Zoekresultaat: 62 artikelen

x
Artikel

Access_open The ECHR and Private Intercountry Adoptions in Germany and the Netherlands: Lessons Learned from Campanelli and Paradiso v. Italy

Tijdschrift Family & Law, januari 2021
Trefwoorden Private intercountry adoptions, surrogacy, ECHR, UNCRC, the best interests of the child
Auteurs dr. E.C. Loibl
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Within the past half century, a market in adoptable children has emerged. The imbalance between the demand for and the supply of adoptable children, combined with the large sums of Western money, incite greedy actors in poor countries to illegally obtain children for adoption. This renders intercountry adoption conducive to abuses. Private adoptions are particularly prone to abusive and commercial practices. Yet, although they violate both international and national law, German and Dutch family courts commonly recognize them. They argue that removing the child from the illegal adopters would not be compatible with the rights and best interests of the individual child concerned. In 2017, the ECtHR rendered a ground-breaking judgement in Campanelli and Paradiso v. Italy. In this case, the Court dealt with the question as to whether removing a child from the care of an Italian couple that entered into a surrogacy agreement with a Russian clinic, given that surrogacy is illegal in Italy, violated Article 8 ECHR. Contrary to previous case law, in which the ECtHR placed a strong emphasis on the best interests of the individual child concerned, the Court attached more weight to the need to prevent disorder and crime by putting an end to the illegal situation created by the Italian couple and by discouraging others from bypassing national laws. The article argues that considering the shifting focus of the ECtHR on the prevention of unlawful conduct and, thus, on the best interests of children in general, the German and Dutch courts’ failure to properly balance the different interests at stake in a private international adoption by mainly focusing on the individual rights and interests of the children is difficult to maintain.

    ---

    In de afgelopen halve eeuw is er een markt voor adoptiekinderen ontstaan. De disbalans tussen de vraag naar en het aanbod van adoptiekinderen, in combinatie met grote sommen westers geld, zet hebzuchtige actoren in arme landen ertoe aan illegaal kinderen te verkrijgen voor adoptie. Dit maakt interlandelijke adoptie bevorderlijk voor misbruik. Particuliere adoptie is bijzonder vatbaar voor misbruik en commerciële praktijken. Ondanks het feit dat deze privé-adopties in strijd zijn met zowel internationaal als nationaal recht, worden ze door Duitse en Nederlandse familierechtbanken doorgaans wel erkend. Daartoe wordt aangevoerd dat het verwijderen van het kind van de illegale adoptanten niet verenigbaar is met de rechten en belangen van het individuele kind in kwestie. In 2017 heeft het EHRM een baanbrekende uitspraak gedaan in de zaak Campanelli en Paradiso t. Italië. In deze zaak behandelde het Hof de vraag of het verwijderen van een kind uit de zorg van een Italiaans echtpaar dat een draagmoederschapsovereenkomst met een Russische kliniek is aangegaan, in strijd is met artikel 8 EVRM, daarbij in ogenschouw genomen dat draagmoederschap in Italië illegaal is. In tegenstelling tot eerdere jurisprudentie, waarin het EHRM sterk de nadruk legde op de belangen van het individuele kind, hechtte het Hof meer gewicht aan de noodzaak om de openbare orde te bewaken en criminaliteit te voorkomen door een einde te maken aan de illegale situatie die door het Italiaanse echtpaar was gecreëerd door onder andere het omzeilen van nationale wetten. Het artikel stelt dat, gezien de verschuiving in de focus van het EHRM op het voorkomen van onwettig gedrag en dus op het belang van kinderen in het algemeen, de Duitse en Nederlandse rechtbanken, door met name te focussen op de individuele rechten en belangen van de kinderen, er niet in slagen om de verschillende belangen die op het spel staan ​​bij een particuliere internationale adoptie goed af te wegen.


dr. E.C. Loibl
Elvira Loibl is Assistant Professor Criminal Law and Criminology, Universiteit Maastricht.
Article

