Beyond European Labour Law? Reflections on the EU Racial Equality Directive

In June 2000, the Council adopted a directive forbidding discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in the areas of employment, social protection, education, goods and services, and housing. This is the first time the European Union has adopted binding legislation to combat racism. In this article, the Directive is placed within the context of European labour law, and its implications for the development of this area of law are considered. Specifically, it is proposed that a new category of European 'social law' is emerging, broader in scope than European 'labour law'. The Directive also reveals a new emphasis on effective enforcement of social law. Finally, this article considers the position of the Social Partners and non-governmental organisations in relation to the Directive. The prominence of NGOs is linked to wider trends in the wake of globalisation.     

The Collective Labour Law of the European Union

Abstract: The collective labour law of the European Union is embedded in a variety of legal measures incorporating principles of collective labour law reflecting national experience. The dynamic of its development has been the spill-over effect of these principles, through their translation into the status of EU law, and their development by decisions of the European Court of Justice. The article outlines a framework of principles which, it is argued, are currently embodied in the collective labour law of the EU. They include collectively bargained labour standards, workers' collective representation, workers' participation, and protection of strikers against dismissal. In addition, there is a parallel principle of collective solidarity emerging in the social security law of the EU. The principle of collective negotiation of labour law introduced by the Protocol and Agreement on Social Policy may be seen as the founding constitutional basis for the collective labour law of the European Union.     

Research with minors in Germany

The European GCP Directive has been implemented into German law in sect. 40 ff. AMG (German pharmaceutical law). Unlike the Directive, German pharmaceutical law basically differentiates between three constellations of clinical trials on minors: clinical trials on healthy minors, clinical trials on ill minors with an individual benefit for the individual participant, and clinical trials on ill minors without direct benefit for the individual participant, but with a so-called "group benefit". Particularly the latter possibility of conducting clinical trials on minors even if no individual benefit can be expected is not a matter of course in Germany since due to historical experiences a sceptical attitude towards clinical research on humans prevailed for a long time. German legislature has availed itself of the option granted by Article 3 of the GCP Directive to establish a higher level of protection of clinical trial subjects than the European level.     

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.     

Privacy and the regulation of 2012

This paper explores the European Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation to update and reform data protection law in Europe. As regards the Regulation itself, without presenting an exhaustive analysis of all the provisions, this paper aims to highlight some significant changes proposed to the data protection regime by comparison between Directive 95/46 and the proposed Regulation. It takes particularly into account legislative innovation concerning data protection principles, data subjects’ rights, data controllers and data processors obligations, and the regulation of technologies. Before analyzing these innovations, it introduces some considerations about the Commission’s choice to use a Regulation instead of a Directive to harmonize national data protection regime.     

Enter the quagmire – the complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law

This article examines the complex relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law, particularly within the EU's online environment, and highlights the problems that stem from this complexity. It suggests that, while there are significant similarities between their respective sources, tools and purposes, there are also arguable differences between consumer protection law and data protection law. One such arguable difference is found in that, while consumer protection law can be seen to merely set a floor in its pursuit of a sufficiently high level of consumer protection, data protection law – due to its clearly articulated dual purposes of (a) protecting individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and (b) providing for the free movement of such data – sets both a floor and a ceiling.Having discussed the relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law in more detail, the argument is made that it seems possible to conclude that the balance struck in the Data Protection Directive, and soon in the General Data Protection Regulation, places limitations on consumer protection law. The implications of this conclusion are then examined briefly in the context of some matters currently coming before the CJEU and the contours of a framework are presented, addressing situations where a data protection-based liability claim is pursued against a third-party non-controller under consumer protection law.     

The Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions

The European Commission Proposal for a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions is an important step towards harmonising and clarifying the patent protection available for such inventions in European Member States. This paper discusses the proposed Directive, its potential impact and some initial reactions from those in the software industry. It outlines the background to the Proposal, discussing briefly the exclusion of computer programs 'as such' from patent protection under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The paper observes that, in its current form, the proposed Directive will narrow the protection currently available to patentees and that some thought should be given to transitional provisions. It concludes that, whatever balance is struck as the Directive progresses to adoption, the Directive will have the benefit of providing a mechanism for aligning the approach of European Member States to patenting computer-implemented inventions. 'Educational initiatives' may, however, be required if European companies, in particular Small and Mediumsized Enterprises (SMEs), are, as intended by the Commission, to view the harmonization and greater transparency provided by the proposed Directive as an incentive to use patents to exploit their computer-implemented inventions.     

