Zoekresultaat: 35 artikelen

x
Law Review

2019/1 EELC’s review of the year 2018

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2019
Auteurs Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Filip Dorssemont e.a.
Samenvatting

    For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Filip Dorssemont

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Francesca Maffei

Niklas Bruun

Anthony Kerr

Jan-Pieter Vos

Luca Ratti

Daiva Petrylaite

Andrej Poruban

Stein Evju

    This article examines the hearing of children in Belgian and Dutch courts in return proceedings following an international child abduction. The analysis is based on the experience, insights and needs of both children who have experienced an abduction by one of their parents, and family judges. In this sensitive and often highly conflicted family context, hearing children in court is not self-evident. Challenges of both a judicial-institutional and communicative-relational nature can hinder the effective implementation of children’s right to be heard. This contribution seeks to answer the question of how to better support judges and children in addressing these challenges, with the aim of enabling children to fully and effectively participate in return procedures. Building on the interviews with children and judges, supplemented with findings from Belgian and Dutch case law and international literature, three key recommendations are formulated: 1) explore and evaluate opportunities for judges and children to experience support during the return procedure, for example via the figure of the guardian ad litem; 2) invest in training and opportunities for specialisation of judges with a view to strengthen their expertise in taking the best interests of the child into account; and 3) systematically pay attention to feedback to the children involved on how the final decision about their return is made – and this before, during and after the procedure.
    ---
    Dit artikel bestudeert het horen van kinderen in Belgische en Nederlandse rechtbanken in terugkeerprocedures volgend op een internationale kinderontvoering. De analyse vertrekt vanuit de beleving, ervaring, inzichten, noden en behoeften van zowel kinderen als van bevoegde familierechters. In deze gevoelige en vaak uiterst conflictueuze gezinscontext is het horen van kinderen door de rechter geen evidentie. Uitdagingen van zowel juridisch-institutionele als communicatieve-relationele aard kunnen een effectieve implementatie van het recht van kinderen om gehoord te worden in de weg staan. Dit artikel zoekt een antwoord op de vraag hoe rechters en kinderen beter kunnen worden ondersteund om deze uitdagingen aan te pakken, met als doel dat kinderen volwaardig kunnen participeren in de terugkeerprocedure. Voortbouwend op de interviews met kinderen en rechters, aangevuld met bevindingen uit Belgische en Nederlandse rechtspraak en internationale literatuur, worden drie sleutelaanbevelingen geformuleerd: 1) voorzie mogelijkheden voor rechters en kinderen om spanningsvelden weg te werken tijdens de terugkeerprocedure, bijvoorbeeld via de ondersteunende figuur van de bijzonder curator; 2) investeer in opleiding en groeiende specialisatiemogelijkheden bij rechters en 3) heb aandacht voor feedback en terugkoppeling naar de betrokken kinderen over hoe de eindbeslissing over hun terugkeer tot stand komt, en dit zowel voor, tijdens als na de procedure.


Sara Lembrechts LLM
Sara Lembrechts is researcher at University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group) and policy advisor at Children’s Rights Knowledge Centre (KeKi).

Marieke Putters LLM
Marieke Putters is researcher at the International Child Abduction Center (Centrum IKO).

Kim Van Hoorde
Kim Van Hoorde is Project & Prevention Manager at Child Focus.

dr. Thalia Kruger
Thalia Kruger, PhD, is Associate Professor at the University of Antwerp (Personal Rights and Property Rights Research Group) and Honorary Research Associate, University of Cape Town.

dr. Koen Ponnet
Koen Ponnet, PhD, is Professor at Imec-Mict-Ghent University (Faculty of Social Sciences).

dr. Wouter Vandenhole
Wouter Vandenhole, PhD, is Professor at the University of Antwerp (Law and Development Research Group).

