Zoekresultaat: 22 artikelen

x
Jaar 2017 x
Article

Access_open The Questionable Legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden base erosion and profit shifting, OECD, G20, legitimacy, international tax reform
Auteurs Sissie Fung
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The global financial crisis of 2008 and the following public uproar over offshore tax evasion and corporate aggressive tax planning scandals gave rise to unprecedented international cooperation on tax information exchange and coordination on corporate tax reforms. At the behest of the G20, the OECD developed a comprehensive package of ‘consensus-based’ policy reform measures aimed to curb base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) by multinationals and to restore fairness and coherence to the international tax system. The legitimacy of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project, however, has been widely challenged. This paper explores the validity of the legitimacy concerns raised by the various stakeholders regarding the OECD/G20 BEPS Project.


Sissie Fung
Ph.D. Candidate at the Erasmus University Rotterdam and independent tax policy consultant to international organisations, including the Asian Development Bank.
Article

Access_open The Peer Review Process of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes

A Critical Assessment on Authority and Legitimacy

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2017
Trefwoorden Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information, exercise of regulatory authority, due process requirements, peer review reports, legitimacy
Auteurs Leo E.C. Neve
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The Global Forum on transparency and exchange of information for tax purposes has undertaken peer reviews on the implementation of the global standard of exchange of information on request, both from the perspective of formalities available and from the perspective of actual implementation. In the review reports Global Forum advises jurisdictions on required amendments of regulations and practices. With these advices, the Global Forum exercises regulatory authority. The article assesses the legitimacy of the exercise of such authority by the Global Forum and concludes that the exercise of such authority is not legitimate for the reason that the rule of law is abused by preventing jurisdictions to adhere to due process rules.


Leo E.C. Neve
Leo Neve is a doctoral student at the Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Article

Access_open The Right to Same-Sex Marriage: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights’ Consensus-Based Analysis in Recent Judgments Concerning Equal Marriage Rights

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden same-sex marriage, gay marriage, European consensus, margin of appreciation, consensus-based analysis by the ECtHR
Auteurs Masuma Shahid
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This contribution assesses the consensus-based analysis and reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in recent judgments concerning equal marriage rights and compares it to the Court’s past jurisprudence on European consensus and the margin of appreciation awarded to Member States regarding the issue of equal marriage rights. The contribution aims to analyse whether there is a parallel to be seen between the rapid global trend of legalisation of same-sex marriage and the development or evolution of the case law of the ECtHR on the same topic. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the Court’s consensus-based analysis is problematic for several reasons and provides possible alternative approaches to the balancing of the Court between, on the one hand, protecting rights of minorities (in this case same-sex couples invoking equal marriage rights) under the European Convention on Human Rights and, on the other hand, maintaining its credibility, authority and legitimacy towards Member States that might disapprove of the evolving case law in the context of same-sex relationships. It also offers insights as to the future of European consensus in the context of equal marriage rights and ends with some concluding remarks.


Masuma Shahid
Lecturer, Department of International and European Union Law, Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam.
Artikel

Een eerste balans van het Europees burgerinitiatief, in het licht van de Anagnostakis-uitspraak en het EBI-herzieningsvoorstel

Tijdschrift Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht, Aflevering 9-10 2017
Trefwoorden Europees burgerinitiatief, participerende democratie, aanvraag tot registratie, motiveringsplicht
Auteurs Prof. mr. L.A.J. Senden en Mr. dr. S. Nicolosi
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In Verordening (EU) nr. 211/2011 zijn nadere voorwaarden vastgelegd voor het indienen van een Europees burgerinitiatief (EBI). In de ruim vijf jaar dat deze Verordening nu van kracht is, sinds 1 april 2012, zijn belangrijke knelpunten zichtbaar geworden. In deze bijdrage beogen we een eerste balans op te maken van de inrichting en de werking van het EBI, door een analyse van de recente uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie in de Anagnostakis zaak over de rechtmatigheid van een afwijzend besluit van de Commissie tot registratie van een EBI en het recente voorstel van de Commissie tot wijziging van de Verordening om de werking van het EBI te verbeteren..

    • HvJ 12 september 2017, zaak C-589/15 P, Alexios Anagnostakis/Europese Commissie, ECLI:EU:C:2017:663;

    • Verordening (EU) nr. 211/2011 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 16 februari 2011 over het burgerinitiatief, PbEU 2011, L 65/1 (EBI-Verordening);

    • Voorstel voor een verordening van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende het Europees burgerinitiatief COM(2017)482 def.


Prof. mr. L.A.J. Senden
Prof. mr. L.A.J. (Linda) Senden is hoogleraar Europees recht aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het RENFORCE onderzoekscentrum.

