The GDPR obliges organisations to keep watch for potential instances of joint controllership of personal data. Where those instances arise, organisations must enter into suitable “arrangements” that apportion data protection compliance responsibilities between joint data controllers. The controller means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. But, f.i. in the case of the case of a Biobank, more than one public bodies are the controllers of personal data, and their processing takes place in an intra-group context. The paper will analyse elements established by art. 26 GDPR for Joint Controller Agreement for managing personal data under GDPR, the respective roles and relationships of the joint controllers vis-a-vis the data subjects, as well as responsibility and liability of controllers and processors.
{"title":"JOINT CONTROLLER AGREEMENT UNDER GDPR","authors":"Valentina Colcelli","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9043","url":null,"abstract":"The GDPR obliges organisations to keep watch for potential instances of joint controllership of personal data. Where those instances arise, organisations must enter into suitable “arrangements” that apportion data protection compliance responsibilities between joint data controllers. The controller means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. But, f.i. in the case of the case of a Biobank, more than one public bodies are the controllers of personal data, and their processing takes place in an intra-group context. The paper will analyse elements established by art. 26 GDPR for Joint Controller Agreement for managing personal data under GDPR, the respective roles and relationships of the joint controllers vis-a-vis the data subjects, as well as responsibility and liability of controllers and processors.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134315211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-border companies’ mobility is issue which has been gaining public attention in Europe since the end of the 1980’s. Although it is clear, from the wording of the articles 49 and 54 of the TFEU, that companies should benefit from a freedom of establishment, in practice, the scope of this freedom is quite unclear. Companies wishing to move abroad are usually facing insurmountable obstacles which are still, more than 30 years after the famous Daily Mail case, very present. The recent EU legislative activity may finally bring this problem to an end. In April 2018 the European Commission proposed new rules on cross-border mobility. By enacting the Proposal of the Directive on cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions European Commission introduced important novelties to the cross-border mobility with an aim to simplify procedures, bring legal certainty and create such a legal environment which will enable companies to operate easily on the Single Market. In this paper authors will analyse only the rules of the Proposal that apply to cross- border conversions of companies. The new Proposal on cross-border conversions seem to be an adequate tool for companies that wish to convert abroad. However, the process of conversion is far from being simple. It is a very specific, multi-layered process which involves different stakeholders and authorities and requires their coordinated action. Authors will provide for a critical overview of the proposed legal solutions with special respect to the recent ECJ decision in Polbud case, in which the ECJ reaffirm the right of companies to cross-border conversion.
{"title":"CROSS BORDER MOVEMENT OF COMPANIES: THE NEW EU RULES ON CROSS BORDER COVERSION","authors":"Dubravka Akšamović, Lidija Šimunović, Ivan Kuna","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9038","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-border companies’ mobility is issue which has been gaining public attention in Europe since the end of the 1980’s. Although it is clear, from the wording of the articles 49 and 54 of the TFEU, that companies should benefit from a freedom of establishment, in practice, the scope of this freedom is quite unclear. Companies wishing to move abroad are usually facing insurmountable obstacles which are still, more than 30 years after the famous Daily Mail case, very present. The recent EU legislative activity may finally bring this problem to an end. In April 2018 the European Commission proposed new rules on cross-border mobility. By enacting the Proposal of the Directive on cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions European Commission introduced important novelties to the cross-border mobility with an aim to simplify procedures, bring legal certainty and create such a legal environment which will enable companies to operate easily on the Single Market. In this paper authors will analyse only the rules of the Proposal that apply to cross- border conversions of companies. The new Proposal on cross-border conversions seem to be an adequate tool for companies that wish to convert abroad. However, the process of conversion is far from being simple. It is a very specific, multi-layered process which involves different stakeholders and authorities and requires their coordinated action. Authors will provide for a critical overview of the proposed legal solutions with special respect to the recent ECJ decision in Polbud case, in which the ECJ reaffirm the right of companies to cross-border conversion.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134599057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During 2017, at the level of the European Union, two regulations of importance for the suppression of criminal offenses against the EU financial interests have been passed: Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law and Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The protection of these interests by the criminal substantive legislation did not encounter such resistance in the Member States as an idea of the establishment of the EPPO. Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO are carried out by national delegated prosecutors, and the criminal proceedings are conducted by the courts of the Member States. The experience of the public prosecutors and judges in proceedings concerning those criminal offenses may also enhance knowledge and skills of relevance to the conduct of proceedings against perpetrators of offenses against financial interests of the Member States’. In the paper authors are trying to point out the importance of timely and adequate sanctioning the perpetrators of the above-mentioned crimes. Consequently authors point to the advantages of establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to combat crimes that damage not only the financial interests of the European Union, but also the national financial interests. However, the concept of the European Public Prosecutor is not fully accepted, because the Regulation contains illogicalities that still make it unacceptable for member states. Therefore, in order for wider acceptance the establishment of the EPPO, it is necessary to amend these provisions of the Regulation.
