Nederland heeft, net als ieder ander land, groot belang bij goed werkende, gereguleerde handelsplatformen. De aantrekkelijkheid van handelsplatformen is mede afhankelijk van de kwaliteit van ‘public and private enforcement’ en juridische mogelijkheden om geschillen te beslechten. De afgelopen periode hebben grote Nederlandse ondernemingen de voorpagina’s van de kranten gehaald door hun (mogelijke) betrokkenheid bij financieel-economische criminaliteit. In deze bijdrage wordt de vraag beantwoord of ‘private enforcement’ van financieel-economische criminaliteit bij ondernemingen wel voldoende resultaat kan opleveren om effectief te zijn en om benadeelde partijen te ondersteunen bij het verhalen van hun schade.

De opkomst van de platformeconomie, met als prominente voorbeelden Uber en Deliveroo, deed de discussies omtrent de aard van de arbeidsrelatie heropleven. Zijn deze platformwerkers in werkelijkheid werknemers, en is het arbeidsrecht aan hervorming toe indien ze het wel of niet zijn? Deze bijdrage heeft eveneens tot doel om de werkingssfeer van het arbeidsrecht ter discussie te stellen door de regelgeving omtrent private arbeidsbemiddeling en uitzendarbeid toe te passen op platformen. Dienaangaande bepleit deze bijdrage om ten eerste de regelgeving omtrent private arbeidsbemiddeling aan te wenden om ook de bemiddeling van dienstverleningsovereenkomsten tussen werkzoekenden en opdrachtgevers te omkaderen. Ten tweede wijst de bijdrage op de mogelijke totstandkoming van ‘verdoken’ uitzendarbeid door middel van digitale platformen. Om dit te voorkomen stellen de auteurs een ‘vermoeden van uitzendbureau’ voor.

As a reaction to the perceived enforcement deficit of criminal law in the field of drug control, several countries implemented alternative regulatory strategies. One such strategy is the reregulating drugs, especially cannabis. Another strategy is the use of civil or administrative law to address drug-related crime. Especially the use of eviction to combat drug activities has become increasingly popular.
My PhD research focuses on these two developments within the field of drug control. More specifically, on the underlying rationales for the policies on recreational cannabis, the possibilities that international law provide to regulate recreational cannabis, the legal protection against drug-related evictions, and the explanation for the use of eviction to fight drug-related activities.

A rapidly growing field of research and practice, restorative justice has primarily found its gravitational centre within the criminal justice system, as an alternative of dealing with the aftermath of crime. Less explored remains the application of restorative justice in complex, urban, or intercultural contexts, an application which raises a whole set of conceptual and practical challenges. This article is based on an action project which aimed to research conflict narratives in intercultural contexts and transform them through restorative praxis. Mostly used in educational, organizational, and health care settings, action research remains an underused but a highly interesting methodology for criminology and criminal justice research. Its alternative epistemology makes it particularly apt for scientific projects that aim both at investigating crime and justice related issues and at engendering change, either at the level of criminal justice or communities. Although action research has focused mostly on creating change at the level of practical knowledge, when conceived in a critical manner, action research aims not only at improving the work of practitioners, but also at assisting them to arrive at a critique of their social or work settings. Practice concerns at the same time problem setting or problem framing. By zooming into one of the case studies of the project, more specifically the social housing estates in Vienna, I focus in this article specifically on the tensions and dilemmas created by processes of engagement in a problematizing approach to the context and to practice. During these processes, together with other social actors, such as inhabitants and professionals, we named problems (in our case social conflicts) and framed the context in which we addressed them. I argue that participatory forms of inquiry, such as action research, should actively reframe rather than merely describe contexts and problems they work with.