Access_open Correcting Wrongful Convictions in France

Has the Act of 2014 Opened the Door to Revision?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden Final criminal conviction, revision procedure, grounds for revision, preparatory investigative measures, Cour de révision et de réexamen
Auteurs Katrien Verhesschen en Cyrille Fijnaut
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The French ‘Code de procédure pénale’ provides the possibility to revise final criminal convictions. The Act of 2014 reformed the procedure for revision and introduced some important novelties. The first is that it reduced the different possible grounds for revision to one ground, which it intended to broaden. The remaining ground for revision is the existence of a new fact or an element unknown to the court at the time of the initial proceedings, of such a nature as to establish the convicted person’s innocence or to give rise to doubt about his guilt. The legislature intended judges to no longer require ‘serious doubt’. However, experts question whether judges will comply with this intention of the legislature. The second is the introduction of the possibility for the applicant to ask the public prosecutor to carry out the investigative measures that seem necessary to bring to light a new fact or an unknown element before filing a request for revision. The third is that the Act of 2014 created the ‘Cour de révision et de réexamen’, which is composed of eighteen judges of the different chambers of the ‘Cour de cassation’. This ‘Cour de révision et de réexamen’ is divided into a ‘commission d’instruction’, which acts as a filter and examines the admissibility of the requests for revision, and a ‘formation de jugement’, which decides on the substance of the requests. Practice will have to show whether these novelties indeed improved the accessibility of the revision procedure.


Katrien Verhesschen
Katrien Verhesschen is PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the Institute of Criminal Law KU Leuven.

Cyrille Fijnaut
Cyrille Fijnaut is Emeritus Professor of Criminal Law & Criminology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, KU Leuven and Tilburg University.
Article

Access_open Mechanisms for Correcting Judicial Errors in Germany

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden criminal proceedings, retrial in favour of the convicted, retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant, Germany, judicial errors
Auteurs Michael Lindemann en Fabienne Lienau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The article presents the status quo of the law of retrial in Germany and gives an overview of the law and practice of the latter in favour of the convicted and to the disadvantage of the defendant. Particularly, the formal and material prerequisites for a successful petition to retry the criminal case are subject to a detailed presentation and evaluation. Because no official statistics are kept regarding successful retrial processes in Germany, the actual number of judicial errors is primarily the subject of more or less well-founded estimates by legal practitioners and journalists. However, there are a few newer empirical studies devoted to different facets of the subject. These studies will be discussed in this article in order to outline the state of empirical research on the legal reality of the retrial procedure. Against this background, the article will ultimately highlight currently discussed reforms and subject these to a critical evaluation as well. The aim of the recent reform efforts is to add a ground for retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant for cases in which new facts or evidence indicate that the acquitted person was guilty. After detailed discussion, the proposal in question is rejected, inter alia for constitutional reasons.


Michael Lindemann
Michael Lindemann is Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Bielefeld University, Germany.

Fabienne Lienau
Fabienne Lienau is Research Assistant at the Chair held by Michael Lindemann.
Article

Access_open The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful convictions, right to claim innocence, reopening of criminal proceedings, miscarriage of justice, revision of final judgment
Auteurs Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation en Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, their reasons and effects, only rarely become the subject of academic debate in Poland. This article aims at filling this gap and providing a discussion on the current challenges of mechanisms available in Polish law focused on the verification of final judgments based on innocence claims. While there are two procedures designed to move such judgment: cassation and the reopening of criminal proceedings, only the latter aims at the verification of new facts and evidence, and this work remains focused exactly on that issue. The article begins with a case study of the famous Komenda case, which resulted in a successful innocence claim, serving as a good, though rare, example of reopening a case and acquitting the convict immediately and allows for discussing the reasons that commonly stand behind wrongful convictions in Poland. Furthermore, the article examines the innocence claim grounds as regulated in the Polish criminal procedure and their interpretation under the current case law. It also presents the procedure concerning the revision of the case. The work additionally provides the analysis of the use of innocence claim in practice, feeding on the statistical data and explaining tendencies in application for revision of a case. It also presents the efforts of the Polish Ombudsman and NGOs to raise public awareness in that field. The final conclusions address the main challenges that the Polish system faces concerning innocence claims and indicates the direction in which the system should go.


Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation
Wojciech Jasiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-1474

Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
Karolina Kremens is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-2645
Article

Access_open Chosen Blindness or a Revelation of the Truth?