{"title":"ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE AND SUPPRESSION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST THE EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS","authors":"Sanja Jelisavac Trošić, Jelena Kostić","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9026","url":null,"abstract":"During 2017, at the level of the European Union, two regulations of importance for the suppression of criminal offenses against the EU financial interests have been passed: Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law and Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The protection of these interests by the criminal substantive legislation did not encounter such resistance in the Member States as an idea of the establishment of the EPPO. Pursuant to the provisions of Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the EPPO are carried out by national delegated prosecutors, and the criminal proceedings are conducted by the courts of the Member States. The experience of the public prosecutors and judges in proceedings concerning those criminal offenses may also enhance knowledge and skills of relevance to the conduct of proceedings against perpetrators of offenses against financial interests of the Member States’. In the paper authors are trying to point out the importance of timely and adequate sanctioning the perpetrators of the above-mentioned crimes. Consequently authors point to the advantages of establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to combat crimes that damage not only the financial interests of the European Union, but also the national financial interests. However, the concept of the European Public Prosecutor is not fully accepted, because the Regulation contains illogicalities that still make it unacceptable for member states. Therefore, in order for wider acceptance the establishment of the EPPO, it is necessary to amend these provisions of the Regulation.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127623081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper aims to determine situations when arbitrators are personally liable for damages caused and when they enjoy immunity because of their judicial role. There is no uniform approach regarding civil liability of arbitrators. The question is closely connected with the dual nature of arbitration that has a judicial mission despite a contractual origin. Arbitrator’s power derives from a private contract and they receive payment from the parties in exchange for professional services. However, they act as private judges - they resolve disputes which require a binding decision of an impartial third party. Due to the double role of arbitrators, this paper will separately discuss civil liability for breaches of arbitrator’s contractual obligations and breaches of duties regarding their judicial role. Common law countries provide immunity to arbitrators based on equating their function to that of judges. On the other hand, civil law countries emphasize the contractual relationship between the arbitrators and parties and determine liability according to ordinary law of contract. Despite different starting points most jurisdictions accord a certain degree of immunity to arbitrators in the exercise of their judicial role to ensure the finality of arbitral awards and protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Arbitrators are therefore not liable for the procedural or material accuracy of their decisions because in such cases the parties can bring an action against an award. However, almost all legal systems exclude immunity in cases where the arbitrator intentionally violated his judicial duties. The differences between civil and common law countries are greater regarding liability for breaches of the arbitrator’s contractual duties. Contractual limitations and exclusions of liability are also mentioned. The article concludes that absolute exclusions of liability are unenforceable in most jurisdictions. The article will determine which law should apply to the issue of civil liability of international arbitral tribunals. In the absence of legislation and jurisprudence in Slovenia the paper suggests that qualified immunity should apply. Arbitrators should enjoy immunity for judicial acts, except in exceptional cases of fraud and deliberate violations of their judicial duties. For breaches of their contractual duties, arbitrators should be liable according to general rules of contract law.