Restructuring "Germany Inc.": The Politics of Company and Takeover Law Reform in Germany and the European Union

The reform of German company law by the Control and Transparency Law (KonTraG) of 1998 reveals the politics of corporate governance liberalization. The reforms strengthened the supervisory board, shareholder rights, and shareholder equality, but left intra‐corporate power relations largely intact. Major German financial institutions supported the reform's contribution to the modernization of German finance, but blocked mandatory divestment of equity stakes and cross‐shareholding. Conversely, organized labor prevented any erosion of supervisory board codetermination. Paradoxically, by eliminating traditional takeover defenses, the KonTraG's liberalization of company law mobilized German political opposition to the European Union's (EU) draft Takeover Directive and limited further legal liberalization.     

Why Do Labour Lawyers Ignore the Question of Social Justice in European Contract Law?

Abstract: Over recent years, a heated debate about social justice in European contract law has been taking place. Great emphasis is placed on ideological assumptions. For example, the over‐individualistic interpretation of European private law, its market‐led orientation and the insufficient attention paid to the idea of the protection of the weaker party. This discussion considers the traditional conflict between the meta‐principles of market‐oriented efficiency and solidarity‐based action. The whole debate, it seems to me, now calls for a more rules‐based approach. In endeavouring to validate such an approach, this article starts by illustrating the various facets connected to the theme of ‘European contract law’. Then as a preliminary step, I shall briefly examine the question as to why labour lawyers have remained silent and take no part in the discussion on European social contract law. There is ample reason to believe that the contrary is necessary. It has been generally acknowledged that labour contracts are not outside private law—individual contract law in particular—and that it represents one of the most important examples of long term incomplete contracts. The idea of labour law as autonomous is dead and it appears simple to promote the reintegration of labour law into modern social contract law. In the context of the debate on European contract law, three different strategies can be envisaged to achieve this end. The first strategy tests the degree to which provisions under the contractual regime, not all of which are legally binding, effectively meet the needs of the weaker party in the contractual relationship, in terms of his/her security—what might for short be termed the social validity of the contract regime—(the Principles of European Contract Law, the EU rules affecting contract law, etc which are analysed and proposed in the various workshops that are currently examining them), from the specific point of view of labour law. A second strategy is to codify European or Community labour law. Lastly, another strategy is to introduce an intermediate category of long‐term social contracts. What makes this last trend particularly significant for the future is that today globalisation is progressively diminishing the income earned from labour contracts and in this sense creating insecurity. In a globalised economy, where levels of remuneration are lower than in the past, the individual's sense of security must be ensured also in the context of other social or long‐term contracts (outside the workplace), which enable people to obtain other sources of finance (such as consumer credit, for example), or to make arrangements necessary for living (such as tenancy contracts). A need exists for consumers to be granted similar rights to those which historically have been granted to workers. To take just one example: if the borrower under a consumer credit agreement loses his/her job for objective reasons, or falls ill and is therefore temporarily unable to pay the instalments under the agreement, why should there not be a mechanism which limits the credit‐providing institution from terminating the credit arrangement?     

The necessity of legally compliant data management in European cloud architectures

Taking advantage of flexible resource provisions enabled by Cloud Computing, many businesses have recently migrated their IT applications and data to the Cloud, allowing them to respond to new demands and requests from customers. However, Cloud Computing also moves functions and responsibilities away from local ownership and management to a third-party provided service, and brings with it a set of associated legal issues, such as data protection, licensing, intellectual property rights and the need to comply to necessary regulation. In this paper we evaluate commonly-observed Cloud Computing use cases against the law applying to Cloud Computing to find where legal problems may arise. We derive a general architecture for Clouds and use it to illustrate common Cloud Computing usage patterns. The use cases are assessed against evaluation criteria derived from the relevant Cloud Computing law for the data processing of end-user details and materials, including roles and responsibilities necessary for legal compliance. The Data Protection Directive of the European Union has been used in this evaluation, as it is a commonly accepted and influential directive in the field of data processing legislation.     

Sui generis database protection: a new start for the UK and Ireland?

