Consumer fraud seems to be widespread, yet little research is devoted to understanding why certain social groups are more vulnerable to this type of victimization than others. The present paper deals with internet consumer fraud victimization, and uses an explanatory model that combines insights from self control theory and routine activity theory. The results from large-scale victimization survey data among the Dutch general population (N=6,201) reveal that people with low self-control run substantially higher victimization risk, as well as people performing ‘risky’ routine activities, such as online shopping and participation in online forums. Though a minority share of the self-control-victimization link is indirect – because people with low self-control are more involved in risk-enhancing routine activities – a large direct effect on internet fraud victimization remains. This suggests that, within similar situations, people with poor impulse control respond differently to deceptive online commercial offers.

In deze bijdrage staat de multilaterale handelsfaciliteit centraal. De bijdrage beoogt een globaal overzicht te geven van de regelgeving die van toepassing is op dit handelsplatform dat beter bekend is als MTF. Er wordt aansluiting gezocht bij de herziening van MiFID en bekeken wordt of MiFID na drie jaar de door haar beoogde concurrentieverhoging ten aanzien van handelsplatformen heeft weten te volbrengen. Besproken wordt de definitie van het begrip MTF en de belangrijkste elementen van het op een MTF van toepassing zijnde regelgevend kader. Tevens wordt stilgestaan bij de verschillen die er zijn tussen een gereglementeerde markt en een MTF. Ook wordt nader ingegaan op het begrip dark pool (het onderdeel van de handel dat buiten het orderboek van de handelsplatformen plaatsvindt) en komen de bevindingen van CESR en IOSCO aan bod voor zover die momenteel relevant zijn voor MTF’s en dark pools.

In recent years there is an increasing trend towards semi-public space. This article seeks to explain this trend. As the heterogeneity of society grows, it becomes more difficult to deal with different groups within one's living environment. Residents prefer a sheltering living environment that attracts similar groups and excludes those they would rather avoid. Social engineering through architecture has a long history: municipalities used to combine the design of neighbourhoods and public spaces with a social agenda of community building. Later, as society evolved, the prevention of friction between people and the creation of public meeting places became leading principles, but never exclusion. However, public housing associations and developers are increasingly accommodating preferences for sheltered living environments by the creation of collective space, appropriating public space and the temporary use of undeveloped space. Three cases illustrate this.

Kan de vergunninghouder die zelf in afwijking van zijn bouwvergunning bouwt, de schade op de gemeente verhalen op grond van onvoldoende toezicht? Het Hof Arnhem meent dat dit niet het geval is. Vermogensschade die is ontstaan door onvoldoende toezicht valt volgens het hof hoe dan ook niet onder het beschermingsbereik van toezicht op de Woningwet. In dit artikel wordt niet alleen het beschermingsbereik van toezicht op de Woningwet besproken, maar ook de stand van zowel de civiele als de bestuursrechtelijke rechtspraak met betrekking tot het relativiteitsvereiste en de Woningwet zelf.

In this article the focus is on conflicts in the legal protection of incapable adults. First a short explanation is given of protection measurements in Dutch family law. Second is discussed in which cases judges appoint or should appoint professional guardians instead of a member of the family of the incapable adult. The central issue in this article is the role of the guardian as an ‘arbiter’ in conflicts. According to his task he cannot be independent, because his primary task is to care for the interests of the incapable person. This may bring him in conflict with other parties involved. Particularly the fact that the guardian himself can be a party in a conflict makes his position and role special. Therefore, some methods of possible strategic interaction from the perspective of the guardian are discussed.

There are two fundamental problems with regard to the freedom of religion. The first concerns the content and scope of the right; the second, a possible unequal treatment between population groups. The first problem can only be dealt with by a preliminary analysis of the religious phenomenon, which precedes a legal definition. It turns out that there is a range of different types of religion, with on the one hand traditional forms of religion which are narrowly interwoven with the culture in question (all kinds of ‘cultural’ practices possessing a religious dimension), and on the other forms of religion which loosen to a considerable extent the ties between culture and religion. Evidently, the former types of religion cause problems in modern society. An additional problem is that freedom of religion as a modern basic right rests on a view of human being – including the idea of the inherent dignity and autonomy of the human person – which is at odds with the symbolic universe of traditional religion. The conclusion of the article is that in the modern pluralist society freedom of religion is on its way to becoming, or already has become, an unmanageable right. So the problems arising around this right (including that of unequal treatment) can only be solved in a pragmatic, not really satisfactory way. In that context, modern humanitarian standards should be observed in the implementation of the right of freedom of religion because fundamental human rights are connected with a specific concept of humanity.

