Legal aspects of statistical activity in the EU: projection on the EAEU

The Subject of research is the legal regulation of statistical activities in the European Union (the EU) and the Eurasian Economic Union (the EAEU) in the context of the organizational mechanism of statistical activities.

The purpose of research is the analysis of the main characteristics of organizational mechanisms of statistical activities, the prospects and problems of law enforcement in the field of statistical activity of integration associations.

The research methods include both theoretical (analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, analogy) and special legal methods of cognition (formal legal and comparative legal).

The main results and the scope of application. Provisions for implementation of organization of statistical activities are reflected in the primary treaties of both the EU and the EAEU. The both integration associations have similar principles lying on basis of regulation of statistical activities, including the organization of the mechanism of interaction between national competent authorities and supranational bodies of integration associations. However, regulation at the level of secondary law complements the norms of primary law and the principles to varying degrees.

In the framework of the legal support for statistical activities, the focus of the EAEU, in contrast to the EU, is on the development of legal instruments for its implementation due in particular to the fact that the EAEU covers much fewer spheres than the EU. At the same time, both the EU and the EAEU face problems of law enforcement which come from the lack of a unified reporting methodology, the desire of states to maintain sovereignty.

Nowadays statistical activities are carried out separately within the framework of sectoral legal acts, but the digitalization has a potential to bring a greater unification of the regulation of statistical activities within each of the integration associations.

1. Didier E. Do Statistics “Perform” the Economy?, in: MacKenzie D., Muniesa F., Leung-Sea S. (eds.). Do Economists Make Markets?, Princeton University Press, 2008, pp. 276–310. DOI: 10.1515/9780691214665-012.

2. Mussari R. EPSAS and the unification of public sector accounting across Europe. Accounting, Economics and Law, 2014, vol. 4, iss. 3, pp. 299–312. DOI: 10.1515/ael-2014-0019.

3. Kasyanov R.A. The EU Experience as a Model for the Development of a Single Financial Market Regulation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). European Company and Financial Law Review, 2019, vol. 16, iss. 5, pp. 592– 621. DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2019-0021.

4. Syrpis P. The relationship between primary and secondary law in the EU. Common Market Law Review, 2015, vol. 52, iss. 2, pp. 461–487. DOI: 10.54648/cola2015029.

5. Diyachenko E.B. Application of the EAEU law by national courts and development of judicial dialogue. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2022, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 244–260. DOI: 10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(4).244-260.

6. Evdokimov M.A. The Capital Markets Union: Legal Mechanism, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2022. 277 p. (In Russ.).

7. Sehnálek D. The European Perspective on the Notion of Precedent – are EU and Czech Court Decisions Source of Law?. European Studies - The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, 2020, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 125–153. DOI: 10.2478/eustu-2022-0050.

8. Krommendijk J. The highest Dutch courts and the preliminary ruling procedure: Critically obedient interlocutors of the Court of Justice. European Law Journal, 2019, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 394–415. DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12322.

9. Evdokimov M., Kas’yanov R. Legal Mechanism of EU Capital Markets Union: Will Free Capital Flow Provided?. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2023, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 221–244 DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2023.3.221.244. (In Russ.).

10. Vrabie M. Judicial Review of Administrative Action at National Level under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and General Principles of EU Law. Central European Public Administration Review, 2020, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 25– 49. DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2020.1.02.

11. Trondal J. Beyond the EU membership- non-membership dichotomy? Supranational identities among national EU decision-makers. Journal of European Public Policy, 2002, vol. 9, iss. 3, pp. 468–487. DOI: 10.1080/13501760210139722.

12. Blom-Hansen J. The origins of the EU comitology system: A case of informal agenda-setting by the Commission. Journal of European Public Policy, 2008, vol. 15, iss. 2, pp. 208–226. DOI: 10.1080/13501760701817716.

13. Fernández Pasarín A.M., Font N. Unveiling Inconsistency: Consensus and Contestation along the Council– Comitology Cycle of EU Policy-Making. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2022, vol. 60, iss. 2, pp. 427–444. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13244.

14. Kasyanov R., Kriger A. Towards single market in financial services: highlights of the EU and the EAEU financial markets regulation. Russian Law Journal, 2020, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 111–137.

15. Howarth D., Verdun A. Economic and Monetary Union at twenty: a stocktaking of a tumultuous second decade: introduction. Journal of European Integration, 2020, vol. 42, iss. 3: Economic and Monetary Union at Twenty: A stocktaking of a tumultuous second decade, pp. 287–293. DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2020.1730348.

16. Zeynalova A. Foreign Direct Investment in the EU. December 24, 2020. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3754769.

17. Iossa A., Persdotter M. Cross-Border Social Dumping as a ‘Game of Jurisdiction’ – Towards a Legal Geography of Labour Relations in the EU Internal Market. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2021, vol. 59, iss. 5, pp. 1086–1102. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13166.

18. Marco-Fondevila M., Álvarez-Etxeberría I. Trends in private sector engagement with biodiversity: EU listed companies’ disclosure and indicators. Ecological Economics, 2023, vol. 210, art. 107864. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107864.

19. Dzhagityan E. Shaping the EAEU’s Institutional Framework for Banking Regulation: Perspectives and Risks. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii = International Organisations Research Journal, 2019, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 212– 237. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2019-02-10.

20. Borgesius F.J.Z., Steenbruggen W. The right to communications confidentiality in Europe: Protecting privacy, freedom of expression, and trust. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 2019, vol. 20, iss. 1, pp. 291–322. DOI: 10.1515/til-2019-0010.

21. Malone M., Walton R. Comparing Canada’s proposed Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act with cybersecurity legal requirements in the EU. International Cybersecurity Law Review, 2023, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 165–196. DOI: 10.1365/s43439-023-00082-1.

22. Kulczycka J., Dziobek E., Szmiłyk A. Challenges in the management of data on extractive waste – the Polish case. Mineral Economics, 2020, vol. 33, iss. 3, pp. 341–347. DOI: 10.1007/s13563-019-00203-5.

23. Woźniak E., Tyczewska A., Twardowski T. Bioeconomy development factors in the European Union and Poland. New Biotechnology, 2021, vol. 60, pp. 2–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.nbt.2020.07.004.

24. Chugunov D.K., Kasyanov R.A., Evdokimov M.A. Comprehension of the EU Political and Legal Development. Kutafin Law Review, 2022, vol. 9, iss. 4, pp. 713–739. DOI: 10.17803/2313-5395.2022.4.22.713-739.

25. Dar W., Praštalo B. The investor-state arbitration legitimacy crisis: Could AI be its future savior (or resurrector)?. Pravni zapisi, 2023, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 21–58. DOI: 10.5937/pravzap1-43940.