In this article the question is reviewed whether two by the EU Commission proposed financial instruments to stimulate ‘green’ ship scrapping, (i) a Ship Recycling Fund (SRF) and (ii) a Ship Recycling License (SRL), might be qualified as a ‘tax’ under Article 192(2) TFEU. Qualification as such a “tax” would mean that the EU Commission can only introduce such a financial instrument with unanimity voting. The authors first explore the concept of ‘tax’ in the TFEU in general and in Article 192(2) TFEU in particular. Based on this analysis, the authors conclude that levies paid to an SRF might be qualified as an ‘earmarked tax’ falling within the definition of a ‘fiscal provision’ in the meaning of Article 192(2) TFEU, which means that levies to such a fund can only be introduced by unanimity voting. The SRL fee consists of two elements: (i) a fee to cover administrative expenses and (ii) a contribution to a savings account. The fee to cover administrative expenses is qualified by the authors as a retribution that should not be qualified as a fiscal provision in the meaning of Article 192(2) TFEU. The contribution to a blocked savings account can neither be qualified as a tax nor as a retribution. Therefore, the SRL fee can be introduced without unanimity voting by the EU Council.

This article considers how empirical legal studies (ELS) and doctrinal legal research (DLR) interact. Rather than seeing them as competitors that are methodologically independent and static, it suggests that they are interdependent activities, which may each be changed by interaction with the other, and that this change brings both opportunities and threats. For ELS, the article argues that DLR should properly be understood as part of its theoretical framework, yet in practice little attention is given to doctrine in empirical work. Paying more attention to DLR and legal frames generally would help ELS meet the common criticism that it is under-theorised and excessively policy oriented. On the other hand, an embrace of legal thinking, particularly of critical legal thinking, might lead to loss of status for ELS in policy circles and mainstream social science. For DLR, ELS offers a chance for it to escape the threat of insular sterility and irrelevance and to participate in a founded commentary on the world. The risk, however, is that in tailoring legal analysis to what can be empirically researched legal scholars become less analytically ambitious and more safe, and their traditionally important role as a source of socially relevant critique is weakened. Inevitably, in offering different ways of moving to normative conclusions about the law, ELS and DLR pose challenges to each other, and meeting those challenges will require sometimes uncomfortable self-reflection.

In each youth justice system, several age limits exist that indicate what type of reaction can and may be connected to the degree of responsibility that a person can already bear. Civil liability, criminal responsibility and criminal majority are examples of concepts on which age limits are based, but whose definition and impact is not always clear. Especially as far as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is concerned, confusion exists in legal doctrine. This is apparent from the fact that international comparison tables often show different MACRs for the same country. Moreover, the international literature often seems to define youth justice systems by means of a lower and upper limit, whereas such a dual distinction is too basic to comprehend the complex multilayer nature of the systems. This contribution therefore maps out and conceptually clarifies the different interpretations and consequences of the several age limits that exist within youth justice systems. To that extent, the age limits of six countries are analysed: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. This legal comparison ultimately leads to a proposal to establish a coherent conceptual framework on age limits in youth justice.

In the last decade neuropsychological insights have gained influence with regard to age boundaries in legal procedures, however, in Dutch civil law no such influence can be distinguished. Recently, voices have been raised to improve children’s legal position in civil law: to reflect upon the minimum age limit of twelve years for children to be invited to be heard in court and the need for children to have a stronger procedural position.
In this article, first the current legal position of children in Dutch law and practice will be analysed. Second, development of psychological constructs relevant for family law will be discussed in relation to underlying brain developmental processes and contextual effects. These constructs encompass cognitive capacity, autonomy, stress responsiveness and (peer) pressure.
From the first part it becomes clear that in Dutch family law, there is a tortuous jungle of age limits, exceptions and limitations regarding children’s procedural rights. Until recently, the Dutch government has been reluctant to improve the child’s procedural position in family law. Over the last two years, however, there has been an inclination towards further reflecting on improvements to the child’s procedural rights, which, from a children’s rights perspective, is an important step forward. Relevant neuropsychological insights support improvements for a better realisation of the child’s right to be heard, such as hearing children younger than twelve years of age in civil court proceedings.