{"title":"CIVIL LIABILITY OF ARBITRATORS","authors":"Agata Cevc","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9009","url":null,"abstract":"The paper aims to determine situations when arbitrators are personally liable for damages caused and when they enjoy immunity because of their judicial role. There is no uniform approach regarding civil liability of arbitrators. The question is closely connected with the dual nature of arbitration that has a judicial mission despite a contractual origin. Arbitrator’s power derives from a private contract and they receive payment from the parties in exchange for professional services. However, they act as private judges - they resolve disputes which require a binding decision of an impartial third party. Due to the double role of arbitrators, this paper will separately discuss civil liability for breaches of arbitrator’s contractual obligations and breaches of duties regarding their judicial role. Common law countries provide immunity to arbitrators based on equating their function to that of judges. On the other hand, civil law countries emphasize the contractual relationship between the arbitrators and parties and determine liability according to ordinary law of contract. Despite different starting points most jurisdictions accord a certain degree of immunity to arbitrators in the exercise of their judicial role to ensure the finality of arbitral awards and protect the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Arbitrators are therefore not liable for the procedural or material accuracy of their decisions because in such cases the parties can bring an action against an award. However, almost all legal systems exclude immunity in cases where the arbitrator intentionally violated his judicial duties. The differences between civil and common law countries are greater regarding liability for breaches of the arbitrator’s contractual duties. Contractual limitations and exclusions of liability are also mentioned. The article concludes that absolute exclusions of liability are unenforceable in most jurisdictions. The article will determine which law should apply to the issue of civil liability of international arbitral tribunals. In the absence of legislation and jurisprudence in Slovenia the paper suggests that qualified immunity should apply. Arbitrators should enjoy immunity for judicial acts, except in exceptional cases of fraud and deliberate violations of their judicial duties. For breaches of their contractual duties, arbitrators should be liable according to general rules of contract law.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117210836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Biotechnology as a science has a significant role in society and as such, it significantly changes the status of genetics. Biotechnology can be considered an interdisciplinary science, as it implies modern achievements in chemistry, biochemistry, biology and engineering. There are several types of biotechnology, but it is important to mention the distinction between traditional biotechnology and genetic engineering. Specifically, genetic engineering, as opposed to traditional biotechnology that involves crossing close species, means creating new non-cellular hereditary materials outside the cell and connecting them with a transmitter. With its emergence, biotechnology changes the position of parenting in society, the meaning of life in general and is the subject of numerous discussions in politics, economy, research work etc. However, especially high level of disagreement is in the area of consumer protection. With genetic modification of food, there has been a significant shift in consumer awareness and citizens themselves insist on active participation in the formulation of regulatory rules because the consumption of genetically modified food can negatively affect the health of consumers. In this case, consumers created a network and became active both nationally and supranationally. Despite the various methods of study, the formulation of legal regulations has led to mutual disputes between the EU Member States. Therefore, the central part of the work relates to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in the field of geotechnical engineering. Court judgments and percentages of “obtained” verdicts in favour of the Member States have been analysed. The paper consists of several chapters. In the first chapter, the term of biotechnology, its significance for society, and the elemental division of the same are clarified. In the second chapter, in short theses, genetically modified foods and the consumer’s position in relation to the same are clarified. Namely, the aim of the paper is to illustrate the consumer’s view in order to obtain a complete picture before analysing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The central part of the paper is devoted to studying jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in the field of genetic engineering. Namely, the number of disputes regarding the mutual relations between the European Union and the Member States, as well as jurisprudence and the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union have been analysed in regard to favourable regulations. In the creation of this paper, a number of methods will be used. Above all, the method of analysis will be used for systematic analysis of the problem / phenomenon and this method will try to obtain patterns of behaviour based on scientific knowledge. In contrast, a synthesis method will be used to reach a final conclusion. It is also important to mention both the historical method and the descriptive method. Another signific
