Zoekresultaat: 234 artikelen

x

    In legal education, criticism is conceived as an academic activity. As lecturers, we expect from students more than just the expression of their opinion; they have to evaluate and criticize a certain practice, building on a sound argumentation and provide suggestions on how to improve this practice. Criticism not only entails a negative judgment but is also constructive since it aims at changing the current state of affairs that it rejects (for some reason or other). In this article, we want to show how we train critical writing in the legal skills course for first-year law students (Juridische vaardigheden) at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. We start with a general characterization of the skill of critical writing on the basis of four questions: 1. Why should we train critical writing? 2. What does criticism mean in a legal context? 3. How to carry out legal criticism? and 4. How to derive recommendations from the criticism raised? Subsequently, we discuss, as an illustration to the last two questions, the Dutch Urgenda case, which gave rise to a lively debate in the Netherlands on the role of the judge. Finally, we show how we have applied our general understanding of critical writing to our legal skills course. We describe the didactic approach followed and our experiences with it.


Bart van Klink
Bart van Klink is Professor of Legal Methodology, Department of Legal Theory and History, Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Lyana Francot
Lyana Francot is Associate Professor of Legal Theory, Department of Legal Theory and History, Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    According to German law, every employee is entitled to paid annual leave. The amount of pay is generally calculated based on the current salary (known as the “principle of loss of pay”) but a reduction of working hours during the year does not lead to a reduction of entitlement to holiday pay for previously acquired holiday entitlements. If the entitlement was already acquired before the reduction of working time (which can happen because in Germany holiday entitlement is acquired at the beginning of the calendar year), pay during leave will be based on the salary agreed between the employer and employee when the holiday entitlement was acquired and thus, based on the ‘old’ salary.


Nina Stephan
Nina-Stephan is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Essen, www.luther-lawfirm.com.

Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is an attorney-at-law and partner with Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH in Essen, www.luther-lawfirm.com.
Rulings

ECJ 7 november 2018, case C-432/17 (O’Brien), Part-time work

Dermod Patrick O’Brien – v – Ministry of Justice, UK case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 4 2018
Trefwoorden Part-time work
Samenvatting

    Periods of service prior to the deadline for transposing Directive 97/81/EC (amended by Directive 98/23/EC) must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the retirement pension entitlement.

Case Reports

2018/32 When is travelling time working time? (NO)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Working time
Auteurs Marianne Jenum Hotvedt en Anne-Beth Engan
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Norwegian Supreme Court concludes that time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and from a place other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of work, should be considered working time within the meaning of the statutory provisions implementing the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC). This ruling takes into account the Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court.


Marianne Jenum Hotvedt
Marianne Jenum Hotvedt is an associate professor at the Department of Private law, University in Oslo. She got her PhD on the thesis ‘The Employer Concept’.

Anne-Beth Engan
Anne-Beth Engan is a senior associate with the law firm Selmer AS in Oslo.
Rulings

ECJ 20 September 2018, case C-466/17 (Motter), Fixed-term work, other forms of discrimination

Chiara Motter – v – Provincia autonoma di Trento, Italian case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Fixed-term work, Other forms of discrimination
Samenvatting

    A system, as exists in Italy, that only-partially counts service under fixed-term contracts for the purpose of classifying staff in grades, is compatible with the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, as there was an objective justification.

Rulings

ECJ 28 June 2018, case C-57/17 (Checa Honrado), Insolvency

Eva Soraya Checa Honrado – v – Fondo de Garantía Salarial, Spanish case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Insolvency
Samenvatting

    An employee is entitled to protection against insolvency if s/he is entitled to severance pay on the basis that the employer has changed the workplace, so forcing the employee to choose between relocating and ending the employment relationship - but before paying the severance in full, the employer becomes insolvent.

    Two differently constituted Employment Appeal Tribunals (‘EATs’) have recently considered whether it is sex discrimination to pay men on parental leave less than women on maternity leave. In Capita, the EAT decided that it was not direct sex discrimination to fail to pay full salary to a father taking shared parental leave, in circumstances where a mother taking maternity leave during the same period would have received full pay. However in Hextall, the EAT has indicated that enhancing maternity pay but not pay for shared parental leave may give rise to an indirect sex discrimination claim by fathers.