A New Procedure for Revision in Belgium

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden final criminal conviction, revision procedure, grounds for revision, Court of Cassation, Commission for revision in criminal matters
Auteurs Katrien Verhesschen en Cyrille Fijnaut
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Belgian Code of criminal procedure provides the possibility to revise final criminal convictions. This procedure had remained more or less untouched for 124 years, but was finally reformed by the Act of 2018, after criticism was voiced in legal doctrine concerning its narrow scope and possible appearances of partiality and prejudice. The Act of 2018 therefore broadened the third ground for revision, the so-called novum, and defined it as an element that was unknown to the judge during the initial proceedings and impossible for the convicted person to demonstrate at that time and that, alone or combined with evidence that was gathered earlier, seems incompatible with the conviction, thus creating a strong suspicion that, if it had been known, it would have led to a more favourable outcome. Thereby, this ground for revision is no longer limited to factual circumstances, but also includes changed appreciations by experts. To counter appearances of partiality and prejudice, the Act of 2018 created the Commission for revision in criminal matters, a multidisciplinary body that has to give non-binding advice to the Court of Cassation on the presence of a novum. However, the legislature also introduced new hurdles on the path to revision, such as the requirement for the applicant to add pieces that demonstrate the ground for revision in order for his or her request to be admissible. For that reason, the application in practice will have to demonstrate whether the Act of 2018 made the revision procedure more accessible in reality.


Katrien Verhesschen
Katrien Verhesschen is a PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the Institute of Criminal Law KU Leuven.

Cyrille Fijnaut
Cyrille Fijnaut is Emeritus Professor of Criminal Law & Criminology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, KU Leuven and Tilburg University.
Article

Access_open Post-Conviction Remedies in the Italian Criminal Justice System

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful conviction, revision, extraordinary appeal, rescission of final judgment, res judicata
Auteurs Luca Lupária Donati en Marco Pittiruti
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Italian Constitution expressly contemplates the possibility of a wrongful conviction, by stating that the law shall determine the conditions and forms regulating damages in case of judicial error. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many provisions of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) deal with the topic. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the post-conviction remedies in the Italian legal system by considering the current provisions of the CCP, on the one hand, and by exploring their practical implementation, on the other.


Luca Lupária Donati
Luca Lupária is Full Professor of Criminal Procedure at Roma Tre University, Director of the Italy Innocence Project and President of the European Innocence Network.

Marco Pittiruti
Marco Pittiruti is researcher of Criminal Procedure at Roma Tre University.
Article

Access_open Exoneration in Sweden

Is It Not about Time to Reform the Swedish Model?

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden wrongful convictions, extraordinary legal remedy, exoneration, exoneration in Sweden
Auteurs Dennis Martinsson
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article reviews exoneration in Sweden, with a focus on the procedure of applying for exoneration. First, it highlights some core features of Swedish criminal procedural law, necessary to understand exoneration in the Swedish context. Secondly, it outlines the possibilities in Swedish law to apply for exoneration, both in favour of a convicted person and to the disadvantage of a previously acquitted defendant. Thirdly, it identifies some challenges with the current Swedish model of administering applications for exoneration. Fourthly, it argues that the current system should be reformed by introducing into Swedish law a review committee that administers applications for exoneration.


Dennis Martinsson
Dennis Martinsson is Assistant Professor in the Department of Law of Stockholm University in Sweden.
Article

Access_open Overturning Wrongful Convictions by Way of the Extraordinary Review

The Spanish Experience

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2020
Trefwoorden extraordinary review, remedies, fair trial, wrongful convictions, criminal justice, innocence, procedural safeguards, justice
Auteurs Lorena Bachmaier Winter en Antonio Martínez Santos
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    According to the traditional view, the ultimate aim of the extraordinary review (recurso de revisión) provided in the Spanish justice system was to deal with wrongful criminal convictions and correct those serious miscarriages of justice which became apparent only after the judgment had become final. However, the 2015 reform called this traditional view into question by formally including two additional grounds for review that are not necessarily related to the correcting miscarriages or blatant mistakes in the assessment of the facts made by the sentencing court. This paper aims to give an overview of the extraordinary review in Spain. To that end it will first address the legal framework and its practical implementation, as well as present pitfalls and best practices. Finally, future trends and challenges will be identified in order to improve the protection of defendants who have suffered a wrongful conviction.