    Alternative/amicable dispute resolution (ADR) is omnipresent these days. In line with global evolutions, the Belgian legislator embraced the use of these ADR mechanisms. Recent reforms of the law, first in 2013 with the act concerning the introduction of a Family and Juvenile Court and consecutively in 2018 with the act containing diverse provisions regarding civil law with a view to the promotion of alternative forms of conflict resolution, implemented more far-reaching measures to promote ADR than ever before. The ultimate goal seems to alter our society’s way of conflict resolution and make the court the ultimum remedium in case all other options failed.In that respect, the legislator took multiple initiatives to stimulate amicable dispute resolution. The reform of 2013 focused solely on family cases, the one in 2018 was broader and designed for all civil cases. The legal tools consist firstly of an information provision regarding ADR for the family judge’s clerk, lawyers and bailiffs. The judges can hear parties about prior initiatives they took to resolve their conflict amicably and assess whether amicable solutions can still be considered, as well as explain these types of solutions and adjourn the case for a short period to investigate the possibilities of amicable conflict resolution. A legal framework has been created for a new method, namely collaborative law and the law also regulates the link between a judicial procedure and the methods of mediation and collaborative law to facilitate the transition between these procedures. Finally, within the Family Courts, specific ‘Chambers of Amicable Settlement’ were created, which framework is investigated more closely in this article. All of these legal tools are further discussed and assessed on their strengths and weaknesses.
    ---
    Alternatieve of minnelijke conflictoplossing is alomtegenwoordig. De Belgische wetgever heeft het gebruik van deze minnelijke oplossingsmethodes omarmd, in navolging van wereldwijde evoluties. Recente wetshervormingen implementeerden maatregelen ter promotie van minnelijke conflictoplossing die verder reiken dan ooit tevoren. Het betreft vooreerst de hervorming in 2013 met de wet betreffende de invoering van een familie- en jeugdrechtbank en vervolgens kwam er in 2018 de wet houdende diverse bepalingen inzake burgerlijk recht en bepalingen met het oog op de bevordering van alternatieve vormen van geschillenoplossing. De ultieme doelstelling van deze hervormingen is een mentaliteitswijziging omtrent onze wijze van conflictoplossing teweegbrengen, waarbij de rechtbank het ultimum remedium dient te worden nadat alle overige opties faalden.De wetshervorming van 2013 focuste uitsluitend op familiale materies, de hervorming van 2018 was ruimer en had alle burgerlijke zaken voor ogen. De wettelijke mogelijkheden bestaan vooreerst uit een informatieverstrekking omtrent minnelijke conflictoplossing in hoofde van de griffier van de familierechtbank, advocaten en gerechtsdeurwaarders. Rechters kunnen partijen horen omtrent eerdere ondernomen initiatieven om hun conflict op een minnelijke manier op te lossen, zij beoordelen of minnelijke oplossingen alsnog kunnen worden overwogen, zij kunnen de diverse minnelijke mogelijkheden toelichten aan partijen alsook de zaak voor een korte periode uitstellen om partijen toe te laten de mogelijkheden aan minnelijke conflictoplossing te verkennen. Er werd voorts een wetgevend kader uitgewerkt voor een nieuwe oplossingsmethode, namelijk de collaboratieve onderhandeling. De wet creëert tevens een link tussen een gerechtelijke procedure en de methodes van bemiddeling en collaboratieve onderhandeling, om de overgang tussen deze procedures te vereenvoudigen. Tot slot werden er binnen de familierechtbanken specifieke kamers voor minnelijke schikking opgericht, waarvan het wetgevend kader in detail wordt bestudeerd in dit artikel. Al deze wettelijke opties worden nader besproken en beoordeeld aan de hand van hun sterktes en zwaktes.


Sofie Raes
Sofie Raes is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Family Law of the University of Ghent, where she researches alternative dispute resolution, with a focus on the chambers of amicable settlement in Family Courts. She is also an accredited mediator in family cases.
Artikel

Access_open Crimes Against Humanity and Hostes Generis Humani

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden hostis generis humani, Luban, crimes against humanity, political community, international criminal law
Auteurs Antony Duff
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In ‘The Enemy of All Humanity’, David Luban provides an insightful and plausible account of the idea of the hostis generis humani (one that shows that the hostis need not be understood to be an outlaw), and of the distinctive character of the crimes against humanity that the hostis commits. However, I argue in this paper, his suggestion that the hostis is answerable to a moral community of humanity (in whose name the ICC must thus claim to speak) is not tenable. Once we recognize the intimate connection between criminal law and political community, we can see that the hostis should answer to the local, domestic political community in and against which he commits his crimes; and that the proper role of the International Criminal Court, acting in the name of the community of nations, is to provide a second-best substitute for such answering when the local polity cannot or will not hold him to account.