{"title":"HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF GENETIC ENGINEERING IN THE EU CONTEXTS","authors":"Mirela Mezak Matijević","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9003","url":null,"abstract":"Biotechnology as a science has a significant role in society and as such, it significantly changes the status of genetics. Biotechnology can be considered an interdisciplinary science, as it implies modern achievements in chemistry, biochemistry, biology and engineering. There are several types of biotechnology, but it is important to mention the distinction between traditional biotechnology and genetic engineering. Specifically, genetic engineering, as opposed to traditional biotechnology that involves crossing close species, means creating new non-cellular hereditary materials outside the cell and connecting them with a transmitter. With its emergence, biotechnology changes the position of parenting in society, the meaning of life in general and is the subject of numerous discussions in politics, economy, research work etc. However, especially high level of disagreement is in the area of consumer protection. With genetic modification of food, there has been a significant shift in consumer awareness and citizens themselves insist on active participation in the formulation of regulatory rules because the consumption of genetically modified food can negatively affect the health of consumers. In this case, consumers created a network and became active both nationally and supranationally. Despite the various methods of study, the formulation of legal regulations has led to mutual disputes between the EU Member States. Therefore, the central part of the work relates to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in the field of geotechnical engineering. Court judgments and percentages of “obtained” verdicts in favour of the Member States have been analysed. The paper consists of several chapters. In the first chapter, the term of biotechnology, its significance for society, and the elemental division of the same are clarified. In the second chapter, in short theses, genetically modified foods and the consumer’s position in relation to the same are clarified. Namely, the aim of the paper is to illustrate the consumer’s view in order to obtain a complete picture before analysing jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The central part of the paper is devoted to studying jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in the field of genetic engineering. Namely, the number of disputes regarding the mutual relations between the European Union and the Member States, as well as jurisprudence and the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union have been analysed in regard to favourable regulations. In the creation of this paper, a number of methods will be used. Above all, the method of analysis will be used for systematic analysis of the problem / phenomenon and this method will try to obtain patterns of behaviour based on scientific knowledge. In contrast, a synthesis method will be used to reach a final conclusion. It is also important to mention both the historical method and the descriptive method. Another signific","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131198028","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It’s been almost twelve years since the Commission for drafting the Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia was established, but the society and the scientific community in Serbia have not yet met the new Civil Code. It came only to the Pre-Draft, on which a public hearing was opened in mid-2015. Some reform steps have been taken in all areas of civil law, and certainly in the area of inheritance. However, the impression is that the legal doctrine neither is satisfied with the scope of the reform in the field of succession, especially because in this civil law area legal interventions were least made, as well as with some proposed solutions. Given the fact that the regulation of inheritance law is mostly similar in countries on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, because it has the same foundation - The Federal Inheritance Act of 1955, we believe that the scientific community in these countries should be notified with the ideas of Serbian codifier, in order to be potentially considered in the case of amendment of inheritance acts. Therefore, in this paper we will point out new solutions proposed by the Commission for codification and briefly analyze some of the proposals that deserve special attention. But, we will not stop there, full stop won’t be put there. We will try to answer the question: whether the codifier stopped halfway, i.e. whether it at all reached the halfway point that should be crossed at this moment - the moment when the work on such monumental legal edifice as the Civil Code has been finalizing? This is particularly important if we take into account recent reform steps in the sphere of inheritance law in contemporary comparative legislatures, especially in the EU member states. Therefore, this paper will have strong critical dimension, in terms of some of the proposed solutions, as well as in regard of failures of the Commission for drafting the Civil Code.
{"title":"REFORM STEPS IN INHERITANCE LAW REGULATION IN THE PRE-DRAFT OF SERBIAN CIVIL CODE - HAS THE COMMISSION FOR CODIFICATION DONE A GOOD JOB?","authors":"Novak Krstić","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9036","url":null,"abstract":"It’s been almost twelve years since the Commission for drafting the Civil Code of the Republic of Serbia was established, but the society and the scientific community in Serbia have not yet met the new Civil Code. It came only to the Pre-Draft, on which a public hearing was opened in mid-2015. Some reform steps have been taken in all areas of civil law, and certainly in the area of inheritance. However, the impression is that the legal doctrine neither is satisfied with the scope of the reform in the field of succession, especially because in this civil law area legal interventions were least made, as well as with some proposed solutions. Given the fact that the regulation of inheritance law is mostly similar in countries on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, because it has the same foundation - The Federal Inheritance Act of 1955, we believe that the scientific community in these countries should be notified with the ideas of Serbian codifier, in order to be potentially considered in the case of amendment of inheritance acts. Therefore, in this paper we will point out new solutions proposed by the Commission for codification and briefly analyze some of the proposals that deserve special attention. But, we will not stop there, full stop won’t be put there. We will try to answer the question: whether the codifier stopped halfway, i.e. whether it at all reached the halfway point that should be crossed at this moment - the moment when the work on such monumental legal edifice as the Civil Code has been finalizing? This is particularly important if we take into account recent reform steps in the sphere of inheritance law in contemporary comparative legislatures, especially in the EU member states. Therefore, this paper will have strong critical dimension, in terms of some of the proposed solutions, as well as in regard of failures of the Commission for drafting the Civil Code.