In this article a critical reflection upon age limits applied in the law is provided, in light of the tension that exists in international children’s rights law between the protection of children and the recognition of their evolving autonomy. The main research question that will be addressed is to what extent the use of (certain) age limits is justified under international children’s rights law. The complexity of applying open norms and theoretically underdeveloped concepts as laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, related to the development and evolving capacities of children as rights holders, will be demonstrated. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child struggles to provide comprehensive guidance to states regarding the manner in which the dynamic legal position of children should be applied in practice. The inconsistent application of age limits that govern the involvement of children in judicial procedures provides states leeway in granting children autonomy, potentially leading to the establishment of age limits based on inappropriate – practically, politically or ideologically motivated – grounds.

Het recht van vrij verkeer en verblijf van EU-burgers en hun familieleden in de EU wordt geregeld door de Burgerschapsrichtlijn. Dit recht is echter niet absoluut en kan worden geweigerd of ingetrokken wanneer een EU-burger onvoldoende inkomsten heeft om voor zichzelf en voor zijn familie te zorgen. Familieleden die geen EU-nationaliteit bezitten, hebben een recht om te verblijven in een gastlidstaat, wanneer zij hun familielid, die EU-burger is, begeleiden of zich bij deze EU-burger voegen. In de twee zaken die in dit artikel centraal staan, worden deze twee voorwaarden voor het verblijfsrecht van EU-burgers en hun familieleden door het Hof van Justitie nader uitgelegd.
HvJ 2 oktober 2019, zaak C-93/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:809 (Ermira Bajratari/Secretary of State for the Home Department)
HvJ 10 september 2019, zaak. C-94/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:692 (Nalini Chenchooliah/Minister for Justice and Equality)

De Raad voor de Kinderbescherming verzoekt de beëindiging van het ouderlijk gezag van een ongeboren baby omdat de ouders een verstandelijke beperking hebben. Volgens de Raad mist de moeder vanwege haar verstandelijke beperking de sensitiviteit die nodig is voor de opvoeding. De moeder heeft een beroep gedaan op artikel 23 VN-verdrag inzake de Rechten van Personen met een Handicap (IVRPH). Daarin staat dat een kind niet gescheiden mag worden van zijn ouders enkel op basis van een handicap van de ouders en dat alle passende hulp geboden dient te worden om de opvoeding, eventueel met ondersteuning, mogelijk te maken. Rechtbank Amsterdam (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2019:3375) wijst het verzoek af. De rechtbank kijkt naar de meerwaarde van de toepassing van dit verdrag ten opzichte van reeds bestaande bepalingen in internationale verdragen.

Het College voor de Rechten van de Mens past de Wet gelijke behandeling op grond van handicap of chronische ziekte (WGBH/CZ) toe voor de discriminatiegrond h/cz.
Bij individuele situaties wordt beoordeeld in hoeverre een aanbieder gehouden is een ‘doeltreffende aanpassing’ te realiseren. Sinds 2016, toen de WGBH/CZ werd uitgebreid naar algemene toegankelijkheid, zijn ongeveer 140 oordelen h/cz uitgesproken.
In het artikel wordt een twintigtal ‘gevalsoverstijgende’ oordelen over handicap of chronische ziekte uit 2018 en 2019 beschreven. Wat heeft dit voor de WGBH/CZ opgeleverd en wat is de rol van het College?
In individuele situaties is het parool: onderzoek zorgvuldig, overleg en handel actief! Bij algemene toegankelijkheid kijkt het College steeds kritischer naar de inspanningen van de aanbieders.
Soms koppelt het College een individueel oordeel aan een rapportage of aanbeveling aan de wetgever. Voorbeelden daarvan worden met name gegeven op het terrein van het openbaar vervoer. In die gevallen zijn de oordelen ook een duidelijk signaal voor aanpassing van wetgeving of beleid. De dubbele rol van het College (toetser en toezichthouder) heeft dan een meerwaarde.
Op deze wijze kunnen oordelen de concrete toepasbaarheid en uitleg van de WGBH/CZ nog verder verstevigen en verduurzamen.