Antony Duff
Antony Duff is Professor Emeritus at the University of Stirling.
Law Review

Access_open 2018/1 EELC’s review of the year 2017

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2018
Auteurs Ruben Houweling, Catherine Barnard, Zef Even e.a.
Samenvatting

    This is the first time we have produced a review of employment law cases from the previous year, based on analysis by various of our academic board members. But before looking at their findings, we would first like to make some general remarks.


Ruben Houweling

Catherine Barnard

Zef Even

Amber Zwanenburg

Daiva Petrylaitė

Petr Hůrka

Jean-Philippe Lhernould

Erika Kovács

Jan-Pieter Vos

Andrej Poruban

Luca Ratti

Niklas Bruun

Francesca Maffei

    Medical and societal developments have led to a new family form involving more than two persons who make the conscious decision to have and raise a child together. Before the conception of the child, co-parenting arrangements are made covering the role of each parent in the child’s life and the division of care and financial obligations. These intentional multi-parent families pose new challenges to family law. Both in Belgium and the Netherlands, as in most other legal systems, the number of legal parents vested with custody of the child is limited to two. This two-parent model does not protect the relationship between the child and each of its parents in a multi-parent family. The question arises whether the law should be adjusted to accommodate multi-parent families, and if so, how. The Belgian Senate recently accepted that this question should be subjected to parliamentary debate. In 2014 the Netherlands tasked the Government Committee on the Reassessment of Parenthood with evaluating whether the law should allow more than two persons to be a child's legal parents and share parental responsibilities. In its recently published report, the Government Committee advises legal multi-parenthood be statutorily regulated, subject to certain conditions.The present contribution addresses two questions. The first one concerns the legal position of persons who have entered into multi-parenting arrangements. We answer this question by examining the Belgian rules on legal parentage and parental responsibilities. Second, we explore how family law might accommodate intentional multi-parent families. For this question, we focus on the recommendations the Dutch Government Committee formulated on legal multi-parenthood.
    ---
    Medische en maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen hebben geleid tot het ontstaan van een nieuwe gezinsvorm, waarbij meer dan twee personen bewust ervoor kiezen om samen een kind te krijgen en het op te voeden. Voor de verwekking maken ze afspraken over de rol van elk van hen in het leven van het kind en over de verdeling van zorgtaken en financiële verplichtingen. Deze intentionele meeroudergezinnen vormen een nieuwe uitdaging voor het familierecht. Zoals in de meeste rechtsstelsels, is in België en Nederland het aantal juridische ouders beperkt tot twee. Dit twee-oudermodel verleent geen bescherming aan de relatie tussen het kind en elk van zijn ouders in een meeroudergezin. De vraag rijst of het familierecht deze nieuwe gezinsvorm tegemoet moet komen, en zo ja, hoe. De Belgische Senaat heeft eind 2015 aanvaard dat deze vraag het voorwerp moet uitmaken van toekomstig parlementair debat. De Nederlands regering gaf in 2014 aan de “Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap” de opdracht te onderzoeken of de wet het mogelijk moet maken dat meer dan twee personen de juridische ouders kunnen zijn van een kind en het ouderlijk gezag kunnen delen. In haar recent gepubliceerde rapport beveelt deze commissie aan om juridisch meerouderschap wettelijk te regelen.  Deze bijdrage onderzoekt twee vragen. De eerste vraag is wat de rechtspositie is van de personen die betrokken zijn in meerouderschapsafspraken. We beantwoorden deze vraag aan de hand van de Belgische regels over afstamming en ouderlijk gezag. De tweede vraag is hoe het recht aan intentionele meeroudergezinnen kan tegemoetkomen. De aanbevelingen van de Nederlandse Staatscommissie Herijking Ouderschap staan hierbij centraal.


Prof. dr. Ingrid Boone
Ingrid Boone is an associate professor of Family Law at KU Leuven. She is a member of the Scientific Research Network of the Research Foundation Flanders (2015-2020) RETHINKIN - Rethinking legal kinship and family studies in the Low Countries.

