Verfijn uw zoekresultaat

Zoekresultaat: 443 artikelen

x
Annotatie

One train! (but different working conditions)

CJEU 19 December 2019, C-16/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1110 (Michael Dobersberger v Magistrat der Stadt Wien)

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Posting of workers, International train, Transport sector, Subcontracting, Short-term posting
Auteurs Marco Rocca
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Dobersberger decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union deals with the legal situation of posted workers on an international train. These workers, employed by a Hungarian company and based in Hungary, operate on a train connecting Budapest with Salzburg and Munich. The Court concludes against their inclusion under the Posting of Workers Directive, considering their connection to the Austrian territory as too limited. This decision is based on a selective representation of the facts and sits difficultly with the letter of the law and the intention of the legislator.


Marco Rocca
Dr. M. Rocca is werkzaam als CNRS Researcher aan de University of Strasbourg, UMR 7354 DRES, France, https://marcorocca.wordpress.com, mrocca@unistra.fr.


Claire Toumieux
Claire Toumieux and Susan Ekrami is partner at Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.

Susan Ekrami
Susan Ekrami is a senior associate with Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.
Article

Access_open The Challenges for England’s Post-Conviction Review Body

Deference to Juries, the Principle of Finality and the Court of Appeal

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful conviction, criminal justice, Criminal Cases Review Commission, Court of Appeal, discretion
Auteurs Carolyn Hoyle
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since 1997, the Criminal Cases Review Commission of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has served as a state-funded post-conviction body to consider claims of wrongful conviction for those who have exhausted their rights to appeal. A meticulous organisation that has over its lifetime referred over 700 cases back to the Court of Appeal, resulting in over 60% of those applicants having their convictions quashed, it is nonetheless restricted in its response to cases by its own legislation. This shapes its decision-making in reviewing cases, causing it to be somewhat deferential to the original jury, to the principle of finality and, most importantly, to the Court of Appeal, the only institution that can overturn a wrongful conviction. In mandating such deference, the legislation causes the Commission to have one eye on the Court’s evolving jurisprudence but leaves room for institutional and individual discretion, evidenced in some variability in responses across the Commission. While considerable variability would be difficult to defend, some inconsistency raises the prospects for a shift towards a less deferential referral culture. This article draws on original research by the author to consider the impact of institutional deference on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and argues for a slightly bolder approach in its work


Carolyn Hoyle
Carolyn Hoyle is Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, UK.
Artikel

Whose narratives?

The Self as (also) an alien – for a complex concept of ‘Self’ in narrative criminology

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Self, narrative criminology
Auteurs Professor Alfredo Verde
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper, answering to a recent critique by Ben Laws to the concept of Self developed by narrative criminology, and recognizing its importance, shows that narrative criminology has formulated a complex dynamic definition of it, in addressing both the limit-experiences and the unconscious dimension. Such enlargement can be attained by adding to narrative criminology the contributions of psychosocial criminology, that considers also the emotional dimension of crime narratives and the enjoyment connected to crime: the offender Self, in this perspective, is a multiplex, not completely definable, sometimes alien entity, which can be exposed analysing in depth criminal narratives.


Professor Alfredo Verde
Professor Alfredo Verde is professor of Criminology, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Italy.
Artikel

Cultural criminology and narrative criminology’s shared interests

More than just criminological verstehen

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift over Cultuur & Criminaliteit, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden verstehen, cultural criminology, media looping, narrative criminology, storytelling
Auteurs Dr. Avi Brisman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article explores the intersection of two criminological perspectives—cultural criminology and narrative criminology. Taking inspiration from Mills and Fleetwood’s article, ‘Prepping and verstehen: A narrative criminological perspective’, where the authors contend that stories complement the pursuit of criminological verstehen, this article draws attention to other ways in which cultural criminology and narrative criminology are imbricated, taking notice of commonalities in cultural criminology’s analysis of media looping and narrative criminology’s identification of cycles of storytelling practice and lived experiences. A consideration of Donald Trump’s attempts to control narrative is used to develop an argument regarding cultural criminology’s and narrative criminology’s joint questioning of linear sequencing and mutual recognition of circulating fluidity


Dr. Avi Brisman
Dr. Avi Brisman (MFA, JD, PhD) is professor in the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA.
Article

Access_open Can Non-discrimination Law Change Hearts and Minds?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden law and society, social change, discrimination, non-discrimination law, positive action
Auteurs Anita Böcker
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    A question that has preoccupied sociolegal scholars for ages is whether law can change ‘hearts and minds’. This article explores whether non-discrimination law can create social change, and, more particularly, whether it can change attitudes and beliefs as well as external behaviour. The first part examines how sociolegal scholars have theorised about the possibility and desirability of using law as an instrument of social change. The second part discusses the findings of empirical research on the social working of various types of non-discrimination law. What conclusions can be drawn about the ability of non-discrimination law to create social change? What factors influence this ability? And can non-discrimination law change people’s hearts and minds as well as their behaviour? The research literature does not provide an unequivocal answer to the latter question. However, the overall picture emerging from the sociolegal literature is that law is generally more likely to bring about changes in external behaviour and that it can influence attitudes and beliefs only indirectly, by altering the situations in which attitudes and opinions are formed.