Lorena Bachmaier Winter
Lorena Bachmaier Winter is Professor of Law at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Antonio Martínez Santos
Antonio Martínez Santos is Associate Professor of Law, Francisco de Vitoria University, Madrid.
Artikel

De opsporings- en vervolgingscompetentie van het Europees Openbaar Ministerie in Nederland

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving, Aflevering 6 2020
Trefwoorden Europees Openbaar Ministerie, opsporing, subsidiefraude, corruptie, EU-strafrecht
Auteurs Mr. dr. W. Geelhoed
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Het Europees Openbaar Ministerie gaat ook in Nederland strafbare feiten opsporen en vervolgen die schade toebrengen aan de financiële belangen van de EU. Maar welke feiten precies? Hoe wordt zijn competentie afgebakend van de competentie van de nationale autoriteiten? En hoe wordt verzekerd dat het Europees OM niet alleen formeel, maar ook praktisch in staat is om de opsporingsonderzoeken uit te voeren waarvoor het bevoegd is? Deze bijdrage bespreekt de invoeringswet waarmee het Europees OM in de Nederlandse rechtsorde wordt ingebed, en de competentievragen die daarbij een rol spelen. Sommige punten zijn helder, maar andere leiden slechts tot vraagtekens.


Mr. dr. W. Geelhoed
Mr. dr. W. Geelhoed is universitair docent straf- en strafprocesrecht aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

    The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that, while it is for national courts to make decisions about employment status, a courier working for Yodel in the UK appeared to have been correctly classified as self-employed, given the latitude he had over accepting jobs, working for competitors, providing substitutes and deciding his work schedule. The crucial factors were independence and subordination.


Colin Leckey
Colin Leckey is a Partner at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Article

Access_open Characteristics of Young Adults Sentenced with Juvenile Sanctions in the Netherlands

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden young adult offenders, juvenile sanctions for young adults, juvenile criminal law, psychosocial immaturity
Auteurs Lise Prop, André van der Laan, Charlotte Barendregt e.a.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Since 1 April 2014, young adults aged 18 up to and including 22 years can be sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the Netherlands. This legislation is referred to as ‘adolescent criminal law’ (ACL). An important reason for the special treatment of young adults is their over-representation in crime. The underlying idea of ACL is that some young adult offenders are less mature than others. These young adults may benefit more from pedagogically oriented juvenile sanctions than from the deterrent focus of adult sanctions. Little is known, however, about the characteristics of the young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions since the implementation of ACL. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the demographic, criminogenic and criminal case characteristics of young adult offenders sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the first year after the implementation of ACL. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a juvenile sanction group and an adult sanction group. Data on 583 criminal cases of young adults, sanctioned from 1 April 2014 up to March 2015, were included. Data were obtained from the Public Prosecution Service, the Dutch Probation Service and Statistics Netherlands. The results showed that characteristics indicating problems across different domains were more prevalent among young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions. Furthermore, these young adults committed a greater number of serious offences compared with young adults who were sentenced with adult sanctions. The findings of this study provide support for the special treatment of young adult offenders in criminal law as intended by ACL.


Lise Prop
Lise Prop is researcher at the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Den Haag, the Netherlands.

André van der Laan
André van der Laan is senior researcher at the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Den Haag, the Netherlands.

Charlotte Barendregt
Charlotte Barendregt is senior advisor at the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen
Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen is professor at Tilburg University, and treatment manager at the Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jurisprudentie

Kroniek ondernemingsstrafrecht

Eerste helft 2020

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving, Aflevering 4 2020
Auteurs Prof. mr. H.J.B. Sackers (red.), Mr. J. Boonstra-Verhaert, Mr. dr. S.S. Buisman e.a.

Prof. mr. H.J.B. Sackers (red.)

Mr. J. Boonstra-Verhaert

Mr. dr. S.S. Buisman

Mr. A.A. Feenstra

Mr. K.M.T. Helwegen

Mr. dr. I. Koopmans

Mr. V.S.Y. Liem

Prof. mr. M. Nelemans

Mr. dr. J.S. Nan

Mr. dr. E. Sikkema

Mr. dr. drs. B. van de Vorm

Mr. dr. W.S. de Zanger
Artikel

Ecocide als internationaal misdrijf? Perspectieven op vervolging en berechting in Nederland

Tijdschrift Boom Strafblad, Aflevering 3 2020
Trefwoorden Ecocide, Milieustrafrecht, Internationale misdrijven, Internationaal strafhof
Auteurs Prof. mr. G.K. (Göran) Sluiter en Mr. B. (Barbara) van Straaten
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Al geruime tijd leeft de wens ernstige milieumisdrijven (ecocide) onderdeel te laten uitmaken van het internationaal strafrecht, in het bijzonder de misdrijven waarover het Internationaal Strafhof rechtsmacht heeft. Het is op dit moment niet te voorspellen of en op welke wijze ecocide ooit volwaardig onderdeel gaat uitmaken van het positieve internationale strafrecht. Deze bijdrage richt zich op de vraag in hoeverre het actuele internationale strafrecht aanknopingspunten biedt voor vervolging van ecocide en op welke wijze Nederland in de nationale opsporings- en vervolgingspraktijk hiermee rekening zou moeten houden.


