This article focuses on the recent judgment of the Court of Justice, Aranyosi and Caldararu. After conducting a legal analysis on this case, three issues are identified and they are separately discussed in three sections. The aim of this paper is to show the impact of this judgment on public order and public security in Europe on the one hand and on the individual’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. It is going to be argued that even though there are limits to the principle of mutual recognition, this new exception based on fundamental rights establishes a new procedure for non-surrender. Therefore, the Court of Justice creates a non-execution ground which the EU legislator did not intend to include in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant. This is explained by looking at the three interconnected notions of Freedom, Security and Justice.
DOCUMENT
The main hypothesis underlying this article is that although arbitrators are not formally part of national justice systems, they have dealt with questions of EU fundamental rights and the European rule of law standards for quite some time, at least formally since the landmark CJEU judgment in Eco Swiss in 1999. In fact, in all forms of arbitration, be it national or international, taking place in or across (Member) States daily and not necessarily concerning the application by arbitrators of EU law stricto sensu, arbitrators can be seen as guardians of many crucial procedural guarantees that increase parties’ access to justice and advance the European rule of law, or so we wish to argue. This article is an exploratory piece. That is, it combines the format of the state-of-the-art review with the format of conference proceedings through which we present the main activities of the DG Justice TRIIAL project concerning arbitration. Our main goal is three-fold: (1) to advance the discussion on the relationship between the European rule of law and arbitration, (2) to present the main findings stemming from research and training activities within the TRIIAL training workshops on arbitration, and (3) to formulate future research and practical questions on the topic at hand.
MULTIFILE
This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament. It analyses the political and legal dynamics behind referendums on EU-related matters. It argues that we have entered a period of increasing political uncertainty with regard to the European project and that this new political configuration will both affect and be affected by the politics of EU-related referendums. Such referendums have long been a risky endeavour and this has been accentuated in the wake of the Great Recession with its negative ramifications for public opinion in the European Union. It is clear that referendums on EU matters are here to stay and will continue to be central to the EU’s future as they are deployed to determine the number of Member States within the EU, its geographical reach, its constitutional evolution and adherence to EU policies. Only now they have become an even riskier endeavour.
LINK
The paper explores whether and under what conditions, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may become a mandatory requirement for employees. It includes a discussion on EU action on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and its relevance for national level policy with emphasis on the legal basis and instruments used by the Union to persuade national authorities into action to increase vaccination uptake. The analysis then moves to the national level by focusing on the case of Hungary. Following an overview of the legal and regulatory framework for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines deployment, the analysis zooms into the sphere of employment and explores whether and how the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may be turned into a mandatory workplace safety requirement. The paper highlights the decision of the Hungarian government to introduce compulsory vaccination for employees in the healthcare sector, and concludes with a discussion of the relevant rules and their potential, broader implications.
MULTIFILE
Human rights groups are increasingly calling for the protection of their right to privacy in relation to the bulk surveillance and interception of their personal communications. Some are advocating through strategic litigation. This advocacy tool is often chosen when there is weak political or public support for an issue. Nonetheless, as a strategy it remains a question if a lawsuit is strategic in the context of establishing accountability for indiscriminate bulk data interception. The chapter concludes that from a legal perspective the effect of the decision to litigate on the basis of the claim that a collective right to group privacy was violated has not (yet) resulted in significant change. Yet the case study, the British case of human rights groups versus the intelligence agencies, does seem to suggest that they have been able to create more public awareness about mass surveillance and interception programs and its side-effects
LINK
Following the rationale of the current EU legal framework protecting personal data, children are entitled to the same privacy and data protection rights as adults. However, the child, because of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection. In the online environment, children are less likely to make any checks or judgments before entering personal information. Therefore, this paper presents an analysis of the extent to which EU regulation can ensure children’s online privacy and data protection.