Mr. dr. S. Nicolosi
Dr. S. (Salvo) Nicolosi, is universitair docent Europees recht aan de Universiteit Utrecht en verbonden aan het RENFORCE onderzoekscentrum.

Annie de Roo
Annie de Roo is associate professor of ADR and comparative law at Erasmus University Law School in Rotterdam, editor-in-chief of TMD, and vice chair of the exams committee of the Mediators Federation of the Netherlands MFN. She has published extensively on mediation and has inter alia been a Rapporteur three times for the European Commission on the use of mediation in employment disputes.

Rob Jagtenberg
Rob Jagtenberg is senior research fellow at Erasmus University and has published frequently on the relationship between public and private justice. He has been involved in research commissioned by the Worldbank, the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary, and various Dutch Ministries including the MoJ funded national project on court-connected mediation.
Artikel

Mediation case law in Germany – an overview

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Case law, Germany, Voluntariness, Confidentiality, Neutrality
Auteurs Ulla Gläßer
Auteursinformatie

Ulla Gläßer
Prof. Dr. Ulla Gläßer, LL.M., holds a full professorship of mediation, conflict management and procedural theory at the European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)/Germany. She is academic director of the Institute for Conflict Management and the postgraduate, interdisciplinary Master’s Program on Mediation at the European University. Ms Gläßer is teaching mediation, negotiation and conflict management skills at various universities and numerous other institutions in Germany and abroad. She has published broadly on mediation methodology, the legal framework of mediation, quality assurance of mediation and other ADR procedures and the establishment of mediation and ADR procedures in different realms of society. She also is editor of two Publication Series on Mediation and Conflict Management and a comprehensive commentary on the German Mediation Act and corresponding relevant regulation. As a practical mediator and facilitator, Ms Gläßer supports dispute resolution and decision making processes within or between organisations/corporations.

Annie de Roo
Annie de Roo is associate professor of ADR and comparative law at Erasmus University Law School in Rotterdam, editor-in-chief of TMD, and vice chair of the exams committee of the Mediators Federation of the Netherlands MFN. She has published extensively on mediation and has inter alia been a Rapporteur three times for the European Commission on the use of mediation in employment disputes.

Rob Jagtenberg
Rob Jagtenberg is senior research fellow at Erasmus University and has published frequently on the relationship between public and private justice. He has been involved in research commissioned by the Worldbank, the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary, and various Dutch Ministries including the MoJ funded national project on court-connected mediation.
Artikel

Mediation on trial: Dutch court judgments on mediation

Tijdschrift Nederlands-Vlaams tijdschrift voor mediation en conflictmanagement, Aflevering 4 2017
Trefwoorden Case law, The Netherlands, Voluntariness, Confidentiality
Auteurs Annie de Roo en Rob Jagtenberg
Auteursinformatie

Annie de Roo
Annie de Roo is associate professor of ADR and comparative law at Erasmus University Law School in Rotterdam, editor-in-chief of TMD, and vice chair of the exams committee of the Mediators Federation of the Netherlands MFN. She has published extensively on mediation and has inter alia been a Rapporteur three times for the European Commission on the use of mediation in employment disputes.

Rob Jagtenberg
Rob Jagtenberg is senior research fellow at Erasmus University and has published frequently on the relationship between public and private justice. He has been involved in research commissioned by the Worldbank, the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary, and various Dutch Ministries including the MoJ funded national project on court-connected mediation.

    This paper discusses three approaches that can be helpful in the area of comparative rights jurisprudence, oriented in reference to three different kinds of studies that are possible in that area. To a large extent the methods for a comparative legal research depend on the research question and the goal of the researcher. First, a comparative law study may focus on the sociocultural context that led to the elaboration of differences or similarities in the protection of rights. Second, a comparative law approach can be a normative enterprise. It can focus on engaging in a philosophical analysis enlightened by the differences or similarities in the regulation of rights, in order to propose concrete solutions for the regulation of a right. Third, a comparative law approach can combine both elements of the two previously mentioned approaches. The paper discusses the challenges that the researcher faces in her attempt to use these methodologies and how these challenges can be overcome. The law as a normative discipline has its own constraints of justifiability. If what motivates a comparative law study is the search for principles of justice the researcher needs to persuade that her methodological approach serves her aim.


Ioanna Tourkochoriti
School of Law, NUI Galway, Ireland.