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130377074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A far-reaching freedom of movement of persons in the European Union imposes the EU legislator’s obligation to create a legal framework for regulating an increasing number of aspects arising from cross-border movements. The current legal arrangement of these aspects is to a great extent related to the protection of family life and the rights of children. However, strong migrations have also affected people who are considered vulnerable in terms of their disability or age. Travelling that has become easier, medical treatments available abroad, a desire to live in more attractive or more affordable countries in retirement, and a change of lifestyle in general, have made the elderly move more frequent during the past decade. Cross-border proceedings arising from the movement of older people have become more common before the courts of Member States. It is necessary to ensure that protective measures directed at vulnerable adults, which have been imposed by the authorities of one Member State, have their effect in another Member State. This situation implies the adoption of the rules of private international law that will regulate the issues as to authorities of which Member States are responsible for adopting protective measures, which law is applicable to such measures, under which conditions these measures are to be recognized in that other Member State and the cooperation of the competent authorities. These issues are regulated by the Convention on the International Protection of Adults, adopted within the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. While, on the one hand, the European Union is a Contracting State to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and is obliged to take its standards into account in its policies and legislation, on the other hand, very few Member States are Contracting Parties to the Convention on the International Protection of Adults. At EU level, there are currently only recommendations for the regulation of private international law aspects related to mobility of vulnerable adult persons, which also include the adoption of a special regulation that will govern these issues. However, among the existing recommendations, the winning attitude is the one that calls for Member States to ratify the Convention on the International Protection of Adults. Starting with the hypothesis that the European Union does not provide any effective legal framework for the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border cases, this paper will examine whether there is room for the introduction of enhanced mechanisms for the protection of adults at EU level and make proposals accordingly.
{"title":"THE PROTECTION OF ADULTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION","authors":"Martina Drventić","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9032","url":null,"abstract":"A far-reaching freedom of movement of persons in the European Union imposes the EU legislator’s obligation to create a legal framework for regulating an increasing number of aspects arising from cross-border movements. The current legal arrangement of these aspects is to a great extent related to the protection of family life and the rights of children. However, strong migrations have also affected people who are considered vulnerable in terms of their disability or age. Travelling that has become easier, medical treatments available abroad, a desire to live in more attractive or more affordable countries in retirement, and a change of lifestyle in general, have made the elderly move more frequent during the past decade. Cross-border proceedings arising from the movement of older people have become more common before the courts of Member States. It is necessary to ensure that protective measures directed at vulnerable adults, which have been imposed by the authorities of one Member State, have their effect in another Member State. This situation implies the adoption of the rules of private international law that will regulate the issues as to authorities of which Member States are responsible for adopting protective measures, which law is applicable to such measures, under which conditions these measures are to be recognized in that other Member State and the cooperation of the competent authorities. These issues are regulated by the Convention on the International Protection of Adults, adopted within the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. While, on the one hand, the European Union is a Contracting State to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and is obliged to take its standards into account in its policies and legislation, on the other hand, very few Member States are Contracting Parties to the Convention on the International Protection of Adults. At EU level, there are currently only recommendations for the regulation of private international law aspects related to mobility of vulnerable adult persons, which also include the adoption of a special regulation that will govern these issues. However, among the existing recommendations, the winning attitude is the one that calls for Member States to ratify the Convention on the International Protection of Adults. Starting with the hypothesis that the European Union does not provide any effective legal framework for the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border cases, this paper will examine whether there is room for the introduction of enhanced mechanisms for the protection of adults at EU level and make proposals accordingly.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114980588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The important doctrine in the case of the law of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a “wide margin of appreciation” of the Member States when they take legislative or judicial actions. Moreover, national authorities are best acquainted with their regulations as well as other circumstances relevant to the adoption of specific laws. Therefore, they must assess which legal solution is the most appropriate. This is an advantage enjoyed by the national states, but they also have the responsibility for choosing the most appropriate legal solution. Therefore, legal disputes over the role of Judicial Advisors in simplified consumer bankruptcy procedure and enforcement procedure (according to the Draft of Enforcement Act) as persons conducting the procedure and persons obliged to render a decision, need to be analysed from the perspective of the standard “court established by law” according to Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Art. 29, 115 and 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.