Prof. mr. G.K. (Göran) Sluiter
Göran Sluiter is advocaat bij Prakken d’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers in Amsterdam, hoogleraar internationaal strafrecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam en hoogleraar strafrecht aan de Open Universiteit.

Mr. B. (Barbara) van Straaten
Barbara van Straaten is advocaat bij Prakken d’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers in Amsterdam.
Artikel

Neurenberg als wegbereider voor het internationale strafrecht

Tijdschrift Boom Strafblad, Aflevering 2 2020
Trefwoorden Neurenburg Tribunaal, Internationaal strafrecht, Oorlogsmisdrijven, Tweede Wereldoorlog
Auteurs Prof. mr. H.G. (Harmen) van der Wilt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    De 75-jarige herdenking van de historische verrichtingen van het Neurenberg Tribunaal biedt een mooie gelegenheid om de balans op te maken van de staat van het internationale strafrecht. In het licht van de grillige veranderingen in de opvattingen over de normatieve en politieke levensvatbaarheid van internationaal strafrecht wordt in dit essay ingegaan op bijdrage van het Neurenberg Tribunaal aan de ontwikkeling van het internationale strafrecht.


Prof. mr. H.G. (Harmen) van der Wilt
Hoogleraar internationaal strafrecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open Juvenile Justice in the Caribbean Netherlands: Important considerations from a Children’s Rights Perspective

Tijdschrift Boom Strafblad, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden UNICEF Situation Analysis, Caribbean Netherlands, Children’s Rights, Juvenile Justice
Auteurs L. (La-Toya) Charles MSc.
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Dutch Government intends to implement a Juvenile Justice Law for the Caribbean Netherlands. This article addresses this development and gives some important considerations from a children’s rights perspective; particularly, the rights of children while in the juvenile justice system and the Government’s obligation to prevent children from entering into the system. The discussion hinges on the findings of UNICEF The Netherlands’ recently published Situation Analysis on the Rights of Children and Adolescents in the Caribbean Netherlands, focusing on child vulnerabilities that may eventually lead to criminality and recommendations regarding necessary provisions, collaboration between ministries and public entities, and the availability of data to monitor the effectiveness of government policy.


L. (La-Toya) Charles MSc.
Children’s Rights Advocacy Specialist at UNICEF The Netherlands.
Artikel

Trials in absentia of foreign terrorist fighters in the Netherlands and Belgium

Tijdschrift Crimmigratie & Recht, Aflevering 1 2020
Trefwoorden the right to be present, trials in absentia, foreign terrorist fighters, The Netherlands, Belgium
Auteurs Mr. Zoë Heij
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Judgements rendered in the accused’s absence form a special category of criminal judgements that undoubtedly do not provide for the same safeguards that would be in place when a judgement is rendered in the accused’s presence. Nonetheless, provided that strict conditions are adhered to, trials in absentia can be compatible with the accused’s right to be present. This article examines the standards that have been developed under international human rights law, providing for the normative framework, to see to what extent the trials in absentia of foreign terrorist fighters in the Netherlands and Belgium comply therewith. By pointing to analogies and contrasts, this article wishes to contribute to finding answers to this dilemma.


Mr. Zoë Heij
Mr. Z. Heij behaalde de research master in Public International Law aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Zij liep ten tijde van het schrijven van dit artikel stage bij Prakken d’Oliveira.

    In dit themanummer wordt bijzondere aandacht gegeven aan sanctiewetgeving. In dit redactioneel wordt ingegaan op de mogelijkheden om betrokkenheid van ondernemingen bij ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen aan te pakken, naast het gebruik van de Sanctiewet. Verkend wordt wat de aard en omvang van dit fenomeen is en welke juridische en niet-juridische middelen worden ingezet om de betrokkenheid van ondernemingen bij ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen te voorkomen en wat daarvan het effect kan zijn. Vervolgens zullen de beschikbare juridische middelen en quasi-juridische reacties en het gebruik daarvan worden geïnventariseerd. Ten slotte wordt gereflecteerd op de mogelijke effecten van het gebruik van deze instrumenten ter preventie van de betrokkenheid van ondernemingen bij ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen.