    Ongeveer 20% van de echtscheidingen loopt uit op een zogenaamde conflict- of vechtscheiding. Om deze complexe echtscheidingszaken effectief aan te pakken, dienen professionals in het veld te beschikken over wetenschappelijk onderbouwde kennis over werkzame interventies. Mediation wordt vaak beschouwd als dé oplossing voor conflictscheidingen. Wetenschappelijk onderzoek laat echter een beperkte effectiviteit zien van mediation bij conflictscheidingen. Dit heeft onder andere te maken met de hoge prevalentie (rond 40%) van huiselijk geweld in conflictscheidingsgezinnen.
    In dit onderzoek is de visie van Nederlandse professionals over conflictscheidingen onderzocht en vergeleken met de kennis uit de wetenschappelijke literatuur. Met behulp van een online vragenlijst testten we het kennisniveau van 863 professionals die werken met conflictscheidingsgezinnen. Dit waren advocaten, professionals uit de jeugdzorg/-bescherming, mediators en professionals uit de GGZ.
    Professionals behaalden een gemiddelde score van 6,5 correcte antwoorden op een totaal van 11, waarbij juridische professionals significant beter scoorden dan sociale professionals. Slechts 17% van de professionals wist dat in bijna de helft van de conflictscheidingen huiselijk geweld een rol speelt. 55% van de professionals adviseerde in een geval van een al 7 jaar durende conflictscheiding mediation als effectieve interventie. 46% van de respondenten overschatte de prevalentie van valse beschuldigingen van huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling bij conflictscheidingen.
    In opleidingen voor Nederlandse juridische en sociale professionals die werken met conflictscheidingsgezinnen dient meer aandacht besteed te worden aan wetenschappelijke kennis, zodat professionals handelen op basis van kennis in plaats van persoonlijke opvattingen en mythen.
    ---
    High conflict divorces are among the 20% of divorce cases that continue to escalate over time. In order to help solve these complex divorce cases, it is important that professionals in the field possess evidence-based knowledge to provide effective interventions. One of these possible interventions is mediation, which is often seen as a panacea for high-conflict divorce (HCD) cases. However, scientific research has shown limited effectiveness of mediation in HCD cases. This is partially associated with the high prevalence (around 40%) of domestic violence in HCD.
    The present study examined professionals’ perspectives on high conflict-divorce cases and compared their views with the available scientific evidence. By means of a web-survey, we tested the knowledge of different professional groups (N = 863) who work with HCD families. The sample consisted of lawyers, child welfare/child protection professionals, mediators and mental health professionals.
    The results showed that professionals on average gave 6.5 correct responses out of 11 questions in total and that legal professionals scored significantly better than social professionals. Only 17% of the professionals were aware that in almost half of all high-conflict divorce cases domestic violence is a problem. For a high-conflict divorce case spanning 7 years, mediation was advised as an effective intervention by 55% of professionals. 46% of respondents overestimated the prevalence of false allegations of child abuse in HCD cases.
    More attention to scientific knowledge on HCD in the educational curricula for Dutch legal and social professionals is needed, in order to assure that their professional activities and decision making are based on scientific evidence instead of personal biases and myths.


Prof. dr. Corine de Ruiter
Prof. dr. Corine de Ruiter is a licensed clinical psychologist (BIG) in The Netherlands. She serves as professor of Forensic Psychology at Maastricht University. She also has a private practice. Her research focuses on the interface between psychopathology and crime. She has a special interest in the prevention of child abuse and intimate partner violence because they are both very common and often overlooked in practice.

Brigitte van Pol Msc
Brigitte van Pol studied Psychology and Law at Maastricht University. Her involvement in this research dates from her Master’s thesis on the role of mediation in high conflict divorce. The authors would like to thank the participants for their time and effort in completing our websurvey.

    In a precedent-setting case, the Danish Supreme Court recently ruled that a pregnant employee under notice, who claimed discrimination because she had not been reassigned to a vacant position that arose during the notice period, was not discriminated against.


