Zoekresultaat: 109 artikelen

x

    Dit artikel is voor een groot deel gelijk aan de tekst van de inaugurele rede die de auteur uitsprak op 4 april 2016 bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar Mededingingsrecht.


Anna Gerbrandy
Prof. mr. A. Gerbrandy is hoogleraar Mededingingsrecht aan de Universiteit Utrecht. Dit artikel is voor een groot deel gelijk aan de tekst van de inaugurele rede die zij uitsprak op 4 april 2016 bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar Mededingingsrecht. Laurens van Kreij wordt hartelijk bedankt voor zijn hulp bij het omwerken van de oratietekst naar deze publicatie.

    Austrian law permits the dismissal of an employee during parental leave only in cases where the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the contractual relationship. The colour of a hair ribbon does not justify the termination of a young father’s employment as a bus driver.


Christina Hießl
Christina Hießl is invited professor at Yonsei University, Graduate School of Social Welfare, Seoul http://yonsei.ac.kr.

    In this paper, an attempt is made to work out a methodology for comparative legal research, which goes beyond the ‘functional method’ or methodological scepticism.
    The starting point is the idea that we need a ‘toolbox’, not a fixed methodological road map, and that a lot of published, but largely unnoticed, research outside rule and case oriented comparative law offers varying approaches, which could usefully be applied in comparative research. Six methods have been identified: the functional method, the structural one, the analytical one, the law-in-context method, the historical method, and the common core method. Basically, it is the aim of the research and the research question that will determine which methods could be useful. Moreover, different methods may be combined, as they are complementary and not mutually exclusive.This paper focuses on scholarly comparative legal research, not on the use of foreign law by legislators or courts, but, of course, the methodological questions and answers will largely overlap.


Mark Van Hoecke
Professor of Comparative Law at Queen Mary University of London, and Professor of Legal Theory and Comparative Law at Ghent University

    Inclusive mediation involves a mediator whose neutrality is based on involvement with both sides of the dispute, and whose normative references are implicit; he or she is an insider. Exclusive mediation, on the other hand, involves a third party whose neutrality derives from his knowing neither disputant, and whose references to norms are explicit; an outsider, so to speak. The concepts of inclusive and exclusive mediation have been introduced by the anthropologist Carol Greenhouse in the 1980s. Inclusive mediation heavily relies on local knowledge and local ties, and its orientation can be labelled as horizontal. Basically, it fits small-scale societies, while exclusive mediation is more common in Europe and the United States. This article is about dispute settlement in an indigenous community in the Ecuadorian highlands, were I have encountered a unusual mixture of both forms: a local teniente político who applies inclusive as well as exclusive aspects of mediation at the same time.


Marc Simon Thomas
Marc A. Simon Thomas is rechtsantropoloog en postdoc onderzoeker bij het Montaigne Centrum voor Rechtspleging en Conflictoplossing, Universiteit Utrecht.
Artikel

Tenant vs. owner: deriving access to justice from the right to housing

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden tenants’ rights, adequate housing, discrimination, effectiveness of law
Auteurs Nico Moons
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The right to adequate housing has since long been established in international and European human rights law and has been (constitutionally) incorporated into many domestic legal systems. This contribution focuses on the extent to which this fundamental right influences rental law and the horizontal relationship between tenant and landlord and how it contributes to the tenant’s access to justice. The right to housing certainly accounts for tenant’s rights, but since international and European human rights law evidently centres around state obligations, any possible impact on the position of tenants remains indirect. This is of course different on the national plane. In Belgium, the constitutional right to housing has been implemented through regional Housing Codes, complementing private law measures and creating additional protection to tenants. Nonetheless, many challenges still remain in increasing access to justice for tenants, both top-down and bottom-up: lack of knowledge and complexity of law, imbalance in power and dependency, discrimination, etc.


Nico Moons
Nico Moons is a PhD student at the Faculty of Law of the University of Antwerp (research group Government & Law). His research topic involves the effectiveness of the right to adequate housing. Previously, he has worked at the Council for Alien Law Litigation.
Artikel

The preliminary reference procedure: challenge or opportunity?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden preliminary reference procedure, empowerment, EU law, Court of Justice EU
Auteurs Jos Hoevenaars
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution approaches the theme of access to justice from an EU law perspective and deals with the question: to what extent can the preliminary reference procedure serve as an empowering tool for individuals and civil society? The first part of the contribution deals with the structure of the EU legal system and the theoretically empowering function of preliminary references. Based on interviews with litigants and their counsellors, the second part deals with this notion from a sociological and empirical perspective. The analysis reveals the practical obstacles to realizing ones rights by preliminary references, and thus nuances the empowerment thesis found both among legal- and political sciences theories as well as in the legitimating rhetoric by propagators of the EU legal system.