Prof. dr. mr. W. Huisman
Prof. dr. mr. W. Huisman is hoogleraar Criminologie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Article

Access_open The Potential of the Dutch Corporate Governance Model for Sustainable Governance and Long Term Stakeholder Value

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 4 2019
Trefwoorden corporate governance, company law, stakeholders, Dutch Corporate Governance Code, long-termism
Auteurs Manuel Lokin en Jeroen Veldman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article addresses the question of how the Dutch regulatory and institutional setting enables policy coherence, specifically with regard to safeguarding stakeholders’ interests and promoting sustainable governance. To address this question, we engage with idiosyncratic theoretical notions in the Dutch corporate governance model. We follow the evolution of these notions in statutory company law and case law, their development in the Dutch Corporate Governance Code and their relation to the Enterprise Chamber as a unique institution. We establish how these theoretical views and practical institutions present significant means by which stakeholder concerns may be represented in the operation of company law and corporate governance more broadly and provide a number of ways in which these institutions and their operation can be further developed.


Manuel Lokin
Manuel Lokin is Professor of Company Law at the University of Utrecht and lawyer at Stibbe, Amsterdam.

Jeroen Veldman
Jeroen Veldman is Visiting Professor at the Interdisciplinary Institute for Innovation at Mines ParisTech in Paris, France and Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow at Cass Business School in London, UK.

    This was a case alleging detrimental treatment for whistleblowing brought by an employee working outside the UK against two co-workers also working abroad in the same location. The Court of Appeal (CA) ruled that there was no jurisdiction for the Employment Tribunal (ET) to hear the claim in relation to personal liability of the co-workers because they were outside the scope of UK employment law. The CA’s judgment potentially has implications for other types of claim brought by UK employees posted abroad where similar personal liability provisions apply, such as discrimination and harassment.


Richard Lister
Richard Lister is a Managing Practice Development Lawyer at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Strafrecht

Access_open Het Europees Openbaar Ministerie komt eraan: waakhond of papieren tijger?

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 3-4 2019
Trefwoorden Europees Openbaar Ministerie, EOM, Rechtsbescherming, OLAF, Onderneming
Auteurs Mr. Y. de Vries en Mr. S.J. Lopik
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Op 1 augustus 2018 heeft de Europese Commissie (hierna: Commissie) bevestigd dat Nederland gaat deelnemen aan het Europees Openbaar Ministerie (hierna: EOM). Het EOM is een onafhankelijk vervolgingsorgaan dat, in het kort, bevoegd is om strafbare feiten die ten koste gaan van de EU-begroting te onderzoeken, vervolgen en voor de nationale strafrechter te brengen, een taak die tot dusver was voorbehouden aan de nationale vervolgingsautoriteiten (in Nederland het Openbaar Ministerie). Dit past in een trend waarbij de Unie, die historisch gezien indirect handhaaft, steeds vaker aan directe handhaving doet. Ook past het bij een Unie die steeds meer strafrechtelijke taken naar zich toetrekt: waar strafrechtelijke samenwerking tot het Verdrag van Lissabon nog behoorde tot de derde pijler, bestaan inmiddels meerdere Europeesrechtelijke strafrechtelijke agentschappen, waaronder Eurojust, Europol en OLAF. Er wordt ook wel gesproken van een europeanisering van het Nederlands strafrecht. De ambities van de Commissie voor het EOM strekken echter verder dan alleen het bestrijden van fraude. In deze bijdrage gaan wij in op de achtergrond van het EOM, de inrichting en taken van het EOM en de betekenis daarvan voor personen en ondernemingen die verdacht worden van strafbare feiten die binnen de bevoegdheid van het EOM vallen.
    Verordening (EU) 2017/1939 van de Raad van 12 oktober 2017 betreffende nauwere samenwerking bij de instelling van het Europees Openbaar Ministerie(‘EOM’), PbEU 2017, L 283/1-71
    Richtlijn (EU) 2017/1371 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 5 juli 2017 betreffende de strafrechtelijke bestrijding van fraude die de financiële belangen van de Unie schaadt, PbEU 2017, L 198/29-41


Mr. Y. de Vries
Mr. Y. (Yvo) de Vries is advocaat bij Allen & Overy te Amsterdam.

Mr. S.J. Lopik
Mr. S.J. (Sjoerd) Lopik is advocaat bij Allen & Overy te Amsterdam.
Toont 1 - 20 van 62 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4
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.