Mariann Norrbom
Mariann Norrbom is a lawyer at Norrbom Vinding in Copenhagen, www.norrbomvinding.com.
ECJ Court Watch

ECJ 14 September 2016, case C-16/15 (Pérez López), Fixed-term work

María Elena Pérez López – v – Servicio Madrileño de Salud (Comunidad de Madrid)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden Fixed-term work
Samenvatting

    Successive fixed-term contracts cannot be justified by legal provisions allowing renewal in order to ensure the provision of certain services of a temporary, auxiliary or extraordinary nature when, in reality, there is no obligation to create additional permanent posts in order to bring an end to the structural use of fixed-term work to fill permanent posts.

Artikel

Aanpassing afstammings- en gezagsrecht gewenst voor ongehuwd samenwonende ouders

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden informal cohabitation, law of parentage, parental responsibilities, parental authority, child protection
Auteurs Prof. mr. W.M. Schrama
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this article attention will be paid to the radical societal changes in respect of informal cohabitation. The rate of extramarital child birth has increased to over 50% of all first-born children. Family law is traditionally focused on marriage, which was for a long time the only acceptable relationship type. The question addressed in this article is whether the law of parentage and the law of parental responsibilities should be reformed in order to meet the needs of modern families.


Prof. mr. W.M. Schrama
Prof. mr. Wendy Schrama is als hoogleraar familierecht en rechtsvergelijking verbonden aan het Utrecht Centre for European Research into Family Law van het Molengraaff Instituut voor Privaatrecht van de Universiteit Utrecht.
Artikel

Ouderschap en ouderlijk gezag bij niet-erkende islamitische huwelijken

Tijdschrift Justitiële verkenningen, Aflevering 4 2016
Trefwoorden unregistered Islamic marriages, polygamy, parentage, custody, parental authority
Auteurs Prof. dr. S.W.E. Rutten
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The identified trend of changing family relations and establishing a family without being traditionally married, probably does not apply to the entire Dutch population. Islamic law requires that people get married before children are born. Among Muslims, this standard is still followed on a large scale. Marriages which may be validly established according to Islamic law, however, will not always be recognized in the Netherlands. Examples include the unregistered marriages and polygamous marriages. This has implications for the way in which questions of parentage and custody of children that were born out of these marriages, are answered. In this article it will be argued that the law, where it concerns issues of parentage and custody, provides insufficient protection to the category of those unrecognized Islamic marriages.


Prof. dr. S.W.E. Rutten
Prof. dr. Susan Rutten is als bijzonder hoogleraar islamitisch familierecht in een Europese context verbonden aan de Universiteit Maastricht, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid. Website: https://ppp.maastrichtuniversity.nl/users/s.rutten.
Article

Access_open Formerly cohabiting parents and parenting plans: Who makes the effort?

Tijdschrift Family & Law, juni 2016
Auteurs Simon de Bruijn Msc, dr. Anne-Rigt Poortman en Prof. dr. ir Tanja van der Lippe
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    When the Promotion of Continued Parenting and Proper Divorce Act came into force on March 2009 both married and cohabiting Dutch parents of minor children were obliged to draw up a parenting plan when they separate. Parenting plans are not enforceable for cohabiters, however. Using data from the New Families in the Netherlands survey, we examine how many former cohabiters create a parenting plan and how this compares to the number of verbal or no arrangements. We expect that child, parents and relationship characteristics are important for the likelihood that a parenting plan is constructed. Results show that more than half of former cohabiters create a parenting plan. Furthermore, former cohabiters are more likely to draw up a parenting plan if they consult a legal practitioner during their separation process. In addition, the younger the youngest child is, the more likely that former cohabiters will create a parenting plan or make verbal arrangements rather than no arrangements. That is also true for higher educated households and if they opt for residential co-parenting after divorce. Former cohabiters in a high-conflict situation are less likely to develop a parenting plan than make no arrangements.


Simon de Bruijn Msc
Simon de Bruijn is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. His research interests include divorce and post-divorce arrangements.

dr. Anne-Rigt Poortman
Anne-Rigt Poortman is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. She received her Ph.D. at Utrecht University in 2002. Her main research interests are divorce and separation, new relationship types and legal aspects of partner relationships.

