Zoekresultaat: 226 artikelen

x
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

    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.

    The judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname is noteworthy for a number of reasons. Particularly important is the Court’s repeated citation and incorporation of various provisions of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into its interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights. This aids in greater understanding of the normative value of the Declaration’s provisions, particularly when coupled with the dramatic increase in affirmations of that instrument by UN treaty bodies, Special Procedures and others. The Court’s analysis also adds detail and further content to the bare architecture of the Declaration’s general principles and further contributes to the crystallisation of the discrete, although still evolving, body of law upholding indigenous peoples’ rights. Uptake of the Court’s jurisprudence by domestic tribunals further contributes to this state of dynamic interplay between sources and different fields of law.


Fergus MacKay JD
ECtHR Court Watch

ECtHR 5 December 2017, application no. 57101/10, Nationality discrimination

Ribać – v – Slovenia, Slovenian case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Race, nationality discrimination
Samenvatting

    Denial of military pension is deemed to be discriminatory based on nationality.

    Racist ‘liking’ on Facebook may justify dismissal for serious misconduct, says the Labour Court of Liège in a decision of 24 March 2017. This case is interesting because, to the author’s knowledge, it is the first time that a simple ‘like’ (as opposed to a proper comment) on Facebook is assessed by a Belgian judge with a view to validate a dismissal for serious misconduct. This case also raises serious questions about the limits to the freedom of expression in social media.


Gautier Busschaert
Gautier Busschaert is an attorney at Van Olmen & Wynant in Brussels, www.vow.be.
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

    The German federal court for labour law matters, the Bundesarbeitsgericht (the ‘BAG’), has held that evidence cannot be used in a dismissal lawsuit if the employer has obtained it from long-term surveillance using keylogger-software. Employers must not keep their employees under constant surveillance and must therefore expect their legal position to be weak if they try to dismiss an employee based on findings from such monitoring. The court ruling preceded the ECtHR Barbulescu ruling of 5 September 2017 (featured in EELC 2017/4) in a similar case.


Paul Schreiner
Paul Schreiner is an attorney at law at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH.
ECJ Court Watch

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-442/16 (Gusa), Free movement, Social insurance

Florea Gusa – v – Minister for Social Protection, Ireland, Irish case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden Free movement, Social insurance
Samenvatting

    Self-employed workers who have ceased their activity for reasons beyond their control and who are registered as jobseekers, retain their status as self-employed persons for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38.

Artikel

VPH en dwangpsychiatrie: hoe verder?

Een aanzet voor een principieel debat

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht, Aflevering 1 2018
Trefwoorden VPH, Dwangpsychiatrie, Discriminatie
Auteurs Mr. dr. S.P.K. Welie en mr. drs. T.P. Widdershoven
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Vanuit VN-verband is aangegeven dat de regulering van dwangpsychiatrie zoals die in Nederland bestaat in het kader van de Wet Bopz en haar beoogde opvolgster, de Wvggz, strijdig is met het door Nederland geratificeerde VN-Verdrag inzake de rechten van personen met een handicap (VPH). Deze strijdigheid is vanuit het kabinet echter ontkend. Bij beide visies worden kanttekeningen geplaatst, waarna twee varianten voor een mogelijke alternatieve dwangregeling bespreking vinden. In de bedoelde varianten bestaat minder wrijving met het VPH en de noties die aan dit verdrag ten grondslag liggen, doordat het begrip ‘geestesstoornis’ daarin geen deel uitmaakt van de juridische criteria ter rechtvaardiging van dwang, te weten 1) wilsonbekwaamheid of 2) gevaar ‘sec’.


Mr. dr. S.P.K. Welie
Sander Welie is als jurist werkzaam bij de Stichting PVP te Utrecht.

mr. drs. T.P. Widdershoven
Ton-Peter Widdershoven is als jurist werkzaam bij de Stichting PVP te Utrecht.
Casus

Onpartijdige rechtswetenschap?

Tijdschrift RegelMaat, Aflevering 1-2 2018
Trefwoorden onpartijdigheid, onafhankelijkheid, wetenschappelijke objectiviteit, belangenconflicten
Auteurs Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Recentelijk is in de media veel aandacht geschonken aan gevallen van beïnvloeding door opdrachtgevers van (rechts)wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Veel nadruk ligt daarbij al snel op pogingen van bestuurders en beleidsmakers om de inhoud van dergelijk onderzoek – vaak op subtiele wijze – een wenselijk geachte richting op te sturen. Veel minder aandacht is er echter voor de andere kant van de zaak, namelijk: wat is de verantwoordelijkheid van die wetenschappers en hoe zijn hun onpartijdigheid en onafhankelijkheid gewaarborgd? In deze bijdrage zal worden beweerd dat ook daar werk aan de winkel is.


Prof. dr. R.A.J. van Gestel
Prof. dr. R.A.J. (Rob) van Gestel is hoogleraar Regulering en Juridische methoden en technieken aan de Tilburg Law School.
Toont 1 - 20 van 226 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.