Anita Böcker
Anita Böcker is associate professor of Sociology of Law at Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Article

Access_open A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation under International Human Rights Law

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Dehumanisation, International Human Rights Law, Positive State obligations, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
Auteurs Stephanie Eleanor Berry
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    International human rights law (IHRL) was established in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent a reoccurrence of the atrocities committed in the name of fascism. Central to this aim was the recognition that out-groups are particularly vulnerable to rights violations committed by the in-group. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that out-groups are still subject to a wide range of rights violations, including those associated with mass atrocities. These rights violations are facilitated by the dehumanisation of the out-group by the in-group. Consequently, this article argues that the creation of IHRL treaties and corresponding monitoring mechanisms should be viewed as the first step towards protecting out-groups from human rights violations. By adopting the lens of dehumanisation, this article demonstrates that if IHRL is to achieve its purpose, IHRL monitoring mechanisms must recognise the connection between dehumanisation and rights violations and develop a positive State obligation to counter dehumanisation. The four treaties explored in this article, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, all establish positive State obligations to prevent hate speech and to foster tolerant societies. These obligations should, in theory, allow IHRL monitoring mechanisms to address dehumanisation. However, their interpretation of the positive State obligation to foster tolerant societies does not go far enough to counter unconscious dehumanisation and requires more detailed elaboration.


Stephanie Eleanor Berry
Stephanie Eleanor Berry is Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, University of Sussex.
Article

Access_open How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice?

A Positive State Obligation to Counter Dehumanisation

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden prejudice, soft paternalism, empathy, liberalism, employment discrimination, access to goods and services
Auteurs Ioanna Tourkochoriti
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
Ioanna Tourkochoriti is Lecturer Above the Bar, NUI Galway School of Law.

    The entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) pushed state obligations to counter prejudice and stereotypes concerning people with disabilities to the forefront of international human rights law. The CRPD is underpinned by a model of inclusive equality, which views disability as a social construct that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and barriers, including attitudinal barriers, that hinder their participation in society. The recognition dimension of inclusive equality, together with the CRPD’s provisions on awareness raising, mandates that states parties target prejudice and stereotypes about the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities to society. Certain human rights treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and, to a much lesser extent, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, require states to eradicate harmful stereotypes and prejudice about people with disabilities in various forms of interpersonal relationships. This trend is also reflected, to a certain extent, in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This article assesses the extent to which the aforementioned human rights bodies have elaborated positive obligations requiring states to endeavour to change ‘hearts and minds’ about the inherent capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities. It analyses whether these bodies have struck the right balance in elaborating positive obligations to eliminate prejudice and stereotypes in interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, it highlights the convergences or divergences that are evident in the bodies’ approaches to those obligations.


Andrea Broderick
Andrea Broderick is Assistant Professor at the Universiteit Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Kristin Henrard
Kristin Henrard is Professor International Human Rights and Minorities, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Article

Access_open The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000: Proposals for Legislative Reform to Promote Equality through Schools and the Education System

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Transformative pedagogy, equality legislation, promotion of equality, law reform, using law to change hearts and minds
Auteurs Anton Kok, Lwando Xaso, Annalize Steenekamp e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article, we focus on how the education system can be used to promote equality in the context of changing people’s hearts and minds – values, morals and mindsets. The duties contained in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (‘Equality Act’) bind private and public schools, educators, learners, governing bodies and the state. The Equality Act calls on the state and all persons to promote substantive equality, but the relevant sections in the Equality Act have not been given effect yet, and are therefore currently not enforceable. We set out how the duty to promote equality should be concretised in the Equality Act to inter alia use the education system to promote equality in schools; in other words, how should an enforceable duty to promote equality in schools be fashioned in terms of the Equality Act. Should the relevant sections relating to the promotion of equality come into effect in their current form, enforcement of the promotion of equality will take the form of obliging schools to draft action plans and submit these to the South African Human Rights Commission. We deem this approach inadequate and therefore propose certain amendments to the Equality Act to allow for a more sensible monitoring of schools’ duty to promote equality. We explain how the duty to promote equality should then play out practically in the classroom to facilitate a change in learners’ hearts and minds.