Prof. dr. ir Tanja van der Lippe
Tanja van der Lippe is a Professor of Sociology of Households and Employment Relations at the Department of Sociology and Research School (ICS) of Utrecht University. She is the head of the Department of Sociology and research director of ICS Utrecht. Her research interests are in the area of work-family linkages in Dutch and other societies.

    An employee challenged whether her employer’s refusal to provide childcare vouchers during maternity leave was discriminatory. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) determined, somewhat tentatively, that where childcare vouchers are provided through a salary sacrifice scheme, it is not discriminatory for employers to cease to provide childcare vouchers during maternity leave.


Catherine Hayes
Catherine Hayes is an Associate at Lewis Silkin LLP: www.lewissilkin.com.

    Sensitive interviews involve emotionally difficult topics which require participants to face issues that are deeply personal and possibly distressing. This paper draws together reflections concerning how researchers manage the challenges of conducting sensitive interviews, including the author’s own reflections concerning interviewing clinical negligence claimants. First, it examines the ethical guidelines that regulate sensitive research, and the challenges of obtaining informed consent and maintaining confidentiality. Ethical guidelines, however, provide limited assistance for ensuring the emotional care of research participants, and we also consider challenges that are not usually formally regulated. These include preparing for the interview, and then ensuring the emotional care of participants both during and after the interview itself. Sensitive research also raises deeper ethical issues concerning the negotiation of relations between researcher and participant, especially when this relationship is unequal. Finally, while previous research has generally focused on the need to take emotional care of research participants, less attention has been given to the emotional needs of researchers. It is argued that support systems for researchers are too often ad hoc, and that providing support is often not a priority of granting bodies, grant holders or supervisors, and that formal systems need to be put in place.


Angela Melville
Flinders Law School, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. Email: angela.melville@flinders.edu.au.

Darren Hincks
Flinders Law School, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.

    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.

    Dit artikel ontleedt het vaderschap, zowel op Belgisch als Europees niveau. Wie juridisch als vader wordt aangeduid, is niet altijd biologisch of sociaal vader voor een kind. Hoe dient de afweging van rechten en plichten voor deze verschillende vaders dan te gebeuren?
    Deel één bespreekt de vaderlijke afstamming naar Belgisch recht aan de hand van recente rechtspraak van het Grondwettelijk Hof. In vier centrale thema’s wordt het standpunt van het Hof geplaatst tegenover dat van de wetgever en het EHRM. Aan bod komen: bezit van staat, vervaltermijnen, het belang van het kind en verboden afstamming. De doelstelling lijkt het bewerkstelligen van een grotere individualisering van het afstammingsrecht. Dit leidt tot een patstelling voor de wetgever, die zal moeten bepalen hoe het afstammingsrecht naar de toekomst toe wordt geconstrueerd. Verdedigd wordt dat een belangenafweging zich voornamelijk dient te situeren bij de betwistingsprocedure, daar waar bij gebrek aan een reeds gevestigd juridisch vaderschap de biologische band mag primeren.
    Vervolgens wordt het vaderschap naast het moederschap geplaatst. Waar voor moeders een zekere vanzelfsprekendheid geldt, is dit allesbehalve zo voor vaders. Bovendien heeft de moeder een bepaalde zeggenschap over wie de vader van het kind wordt.
    Na een toelichting van het begrip ouderlijk gezag wordt de kneedbaarheid ervan aangegrepen om nieuwe voorstellen te formuleren. Ingrepen op het ouderlijk gezag, waaronder de ontzetting, kunnen ervoor zorgen dat een sociaal onwenselijke biologische afstammingsband alsnog kan worden gevestigd. Wanneer meerdere vaderfiguren zich aandienen, kan een uitbreiding van (bepaalde) gezagsrechten naar andere personen soelaas bieden.
    Tot slot verkennen we de verdeling van verschillende vaderfuncties over meerdere personen, zoals die reeds bestaat voor het omgangsrecht en de alimentatieverplichting. De lege ferenda wordt gepleit voor een “attest van verwekkerschap”, een verklaring naar recht van het biologisch verwekkerschap, waaraan bepaalde rechtsgevolgen worden gekoppeld.
    This article analyses fatherhood from a Belgian and European context. The legal father is not necessarily the biological or social father. How should we balance the rights and obligations of these different kinds of fatherhood?
    Part one reviews paternity in Belgian law through recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. In four central themes the Supreme Court’s position is weighed against that of the legislator and the ECHR. The four central themes are discussed in the following order: “possession of state”, statutes of limitations, the best interests of the child, and illegal filiation. The aim of the Supreme Court seems to be a case by case appreciation of filiation. It is then up to the legislator to decide how legal parentage is to be construed in the future. A balancing of interests should be the primary - and maybe even exclusive - consideration when the paternity is disputed. Where legal paternity has yet to be established, biological ties should be decisive.
    Next, legal paternity will be compared to legal maternity. Whereas establishing legal parentage seems to be quite evident in the case of mothers, this is not so straightforward for fathers. Moreover the mother has a say in who is to be the legal father.
    After a clarification ofthe concept ‘parental authority’, its flexible nature is taken as a starting point to suggest new solutions. Intervening in parental authority allows us to establish the socially undesirable biological paternity.In the case of multiple father figures, an expansion of specific authority rights to others may offer an alternative solution.
    Lastly, we explore the possibility of sharing paternal rights and obligations among multiple candidates, as is the case for visitation rights and child support obligations. We argue in favour of a “certificate of procreation” - a declaration of biological relationship that generates specific legal consequences.