Jos Hoevenaars
Jos Hoevenaars holds a Master’s degree in Sociology from the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Sociology of Law/Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University of Nijmegen. In his research, he studies individual litigation in the European legal system, with a specific focus on the preliminary reference procedure.
Artikel

Uitsluiting van homoseksuele mannen als bloeddonor: het arrest Léger en de Nederlandse praktijk

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 8 2015
Trefwoorden Richtlijn 2004/33/EG, discriminatie, volksgezondheid, Handvest, bloeddonor
Auteurs Prof. mr. J.C.J. Dute en Mr. A. Swarte
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Verschillende lidstaten, waaronder Nederland en Frankrijk, sluiten mannen die seksueel contact hebben (gehad) met mannen levenslang uit als bloeddonor. Het Hof van Justitie heeft zich op 29 april 2015 uitgesproken over deze permanente uitsluiting van MSM en heeft voorwaarden geformuleerd waaraan in dat geval moet zijn voldaan.
    HvJ 29 april 2015, zaak C-528/13, Geoffrey Léger/Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, en Établissement français du sang, ECLI:EU:C:2015:288


Prof. mr. J.C.J. Dute
Prof. mr. J.C.J. (Jos) Dute is lid van het College voor de Rechten van de Mens en hoogleraar gezondheidsrecht aan de Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid van de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. Dit artikel is geschreven op persoonlijke titel.

Mr. A. Swarte
Mr. A. (Annejet) Swarte is stafjurist bij het College voor de Rechten van de Mens. Dit artikel is geschreven op persoonlijke titel.
Artikel

Access_open The Experience of Legal Injustice

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2014
Trefwoorden legal injustice, legal subject, law and morality, Fuller, Arendt
Auteurs Wouter Veraart
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This paper shows that Fuller and Arendt converge on a different point than the point Rundle focuses on. What Fuller and Arendt seem to share in their legal thoughts is not so much an interest in the experience of law-as-such (the interaction between responsible agency and law as a complex institution), but rather an interest in the junction of law and injustice. By not sufficiently focusing on the experience of legal injustice, Rundle overlooks an important point of divergence between Arendt and Fuller. In particular, Arendt differs from Fuller in her conviction that ‘injustice in a legal form’ is an integral part of modern legal systems.


Wouter Veraart
Wouter Veraart is Professor of Legal Philosophy and Director of Research at the Free University Amsterdam; w.j.veraart@vu.nl.

    In its ruling of June 12, 2014, the European Court on Human Rights (Grand Chamber) concluded that no violation of the right to private life and family life under the European Convention of Human Rights had taken place in the case of the non-renewal of an employment contract of a Roman Catholic teacher of religion and ethics. The reason for this non-renewal was the withdrawal of the required ecclesiastical approval of the teacher. According to the European Court, church autonomy prevailed in this case over the right to private life and family life of the teacher, a married priest with five children and an active member of an organization promoting voluntary celibacy. This contribution analyses and discusses the ruling of the ECHR, also in the light of the main dissenting opinion. It supports the Court’s conclusion, but criticizes some of its reasoning. It also states that regardless of the extent of church autonomy, a clear and correct procedural approach to employment issues also does honour ecclesiastical authorities.


Prof. dr. Sophie van Bijsterveld
Prof. dr. S.C. van Bijsterveld is bijzonder hoogleraar Religie, rechtsstaat en samenleving aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Zij is redactielid van het Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid.
Artikel

Access_open Introduction: Reciprocity and the Normativity of Legal Orders

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden reciprocity, normativity
Auteurs Prof. Dr. Hans Lindahl PhD en Bart van Klink
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution introduces the special issue, which contains a selection of the lectures delivered by key-note speakers during the Summer School organized by the editors in August, 2013, at the behest of the Section of Ethics & Practical Philosophy of the Dutch Research School of Philosophy (OZSW).


Prof. Dr. Hans Lindahl PhD
Hans Lindahl is Professor of Legal Philosophy at Tilburg University.

