Crisis teams from waterauthorities want to have insight into the current risks for the area. The ‘Continuous insight’-method is used by them to monitor the risks of drought and high water and to draw up what-if scenarios for training and exercise. Various cases have now shown that Expert Judgment can be used to gain a clearer picture of the effectiveness of measures and to take a more balanced decision. The Expert Judgment method has been tested and applied by a group of international experts as part of the EU project DRIVER +. During an extreme situation, the crisis team may encounter dilemmas. The engaged group of experts follows a fixed procedure to provide advice to reduce flood risk evacuate to prevent loss of life.
Each expert makes his own assessment of the effect and impact of the measure envisaged. Each expert provides an explanation of the individual assessment. Then, under the guidance of a process supervisor, the experts discuss individual assessments and exchange arguments. This can lead to new insights. Each expert makes his own assessment again. The result is a probability distribution of estimates and an expected value. This expert assessment of the measure is taken to the crisis team, so that the chance of success and the assessment of the consequences of the proposed measure can be adjusted. The crisis team can take the decision immediately afterwards.
By following this procedure risk information is made visible. By linking expert knowledge with observations, a better substantiated expectation can be drawn up. According to the participants in the international meetings, the Expert Judgment method in combination with ‘Continuous insight’ helps to make better informed and faster choices. The method fits within the existing crisis management structure. The next step is to implement this method in the day-to-day affairs of crisis management.

Sinds inwerkingtreding van de WAMCA kent de collectieve actie een procedurele tweedeling in een ontvankelijkheidsfase en een inhoudelijke fase. Inhoudelijke behandeling van de vordering vindt ingevolge art. 1018c lid 5 Rv pas plaats indien en nadat de rechter over de ontvankelijkheid heeft beslist. De vraag is in hoeverre de twee fasen los van elkaar kunnen worden gezien, nu elementen van de ontvankelijkheidstoets nauw zijn verweven met de inhoudelijke beoordeling. De auteur maakt een vergelijking met de Amerikaanse federale class action, die een soortgelijke problematiek kent, en betoogt dat een genuanceerde toepassing van art. 1018c lid 5 Rv aangewezen is.

The public health systems of liberal states systematically fail to meet the goals and obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which aims to facilitate full societal participation and independent life choices by all impaired persons, as well as the unburdening of their private caretakers. This failure does not stem from a lack of money or effort by governments and other societal institutions, but flaws in the anatomy of these systems. As these systems confine institutional assistance to the needs of persons with certain delineated disabilities, they neglect the needs of other persons, whose disabilities do not fit this mould. The responsibility for the latter group thus falls to their immediate social circle. These private caretakers are in turn seldom supported. To remedy this situation, I will present the alternative paradigm of vulnerability theory as the possible foundation for a more inclusive approach to public health.

Long before the coming of the Bill of Rights in written Constitutions, the common law has had the greatest regard for the personal liberty of the individual. In order to safeguard that liberty, the remedy of habeas corpus was always available to persons deprived of their liberty unlawfully. This ancient writ has been incorporated into the modern Constitution as a fundamental right and enforceable as other rights protected by virtue of their entrenchment in those Constitutions. This article aims to bring together the various understanding of habeas corpus at common law and the principles governing the writ in common law jurisdictions. The discussion is approached through a twelve-point construct thus providing a brief conspectus of the subject matter, such that one could have a better understanding of the subject as applied in most common law jurisdictions.

This article presents an interdisciplinary comparison of British and German legal arguments concerning the justification of the use of force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It is situated in the broader framework of research on strategic culture and the use of international law as a tool for justifying state behaviour. Thus, a gap in political science research is analysed: addressing legal arguments as essentially political in their usage. The present work questions whether differing strategic cultures will lead to a different use of legal arguments. International legal theory and content analysis are combined to sort arguments into the categories of instrumentalism, formalism and natural law. To do so, a data set consisting of all speeches with regard to the fight against ISIS made in both parliaments until the end of 2018 is analysed. It is shown that Germany and the UK, despite their varying strategic cultures, rely on similar legal justifications to a surprisingly large extent.

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.

Op 9 juli 2020 heeft de ACM de Concept Leidraad Duurzaamheidsafspraken ter consultatie op haar website gepubliceerd. Hiermee beoogt de ACM te verduidelijken onder welke omstandigheden afspraken met een duurzame doelstelling met artikel 6 Mw en 101 VWEU verenigbaar zijn, inclusief op basis van de in het derde lid vervatte efficiencytoets. In deze bijdrage wordt eerst een historische parallel getrokken met de verhouding tussen de theorie van de ‘tragedy of the commons’ enerzijds en het Nederlandse poldermodel anderzijds. Vervolgens wordt de Leidraad gecontextualiseerd, beschreven en, tot slot, geanalyseerd.

The Dobersberger decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union deals with the legal situation of posted workers on an international train. These workers, employed by a Hungarian company and based in Hungary, operate on a train connecting Budapest with Salzburg and Munich. The Court concludes against their inclusion under the Posting of Workers Directive, considering their connection to the Austrian territory as too limited. This decision is based on a selective representation of the facts and sits difficultly with the letter of the law and the intention of the legislator.