Eline Smeuninx MA
Eline Smeuninx graduated from the law faculty of the University of Antwerp in 2014. She now specialises in medical law. As of September 2015 she will work as an associate in a law firm in Antwerp.
Artikel

Social security and social welfare: barriers and retrograde policies, but cause for optimism?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2015
Trefwoorden social security, legal representation, means-testing, Britain, fees
Auteurs Amir Paz-Fuchs
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution addresses the limits placed on access to justice in the context of social services, with a particular, but not exclusive, focus on the UK, across five central platforms: legal representation, the financial barriers, the structure of the programme, the attitude of the bureaucracy, and the personal attributes of the client. The contribution finds that there exist, for decades, problematic elements that constitute barriers to justice in this area: the means-tested element in the programmes and the bureaucracy’s double role as provider of services and detector of fraud. But to them, in recent years, significant barriers were added: recent cuts in legal aid and the imposition of tribunal fees in the UK are retrograde steps, reverting 40 years of impressive achievements in the field.


Amir Paz-Fuchs
Amir Paz-Fuchs (D. Phil Oxford) is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, University of Sussex, where he teaches employment law, public law, and legal theory. In addition, he is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and a Research Associate at Wolfson College, both at the University of Oxford. He is also Co-Director of the ‘The Limits of Privatization’ research project, based at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem. He also served on the board of several human rights and social justice NGOs.