    The nexus between religion and law is an important subject of comparative law. This paper, however, finds that the majority of comparative theorists rely on the immanent frame; that legal legitimacy can and should be separated from any objective truth or moral norm. But the fact of the matter is many constitutional systems were founded based on a complicated mixture between the transcendent and immanent frame. Whereas in the immanent frame, human actions are considered self-constituting, in the transcendent frame, human actions were judged in light of their correspondence to higher, divine laws and purposes.
    This article argues that it is not sufficient for comparative theorists to offer a perspective from the immanent frame. Comparative theorists in law and religion should understand at least basic religious doctrines and know how to systematize those doctrines. In other words, comparative theorist of law and religion should work within the transcendent frame. By using a transcendent frame, comparative theorists will be able to excavate the underlying structure of religion, and so they will understand better how theological ideas influence law. Furthermore, this paper will also present a thought experiment in applying the transcendent frame in comparative constitutional studies.


Stefanus Hendrianto
Stefanus Hendrianto is a scholar at Boston College, School of Theology and Ministry. In recent years, he has been a visiting professor at Santa Clara University School of Law (2013-2015) and a guest scholar at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame (2015-2016). He holds a Ph.D. degree from the School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle and LLM degree from Utrecht University, Netherlands, in addition to his LLB degree from Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia.

Anna Gerbrandy
Prof. mr. A. Gerbrandy is hoogleraar Mededingingsrecht aan de Universiteit Utrecht.
ECJ Court Watch

Case C-370/17. Social security

Caisse de retraite du personnel navigant professionnel de l’aéronautique civile (CRPNPAC) – v – Vueling Airlines SA, reference lodged by the French Tribunal de grande instance de Bobigny on 19 June 2017

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2017
ECJ Court Watch

ECJ 13 July 2017, case C-89/16 (Szoja), Social security

Radosław Szoja – v – Sociálna poisťovňa and WEBUNG, s.r.o., Slovakian case

Tijdschrift European Employment Law Cases, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Social security
Samenvatting

    Marginal activities should be disregarded for the purposes of determining which national social security legislation applies.

Artikel

Gevangenissen en herstel: reflecties over nut en noodzaak van een herstelgerichte detentiepraktijk

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 3 2017
Trefwoorden Retribution, desistance, behavioural change, empowerment, remoralization
Auteurs Peter Nelissen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this contribution, the justification of restorative practices in prison is first discussed from a normative perspective. On the basis of Lippke’s retributive theory of imprisonment it is argued that modern, humane retributive sanctioning entails an obligation to provide prisoners with opportunities to engage in restorative practices. Second, restorative practices in prison are examined from the perspective of possible impacts on the empowerment of prisoners and their experience to move away from crime and do good. Finally, it is argued that in order to yield positive effects, restorative practices in prison need to be supported by a safe and healthy living environment.


Peter Nelissen
Peter Nelissen is criminoloog en werkzaam als onderzoeker/consultant en als docent.

    The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the notion of an interest should be taken more seriously than the notion of a right. It will be argued that it should; and not only because it can be just as amenable to the institutional taxonomical structure often said to be at the basis of rights thinking in law but also because the notion of an interest has a more epistemologically convincing explanatory power with respect to reasoning in law and its relation to social facts. The article equally aims to highlight some of the important existing work on the notion of an interest in law.


Geoffrey Samuel
Professor of Law, Kent Law School, The University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, U.K. This article is a much re-orientated, and updated, adaption of a paper published a decade ago: Samuel 2004, at 263. The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their very helpful criticisms and observations on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Article

Access_open The Integrity of the Tax System after BEPS: A Shared Responsibility

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 1 2017
Trefwoorden flawed legislation, tax privileges, tax planning, corporate social responsibility, tax professionals
Auteurs Hans Gribnau
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The international tax system is the result of the interaction of different actors who share the responsibility for its integrity. States and multinational corporations both enjoy to a certain extent freedom of choice with regard to their tax behaviour – which entails moral responsibility. Making, interpreting and using tax rules therefore is inevitably a matter of exercising responsibility. Both should abstain from viewing tax laws as a bunch of technical rules to be used as a tool without any intrinsic moral or legal value. States bear primary responsibility for the integrity of the international tax system. They should become more reticent in their use of tax as regulatory instrument – competing with one another for multinationals’ investment. They should also act more responsibly by cooperating to make better rules to prevent aggressive tax planning, which entails a shift in tax payments from very expert taxpayers to other taxpayers. Here, the distributive justice of the tax system and a level playing field should be guaranteed. Multinationals should abstain from putting pressure on states and lobbying for favourable tax rules that disproportionally affect other taxpayers – SMEs and individual taxpayers alike. Multinationals and their tax advisers should avoid irresponsible conduct by not aiming to pay a minimalist amount of (corporate income) taxes – merely staying within the boundaries of the letter of the law. Especially CSR-corporations should assume the responsibility for the integrity of the tax system.