Whether homosexual teachers can work at an orthodox Protestant school in The Netherlands is regularly subject of societal debate. The Equal Treatment Law (1994) prohibits discrimination on the ground of homosexual orientation. How this works out in practice differs per denomination (type of school) and shifts over time in the direction of increasing acceptance. Within orthodox Protestant schools room is increasing to come out of the closet. Within certain schools there is increasing room for homosexual relationships, although opinions within these schools often differ and hence may also lead to conflict.

In a summary proceeding, the Court of Rotterdam has held that it is not clear whether the Non-Seafarers Work Clause, prohibiting lashing work on board of container ships being carried out by the crew, does indeed contribute to better employment and/or working conditions of seafarers. As a result of which the Clause – at this time – cannot be held to be outside the scope of competition law and the claim for compliance with the provision has been rejected. In the media, unions have stated that they will continue to enforce compliance with the Non-Seafarers Work Clause. It remains to be seen whether a court in main proceedings will reach a similar verdict.

This article focuses on the posting of workers in the aviation industry. The main problem is that it is not clear in which situations the Posting of Workers Directive should be applied to aircrew (i.e. cabin crew and pilots). The aviation sector is characterised by a very mobile workforce in which it is possible for employees to provide services from different countries in a very short timeframe. This makes it, to a certain extent, easier for employers to choose the applicable social legislation, which can lead to detrimental working conditions for their aircrew. This article looks into how the Posting of Workers Directive can prevent some air carriers from unilaterally determining the applicable social legislation and makes some suggestions to end unfair social competition in the sector. This article is based on a research report which the authors drafted in 2019 with funding from the European Commission (hereafter the ‘Report’)

This case involved an employee who claimed that he was unfairly dismissed for using a trade union to bring a grievance over measures his employer had taken on account of the coronavirus pandemic. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that he was likely to be able to show at the full hearing of the case that this was an automatically unfair dismissal on grounds of his trade union membership or activities. It awarded the remedy of ‘interim relief’, ordering the employer immediately to reinstate him pending the full trial of the matter. The ET’s decision might signal a potential rise in claims for interim relief in future cases.

The current study investigates the relationship between the Dark Triad personality traits (consisting of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and three different forms of aggression: online aggression, overt aggression and relational aggression. The sample consisted of 1,051 adolescents between 12 and 16 years old. Results show that psychopathy and Machiavellianism are positive predictors of the three forms of aggression, while narcissism is a positive predictor of online aggression only.

In twee hier te bespreken arresten bouwt het Hof van Justitie voort op de rechtspraak met betrekking tot het recht op schone lucht zoals neergelegd in Richtlijn 2008/50/EG betreffende de luchtkwaliteit en schonere lucht voor Europa.
De belangrijkste aanvulling die het Hof van Justitie in het Craeynest-arrest geeft, is dat ook de wetenschappelijke beoordeling van de luchtkwaliteit door het bepalen van de plaats van een bemonsteringspunt onderworpen kan worden aan rechterlijke toetsing om zodoende het nuttig effect van de richtlijn te garanderen.
Het tweede arrest, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, is opzienbarend omdat het Hof van Justitie hierin oordeelde dat het EU-recht onder bepaalde voorwaarden een nationale rechter als ultimum remedium de verplichting geeft gebruik te maken van een nationale bevoegdheid lijfsdwang op te leggen aan het bevoegd gezag als dit stelselmatig weigert milieumaatregelen te nemen in het kader van Richtlijn 2008/50/EG en als niet aannemelijk is dat dit zal veranderen.
Hoewel gewezen in de context van luchtkwaliteit hebben beide arresten ook implicaties voor andere gebieden uit het milieurecht, zoals biodiversiteit, klimaat en waterkwaliteit.
HvJ 26 juni 2019, zaak C-723/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:533 (Lies Craeynest e.a./Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest en Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer); HvJ 19 december 2019, zaak C-752/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1114 (Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV/Freistaat Bayern)

Since 1997, the Criminal Cases Review Commission of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has served as a state-funded post-conviction body to consider claims of wrongful conviction for those who have exhausted their rights to appeal. A meticulous organisation that has over its lifetime referred over 700 cases back to the Court of Appeal, resulting in over 60% of those applicants having their convictions quashed, it is nonetheless restricted in its response to cases by its own legislation. This shapes its decision-making in reviewing cases, causing it to be somewhat deferential to the original jury, to the principle of finality and, most importantly, to the Court of Appeal, the only institution that can overturn a wrongful conviction. In mandating such deference, the legislation causes the Commission to have one eye on the Court’s evolving jurisprudence but leaves room for institutional and individual discretion, evidenced in some variability in responses across the Commission. While considerable variability would be difficult to defend, some inconsistency raises the prospects for a shift towards a less deferential referral culture. This article draws on original research by the author to consider the impact of institutional deference on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and argues for a slightly bolder approach in its work

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.

This article explores the intersection of two criminological perspectives—cultural criminology and narrative criminology. Taking inspiration from Mills and Fleetwood’s article, ‘Prepping and verstehen: A narrative criminological perspective’, where the authors contend that stories complement the pursuit of criminological verstehen, this article draws attention to other ways in which cultural criminology and narrative criminology are imbricated, taking notice of commonalities in cultural criminology’s analysis of media looping and narrative criminology’s identification of cycles of storytelling practice and lived experiences. A consideration of Donald Trump’s attempts to control narrative is used to develop an argument regarding cultural criminology’s and narrative criminology’s joint questioning of linear sequencing and mutual recognition of circulating fluidity

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.