competent authorities of those countries shall, wherever examination cannot be satisfactorily carried out while the trains are in motion, jointly examine the possibility of designating by agreement a station close to the frontier, at which shall be carried out the examinations required under the legislation of the two countries in respect of the entry and exit of passengers and their baggage.
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice, 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 17 Article 3 Number 2 Winter 1994 1-1-1994 Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self- Determination at the International Court of Justice Gerry J. Simpson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerry J. Simpson, Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice, 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 323 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol17/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice By Gerry J. Simpson* Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................ 324 1E. Some Preliminary Remarks about the Case ............. 327 III. International Politics and the International Court: A Functional Dilemma .................................... 329 IV. Substantive Questions of Law .......................... 332 A. The Existence of a Right to Self-Determination...... 333 B. Beneficiaries of the Right to Self-Determination ..... 334 1. Indonesia's TerritorialIntegrity and the Principle of Uti Posseditis................................. 339 2. Enclaves in InternationalLaw .................. 342 3. Historical Ties .................................. 342 C. The Duties of Third Parties Toward Peoples Claiming a Right to Self-Determination ............. 343 V. Conclusion .............................................. 347 * Lecturer in International Law and Human Rights Law, Law Faculty, Univcrity of Melbourne, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by SJ at Hungary National Day Reception (English Only)
    Speech of Ms Teresa Cheng, SC Secretary for Justice Hungary National Day Reception 6 November 2019 (Wednesday) Consul General (Dr Pál Kertész), ladies and gentlemen, Good evening. It’s my pleasure to join you all this evening to celebrate the National Day of Hungary. On behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, may I extend to you, Consul General, and the people of Hungary, our warmest congratulations on your Day of Freedom. Hungary’s Rapid Growth 2. Hungary today is one of the European Union’s leading economies in GDP growth. The Hungarian Government’s commendable efforts in driving its growth momentum are internationally recognised. International Monetary Fund recently commented last month that “Hungary’s growth has continued to exceed expectations” and that “its economy is now running above capacity”. Ties between Hungary and China 3. As mentioned by the Consul General earlier, this year marks the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Hungary and China. With President Xi visiting Hungary last November and Hungarian Prime Minister Orban visiting Mainland China this April, the bilateral relations between the two nations will grow stronger and create limitless opportunities for businesses and people of both sides. 4. Indeed, Hungary has been a frontrunner in our national Belt and Road Initiative, being the first European country to sign a relevant Memorandum of Understanding 2 in 2015. Followed by the upgrade of Hungary-China relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership in 2017, the bonds between the two countries are envisaged to grow closer and closer on various fronts. Further Co-operation between Hungary and Hong Kong 5.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 1168 BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, IRELAND, ITALY
    No. 1168 BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, IRELAND, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWEDEN and UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Statute of the Council of Europe. Signed at London, on 5 May 1949 Official texts: English and French. Registered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on U April 1951. BELGIQUE, DANEMARK, FRANCE, IRLANDE, ITALIE, LUXEMBOURG, NORVÈGE, PAYS-BAS, ROYAUME-UNI DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD et SUÈDE Statut du Conseil de l'Europe. Signé à Londres, le 5 mai 1949 Textes officiels anglais et fran ais. Enregistr par le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d* Irlande du Nord le II avril 1951. 104 United Nations Treaty Series 1951 No. 1168. STATUTE1 OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE. SIGNED AT LONDON, ON 5 MAY 1949 The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland : Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation; Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy; Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation of Ukrainian Law to EU Law