Bart van Klink
Bart van Klink is Professor of Legal Methodology at the VU University Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Private law as an open legal order: understanding contract and tort as interactional law

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden contract law, Fuller, informal law, pragmatism, rules versus standards
Auteurs Prof Sanne Taekema PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article puts forward the claim that private law, and especially contract and tort, is the area of law that most clearly shows how law depends on social interactions. Taking its cue from Lon Fuller, interactional law is presented as a form of law that depends on informal social practices. Using tort and contract cases, it is argued that this implies that law is in open connection to moral norms and values, and that law cannot be understood without taking into account people’s everyday reciprocal expectancies.


Prof Sanne Taekema PhD
Sanne Taekema is Professor of Jurisprudence, Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Her current research is oriented to the rule of law in a global context and to methodological and conceptual issues pertaining to interdisciplinary rule of law.
Artikel

Access_open Reciprocity: a fragile equilibrium

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2014
Trefwoorden reciprocity, exchange theory, natural law theory, dyadic relations, corrective justice
Auteurs Prof. dr. Pauline Westerman PhD
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Reciprocity may serve to explain or to justify law. In its latter capacity, which is the topic of this article, reciprocity is commonly turned into a highly idealized notion, as either a balance between two free and equal parties or as the possibility of communication tout court. Both ideals lack empirical reference. If sociological and anthropological literature on forms of exchange is taken into account, it should be acknowledged that reciprocal relations are easy to destabilize. The dynamics of exchange invites exclusion and inequality. For this reason reciprocity should not be presupposed as the normative underpinning of law; instead, law should be presupposed in order to turn reciprocity into a desirable ideal.


Prof. dr. Pauline Westerman PhD
Pauline Westerman is Professor in Philosophy of Law at the University of Groningen and member of staff at the Academy for Legislation in the Hague. She is editor of The Theory and Practice of Legislation, a journal published by Hart, Oxford. She writes mainly on legal methodology and legislation, especially on alternative forms of legislation. For more information as well as publications, see her personal website: <www.paulinewesterman.nl>.
Artikel

Het Duitse recht op nevengeschikt aanklagen

De volledige integratie van het slachtoffer in het strafproces

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 1 2014
Trefwoorden Accessory prosecution, victims, Victim lawyers, Secondary victimization, punishment
Auteurs Michael Kilchling en Helmut Kury
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article the German concept of accessory prosecution (Nebenklage) is discussed. The Nebenklage was implemented in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1877. It had merely an accessory function in conjunction with the private prosecution and the Klageerzwingungsverfahren, two legal institutions which had little practical relevance. Nowadays, in the course of the modern victim movement, the Nebenklage has radically changed into an instrument that is clearly provided as the main participatory option for victims interested in actively contributing to the trial of ‘their’ criminal. Previous research findings are outlined and the results of an explorative survey are presented. The findings suggest that the mere presence of the victim lawyer can significantly change the atmosphere in the courtroom, thus enhancing the willingness of the defence to treat the victim more respectfully.


Michael Kilchling
Michael Kilchling is criminoloog en is werkzaam aan het Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht in Freiburg (Duitsland), en is daarnaast voorzitter van het European Forum for Restorative Justice.

Helmut Kury
Helmut Kury was hoogleraar psychologie en criminologie en was onder andere verbonden aan het Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht in Freiburg (Duitsland).
Artikel

Access_open Skeptical Legal Education

How to Develop a Critical Attitude?

Tijdschrift Law and Method, 2013
Trefwoorden academic learning, skepticism, Oakeshott, judgment, Critique
Auteurs Bart van Klink en Bald de Vries
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Law teachers at the university want students to develop a critical attitude. But what exactly does it mean to be critical and why is it important to be critical? How can a critical attitude be promoted? In this article we intend to elucidate the role that critical thinking may play in legal education. We will introduce the idea of skeptical legal education, which is to a large extent based on Michael Oakeshott’s understanding of liberal learning but which relativizes its insistence on the non-instrumentality of learning and reinforces its critical potential. Subsequently, the article presents a teaching experiment, where students, based on self-organization, study and discuss basic texts in order to encourage critical thinking.


Bart van Klink
Bart van Klink is professor of Legal Methodology at VU University Amsterdam and head of the Department of Legal Theory and Legal History at VU University Amsterdam.