In 2018, in the wake of Brexit, the French legal profession took several important measures to strengthen the competitiveness of France and the French legal system, and to make Paris an attractive go-to-point for businesses when the latter have to deal with international commercial litigation. When taking a closer look at it, Brexit is only the top of the iceberg, and has mostly served as a catalyst. Reasons explaining the development of international commercial courts in France are manifold. They are consequences of long-standing efforts aimed at boosting the French judicial marketplace to adapt it to the requirements of globalization and to the expectations of multinational corporations. The setting-up of the French international business courts has made several procedural adjustments necessary. Although the latter undoubtedly represent clear innovations, they however do not constitute a full-blown revolution. France has indeed decided to maximize already-existing procedural rules, combined with a new organisational format inspired by the Common Law tradition. If it remains too early to draw clear conclusions on the impact of these new developments, it is essential to keep our ears to the ground, and to be forward-looking. We should carefully consider the possible side-effects on the French justice system considered as a whole, and in particular wonder whether these international commercial courts might in the future open the door to broader far-reaching evolutions within the judicial system. Finally, the multiplication of international business courts across Europe nowadays triggers some questions concerning the role and potential added value of an EU initiative in this domain.

This article looks at how normative questions, i.e. ‘what should the law be?‘, are approached in modern labour law scholarship. A distinction is made between internal and external normative frameworks for analysis, whereby internal frameworks are made up of principles, values or standards that are part of the law and the external frameworks are made up of theories outside of law. As a functional legal field, labour law can also benefit to a great deal from empirical research. However, the article argues that empirical facts by themselves have a limited normative value and that we need a normative framework in order to answer normative and evaluative questions. Therefore, the aim of the article is to review, clarify and evaluate the internal normative framework of labour law.

In deze bijdrage wordt onderzocht of de prepack na Smallsteps nog relevant is voor de praktijk. Daarnaast wordt ingegaan op een mogelijke oplossing om de prepack weer relevant te maken: toepassing van de OVO-regeling op alle doorstarts in faillissement. Deze mogelijkheid wordt onderzocht met behulp van een vergelijking met Engels recht.

In dit artikel staat centraal dat de beperking van de door het Hof van Justitie geformuleerde ‘cao-exceptie’ op het Europese mededingingsrecht tot ‘werknemers’ en ‘schijnzelfstandigen’ zich moeilijk tot een grondrechtenbenadering lijkt te verhouden. Zelfstandigen met een zwakke arbeidsmarktpositie hebben namelijk evenzeer behoefte aan collectieve middelen om hun arbeidsvoorwaarden te verbeteren en vallen ook onder grondrechtenverdragen. Door een uitgebreide beschouwing van de relevante rechtsinstrumenten van de VN, de IAO en de Raad van Europa en de uitleg die de toezichtorganen hieraan geven blijkt dat het grondrecht op vrijheid van (vak)vereniging, collectief onderhandelen en collectieve actie evenzeer aan deze groep lijkt toe te komen, en een te rigoureuze inperking vanwege het mededingingsrecht niet gerechtvaardigd wordt geacht. De conclusie bevat enkele gedachten over hoe het Europese mededingingsrecht met een grondrechtenbenadering overeenstemming te brengen. Daarbij passeren zowel de recente ontwikkelingen rondom het zelfstandigenvraagstuk in Nederland als initiatieven op Europees niveau de revue.

In recent years, there has been growing policy support for expanding worker ownership of businesses in the European Union. Debates on stimulating worker ownership are a regular feature of discussions on the collaborative economy and the future of work, given anxieties regarding the reconfiguration of the nature of work and the decline of standardised employment contracts. Yet, worker ownership, in the form of labour-managed firms such as worker cooperatives, remains marginal. This article explains the appeal of worker cooperatives and examines the reasons why they continue to be relatively scarce. Taking its cue from Henry Hansmann’s hypothesis that organisational innovations can make worker ownership of firms viable in previously untenable circumstances, this article explores how organisational innovations, such as those embodied in the capital and governance structure of Decentralised (Autonomous) Organisations (D(A)Os), can potentially facilitate the growth of LMFs. It does so by undertaking a case study of a blockchain project, Colony, which seeks to create decentralised, self-organising companies where decision-making power derives from high-quality work. For worker cooperatives, seeking to connect globally dispersed workers through an online workplace, Colony’s proposed capital and governance structure, based on technological and game theoretic insight may offer useful lessons. Drawing from this pre-figurative structure, self-imposed institutional rules may be deployed by worker cooperatives in their by-laws to avoid some of the main pitfalls associated with labour management and thereby, potentially, vitalise the formation of the cooperative form.