Ludivine Gegaden
Ludivine Gegaden is a Trainee Solicitor at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Article

Access_open Evidence-Based Regulation and the Translation from Empirical Data to Normative Choices: A Proportionality Test

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden evidence-based, regulation, proportionality, empirical law studies, law and society studies
Auteurs Rob van Gestel en Peter van Lochem
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Studies have shown that the effects of scientific research on law and policy making are often fairly limited. Different reasons can be given for this: scientists are better at falsifying hypothesis than at predicting the future, the outcomes of academic research and empirical evidence can be inconclusive or even contradictory, the timing of the legislative cycle and the production of research show mismatches, there can be clashes between the political rationality and the economic or scientific rationality in the law making process et cetera. There is one ‘wicked’ methodological problem, though, that affects all regulatory policy making, namely: the ‘jump’ from empirical facts (e.g. there are too few organ donors in the Netherlands and the voluntary registration system is not working) to normative recommendations of what the law should regulate (e.g. we need to change the default rule so that everybody in principle becomes an organ donor unless one opts out). We are interested in how this translation process takes place and whether it could make a difference if the empirical research on which legislative drafts are build is more quantitative type of research or more qualitative. That is why we have selected two cases in which either type of research played a role during the drafting phase. We use the lens of the proportionality principle in order to see how empirical data and scientific evidence are used by legislative drafters to justify normative choices in the design of new laws.


Rob van Gestel
Rob van Gestel is professor of theory and methods of regulation at Tilburg University.

Peter van Lochem
Dr. Peter van Lochem is jurist and sociologist and former director of the Academy for Legislation.
Kroniek

Het adolescentenstrafrecht in Nederland: de stand van zaken vier jaar na invoering van de Wet adolescentenstrafrecht

Kroniek van het jeugdrecht

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2018
Trefwoorden Youth justice – Jeugdstrafrecht, Adolescence – Adolescentie, Young adults – Jongvolwassenen, Age limits – Leeftijdsgrenzen, Judicial decision-making – Rechterlijke besluitvorming
Auteurs Prof. mr. Ton Liefaard en Dr. Stephanie Rap
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    On 1 April 2014, the Dutch Act on Adolescent Criminal Law entered into force. With this law, the age limit in article 77c of the Criminal Code, which allows for the application of juvenile criminal law to young adults, was stretched from 21 to 23 years. In this article stock is taken of the developments that have taken place in the four years after the introduction of this law. In practice, article 77c Criminal Code is increasingly being applied in case of young adult suspects, however still to a little extent. Among others, this has to do with confusion about the target group that qualifies for the adolescent criminal law. The access to and justification for the application of the law show a very diverse picture.


Prof. mr. Ton Liefaard
Prof. mr. T. Liefaard is hoogleraar kinderrechten en bekleedt de UNICEF-leerstoel Kinderrechten in de Afdeling Jeugdrecht van de Universiteit Leiden.

Dr. Stephanie Rap
Dr. S.E. Rap is universitair docent bij de Afdeling Jeugdrecht van de Universiteit Leiden.

Annelien Bouland
Annelien Bouland (LLM, MSc) is een Meijers PhD kandidaat aan het Van Vollenhoven Institute for Law Governance and Society, Universiteit Leiden.

    The German Federal Labour Court has held that it was justifiable for the employment of an actor to be limited in time because of the “type of work” involved and the fact that the work was with a film production company, even though the actor was given a number of fixed term employment contracts over around 18 years.


Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

Jana Voigt
Jana Voigt is an attorney-at-law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.

    A mobility clause must be sufficiently precise, but this condition can still be fulfilled even if the clause tries to cover both current and possible future locations of the company, provided any future locations are still within France and provided any change of location is justified by the needs of the business.


Claire Toumieux
Claire Toumieux is a partner with Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.

Susan Ekrami
Susan Ekrami is a senior associate with Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.
Case Reports

2018/20 Labour Court sets out employers’ equal treatment obligations following the transfer of a business (FI)

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 2 2018
Trefwoorden Transfer of undertaking, General discrimination, Terms of employment
Auteurs Janne Nurminen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Finnish Labour Court recently decided a case about the transfer of a business and the associated obligation to harmonise employees’ salaries. The Court held that the employer had not shown good reasons for continuing to pay different salaries to employees with equivalent responsibilities long after the transfer.


Janne Nurminen
Janne Nurminen is a Senior Associate with Roschier in Helsinki, www.roschier.com.

    This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members.


Dr Chiara Raucea
Chiara Raucea is lecturer at Tilburg Law School. A longer version of her article is included in her doctoral dissertation Citizenship Inverted: From Rights To Status?, defended in December 2017 at Tilburg University.

Carel Smith Ph.D.
Carel Smith is philosopher of law and associate professor at Leiden Law School.

    Corporations can have rights but whether they should also have democratic rights depends among other things on whether they are the kind of entities to which the democratic ideal applies. This paper distinguishes four different conceptions of “the person” that can have democratic rights. According to one view, the only necessary condition is legal personality, whereas according to the other three views, democratic inclusion is conditioned also by personhood in the natural sense of the term. Though it is uncontroversial that corporations can be legal persons, it is plausible to ascribe personhood in the natural sense to corporations only if personhood is conceptualized exclusively in terms of moral agency. The conclusion of the paper is that corporations can meet the necessary conditions for democratic inclusion but that it is not yet clear in democratic theory exactly what these conditions are.