In het recente arrest Stoian t. Roemenië oordeelt het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) over de onderwijssituatie van een jongen met een beperking in Roemenië. Het Hof beoordeelt de zaak vanuit de redelijke aanpassingsplicht en besluit dat die niet geschonden is. In deze bijdrage bespreken en analyseren de auteurs dit arrest dat het Hof op veel kritiek kwam staan. Ze houden daarbij in het bijzonder rekening met het VN-Verdrag inzake de Rechten van Personen met een Handicap (IVRPH) en relevante voorgaande rechtspraak van het EHRM. In het arrest krijgen de principes van het IVRPH (opnieuw) een centrale plaats. De toepassing van die principes is minder eenduidig. Het arrest doet immers belangrijke vragen rijzen over de manier waarop het EHRM twee belangrijke IVRPH-verplichtingen inzake onderwijs toepast. Het IVRPH omvat onder meer de verplichting tot het voorzien van een toegankelijk onderwijssysteem en de verplichting in redelijke aanpassingen te voorzien. Die verplichtingen zijn er beide op gericht onderwijs toegankelijk te maken voor kinderen met een handicap. Tussen de twee verplichtingen bestaan echter belangrijke verschillen, onder meer inzake afdwingbaarheid. Het EHRM lijkt deze verplichtingen niet correct van elkaar te onderscheiden en aan de twee tegelijk te toetsen. Daarnaast is niet duidelijk hoe streng het Hof de verplichtingen van staten toetst in deze materie. De toetsingsintensiteit lijkt in Stoian lager te liggen dan in eerdere zaken. De auteurs besluiten dan ook dat het arrest geen echte zekerheid brengt over de standaarden die het Hof in volgende zaken zal hanteren.

Citizens investigating crimes themselves is a growing trend, because of democratization of information (e.g. social media), tools (e.g. apps) and knowledge (e.g. explanimations on YouTube). More and more citizens do their own research as modern Sherlocks. The police has to handle these trends in line with participant wishes and the law, but does not yet have concrete tools to do so. This article explores how the police participate in contemporary citizen criminal investigations, including the difficulties and benefits experienced. The obtained insights of the presented research serve as guidance, which can help police officers understand how to participate with citizens who have started, or want to start, a criminal investigation. The presented model explains how police can use it to better guide and stimulate, but also stop or protect citizens in their investigative activities. An app with professional guidance was piloted in four police units to participate with citizens that do their own research and learn from expectations and experiences. Citizens need guidance, but more importantly expect a certain degree of reciprocity in collaborating with police in criminal investigations.

Over the years, the use of data and digital technology in neighbourhood watch groups for prevention and detection of crime and citizens initiatives to enhance public safety has increased due to social and technological changes of citizen participation in coproduction of safety and digitization of economy and society. This causes a transition towards a new technology regime, a shift from a ‘closed’ information and communication technology regime owned by governmental organizations towards (inter)national ‘open’ platforms, which in turn challenges the current policy regime. This transition creates new societal expectations and challenges, often with contrasting dynamics. For instance, citizens are becoming the so-called ‘eyes and ears’ for government in prevention and detection of crime in neighbourhoods, while professionals are increasingly expected to coproduce safety with citizens through new forms of prevention and detection. With the rise of data and digital technology such as platforms and applications citizens are increasingly enabled to take the lead and initiate collaboration and organize new forms of prevention and surveillance in their own neighbourhoods.
Both in literature as in public policy practice, neighbourhood prevention and crime detection in general is addressed. However, less attention is spent on the role and impact of data and digital technology. We propose this is an issue because the emerging digital technology regime requires a new conceptual view wherein citizen initiatives are no longer perceived as merely instrumental to government interventions, but are understood as coproducers of public safety in their neighbourhoods, as part of a broader societal shift in which citizens are enabled by digital technology to organize their own data environments. Based on the introduction of digital coproduction, we illustrate four case examples to explain which opportunities for safety professionals and local governments arise to create a policy regime that suits the emerging digital technology regime.