    Iryna Kravchuk Comparative Law Center at the Ministry of Justice. Basic Analysis. Approximation of Ukrainian Law to EU Law. Introduction. Following the declared European foreign policy vector, it is impossible, in fact, to avoid the process of adaptation in the internal legal policy of Ukraine. The approximation of Ukrainian law to the EU acquis communautaire is not only the instrument for deepening our economic cooperation with the European Union, but also the important measure to enhance further development of Ukraine in general. In the late 80-s, the Central and Eastern European countries voluntarily initiated the adaptation programs of their political, economic and legal orders to the ones of the European Community. It was unilateral initiative, without any legal obligations under international law. Hungary and Slovenia even before the Association Agreements had implemented the draft law examination procedures on its compliance with the EU legislation. Striving to pave its way to the European Union membership, Ukraine should initiate the adaptation process as soon as possible. Given basic analysis can not cover the full scope of adaptation problems, as a profound research paper can be written in any particular area. That is why I will try to point out the key problems of the implementation of state policy in this area and the ways of its improvement. We are not to forget the efficient successful experience of our neighbours, Poland and Slovakia, in their eurointegration aspirations, so the comparative method is used in analysis in order to enlighten the main tasks and challenges, which Ukraine could face on its way of adaptation.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg
    Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg EN Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg Published by : Ministère de l’Énergie Ministère de l’Environnement, du Climat et de l’Aménagement du territoire et du Développement Durable Authors : Paul Schosseler (MEA) | Christian Tock (MECO) | Paul Rasqué (MECDD) Contact : Ministère de l’Énergie et de l’Aménagement du territoire Département de l’énergie E-mail : [email protected] Publication: Luxembourg | February 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of figures 4 List of tables 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms 4 Foreword 6 1| Executive Summary 7 2| Introduction 9 2.1 Rationale 9 2.2 The circular economy in a nutshell 9 2.3 The opportunities for Luxembourg 11 2.4 Purpose of the strategy 13 3| The strategy 15 3.1 Definition of the CE in Luxembourg 15 3.2 Vision for a circular Luxembourg 18 3.3 Stakeholders 19 3.4 Circular tools and methods 19 3.5 Where do we stand today? 21 4| Governance 23 4.1 The key players and tools 23 4.2 The national CE coordination unit 24 4.3 The CE stakeholder consultation platform 25 4.4 The Internet portal ‘Circular Economy Luxembourg’ 25 5| Circular action item lists and roadmaps for Luxembourg 27 5.1 Methodology 27 5.2 Sectoral action item lists 29 5.2.1 Construction 29 5.2.2 Education & training 32 5.2.3 Finance 35 5.2.4 Food & biomaterials 37 5.2.5 Industry 41 5.2.6 Retail 43 6| Conclusions and Outlook 47 7| Appendices 49 Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg | 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The resource
    [Show full text]
  • USA -V- Julian Assange Judgment
    JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser In the Westminster Magistrates’ Court Between: THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Requesting State -v- JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE Requested Person INDEX Page A. Introduction 2 a. The Request 2 b. Procedural History (US) 3 c. Procedural History (UK) 4 B. The Conduct 5 a. Second Superseding Indictment 5 b. Alleged Conduct 9 c. The Evidence 15 C. Issues Raised 15 D. The US-UK Treaty 16 E. Initial Stages of the Extradition Hearing 25 a. Section 78(2) 25 b. Section 78(4) 26 I. Section 78(4)(a) 26 II. Section 78(4)(b) 26 i. Section 137(3)(a): The Conduct 27 ii. Section 137(3)(b): Dual Criminality 27 1 The first strand (count 2) 33 The second strand (counts 3-14,1,18) and Article 10 34 The third strand (counts 15-17, 1) and Article 10 43 The right to truth/ Necessity 50 iii. Section 137(3)(c): maximum sentence requirement 53 F. Bars to Extradition 53 a. Section 81 (Extraneous Considerations) 53 I. Section 81(a) 55 II. Section 81(b) 69 b. Section 82 (Passage of Time) 71 G. Human Rights 76 a. Article 6 84 b. Article 7 82 c. Article 10 88 H. Health – Section 91 92 a. Prison Conditions 93 I. Pre-Trial 93 II. Post-Trial 98 b. Psychiatric Evidence 101 I. The defence medical evidence 101 II. The US medical evidence 105 III. Findings on the medical evidence 108 c. The Turner Criteria 111 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuania Country Chapter
    EU Coalition Explorer Results of the EU28 Survey on coalition building in the European Union an initiative of Results for Lithuania © ECFR May 2017 Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Findings Lithuania Coalition Potential Preferences Policies Ranks 1 to 14 Top 3 for LT Ranks 15 to 28 Lithuania ranks overall #21 at Preferences Lithuania ranks #11 at ‘More Europe’ Top 3 for LT 1. Latvia 2. Estonia Country Findings 1. Latvia #11 3. CZ EL AT Austria #19 Q1 Most Contacted 2. Estonia Q14 Deeper Integration BE Belgium 3. Poland BG Bulgaria 1. Latvia Q16 Expert View Level of Decision-Making Q17 Public View HR Croatia #22 Q2 Shared Interests 2. Poland 3. Sweden CY Cyprus 63% 52% All EU member states 50% 46% CZ Czech Rep. 1. Latvia 13% 19% Legally bound core 14% 18% DK Denmark #22 Q3 Most Responsive 2. Sweden 17% 15% Coalition of states 14% 21% EE Estonia 3. Slovenia 7% 8% Only national level 22% 15% FI Finland LT EU EU LT FR France DE Germany EL Greece HU Hungary Partners Networks IE Ireland Lithuania ranks overall #20 at Partners Voting for IT Italy Top 3 for LT Latvia LV Lithuania Latvia 1. Latvia Top 8 for LT LT Lithuania #19 Q10 Foreign and Development Policy 2. Poland Poland LU Luxembourg 3. Sweden MT Malta Estonia 1. Latvia NL Netherlands #12 Q11 Security and Defense Policy 2. HR RO PL Poland 3. DK PL SE Sweden PT Portugal LT 1. Estonia RO Romania #21 Q12 Economic and Social Policy 2.