LEGAL CONTEXT: The decisions of the ECJ in William Hill and Fixtures Marketingconstitute setbacks for rightholders seeking to protect thecontent of databases from unauthorised use by others. This developmentis keenly felt in Ireland and the UK because of the absenceof any overlapping protection in the form of unfair competitionrelief against parasitical activities by competitors. Ironically,post-Feist US copyright law, in the form of the Montgomery CountyRealtor case (1995), when contrasted with the recent Dutch ZAHdecision (2006), shows that US copyright law affords a greaterlevel of protection than is available in the EU under the DatabaseDirective. The ZAH decision also builds upon earlier Germancase law, virtually eliminating liability for linking to websitematerial made available to the public. KEY POINTS: In ZAH, the Dutch Court's interpretation of the Directive andcriteria to be met before content may be copyright protectedwas very restrictive, in stark contrast to the approach of mostCommon Law judges. The result is a very different one to thatintended by the drafters of the Directive, a point reinforcedby the European Commission's own 2005 assessment of the Directive. PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The Directive has been a disaster from every perspective. Lawmakersin the UK and Ireland may feel that the time is right to consideradopting national measures to produce a more balanced protectivemeasure in respect of commercial databases and an effectivemeans of stimulating investment by following unfair competitionprinciples, rather than the quasi-copyright model of the suigeneris right. ZAH demonstrates that until the European Commissiontackles the critical issue of a common originality standard(which is very unlikely) national differences will be inevitablewithin EU copyright law.     

The exploitation of Business Register data from a public sector information and data protection perspective: A case study

Business Registers (BRs) are a very important information resource for investors, creditors, financial institutions and public authorities. The possibility to aggregate and interconnect these data at a European level could enhance the transparency of companies towards those actors and add a great deal of value to the raw Business Register data. The European BRITE project intended to provide adequate tools to meet these demands. BRITE will provide easier access and cross-border interoperability of Business Register data throughout Europe. On the other hand, the processing of BR data within the BRs and BRITE triggers several important European legislations such as the Data Protection Directive and the Directive on the re-use of public sector information. In this paper, the processing of BR data will be analysed from the perspective of both data protection and public sector information laws, analysing as well the relation between both regulations. Do these regulations strike an optimal balance between the interests of private data vendors to re-use BR data and enhance business transparency and the need to protect the personal data of natural persons?     

The data protection framework decision of 27 November 2008 regarding police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – A modest achievement however not the improvement some have hoped for

After more than three years in the making, that have witnessed much controversy, several working texts and at least two altogether different versions, the Data Protection Framework Decision “on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters” (hereafter, the DPFD) was finally adopted on 27 November 2008. The DPFD was supposed to be celebrated as the Data Protection Directive equivalent in European law enforcement (Third Pillar) processing. However, since its formal adoption, and even before that, data protection proponents (the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Article 29 Working Party, national Data Protection Commissioners, NGOs) lamented its adoption as the result of changes that ultimately compromised data protection. Is the DPFD a disappointment to the great expectations that accompanied its first draft, back in 2006? An attempt to address this question shall be undertaken in this paper.     

The ‘right to be forgotten’ or the ‘principle that has been remembered’

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled on questions referred by a Spanish court relating to interpretation of the Data Protection Directive and its application to search engine activities. In a controversial judgment, the CJEU found that search engines are data controllers in respect of their search results; that European data protection law applies to their processing of the data of EU citizens, even where they process the relevant data outside the EU; and that a ‘right to be forgotten’ online applies to outdated and irrelevant data in search results unless there is a public interest in the data remaining available and even where the search results link to lawfully published content.     

The new German Data Protection Act and its compatibility with the European Data Protection Directive

A substitution of the right to maintain mailing lists for marketing purposes (the so-called list privilege) by a strict opt-in requirement as proposed by the German Government for the amendment of the German Data Protection Act does not conform with European law. Making the use of relatively innocuous data like name and address for marketing purposes subject to the data subject's declaration of consent infringes upon the requirements of the European Data Protection Directive. The Directive allows for the use of personal data either on the basis of a data subject's declaration of consent or after a balancing of legally protected interests. Reducing this two-track model to a one-track model (based on the data subject's declaration of consent only) does not do justice to the idea of balancing of interests or free movement of goods and services which are a mandatory part of European law. The draft bill interferes drastically with the free movement of goods and services. A tightening of the opt-in requirements would be a severe burden for the German economy because it is impossible for businesses to distribute their goods and services without the help of marketing measures. The economic cycle would be hit at its weakest point, i.e. the link between businesses and consumers which is gaining more and more importance especially with a view to cross-border competition.     

Harmonisation by Example: European Laws against Unfair Commercial Practices

This examination of the implementation of the European Union's Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices in the United Kingdom by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 assesses the likely impact on the national law governing the marketing practices of rogue traders, including its ambition to simplify and extend legal protection, and the likely success of the Directive in achieving the harmonisation of the laws and practices regulating marketing in Europe. In particular, the discussion evaluates the regulatory strategy of the Directive in its attempt to secure uniform laws through the combination of principles, rules, and concrete examples of prohibited practices. The paper also investigates the likely impact of the Regulations on the private law of contract and tort and the possibilities for improvements in a consumer's personal right of redress.     