    Op 11 februari 2015 heeft het Comité van Ministers van de Raad van Europa de Recommendation on preventing and resolving disputes on child relocation aangenomen. Dit is het eerste Europese instrument over het verhuizen met kinderen na scheiding. De Recommendation heeft een duidelijk tweeledig doel: het voorkomen van conflicten over verhuizingen met kinderen en, indien een conflict is gerezen, het bieden van richtsnoeren voor het oplossen daarvan. In deze bijdrage staan in de eerste plaats de inhoud van de Recommendation en de daarbij gemaakte keuzes centraal. Daarnaast wordt ingegaan op de vraag wat deze Recommendation kan betekenen voor het Nederlandse recht en de toepassing daarvan in verhuiszaken. In de Recommendation worden enige, naar het oordeel van de auteur verstandige keuzes gemaakt. Zo verdient het stevig inzetten op alternatieve geschiloplossing steun. Daarnaast is de aanbevolen afzonderlijke beoordeling van het belang van het kind, zonder dat dit belang echter de doorslag hoeft te geven, in overeenstemming met vaste rechtspraak van de Hoge Raad in verhuiszaken. Ook het pleidooi voor een neutrale, kind-gecentreerde, casuïstische benadering door de rechter strookt met de wijze waarop Nederlandse rechters tot hun beslissingen in verhuiszaken komen. Specifieke verhuiswetgeving op deze punten, zoals de Recommendation voorstelt, acht de auteur dan ook niet nodig. Wel zou de wettelijke verankering van de in de Recommendation voorgestelde formele notificatieplicht kunnen bijdragen aan het voorkomen van verhuisconflicten. Krachtens deze plicht dient de ouder met een verhuiswens de andere ouder – schriftelijk en binnen een redelijke termijn – te informeren over de voorgenomen verhuizing. Hoewel de verwachtingen van het daadwerkelijke effect van de Recommendation als niet-bindend instrument niet al te hoog gespannen moeten zijn, draagt deze bij aan de erkenning van verhuizing met kinderen als een (hoog)potentieel conflictueuze aangelegenheid.
    On the 11th February 2015 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Recommendation on preventing and resolving disputes on child relocation. This is the first European instrument on child relocation. The aim of the Recommendation is twofold: preventing relocation disputes, and in case of a dispute, providing guidelines for solving them. This contribution firstly intends to examine the principles of the Recommendation and the choices that has been made during the drafting process. Secondly, it will look at the question of to what extent the Recommendation could lead to any adjustments of Dutch law and its application in relocation cases. In the opinion of the author, a number of prudent choices have been made in the Recommendation. In the first place, the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution ought to be supported. Secondly, the recommended individual and separate assessment of the best interests of the child (whose interests are, however, not decisive) is in accordance with the case law of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in relocation cases. The plea for a neutral, child centered, case-by-case approach by the court is also consistent with the way in which Dutch courts make their decisions in relocation cases. Specific relocation legislation in this regard is not necessary in the opinion of the author. However, a legislative provision requiring the relocating parent to inform the other parent prior to the intended relocation might contribute to the prevention of disputes on child relocation. Although expectations concerning the actual effect of the Recommendation as a non-binding instrument should not be too high, it nevertheless contributes to the recognition of child relocation as an issue with a high potential for conflict.


Prof. mr. Lieke Coenraad
Prof. mr. Lieke Coenraad is Professor of Private Law and Dispute Resolution at the law faculty of VU University Amsterdam. She is also deputy judge at the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam.

    Those who talk can be heard. Those who are allowed to talk may be listened to. This study is an attempt to give legal voice to those who cannot talk or are usually not listened to: children. This study is about the attention given to their interests, the best interests of the child. When these interests are immersed in a minority context, children may be overlooked for different reasons, including discriminatory attitudes or prejudice regarding their families. Law and its interpretation must be changed in order to include the difference. This study discusses the best interests of the child principle with special attention to its legal relevance in cases where lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) are, or want to be, parents. The authoritative source for the interpretation of the principle is the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The analysis focuses on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and its case law. The study aims to explore the Court’s approach to the best interest of the child and identify whether the principle is being consistently applied in cases involving LGBT families, given the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are still sensitive issues in Europe. This is done by comparing these cases to cases lodged by applicants who were not identified as an LGBT person. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the lack of European consensus on sexual minorities’ rights are confronted with the urgent paramount consideration that has to be given to children’s best interests. The analysis explores whether there is room for detecting a possible Court’s biased approach towards the concept of the best interests of the child. This study challenges the Court’s decisions in the sense that the focus should not only be at the LGBT parents’ rights to private and family life, but also at the interests of their daughters and sons. This is an attempt to call upon the ECtHR and all states not only to actively fight discrimination against LGBT persons, but, ultimately, to stop interpreting the concept of the best interests of the child in an arguably biased way, and to consider the principle’s legal value in any decision, regardless of their parents’ sexual orientation, gender identity or any other distinction.


Mr. Gabriel Alves de Faria
Gabriel Alves de Faria is a Brazilian lawyer, LGBTI activist and human rights specialist who holds a Law degree from the Federal University of Espirito Santo and a European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation (E. MA/EIUC - Utrecht University). Among other legal and social experiences in the human rights field, Gabriel has worked as a researcher in comparative sexual orientation Law at Leiden University and most recently as a Fellow and consultant lawyer at the LGBTI Rapporteurship of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. His latest project is a documentary on the situation of LGBTI persons in Southeast Asia.
Toont 1 - 20 van 35 gevonden teksten
« 1
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.