DOCUMENT
This paper addresses one important mechanism through which the EU tries to improve the operation of its labour markets: the opening up of national borders for free worker movement within the EU. Free worker movement is a fundamental EU right; but EU enlargement begged the question of how and when to allow complete free movement to workers from those new Member States. The EU agreed upon a transitional period of up to 7 years after accession of eight new Middle and Eastern European States (EU-8) on May 1st, 2004. Duringthis transitional period Member States may apply certain restrictions on the free movement of workers from, to and between these new Member States. By 2012, all such restrictions will have been abolished. A similar procedure applies regarding the accession of two additional new Member States on January 1st, 2007. Only three of the fifteen incumbent EU Member States at the time (EU-15) chose to immediately allow free movement from workers from the EU-8. The other twelve maintained their work permit systems, albeit with some modifications. Since, some (e.g. Germany) have already decided to keep such barriers in place until 2012. The Netherlands has kept a work permit system in place up to May 1st, 2007. At that time it abolished that system and effectively extended free worker movement to include workers from the EU-8. This makes the Dutch case, at this point in time, an interesting case for which to analyse the process and effects of increased free labour movement into a national labourmarket. This paper discusses the evolution of (temporary) work migration from EU-8 countries into the Netherlands. It first addresses the flexicurity nature of EU policies towards labour market integration and towards the inclusion of new EU countries in that process. It subsequentely reviews the three socio-legal regimes that can currently apply to work performed for Dutch firms Netherlands by workers from the EU-8 (which, now, is that same as that applies for workers from the EU-15): wage employment; employment through temporary employment agencies; and self-employment. It then discusses the development of the volume of work performed by citizens from the EU-8 in the Netherlands, and socio-economic effects for both the migrant workers and Dutch society and economy. It concludes with a discussion of challenges (or the lack thereof) that this increased free movement of foreign labour caused and causes for Dutch institutions.
DOCUMENT
Copyright enforcement by private third parties – does it work uniformly across the EU? Since the inception of Napster, home copying of digital files has taken a flight. The first providers of software or infrastructure for the illegal exchange of files were held contributory or vicariously liable for copyright infringement. In response, they quickly diluted the chain of liability to such an extent that neither the software producers, nor the service providers could be held liable. Moving further down the communication chain, the rights holders are now requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide access to end customers to help them with the enforcement of their rights. This article discusses case-law regarding the enforcement of copyright by Internet Access Providers throughout Europe. At first glance, copyright enforcement has been harmonised by means of a number of directives, and article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) regulates that EU Member States must ensure the position of rights holders with regard to injunctions against ISPs. Problem solved? Case law from Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, England, The Netherlands, Austria and the Court of Justice of the EU was studied. In addition, the legal practice in Germany was examined. The period of time covered by case law is from 2003 to 2013, the case law gives insight into the differences that still exist after the implementation of the directive.
DOCUMENT
The American company Amazon has made headlines several times for monitoring its workers in warehouses across Europe and beyond.1 What is new is that a national data protection authority has recently issued a substantial fine of €32 million to the e-commerce giant for breaching several provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (gdpr) with its surveillance practices. On 27 December 2023, the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (cnil)—the French Data Protection Authority—determined that Amazon France Logistique infringed on, among others, Articles 6(1)(f) (principle of lawfulness) and 5(1)(c) (data minimization) gdpr by processing some of workers’ data collected by handheld scanner in the distribution centers of Lauwin-Planque and Montélimar.2 Scanners enable employees to perform direct tasks such as picking and scanning items while continuously collecting data on quality of work, productivity, and periods of inactivity.3 According to the company, this data processing is necessary for various purposes, including quality and safety in warehouse management, employee coaching and performance evaluation, and work planning.4 The cnil’s decision centers on data protection law, but its implications reach far beyond into workers’ fundamental right to health and safety at work. As noted in legal literature and policy documents, digital surveillance practices can have a significant impact on workers’ mental health and overall well-being.5 This commentary examines the cnil’s decision through the lens of European occupational health and safety (EU ohs). Its scope is limited to how the French authority has interpreted the data protection principle of lawfulness taking into account the impact of some of Amazon’s monitoring practices on workers’ fundamental right to health and safety.
MULTIFILE
Het onderzoek dat ten grondslag ligt aan dit artikel onderzoekt hoe de overheid markten reguleert voor (financiële) producten en diensten teneinde falen van de markt te voorkomen. Het behandelt specifiek EU Richtlijn 2014/57/EU betreffende strafrechtelijke sancties voor marktmisbruik en de implementatie daarvan in Nederland en opvolgend gebruik door het Openbaar Ministerie en Autoriteit Financiële Markten en hun Convenant ter voorkoming van ongeoorloofde samenloop van bestuurlijke en strafrechtelijke sancties. Het beantwoord de vraag of deze richtlijn de ontwikkeling van effectief reguleren van de financiële markt bevordert of remt. De slotsom ten aanzien van de implementatie van Richtlijn 2014/57/EU is – kort gezegd – dat “slechts” het aantal jaren gevangenisstraf voor handel met voorkennis en marktmisbruik van twee naar vier aangepast dient te worden. Het artikel concludeert tenslotte dat de huidige praktijk van het Convenant tussen OM en Autoriteit Financiële Markten kan blijven bestaan. De Autoriteit Financiële Markten kan haar inspanningen om haar toezicht verder in de geest van responsive regulation te verbeteren ongestoord door het OM voortzetten.
DOCUMENT