Hans Gribnau
Professor of Tax Law, Fiscal Institute and the Center for Company Law, Tilburg University; Professor of Tax Law, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Artikel

Access_open De rol van alternatieve handhaving in het mededingingstoezicht

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Toezicht, Aflevering 1-2 2017
Trefwoorden handhaving, mededinging, toezichtstrategie, informele handhaving, preventieve interventie
Auteurs Eva Lachnit
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In deze bijdrage worden enkele alternatieve handhavingsinstrumenten geanalyseerd zoals zij gebruikt worden door de Nederlandse Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), de Britse Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) en de Franse Autorité de la Concurrence (de Autorité). Echter, hierbij ligt de focus niet op de individuele, juridische analyse van ieder handhavingsinstrument, maar op de relatie tussen handhavingsinstrumenten, onderliggende strategie, en toezichthouder. Het uiteindelijke doel van deze bijdrage is om te illustreren wat de gevolgen kunnen zijn van een brede toepassing van alternatieve handhavingsinstrumenten vanuit het perspectief van toezicht. Hierbij zullen er, met name in de concluderende paragrafen, conclusies worden getrokken die bruikbaar zijn voor het toepassen van alternatieve handhaving buiten het mededingingstoezicht.


Eva Lachnit
Mr. dr. E.S. Lachnit is universitair docent Economisch Publiekrecht bij de Universiteit Utrecht. Zij promoveerde in september op het proefschrift Alternative Enforcement of Competition Law en doet onderzoek en advisering op het gebied van toezicht- en handhavingsstrategieën van toezichthouders in brede zin.

    In dit artikel wordt aandacht besteed aan de Groepsvrijstellingsverordening verzekeringen die op 31 maart 2017 is vervallen. De vraag die zal worden beantwoord, is wat de gevolgen van het verval van de Groepsvrijstellingsverordening zijn voor de toepassing van het mededingingsrecht in de verzekeringssector. Hoewel de keuze van de Europese Commissie gerechtvaardigd lijkt te zijn, resteren nog wel enkele onduidelijkheden, bijvoorbeeld met betrekking tot de opkomst van (samenwerking bij) big data en de afbakening van de relevante markt.


Gerard Baak
Mr. drs. G.T. Baak is als promovendus werkzaam bij de sectie Handels- Ondernemings & Financieel recht van de Erasmus School of Law. Zijn promotieonderzoek gaat over het onderwerp mededinging en verzekering.
Diversen

Redeloze voorzorg

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2017
Auteurs Dr. Jaap Hanekamp en Prof. em. mr. dr. drs. Lukas Bergkamp
Auteursinformatie

Dr. Jaap Hanekamp
Jaap Hanekamp is zowel gepromoveerd in de chemie en geneeskunde (1992) als in de theologie en filosofie (2015). Hij is Universitair Hoofddocent University College Roosevelt, Middelburg en adjunct-professor, University of Massachusetts, Environmental Health Sciences, Amherst, MA, USA.

Prof. em. mr. dr. drs. Lukas Bergkamp
Prof. em. mr. dr. drs. Lucas Bergkamp, arts en jurist, is partner bij Hunton & Williams, Brussel. Hij was hoogleraar international milieuaansprakelijkheidsrecht aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Artikel

Effecten van informatieverstrekking op agressie van UWV-cliënten

Een experimentele scenariostudie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 1-2 2017
Trefwoorden experimental scenario study, frustration aggression, informational justice, workplace violence, negative affect
Auteurs Natascha Sprado MSc, Dr. Tamar Fischer en Lisa van Reemst MSc
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This study investigates the effect of providing information about decision making on aggression of clients of the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency (UWV). The expectation is that providing adequate information leads to a decrease in aggression, because it influences feelings of informational justice and frustration. UWV-clients (N=1.415) participated in an experimental scenario study (adequate vs. limited information providing). Next to aggression, psychological, UWV and social demographic characteristics were measured. Compared to limited information, receiving adequate information results in lower aggression. Clients with more negative affect show more aggression, but receiving adequate information especially reduces aggression in these clients.


Natascha Sprado MSc
N.N. Sprado, MSc is junior onderzoeker bij de sectie Criminologie van de Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Ten tijde van de dataverzameling van de beschreven studie was zij masterstudent.

Dr. Tamar Fischer
dr. T.F.C. Fischer is universitair docent bij de sectie Criminologie van de Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Lisa van Reemst MSc
L. van Reemst, MSc is promovenda bij de sectie Criminologie van de Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Toont 1 - 20 van 22 gevonden teksten
« 1
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.