Professor Ludvig Beckman
Ludvig Beckman is professor of political science at Stockholm University.
Artikel

Access_open Crisis in the Courtroom

The Discursive Conditions of Possibility for Ruptures in Legal Discourse

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden crisis discourse, rupture, counterterrorism, precautionary logic, risk
Auteurs Laura M. Henderson LL.M
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article addresses the conditions of possibility for the precautionary turn in legal discourse. Although the precautionary turn itself has been well-detailed in both legal and political discourse, insufficient attention has been paid to what made this shift possible. This article remedies this, starting by showing how the events of 9/11 were unable to be incorporated within current discursive structures. As a result, these discursive structures were dislocated and a new ‘crisis discourse’ emerged that succeeded in attributing meaning to the events of 9/11. By focusing on three important cases from three different jurisdictions evidencing the precautionary turn in legal discourse, this article shows that crisis discourse is indeed employed by the judiciary and that its logic made this precautionary approach to counterterrorism in the law possible. These events, now some 16 years ago, hold relevance for today’s continuing presence of crisis and crisis discourse.


Laura M. Henderson LL.M
Laura M. Henderson is a researcher at UGlobe, the Utrecht Centre for Global Challenges, at Utrecht University. She wrote this article as a Ph.D. candidate at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Artikel

Access_open A new interpretation of the modern two-pronged tests for insanity

Why legal insanity should not be a ‘status defense’

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 1 2018
Auteurs Dr. Johannes Bijlsma
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Michael Moore has argued that modern two-pronged tests for legal insanity are wrongheaded and that the insanity defense instead should be a ‘status defense’. If Moore is right, than the laws on insanity in most legal systems are wrong. This merits a critical examination of Moore’s critique and his alternative approach. In this paper I argue that Moore’s status approach to insanity is either under- or overinclusive. A new interpretation of the modern tests for insanity is elaborated that hinges on the existence of a legally relevant difference between the mentally disordered defendant and the ‘normal’ defendant. This interpretation avoids Moore’s criticism as well as the pitfalls of the status approach.


Dr. Johannes Bijlsma
Johannes Bijlsma is assistant professor of criminal law at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    In May 2017, the Ogiek indigenous community of Kenya successfully challenged the denial of their land and associated rights before the African Court of Human and Peoples Rights (‘the Court’). In the first indigenous peoples’ rights case considered the Court, and by far the largest ever case it has had to consider, the Court found violations of Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17 (2) and (3), 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (‘the African Charter’). It therefore created a major legal precedent. In addition, the litigation itself and Ogiek’s participation in the various stages of the legal process provided a model for community engagement, through which the Ogiek were empowered to better understand and advocate for their rights. This article will first explain the history of the case and the Court’s findings, and then move on to examine in further detail methods employed to build the Ogiek’s capacity throughout, and even beyond, the litigation.


Lucy Claridge
Legal Director, Minority Rights Group International.

    Despite enjoying distinct and privileged constitutional statuses, the Indigenous minorities of Malaysia, namely, the natives of Sabah, natives of Sarawak and the Peninsular Malaysia Orang Asli continue to endure dispossession from their customary lands, territories and resources. In response, these groups have resorted to seeking justice in the domestic courts to some degree of success. Over the last two decades, the Malaysian judiciary has applied the constitutional provisions and developed the common law to recognise and protect Indigenous land and resource rights beyond the literal confines of the written law. This article focuses on the effectiveness of the Malaysian courts in delivering the preferred remedy of Indigenous communities for land and resource issues, specifically, the restitution or return of traditional areas to these communities. Despite the Courts’ recognition and to a limited extent, return of Indigenous lands and resources beyond that conferred upon by the executive and legislative arms of government, it is contended that the utilisation of the judicial process is a potentially slow, costly, incongruous and unpredictable process that may also not necessarily be free from the influence of the domestic political and policy debates surrounding the return of Indigenous lands, territories and resources.


Yogeswaran Subramaniam Ph.D.
Yogeswaran Subramaniam is an Advocate and Solicitor in Malaysia and holds a PhD from the University of New South Wales for his research on Orang Asli land rights. In addition to publishing extensively on Orang Asli land and resource rights, he has acted as legal counsel in a number of landmark indigenous land rights decisions in Malaysia.

Colin Nicholas
Colin Nicholas is the founder and coordinator of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC). He received a PhD from the University of Malaya on the topic of Orang Asli: Politics, Development and Identity, and has authored several academic articles and books on Orang Asli issues. He has provided expert evidence in a number of leading Orang Asli cases. The law stated in this article is current as on 1 October 2017.
Toont 1 - 20 van 234 gevonden teksten
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
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.