    [Show full text]
  • GUIDE to the CASE LAW of the European Court of Justice on Articles 49 Et Seq
    1 GUIDE TO THE CASE LAW Of the European Court of Justice on Articles 49 et seq. TFEU FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT European Commission 2 PREFACE The present guide forms part of a series of guides concerning the case law of the European Court of Justice. To date this series includes publications concerning Article 49 TFEU et seq. (Freedom of Establishment) and Article 56 TFEU et seq. (Freedom to Provide Services). A separate chapter in the guide concerning Article 56 TFEU is dedicated to the case law on Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market (Services Directive). The guides are produced and updated by the European Commission, Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate-General. This guide, which concerns Article 49 TFEU, aims to present the cases in a practical way by gathering together the essential passages of the cases, thus making it possible to find all the relevant parts of the judgement without having to consult the complete text of the case. The structure of the guide, following recent case law, provides an approach to Article 49 intended to help not only academics, but also practitioners directly involved in dealing with infringements. In the 2015 Single Market Strategy1 and the accompanying Staff Working Document2, the Commission states the intention to engage in a more active enforcement policy. In this respect, the guides, by presenting the relevant case law in an organised way, aim to provide clarity on the legal interpretations given by the Court of fundamental notions, on the proportionality analysis and on the correct application of fundamental freedoms of the Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • Going Against the Flow: Sinn Féin´S Unusual Hungarian `Roots´
    The International History Review, 2015 Vol. 37, No. 1, 41–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2013.879913 Going Against the Flow: Sinn Fein’s Unusual Hungarian ‘Roots’ David G. Haglund* and Umut Korkut Can states as well as non-state political ‘actors’ learn from the history of cognate entities elsewhere in time and space, and if so how and when does this policy knowledge get ‘transferred’ across international borders? This article deals with this question, addressing a short-lived Hungarian ‘tutorial’ that, during the early twentieth century, certain policy elites in Ireland imagined might have great applicability to the political transformation of the Emerald Isle, in effect ushering in an era of political autonomy from the United Kingdom, and doing so via a ‘third way’ that skirted both the Scylla of parliamentary formulations aimed at securing ‘home rule’ for Ireland and the Charybdis of revolutionary violence. In the political agenda of Sinn Fein during its first decade of existence, Hungary loomed as a desirable political model for Ireland, with the party’s leading intellectual, Arthur Griffith, insisting that the means by which Hungary had achieved autonomy within the Hapsburg Empire in 1867 could also serve as the means for securing Ireland’s own autonomy in the first decades of the twentieth century. This article explores what policy initiatives Arthur Griffith thought he saw in the Hungarian experience that were worthy of being ‘transferred’ to the Irish situation. Keywords: Ireland; Hungary; Sinn Fein; home rule; Ausgleich of 1867; policy transfer; Arthur Griffith I. Introduction: the Hungarian tutorial To those who have followed the fortunes and misfortunes of Sinn Fein in recent dec- ades, it must seem the strangest of all pairings, our linking of a party associated now- adays mainly, if not exclusively, with the Northern Ireland question to a small country in the centre of Europe, Hungary.
    [Show full text]