‘Illiberal’ is an adjective that is commonly used by scholars. For example, they might speak of ‘illiberal cultures’, ‘illiberal groups’, ‘illiberal states’, ‘illiberal democracies’, ‘illiberal beliefs’, and ‘illiberal practices’. Yet despite its widespread usage, no in-depth discussions exist of exactly what it means for someone or something to be illiberal, or might mean. This article fills this lacuna by providing a conceptual analysis of the term ‘illiberal practices’, which I argue is basic in that other bearers of the property of being illiberal can be understood by reference to it. Specifically, I identify five ways in which a practice can be illiberal based on the different ways in which this term is employed within both scholarly and political discourses. The main value of this disaggregation lies in the fact that it helps to prevent confusions that arise when people use the adjective ‘illiberal’ in different ways, as is not uncommon.

Issues regarding domestic violence and abuse of children are considered to be complex phenomena. Often ecological models are used in order to explain that on different levels – societal, group and individual – factors that are of influence. With some of these aspects can be dealt, while others are more complex to influence. In practice professionals with different disciplinary backgrounds need to collaborate in order to be of assistance to families in need. As a model for collaboration so-called Family Justice Centers (FJC) have been developed. This concept originated in the United States and is nowadays also adopted in Europe. In the Netherlands there is a lot of interest in these FJC’s. In this contribution the impression of two visits two FJC’s in neighboring region Flanders (Belgium) is described. What can we learn from their experiences? What are the challenges of international comparisons of forms of policies and collaborations regarding the care for families and children?

It is unclear to what extent criminal record screening policies can explain low employment rates after release. This descriptive study provides more insight into this matter by examining whether ex-prisoners applied for a certificate of conduct, found employment and whether this job was found without such a certificate. To answer these questions interview data on ex-prisoners (N=931) are combined with data on criminal record screenings. Only 6 percent applied for a certificate, half of which were granted. Many ex-prisoners did not report any employment, but almost all working ex-prisoners found this job without a certificate. These findings bring nuance to discussions on the role of criminal record screening after release.

Deze bijdrage beoogt de belangrijkste thema’s van de nieuwe General Comment No. 24 (2019) uit te lichten die door het VN-Kinderrechtencomité zijn aangevuld of in hun geheel nieuw zijn toegevoegd. De wijzigingen zijn doorgevoerd in reactie op het veranderende beeld van kinderen in jeugdstrafrechtstelsels, dat van invloed is geweest op een drietal thema’s waaromtrent het Comité positieve en negatieve trends heeft gesignaleerd. Zo uit het Comité bijvoorbeeld zijn zorgen over het aanhoudende gebruik van vrijheidsbeneming ten aanzien van kinderen en benadrukt het nogmaals de noodzaak voor buitengerechtelijke interventies als alternatief voor vrijheidsbeneming. Het Comité hanteert daarentegen een optimistische toon wanneer het komt te spreken over de nieuwe absolute minimumleeftijd voor strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid, die is verhoogd van 12 naar 14 jaar, en het prijst de lidstaten die verder reiken dan dat minimum. Met de onderhavige General Comment tracht het Comité zijn standpunten omtrent bestaande en nieuwe thema’s te herbevestigen of geheel nieuw toe te voegen en daarmee aan lidstaten een richtsnoer te bieden voor het creëren van een jeugdstrafrechtstelsel dat volledig in lijn is met het VN-Kinderrechtenverdrag.