Bald de Vries
Ulbaldus de Vries is lecturer of Legal Theory at the Department of administrative and constitutional law and jurisprudence at the Faculty of law, Utrecht University. He is a founding-member of the Working Group on Reflexive Modernisation and Law.
Artikel

Naasten, fundamentele rechten en het Nederlandse limitatief en exclusief werkende artikel 6:108 BW: één probleem, twee perspectieven

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Vergoeding Personenschade, Aflevering 4 2013
Trefwoorden EVRM, recht op leven, schadevergoeding, overlijdensschade, nabestaanden
Auteurs Mr. dr. J.M. Emaus en Mr. dr. R. Rijnhout
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het recht onder het EVRM, zoals zich dat vormt in de rechtspraak van het EHRM, leidt tot inconsistenties in het Nederlandse schadevergoedingsrecht: een naaste van een persoon die slachtoffer is geworden van een schending van het recht op leven kan tegenwoordig immers alleen vergoeding van eigen immateriële schade vorderen als de schending is gepleegd door een overheidsorgaan. Deze inconsistentie verdient aandacht, maar men realisere zich dat we hier raken aan bredere problematiek. Wij menen daarom dat er in de discussie over de inconsistentie eerst aandacht moet zijn voor de bredere vragen: hoe werken fundamentele rechten door en welke derde verdient waarvan vergoeding? Centraal staan daarbij steeds de overkoepelende kernvragen: wie verdient rechtens een remedie en waarom?


Mr. dr. J.M. Emaus
Mr. dr. J.M. Emaus is docent en onderzoeker aan het Molengraaff Instituut voor Privaatrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law (UCALL) en het Utrecht Centre for Regulation and Enforcement in Europe (RENFORCE).

Mr. dr. R. Rijnhout
Mr. dr. R. Rijnhout is universitair docent aan het Molengraaff Instituut voor Privaatrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht, verbonden aan het Utrecht Centre for Accountability and Liability Law (UCALL) en redacteur van dit tijdschrift.
Article

Access_open A Turn to Legal Pluralism in Rule of Law Promotion?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3/4 2013
Trefwoorden legal pluralism, rule of law promotion, legal reform, customary law, non-state legal systems, donor policy
Auteurs Dr.mr Ronald Janse
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Over the past 25 years, international organizations, NGOs and (mostly Western) states have spent considerable energy and resources on strengthening and reforming legal systems in developing countries. The results of these efforts have generally been disappointing, despite occasional successes. Among donors, one of most popular explanations of this failure in recent years is that rule of law promotion has wrongly focused almost exclusively on strengthening the formal legal system. Donors have therefore decided to 'engage' with informal justice systems. The turn to legal plu‍ra‍lism is to be welcomed for various reasons. But it is also surprising and worrisome. It is surprising because legal pluralism in developing countries was a fact of life before rule of law promotion began. What made donors pursuing legal reform blind to this reality for so long? It is worrisome because it is not self-evident that the factors which have contributed to such cognitive blindness have disappeared overnight. Are donors really ready to refocus their efforts on legal pluralism and 'engage' with informal justice systems? This paper, which is based on a review of the literature on donor engamenet with legal pluralism in so-called conflict affected and fragile states, is about these questions. It argues that 7 factors have been responsible for donor blindness regarding legal pluralism. It questions whether these factors have been addressed.


Dr.mr Ronald Janse
Ronald Janse is Associate Professor of Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Article

Access_open At the Crossroads of National and European Union Law. Experiences of National Judges in a Multi-level Legal Order

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3/4 2013
Trefwoorden national judges, legal pluralism, application of EU law, legal consciousness, supremacy and direct effect of EU law
Auteurs Urszula Jaremba Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The notion and theory of legal pluralism have been witnessing an increasing interest on part of scholars. The theory that originates from the legal anthropological studies and is one of the major topical streams in the realm of socio-legal studies slowly but steady started to become a point of departure for other disciplines. Unavoidably it has also gained attention from the scholars in the realm of the law of the European Union. It is the aim of the present article to illustrate the legal reality in which the law of the Union and the national laws coexist and intertwine with each other and, subsequently, to provide some insight on the manner national judges personally construct their own understanding of this complex legal architecture and the problems they come across in that respect. In that sense, the present article not only illustrates the new, pluralistic legal environment that came into being with the founding of the Communities, later the European Union, but also adds another dimension to this by presenting selected, empirical data on how national judges in several Member States of the EU individually perceive, adapt to, experience and make sense of this reality of overlapping and intertwining legal orders. Thus, the principal aim of this article is to illustrate how the pluralistic legal system works in the mind of a national judge and to capture the more day-to-day legal reality by showing how the law works on the ground through the lived experiences of national judges.