Anton Kok
Anton Kok is Professor of Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law of the University of Pretoria.

Lwando Xaso
Lwando Xaso is an independent lawyer, writer and historian.

Annalize Steenekamp
Annalize Steenekamp, LLM, is a Multidisciplinary Human Rights graduate from the University of Pretoria.

Michelle Oelofse
Michelle Oelofse is an Academic associate and LLM candidate at the University of Pretoria.
Artikel

Mediation in strafzaken: de werkstijl is de methode

Reflecties op de praktijk

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden strafzaken, mediation, mediatorprofiel, mediationproces, psychologische veiligheid
Auteurs Makiri Mual
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since the beginning of 2020 mediation in penal cases (mediation in strafzaken) has officially become the preferred intervention for victim-offender mediation in the criminal procedure in the Netherlands. Although mediation in general has a sound theoretical framework, the methodological elaboration appears pluriform and somewhat limited. In practice mediators in penal cases operate conform their own personal and professional standards and preferences, apparently without tailor made methodology. This article describes the current methodological directions such as transformative or narrative mediation and seeks for useful references. As a part of restorative practice, mediation in penal cases seems to remain secluded from insights and methodology developed in the domain of restorative justice practices. Educational institutes providing trainings for mediators barely refer to this theoretical framework. Besides a methodological reconnaissance this article offers a fundamental comparison of mediation styles and interventions, but is above all an incentive to further methodological research and development.


Makiri Mual
Makiri Mual is mediator in familie- en strafzaken en rechtbankmediator MfN. Hij verbindt in zijn werk interventies uit de mediationpraktijk en de systeemtherapie en richt zich vooral op geëscaleerde conflicten die in het civiele en strafrecht belanden. Hij is docent bij de stichting EFT Nederland, opleider en voorzitter van de vereniging van strafmediators, VMSZ.
Titel

Innovatie en betere regelgeving

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 5 2020
Trefwoorden Experimenteerregelgeving, Toekomstbestendigheid, Innovatiebeginsel, Innovatiebeleid
Auteurs Prof. mr. dr. S.H. Ranchordas
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het innovatiebeginsel is tegenwoordig onderdeel van de geïntegreerde aanpak van de Europese Commissie voor betere regelgeving. Het innovatiebeginsel waarborgt dat bij de ontwikkeling van beleid en wetgeving de gevolgen voor innovatie volledig worden beoordeeld. De impact van nieuwe regels op innovatie wordt ook in Nederland geanalyseerd in het IAK en in het kader van de mkb-toets. Toch blijft de betekenis van het innovatiebeginsel ondoorgrondelijk. De literatuur is tevens terughoudend ten opzichte van de invoering van innovatie als een rechtsbeginsel. Dit artikel geeft aan de hand van interdisciplinaire literatuur een genuanceerd beeld van innovatievriendelijke regelgeving en het innovatiebeginsel. Het gaat in op de juiste interpretatie van het innovatiebeginsel en hoe dit principe kan bijdragen aan het realiseren van betere regelgeving.


Prof. mr. dr. S.H. Ranchordas
Prof. mr. dr. S.H. (Sofia) Ranchordas is adjunct-hoogleraar Europees en vergelijkend publiekrecht en Rosalind Franklin Fellow, Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Artikel

Access_open Interactie tussen EU-instellingen: het Europees Parlement, de Raad en het wetgevingsbeleid van de Europese Commissie

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 5 2020
Trefwoorden Impact assessment, Wetsevaluaties, Wetgevingscyclus, betere regelgeving, Koppeling
Auteurs Mr. dr. T.J.A. van Golen MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Met het verschijnen van de Better Regulation Agenda in 2015 presenteert de Europese Commissie één samenhangend wetgevingsbeleid, dat voorheen versnipperd was over verschillende domeinen en documenten. In het nieuwe beleidsdocument wordt bovendien de nadruk gelegd op het feit dat wetgevingstrajecten niet lineair zijn, maar juist cyclisch verlopen. Hierdoor is de koppeling tussen impact assessments vooraf en wetsevaluaties achteraf nog belangrijker geworden. In dit artikel wordt bezien wat de stand van zaken is van dit wetgevingsbeleid, met de nadruk op de koppeling van de beleidsinstrumenten. Specifieke aandacht is er voor de samenwerking tussen de drie EU-instellingen op dit gebied.


Mr. dr. T.J.A. van Golen MSc
Mr. dr. T.J.A. (Thomas) van Golen MSc is wetgevingsjurist bij de afdeling Financiële Stabiliteit van het ministerie van Financiën.
Artikel

Inclusief inhoud?

‘Beter Wetgeven’ in de EU voorbij het wetgevingsproces: is er ook aandacht voor inhoudelijke kwaliteit?