A common conception in the legal literature holds that in a given country, the law in force is to be understood against the background of shared beliefs about justice in that particular country. If that conception holds true, the applicable civil law in a particular country should reflect the shared views on ‘civil justice’ within that country and, as a result, citizens should reveal a preference for domestic civil law over the civil law of another country for a given case. In this research we empirically investigated to what extent the applicable law in particular cases corresponds to actual beliefs about what is seen as just in those situations. Does Dutch liability law in a particular case correspond with what citizens in the Netherlands consider to be just in that case? And does the applicable English liability law correspond to what English people consider fair in that case?
In an experiment we compared Dutch and English respondents’ views on the fairness of legal solutions in three different, hypothetical cases where Dutch and English legal solutions to the same case would diverge. We find that at the aggregate level, respondents indeed reveal a preference for the legal solution that is applicable in their own country, regardless of whether the different legal solutions are presented as applicable or not: Dutch respondents prefer Dutch civil solutions and English respondents prefer English civil solutions. However, we also observe differences between cases that make strong conclusions about a structural correspondence premature.

Legal doctrinal scholarship engages with the problems of legal practice: it systematizes, comments on, evaluates and debates what goes on in law. These activities do not occur in a vacuum: they are embedded in scholarly traditions and theories. This paper discusses the role of the theoretical frameworks used in legal research and has two related aims. First, it aims to provide some practical conceptualizations and guidelines regarding theoretical and normative frameworks that are useful to understand and conduct legal research. Second, it aims to investigate the relationships between different kinds of normative frameworks and their relationship to empirical work. In the second part, an argument is made for a pragmatist understanding of the interplay between normative theorizing and empirical study. How do these work together in judgments about the state of the law?

Liability insurances shift the financial risk of the loss of a damage from the person who is liable for the damage to the liability insurer. To avoid negligent behavior of the insured, the insurer provides different prevention tools in the insurance policy. The insurer will attach certain sanctions or rewards to certain behavior and certain circumstances in the general conditions of the insurance contract. This research raises the question of the effectiveness of these instruments. The hypothesis is that without knowledge of the insured of these sanctions or rewards, these sanctions and rewards will not form an additional incentive for careful behavior and they will have no preventive effect. Additionally, these prevention tools may undermine the protection of the insured. For this reason the legislature has limited the freedom of contract. This study examines the extent to which the legislature has limited the possibilities of the insurer to provide in prevention tools in de insurance policy. It assesses the extent to which the legislature may or may not succeed in its purpose to protect the insured, and on the other hand, where there are still possibilities for the insurer to fulfill its prevention task.

De vraag hoeveel werknemersbescherming lidstaten aan uit het buitenland gedetacheerde werknemers kunnen toekennen, heeft de gemoederen lange tijd bezig gehouden. De zaak Laval bracht duidelijkheid, maar heeft ook tot nieuwe uitdagingen geleid. Verschillende constructies zijn ingezet om de loonkosten zo laag mogelijk te houden. Denk aan het vermijden van permanente detachering, maar ook aan het oprichten van buitenlandse bv’s die werknemers naar Nederlandse concernonderdelen detacheren. De constructies zijn lucratief omdat de juridische status bepaalt waarop de buitenlandse werknemer recht heeft. De ene keer bestaat recht op de hardekern-arbeidsvoorwaarden en de andere keer op alle (dwingende) arbeidsrechtelijke bepalingen uit het werkland. Bovendien kennen de verschillende typen detachering uit de Detacheringsrichtlijn – contracting, intra-concernuitlening en uitzending – ook elk hun eigen arbeidsrechtelijke regime. In dit artikel staat centraal wanneer nu welk arbeidsrechtelijk regime geldt en waarom. De auteur beantwoordt deze vraag aan de hand van de fundamentele verkeersvrijheden, het internationaal privaatrecht en het Nederlandse nationale arbeidsrecht. Ook is er aandacht voor het voorstel tot aanpassing van de Detacheringsrichtlijn van maart dit jaar.