{"title":"IS CROATIAN LEGISLATOR REDEFINING THE NOTION OF THE COURT: ANALYSIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONVENTION LAW","authors":"S. Grbić, D. Bodul","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9005","url":null,"abstract":"The important doctrine in the case of the law of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a “wide margin of appreciation” of the Member States when they take legislative or judicial actions. Moreover, national authorities are best acquainted with their regulations as well as other circumstances relevant to the adoption of specific laws. Therefore, they must assess which legal solution is the most appropriate. This is an advantage enjoyed by the national states, but they also have the responsibility for choosing the most appropriate legal solution. Therefore, legal disputes over the role of Judicial Advisors in simplified consumer bankruptcy procedure and enforcement procedure (according to the Draft of Enforcement Act) as persons conducting the procedure and persons obliged to render a decision, need to be analysed from the perspective of the standard “court established by law” according to Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Art. 29, 115 and 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133521631","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The EU Succession Regulation declares in Article 35 that “[t]he application of a provision of the law of any State specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum”. This paper aims at analysing on the one hand the public policy (ordre public) rule of the EU Succession Regulation and on the other hand the Hungarian inheritance law with regard to the application of Article 35.
{"title":"THE PUBLIC POLICY (ORDRE PUBLIC) RULE OF THE EU SUCCESSION REGULATION AND THE HUNGARIAN INHERITANCE LAW","authors":"Mónika Csöndes","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/9035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/9035","url":null,"abstract":"The EU Succession Regulation declares in Article 35 that “[t]he application of a provision of the law of any State specified by this Regulation may be refused only if such application is manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum”. This paper aims at analysing on the one hand the public policy (ordre public) rule of the EU Succession Regulation and on the other hand the Hungarian inheritance law with regard to the application of Article 35.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122837369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of the article is to analyze the process of Scotland`s independence movements and to identify the main challenges in the economic sphere in the aspect of potential separation of Scotland from United Kingdom. As a basis for the research method a study based on the analysis of selected information sources was used. The attempts by Scotland to separation from the Great Britain, taken over the centuries, ended in failure, but have contributed to increase of Scottish autonomy. The results of the referendum on the United Kingdom’s continuing membership of the European Union have become the impulse for intensification of Scottish activity towards secession from the Great Britain. Scotland wants to decide independently on its own economic development based mainly on oil and natural gas as well as renewable energy sources. The EU membership would enable Scotland to attain the goals set up by Scottish government. The benefits of being a member of the EU, such as access to the Single European Market, structural funds, ect., Scotland may lose if it stays within the United Kingdom. The government in London is fully committed to maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom and blocks Scottish activities aimed at independence. Further scenario will depend on the results of the future directions, forms and principles for further co-operation between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
{"title":"SCOTLAND’S INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS – THE MAIN CHALLENGES IN THE ECONOMIC SPHERE IN THE ASPECT OF POTENTIAL SEPARATION OF SCOTLAND FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM","authors":"E. Radomska","doi":"10.25234/ECLIC/8991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25234/ECLIC/8991","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the article is to analyze the process of Scotland`s independence movements and to identify the main challenges in the economic sphere in the aspect of potential separation of Scotland from United Kingdom. As a basis for the research method a study based on the analysis of selected information sources was used. The attempts by Scotland to separation from the Great Britain, taken over the centuries, ended in failure, but have contributed to increase of Scottish autonomy. The results of the referendum on the United Kingdom’s continuing membership of the European Union have become the impulse for intensification of Scottish activity towards secession from the Great Britain. Scotland wants to decide independently on its own economic development based mainly on oil and natural gas as well as renewable energy sources. The EU membership would enable Scotland to attain the goals set up by Scottish government. The benefits of being a member of the EU, such as access to the Single European Market, structural funds, ect., Scotland may lose if it stays within the United Kingdom. The government in London is fully committed to maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom and blocks Scottish activities aimed at independence. Further scenario will depend on the results of the future directions, forms and principles for further co-operation between the United Kingdom and the European Union.","PeriodicalId":246552,"journal":{"name":"EU AND MEMBER STATES – LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES","volume":"301 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115898699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：