Urszula Jaremba Ph.D.
Urszula Jaremba, PhD, assistant professor at the Department of European Union Law, School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam. I am grateful to the editors of this Special Issue: Prof. Dr. Sanne Taekema and Dr. Wibo van Rossum as well as to the two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. I am also indebted to Dr. Tobias Nowak for giving me his consent to use the data concerning the Dutch and German judges in this article. This article is mostly based on a doctoral research project that resulted in a doctoral manuscript titled ‘Polish Civil Judges as European Union Law Judges: Knowledge, Experiences and Attitudes’, defended on the 5th of October 2012.
Artikel

Access_open On Presuming Innocence

Is Duff’s Civic Trust Principle in Line with Current Law, Particularly the European Convention on Human Rights?

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2013
Trefwoorden Presumption of innocence, Art. 6(2) ECHR, Duff’s civic trust
Auteurs Geert Knigge
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Duff sets out to present, not theoretical concepts, but ‘real’ principles that underlie positive law. This paper examines whether Duff’s analysis really reflects current law. To that end, this paper analyses the case law of the European Court on Human Rights. As far as his preposition that there are many presumptions of innocence is concerned, Duff seems to be right. In the case law of the European Court different presumptions can be discerned, with different rationales. However, these presumptions are a far cry from the trust principle Duff advocates. Indeed, a principle that prescribes trust cannot be found in the Court’s case law. There might be a unifying principle but if so this principle is about respect for human dignity rather than trust. This analysis serves as a basis for criticism. It is argued that the approach Duff proposes is in tension with the Court’s case law in several respects.


Geert Knigge
Geert Knigge is Advocate General of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Groningen.
Jurisprudentie

Of Crosses and Homophobia

The European Court of Human Rights on which Manifestations of Religion One May Bring to Work

Tijdschrift Arbeidsrechtelijke Annotaties, Aflevering 2 2013
Trefwoorden freedom of religion, Christian cross, Eweida, equality, same-sex partnerships, European Court of Human Rights
Auteurs J.D. Temperman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    To what extent must employers accommodate manifestations of religion within the workspace and what should be the role of the state in that respect? In the joint case of Eweida and others the European Court of Human Rights discusses this question from four different angles as urged on by four different complaints. Two complaints concern the banning of Christian crosses, either for reasons of protecting the corporate image of a private company, or for reasons of health and safety within a care institution. The remaining complaints concern employers that, through their equal rights policies, notably equality on grounds of sexual orientation, may effectively force employees to act contrary to the religious dictates of their conscience.


J.D. Temperman
Mr. dr. J.D. Temperman is assistant professor of public international law and EUR-Fellow, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    In this paper, I will firstly illustrate the broader context of the contractualisation of family law by drawing upon the oscillations in family regulation between private and public regulators, in the light of the so-called family law exceptionalism. I consider the contractualisation of family law to be the ordering of the family by families and individuals through the use of legally binding private instruments. I will elaborate upon the substantive and jurisdictional contractualisation of family law in Sections 2 and 3 of this paper respectively. The deliberately 'impressionist' presentation of Section 1-3 leads onto the conclusion which proposes that States benevolently tolerate substantive contractualisation through a lower standard of judicial review, and that, whilst they actively stimulate jurisdictional contractualisation of the content of family relations, the formation and dissolution of family relations still appear to fall within the State's exclusive domain (Section 4).
    ---
    In deze bijdrage situeer ik eerst de 21ste eeuwse contractualisering van het familierecht in de historische pendelbeweging tussen publieke en private regulering van familieleven. Die leidde in de 19de en 20ste eeuw tot de aanneming van een bijzondere, niet-contractuele, aard van het familierecht (sectie 1). Ik beschouw als contractualisering van het familierecht: de regulering van familieleven door de familie en door individuen, door middel van juridisch bindende privaatrechtelijke instrumenten. Ik zal ingaan op de inhoudelijke en jurisdictionele contractualisering van het familierecht in respectievelijk de secties 2 en 3 van deze bijdrage. De bewust 'impressionistische' uiteenzetting in secties 1-3 leidt naar de conclusie dat Staten enerzijds een welwillende houding aannemen ten opzichte van inhoudelijke contractualisering, doordat een lagere norm van rechterlijke toetsing wordt gehanteerd. Anderzijds stimuleren zij actief de jurisdictionele contractualisering van de inhoud van familierelaties. Het aangaan en de beëindiging van familierelaties blijven daarentegen het exclusieve domein van de Staat (sectie 4).


Prof. dr. Frederik Swennen
Frederik Swennen is a senior lecturer at the University of Antwerp and an attorney at the Brussels Bar.
Toont 41 - 60 van 109 gevonden teksten
1 3 5 6
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.