This article draws on Hans Kelsen’s theory of democracy to argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the democratic legitimacy of either the European Union (EU) or the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The legitimacy problems from which the EU in general and the ECJ in particular are alleged to suffer seem to result mainly from our rigid adherence to the outdated conception of democracy as popular self-legislation. Because we tend to approach the Union’s political and judicial practice from the perspective of this democracy conception, we are not able to observe what is blindingly obvious, that is, the viability and persistence of both this mega-leviathan and the highest court thereof. It is, therefore, imperative that we modernize and adjust our conception of democracy in order to comprehend the new reality to which these bodies have given rise, rather than to call for ‘reforms’ in a futile attempt to bring this reality into accordance with our ancient preconceptions about what democratic governance ought to be. Kelsen is the democratic theorist whose work has enabled us to venture into that direction.

The article aims to illustrate the importance of the mayor in times of disaster and crisis management. The mayor plays a crucial role, even though he is merely one link in the crisis management process. In the Netherlands, the organization and coordination of crisis management is subdivided into 25 safety regions. Recently there has been a strong development towards professionalization of these safety regions and their partners. However, in the case of a local crisis all attention goes to the mayor, whose decisions and actions are critically followed by the media and the public. In order to identify what would constitute a good mayor in times of crisis, the article lists essential points and qualities. In sum, a good mayor in times of crisis should be critical and show managerial courage.

This article focuses on migration with criminal motives. Two specific groups are discussed, British migrants in the Netherlands and Dutch migrants in Spain. Little is written on criminal migration motives in combination with Western subjects. On the other hand, investigative authorities have first-hand knowledge on this matter. An analysis of 25 closed case files shows that within these two groups of migrants, some people are heavily involved in the international drugs trade. Although their numbers are small, their function is important. Through their actions it becomes possible for certain cities or areas to evolve into international criminal drug marketplaces. There are also some differences between British and Dutch criminals abroad. British criminals are often involved as brokers. They broker drugs for third parties in Great Britain. Their stay in the Netherlands seems temporarily. They do not invest in the economy or buy property. Conversely, Dutch criminals in Spain could be described as leaders of organized crime groups. They invest in Spain by buying companies and property.

Starting a decade ago, police authorities in Western Europe have been dealing with (South)Eastern European gangs coming over to Western Europe. These gangs commit a large number of property crimes and are characterised by their high level of mobility. Yet, this raises questions as to how their mobility has to be interpreted: is it temporary, making them criminal tourists, or are there any migration mechanisms involved? This article is based on interviews with offenders charged with selling criminal goods (i.e. fencing). Fencing activities appear to take place either in Western Europe or in the countries of origin. Alongside these activities, their centre of social activity appears to be located in either one of them as well. This heterogeneity indicates there is little added value in combating the Eastern European crime gangs, because different offender types with a different background are involved.

Een werknemer kan er door de overgang van onderneming aanmerkelijk op achteruitgaan. Wordt de arbeidsovereenkomst dientengevolge verbroken, dan komt een dergelijk ontslag voor rekening van de werkgever, aldus artikel 4 lid 2 van Richtlijn 2001/23 (overgang van ondernemingen). In het arrest Juuri zet het Hof van Justitie van de EG uiteen wat de reikwijdte van deze bepaling is. Voorts beoordeelt het Hof de geldigheid van een afspraak tussen sociale partners, erop neerkomende dat de cao op de datum van overgang afloopt.

The authors latest book on Restorative Justice, Self-Interest and Responsible Citizenship has been discussed in this journal in 2009 and the author now responds to the critiques, which came from three jurists and therefore had a predominantly juristic character. Themes discussed are ‘criminal justice and punishment’, ‘restorative justice and the law’, ‘restorative justice, the victim and public interest’, ‘restorative justice and the legal order’ and finally ‘restorative justice and offender rehabilitation’. Walgrave maintains and clarifies the views he developed in the book explaining why it is correct to claim that criminal justice can be identified as fundamentally punitive (although it does not always punish, as one critic has observed) and that it should be possible to elaborate restorative justice into a completely new legal system, offering legal guarantees fitting to what restorative justice is trying to achieve. Legal guarantees as they exist today in criminal procedure cannot be taken as the benchmark for restorative procedures in view of the totally different aims and procedures. Furthermore, it is not true that the victim gets too much power in restorative justice – as one critic stated – because restorative justice is and should be conceived as a system of public law, involving the legal agencies and authorities such as courts in a proper role as guardians of every citizin’s dominion. It is because of the safeguarding of dominion that the victim should have a key-role to play in restorative justice, although not obliged to participate.One critic has mentioned that Walgraves ideas seem to imply that the legal order is only something being imposed upon the citizens ‘top down’, while in many respects one could maintain that the law and the principles of the legal order have been produced ‘bottom-up’ or at least should be the result of democracy. The response is that restorative procedures offer more opportunities for citizens for this democratic participation in producing the norms of the law.Finally some have argued that the rehabilitative interests of the offender should have a more central place in the definition of restorative justice, more or less of the same importance as restoring the harms of the victim. Walgraves experiences with the Belgian model of juvenile protection made him cautious of the risks of doing so, not only in terms of serving the victims needs, but also in terms of the legal protection of the juvenile offender against arbitrary interventions.