The Patients’ Rights Directive (2011/24/EU) – Providing (some) rights to EU residents seeking healthcare in other Member States

This article presents the main elements of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, commonly known as the Patient’s Rights Directive. It is the latest EU initiative with regard to European Health Care and the Single Market. The main elements of the Directive contain provisions related to the prior authorisation of health care in another Member State, the reimbursement of such health care and the removal of unjustified obstacles to achieving these aims.These provisions largely reflect the recent case law of the European Court of the Justice (ECJ). Amongst these are provisions involving the use of personal data. Such provisions will engage data protection issues and will have to be carried out according to the data protection directives. Alongside this primary aim of codifying ECJ case law the Patient’s Rights Directive also introduces novel initiatives aimed at fostering cross border cooperation between various elements of national healthcare systems.Part 1 of this contribution will describe the legal basis and the aims of the PRD, Part 2 will describe the principle obligations placed on the Member States with regard to reimbursement, Parts 3 and 4 will describe other informational and procedural requirements placed upon the Member States of Treatment and Affiliation. Finally Part 5 will outline some of the novel initiatives that have been included in the PRD.The increases in the frequency of cross border-treatment that this directive attempts to facilitate are likely to see a concurrent increase in cross-border patient information flows. Such data flows will be subject to the Union’s provisions on Data Protection. It remains uncertain whether the EU’s Data Protection regime will act as inhibitor to cross-border medical treatment or rather represent a gold standard that allows patients to engage in such activities with peace of mind. The Patient’s Rights Directive will form part of the EU’s future e-Health strategy which envisages a large increase in the fluidity of patient data. A discussion of this directive is therefore merited in this journal.     

Legislative genesis and judicial death of a directive: The European Court of Justice invalidated the data retention directive (2006/24/EC) thereby creating a sustained period of legal uncertainty about the validity of national laws which enacted it

The Grand Chamber has ruled that the data retention directive was invalid ex tunc since it seriously interfered with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and protection of personal data and exceeded the limits of the principle of proportionality which are provided for in the Charter. The scope and temporal effects of this ruling should be clarified, especially its legal impacts on national laws of Member States which enacted the directive. In addition, the findings of the Grand Chamber on geographical safeguards have far-reaching implications on the retention and storage of personal data in the EU.     

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation has caused a wide debate between lawyers and legal scholars and many opinions have been voiced on the issue of the right to be forgotten. In order to analyse the relevance of the new rule provided by Article 17 of the Proposal, this paper considers the original idea of the right to be forgotten, pre-existing in both European and U.S. legal frameworks. This article focuses on the new provisions of Article 17 of the EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and evaluates its effects on court decisions. The author assumes that the new provisions do not seem to represent a revolutionary change to the existing rules with regard to the right granted to the individual, but instead have an impact on the extension of the protection of the information disseminated on-line.     

Combatting peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted material via anti-piracy laws: Issues,trends, and solutions

This article analyses potential end-user copyright violations associated with peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing and the anti-piracy efforts currently underway in order to tackle them. This article discusses international developments in terms of trends, issues and solutions aimed at addressing peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted material. First, the article introduces P2P file sharing, its increasing significance in the growing digital media economy, and the legal issues surrounding this topic. Next, the article provides a comparative analysis of global efforts and trends in preventing digital piracy by analyzing relevant legislation, case law and practices in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Japan. In addition, the article reviews Hong Kong's current case law and proposed legal reforms including an analysis of their deficiencies with respect to addressing P2P copyright infringement. The article concludes with an analysis of existing trends in preventive measures against copyright infringement through P2P file sharing and suggests directions on future legal and non-legal measures that Hong Kong as well as the international community can take in combating digital piracy and copyright infringement through peer-to-peer file sharing.     

Negligence and Human Rights Law: The Case for Separate Development

A number of judges and academics have argued in favour of the convergence of negligence law with human rights law. By contrast, the thesis of this article is that the two legal orders should develop independently, so that for the most part the law of negligence ought not to be affected by human rights considerations. It is argued that the case for convergence is based on two false assumptions, namely that human rights law and negligence law perform similar functions within our legal order and that the norms of human rights law are more fundamental than the norms encapsulated in negligence law. It is also argued that convergence would undermine the coherence of negligence law. Ultimately, the case for separate development rests on the desirability of recognising public law and private law as autonomous normative systems with their own distinctive rationales, concepts and core principles.     

Legal grounds to process personal data under Spanish legislation after the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 (the ASNEF and FECEMD case)

Spanish law on personal data protection regulates (among other issues) the legal bases that permit the processing of data in a way that is similar to that set out in Directive 95/46/EC. Consent constitutes the general rule although data may be processed without it if necessary for administration functions, within the framework of a contractual relationship, in order to safeguard the vital interests of the data subject or if they are included in sources accessible to the public. However, unlike the Directive, legitimate interest is not recognised as an independent reason for processing data, whereas a legal ground that is not set out in community law is included, i.e., sources accessible to the public. This paper analyses these two cases, taking as its starting point consent, along with the consequences that the ECJ Judgment of 24 November 2011 regarding the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC may have and giving attention to the revision of this Directive itself.     

“国家—社会”框架与中国法学——以“国家法与民间法”研究为切入点

中国法学研究中广泛运用"国家—社会"这一分析框架具有重要的意义,中国法学界目前主要是利用这一框架进行范例研究,论者试图通过这种范例的研究对该框架的效力进行证明,并在打通市民社会两个层面的基础上,在渐进的过程中构建起中国的市民社会或者为实现现代化法治进行论证。"国家法与民间法"研究是中国法学运用"国家—社会"框架取得成果颇多的领域。法学界在运用这一框架时并未保持必要的警醒,对该框架的理论前提或预设很少质疑,而对于框架的作用和限度也没有深刻的把握。站在反思和批判的立场对中国法学研究中的"国家—社会"框架的作用和限度以及相关研究进行检视,并对这一框架背后的理念支撑进行分析,这或许是推进相关研究的一种可能的方向。