Free movement of patients: Directive 2011/24 on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare

This contribution comments on Directive 2011/24, providing a legal framework for cross border healthcare 13 years after the famous Kohll and Decker case law. The Directive contains provisions concerning the reimbursement of costs, the responsibilities of the Member States and their mutual cooperation in healthcare. Analysing the (potential) impact of the Directive 2011/24 on EU healthcare systems, patients and healthcare providers, it becomes clear that the impact of the Directives reaches far beyond patient mobility. The Directive creates patients' rights, pays attention to the quality and safety of healthcare services and creates an excessive structure of cooperation in the field of healthcare. The European Union seems ready to use its economies of scale to improve healthcare for all European patients.     

An overview of the European Artist's Resale Right Directive 2001/84/EC and its implementation in the UK via the Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2005

The artist's resale right entitles artists (and their beneficiaries)whose work is protected by copyright to a percentage share ofthe sale price every time their artwork is resold by a gallery,dealer, or auction house.     

The implementation of Directive 2001/20/EC into Belgian law and the specific provisions on pediatric research

The European Clinical Trial Directive (2001/20/EC) was implemented into the Belgian legal system by the Law of 7 May 2004 concerning experiments on the human person (LEH). Apart from implementing the European Directive, this law also broadens the scope of the Directive from interventional clinical trials to all medical experiments involving human persons. This article offers an overview of the requirements for involving minors in medical experiments that are captured in the LEH, illustrates the process of protocol review by an ethics committee, and discusses the dissimilarities between the LEH and the European Directive.     

The EC Zoos Directive: A Lost Opportunity to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 requires contracting parties to take ex-situ conservation measures to protect biodiversity. This paper considers the effectiveness of the Zoos Directive in implementing this obligation within the European Union. The directive requires zoos to have an education role and at least one further conservation activity, which may be research, training, information exchange, captive breeding, or species reintroductions. However, the Convention requires parties to engage in all of these activities. EU member states have been reluctant to implement the directive. In any event, it is unlikely significantly to affect the conservation activities of the majority of zoos, as they are either already in compliance or they may comply with minimal effort. Most significantly, the directive does not specifically require zoos to participate in the captive breeding and reintroduction of endangered species, and this is arguably their most important potential (if not actual) conservation role.     

European Court of Justice rules on the protection of databases under the Database Directive (96/9/EC)

The European Court of Justice has ruled on the circumstances in which databases may be protected by the Database Directive. In a decision that renders the protection of databases a narrow concept, the ECJ appears to have introduced a new requirement that a database must comprise its author's “creative ability” in order to qualify for protection as a copyright work.     

The proposed data protection Regulation replacing Directive 95/46/EC: A sound system for the protection of individuals

The recent release by the European Commission of the first drafts for the amendment of the EU data protection regulatory framework is the culmination of a consulting and preparation process that lasted more than two years. At the same time, it opens up a law-making process that is intended to take at least as much time. The Commission has undertaken the herculean task to amend the whole EU data protection edifice, through the introduction of a General Data Protection Regulation, intended to replace the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, and a Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive, intended to replace the Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. This paper shall focus at the replacement of the EU Data Protection Directive by the draft General Data Protection Regulation. Due to the fact that the draft Regulation is a long (and ambitious) text, a selection has been made, with the aim of highlighting its treatment of basic data protection principles and elements, in order to identify merits and shortcomings for the general data protection purposes.     

从GATS三大原则的实质要件看欧盟2003第87号指令是否违反WTO规则

GATS作为WTO的基本协议包含了三个主要原则,即国民待遇原则(GATS第17条),市场准入原则(GATS第16条),以及最惠国待遇原则(GATS第2条).所有WTO的成员国都应当遵守这三个原则,其制定的法律法规也不得与三大原则相抵触,否则就是违反了WTO的义务.欧盟作为WTO的成员之一在2003年启动的国际减排贸易计划中,决定对不属于京都议定书成员国的法人和自然人不给予政府补贴.     

Allocating responsibility among controllers,processors, and “everything in between”: the definition of actors and roles in Directive 95/46/EC

In Opinion 1/2010, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party has provided additional guidance concerning the concepts of ‘controller’ and ‘processor’ contained in Directive 95/46/EC. This guidance aims to assist practitioners in their determination of whether an entity is acting as a controller or as a processor towards a particular data processing operation. Despite the fact that this opinion is informative, the existing framework still appears to leave room for a considerable amount of legal uncertainty. This uncertainty is attributable in part to the nature of the existing concepts, but also (and perhaps to a larger extent) to their apparent misalignment with current processing realities. In this paper, the author seeks to articulate why the existing concepts often remain difficult to apply in practice, in order to enable a constructive reflection on how these issues might be addressed in the future.     

The Estelle medical professional judgment standard: the right of those in state custody to receive high-cost medical treatments.

This Article discusses the rights of prisoners, pretrial detainees, and the involuntarily committed to receive high-cost medical treatments. More specifically, the Article analyzes U.S. Supreme Court and lower court case law dealing with the medical care rights of those in state custody and argues that, under a proper understanding of this case law, the financial considerations of states should play no role in determining the rights of these people to receive high-cost medical care. Finally, the Article defends the current medical care standard against various critiques.