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 5 2020
Trefwoorden Grondrechten, Delegatiegrondslagen, Evenredigheidsbeginsel, Nationale autonomie
Auteurs Prof. dr. A. van den Brink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Centraal in het Beter Wetgeven-beleid van de EU staat de verbetering van de kwaliteit van wetgevingsprocessen. Is er daarnaast aanleiding om de kwaliteit van de inhoud van Europese wetgeving te verbeteren? Beter Wetgeven omvat ook nu al inhoudelijke elementen. Via het evenredigheidsbeginsel worden bijvoorbeeld lidstatelijke belangen beschermd. Andere elementen, zoals de keuze voor de rechtshandeling en de keuze om regelgevende bevoegdheden aan de Commissie of de Raad te delegeren, zijn veel minder systematisch uitgewerkt. Dat geldt ook voor de wijze waarop grondrechten in de EU-wetgeving tot uitdrukking komen.


Prof. dr. A. van den Brink
Prof. dr. A. (Ton) van den Brink is hoogleraar EU wetgevingsvraagstukken aan de Universiteit Utrecht.
Artikel

Access_open Teaching Comparative Law, Pragmatically (Not Practically)

Special Issue on Pragmatism and Legal Education, Sanne Taekema & Thomas Riesthuis (eds.)

Tijdschrift Law and Method, oktober 2020
Trefwoorden comparative legal studies, legal education, pragmatism
Auteurs Alexandra Mercescu
Auteursinformatie

Alexandra Mercescu
Alexandra Mercescu, Ph.D is lecturer at the Department of Public Law, University of Timisoara, Romania.

    In a recent Supreme Court decision, it was held by a 4-1 majority that there is no reason, in principle, why the provision of ‘reasonable accommodation’ for an employee with a disability should not involve the redistribution of duties.


Orla O’Leary
Orla O’Leary is an attorney-at-law at Mason Hayes & Curran, Dublin.
Artikel

Access_open The Obligation of Judges to Uphold Rules of Positive Law and Possibly Conflicting Ethical Values in Context

The Case of Criminalization of Homelessness in Hungary

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Judicial independence, Rule of law, Judicial ethics, Hungary, Criminalization of homelessness
Auteurs Petra Gyöngyi
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article examines the tension between the constitutional obligation of judges to uphold rules of positive law and possibly conflicting standards of conduct arising from professional-ethical values. The theoretical analysis will be illustrated by the case of Hungary, an EU member state experiencing rule of law challenges since 2010 and where the 2018-2019 criminalization of homelessness exemplifies the studied tension. Inspired by the theories of Philip Selznick and Martin Krygier, rule of law will be viewed as a value that requires progressive realization and context-specific implementation. By contextualizing the relevant Hungarian constitutional framework with the content of the judicial code of ethics and judicial practice, it will be shown how the legitimate space for Hungarian judges to distance themselves from legislation possibly in conflict with rule of law values is reduced. Theoretical suggestions for addressing such rule of law regressions will be made.


Petra Gyöngyi
Petra Gyöngyi is postdoctoral fellow aan de University of Oslo.
Article

Access_open 2020/27 Freedom of religion: a tale of two cities

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Religious discrimination
Auteurs Filip Dorssemont
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Are the outcomes of the CJEU judgments on religious discrimination essentially different from the outcome of similar cases dealing with restrictions on the freedom of religion ruled by the ECtHR?


Filip Dorssemont
Filip Dorssemont is a Professor of Labour Law at Université catholique de Louvain and Guest Professor at Free University of Brussels.

    The recent spread of the Covid-19 pandemic has shown how economic vulnerability varies considerably across European Member States (MSs), and so does social protection in the European Union (EU). The social and economic consequences of the pandemic have impacted asymmetrically national labour markets and exacerbated existing disparities and contradictions. A measure that most governments have introduced in the immediate aftermath has been that of making financial support available to those self-employed workers who lost fully or in part their income. Most MSs have employed quantitative thresholds to identify those self-employed more in need of public subsidies and have proportioned them according to the pre-pandemic levels of income, on the condition that they have been officially recorded as taxable revenues.
    Despite their heterogeneity, we can reasonably affirm that the self-employed have been one of the most exposed clusters of the labour market to in-work poverty and economic uncertainty, which proved to be particularly problematic in periods of unforeseeable crisis, such as that of 2008 and even more so that of 2020. This article explores the range of EU-level measures designed for the self-employed and questions their potential impact on MSs’ legislation.


Luca Ratti
Luca Ratti is a professor at the University of Luxembourg.
Toont 21 - 40 van 443 gevonden teksten
« 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 22 23
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.