Bridging the Gap: Humanitarian Protection and the Convergence of Laws in Europe

This article uses the thematic of humanitarian protection to examine the convergence of laws in Europe. It considers the heterogeneous architecture of the Refugee Convention and European Convention on Human Rights then analyses the homogenous framework of the EU's Common Asylum System and, in particular, the Qualification Directive. It argues that in an area where international, regional and national laws intersect, convergence needs to be underpinned by Member States adopting a common interpretative methodology that has international law at its core. Article 15 of the Qualification Directive (QD) is used to illustrate how this can be achieved. The article adds to the growing literature on the convergence of laws in Europe and illustrates the importance of adopting a common interpretative methodology. It suggests a paradigm for protection regimes around the world and a methodology that could be transplanted to other areas of law involving the intersection of international, regional and national laws.     

“In the public interest”: The privacy implications of international business-to-business sharing of cyber-threat intelligence

This article reports on preliminary findings and recommendations of a cross-discipline project to accelerate international business-to-business automated sharing of cyber-threat intelligence, particularly IP addresses. The article outlines the project and its objectives and the importance of determining whether IP addresses can be lawfully shared as cyber threat intelligence.The goal of the project is to enhance cyber-threat intelligence sharing throughout the cyber ecosystem. The findings and recommendations from this project enable businesses to navigate the international legal environment and develop their policy and procedures to enable timely, effective and legal sharing of cyber-threat information. The project is the first of its kind in the world. It is unique in both focus and scope. Unlike the cyber-threat information sharing reviews and initiatives being developed at country and regional levels, the focus of this project and this article is on business-to-business sharing. The scope of this project in terms of the 34 jurisdictions reviewed as to their data protection requirements is more comprehensive than any similar study to date.This article focuses on the sharing of IP addresses as cyber threat intelligence in the context of the new European Union (EU) data protection initiatives agreed in December 2015 and formally adopted by the European Council and Parliament in April 2016. The new EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to EU member countries, a major focus of the international cyber threat sharing project. The research also reveals that EU data protection requirements, particularly the currently applicable law of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (1995 Directive) (the rules of which the GDPR will replace in practice in 2018), generally form the basis of current data protection requirements in countries outside Europe. It is expected that this influence will continue and that the GDPR will shape the development of data protection internationally.In this article, the authors examine whether static and dynamic IP addresses are “personal data” as defined in the GDPR and its predecessor the 1995 Directive that is currently the model for data protection in many jurisdictions outside Europe. The authors then consider whether sharing of that data by a business without the consent of the data subject, can be justified in the public interest so as to override individual rights under Articles 7 and 8(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which underpin EU data protection. The analysis shows that the sharing of cyber threat intelligence is in the public interest so as to override the rights of a data subject, as long as it is carried out in ways that are strictly necessary in order to achieve security objectives. The article concludes by summarizing the project findings to date, and how they inform international sharing of cyber-threat intelligence within the private sector.     

大数据时代互联网平台公开数据赋权保护的反思与法律救济进路

对于互联网平台公开数据的保护不宜采取赋权的强保护模式,应当采取反不正当竞争法的行为规制模式。激励理论与公地悲剧理论不能作为互联网平台公开数据赋权保护的正当性基础,赋权保护无法满足数据权利的法定性与透明度的内在要求,强行适用赋权保护会过度妨害数据市场运转、数据技术提升、科学研究以及数据共享。运用反不正当竞争法保护互联网平台公开数据时,须转变数据保护的思维理念,摒弃司法实践中的权利侵害式裁判模式,回归对互联网平台数据竞争行为自身的正当性评判。在一般性条款的适用过程中,司法裁判者应秉持反不正当竞争法的谦抑性,并借用比例原则对互联网平台数据竞争行为的边界进行限定,维持不同数据相关主体利益以及公共利益之间的平衡。     

Reinterpreting Law's Silence: Examining the Interconnections between Legal Doctrine and the Rise of Immaterial Labour

Recent years have seen a rise in immaterial labour in the United Kingdom and other developed economies. Sociological explanatory accounts of these developments focus primarily on economic drivers. Little, if any, inquiry has been made into the potential role of law. This article seeks to identify the aspects of law that may be constitutive of employer and worker perceptions of the acceptability (or otherwise) of employer demands for immaterial labour. Two key contributions are made. The first is a setting-out of a methodological approach to exploring the constitutive effect of law that emphasizes the internal operation of legal doctrine as critical to understanding its sociological implications. The second is the development of substantive knowledge on the potential role of law vis-à-vis the rise of immaterial labour.