Central to this contribution is the question whether Dworkin’s theory of constructive interpretation as a method of applying law for the judge, can be used as a method of legal-dogmatic research. Constructive interpretation is a method of legal interpretation that aims to find a normative unity in the diversity of rules that characterize a legal system. In order to find an answer to this question, the key elements of Dworkin’s theory are explained and applied to the author’s PhD research. Methodological difficulties that could give rise to problems when applying Dworkin’s theory, are investigated. In the end, the author concludes that since the judge and the scholar use quite the same methods when interpreting law, the principles of constructivism should fit legal research well, even though some aspects of Dworkin’s theory are difficult to operationalize in practice. As a leading notion however, constructivism constitutes a workable method of legal research.

Het Hof van Justitie beoordeelt of het minimumloon dat een Poolse dienstverlener op grond van Fins recht moet betalen aan zijn Poolse werknemers die in Finland zijn gedetacheerd, in overeenstemming is met de bepalingen voor minimale bescherming uit de detacheringsrichtlijn. Het Hof van Justitie laat in zijn arrest een ruime marge aan de lidstaten om het minimumloon te bepalen. Hoewel uit het Laval-arrest voortvloeide dat de door de richtlijn beoogde minimumbescherming vanuit het oogpunt van vrij verkeer als plafond heeft te gelden, maakt dit arrest duidelijk dat de richtlijn niet noodzakelijkerwijs het absoluut laagste niveau verlangt dat het recht van de ontvangststaat aan sociale bescherming biedt.
HvJ 12 februari 2015, zaak C-396/13, Sähköalojen ammattiliitto ry/Elektrobudowa Spółka Akcyjna (‘Finse vakbond’), ECLI:EU:C:2015:86

The doctrinal methodology is in a period of change and transition. Realising that the scope of the doctrinal method is too constricting, academic lawyers are becoming eclectic in their use of research method. In this transitional time, legal scholars are increasingly infusing evidence (and methods) from other disciplines into their reasoning to bolster their reform recommendations.
This article considers three examples of the interplay of the discipline of law with other disciplines in the pursuit of law reform. Firstly the article reviews studies on the extent of methodologies and reformist frameworks in PhD research in Australia. Secondly it analyses a ‘snapshot’ of recently published Australian journal articles on criminal law reform. Thirdly, it focuses on the law reform commissions, those independent government committees that play such an important role in law reform in common law jurisdictions.
This examination demonstrates that while the doctrinal core of legal scholarship remains intact, legal scholars are endeavouring to accommodate statistics, comparative perspectives, social science evidence and methods, and theoretical analysis, within the legal research framework, in order to provide additional ballast to the recommendations for reform.

The aim of the paper is to consider the significance for labour law theory and practice of empirical research into the operation and effects of this branch of law. It will be argued that empirical research has an important role to play in the methodology of labour law, even if it is ancillary, much of the time, to doctrinal approaches. Secondly, and relatedly, the paper will address the historical role of empirical research in the shaping of labour law as a field distinct from both private law and public law, and, in particular, as transcending the categories of property and contract that were inherited from the individualist private law of the nineteenth century. The third and last theme of the paper is that of the role of empirical research in addressing contemporary issues of labour law doctrine and policy.

This article provides an overview of the methodological challenges that scholars are confronted with in relation to use of legislation, case law and literature commentaries within doctrinal legal inquiry. Therefore it employs a systematic literature review and a supplementary explorative expert-consultation among legal scholars of Tilburg University. Although the scope of the research is still limited, it shows that doctrinal legal inquiry is subjected to more and other methodological challenges surrounding the source-usage than one might expect. This insight may contribute to the further development of the meta-discipline ’law and methodology’ and simultaneously allows for more methodological awareness among doctrinal legal scholars.