754

resultat(er)

Ord
Type af publikation
Forfatter
Nøgleord
Dato

Research for PECH Committee – Implementation of the current EU fisheries control system by Member States (2014-19)

16-07-2020

This study assesses the implementation of the EU fisheries control system under the current Regulation (EC) No 1244/2009. It focuses on the infringement procedures, sanctions and the application of the point system for serious infringements by Member States from 2014 to 2019. The research shows results based on interviews and survey replies by 17 out of 22 coastal Member States. And it presents case studies for the following seven countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania and ...

This study assesses the implementation of the EU fisheries control system under the current Regulation (EC) No 1244/2009. It focuses on the infringement procedures, sanctions and the application of the point system for serious infringements by Member States from 2014 to 2019. The research shows results based on interviews and survey replies by 17 out of 22 coastal Member States. And it presents case studies for the following seven countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania and Spain.

Ekstern forfatter

Blomeyer & Sanz: Margarita SANZ, Kim STOBBERUP, Roland BLOMEYER

Loot boxes in online games and their effect on consumers, in particular young consumers

16-07-2020

This paper defines loot boxes and describes their behavioural effects, including problematic behaviour. It examines the regulatory framework at EU and national level within which loot boxes operate, provides an overview of public and industry practices, and derives recommendations. Framing the debate around loot boxes, away from gambling and towards consumer protection, would provide the EU with an array of tools to address problematic practices and minimise potential harm, especially for minors. ...

This paper defines loot boxes and describes their behavioural effects, including problematic behaviour. It examines the regulatory framework at EU and national level within which loot boxes operate, provides an overview of public and industry practices, and derives recommendations. Framing the debate around loot boxes, away from gambling and towards consumer protection, would provide the EU with an array of tools to address problematic practices and minimise potential harm, especially for minors.

Ekstern forfatter

Annette CERULLI-HARMS et al

Ratification of international treaties, a comparative law perspective - United States of America

15-07-2020

This study forms part of a wider-ranging project which seeks to lay the groundwork for comparisons between legal frameworks governing the ratification of international treaties in different legal systems. The subject of this study is the ratification of international treaties under the laws of the United States. It describes relevant constitutional, statutory, and other legal provisions with respect to the making and ratification of treaties, as well as legal provisions relating to the making of ...

This study forms part of a wider-ranging project which seeks to lay the groundwork for comparisons between legal frameworks governing the ratification of international treaties in different legal systems. The subject of this study is the ratification of international treaties under the laws of the United States. It describes relevant constitutional, statutory, and other legal provisions with respect to the making and ratification of treaties, as well as legal provisions relating to the making of executive agreements, which also constitute binding international obligations of the United States. The study discusses the approach to international law taken by the U.S. legal system, and the position of treaties and executive agreements within the hierarchy of U.S. laws. The international agreement process and its participants are described. The study then considers the time required for ratification of treaties. This study is intended to give European Parliament bodies an overview of the ratification process of the respective contracting parties (the United States of America, in this instance). This will enable them, for example, to estimate the time required by other treaty partners to ratify any prospective future treaty and to adjust their work programme accordingly.

Ekstern forfatter

This study has been written by Mr Andrew M. WINSTON, Chief, Public Services Division, Law Library of Congress, of the United States Library of Congress, at the request of the “Comparative Law Library” Unit, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS), General Secretariat of the European Parliament.

Hate speech and hate crime in the EU and the evaluation of online content regulation approaches

15-07-2020

This study was commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. The study argues that hate speech and hate crimes poison societies by threatening individual rights, human dignity and equality, reinforcing tensions between social groups, disturbing public peace and public order, and jeopardising peaceful coexistence. The lack of adequate means of prevention and response violates values enshrined in Article ...

This study was commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee. The study argues that hate speech and hate crimes poison societies by threatening individual rights, human dignity and equality, reinforcing tensions between social groups, disturbing public peace and public order, and jeopardising peaceful coexistence. The lack of adequate means of prevention and response violates values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU. Member States have diverging rules, and national public administrations are torn by disagreement in values. Therefore, EU regulation is needed to reinforce the existing standards and take measures to counter hate speech and counter-act against hate speech and hate crime. The study – on the basis of a cross-country comparison conducted – proposes concrete, enforceable and systematic soft and hard law measures to counter hate speech and hate crimes EU-wide efficiently.

Ekstern forfatter

Judit BAYER, Petra BÁRD

Artificial Intelligence and Civil Liability

14-07-2020

This study – commissioned by the Policy Department C at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs – analyses the notion of AI-technologies and the applicable legal framework for civil liability. It demonstrates how technology regulation should be technology-specific, and presents a Risk Management Approach, where the party who is best capable of controlling and managing a technology-related risk is held strictly liable, as a single entry point for litigation. It then applies such approach to ...

This study – commissioned by the Policy Department C at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs – analyses the notion of AI-technologies and the applicable legal framework for civil liability. It demonstrates how technology regulation should be technology-specific, and presents a Risk Management Approach, where the party who is best capable of controlling and managing a technology-related risk is held strictly liable, as a single entry point for litigation. It then applies such approach to four case-studies, to elaborate recommendations.

Ekstern forfatter

Andrea BERTOLINI, Ph.D., LL.M. (Yale) Assistant Professor of Private Law, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (Pisa) Director of the Jean Monnet - European Centre of Excellence on the Regulation of Robotics and AI (EURA)

The European Parliament’s right of initiative

09-07-2020

The European Parliament is the only democratically elected body in the EU. Yet, unlike most parliaments, it has no formal right of legislative initiative. Initiating legislation lies almost solely with the EU's executive bodies, the Commission, and – to a limited but increasing extend – the European Council and the Council. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee, reveals that Parliament ...

The European Parliament is the only democratically elected body in the EU. Yet, unlike most parliaments, it has no formal right of legislative initiative. Initiating legislation lies almost solely with the EU's executive bodies, the Commission, and – to a limited but increasing extend – the European Council and the Council. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee, reveals that Parliament’s „own-initiative-reports” form a widely underestimated and unrecognized tool to informally shape the EU’s policy agenda. The study provides for a comprehensive analysis of non-legislative and legislative own-initiative reports. We argue that Parliament is able to create a cooperative environment in order to bring the Commission in line with its own legislative priorities and sometimes very specific legislative requests. Building on the empirical evidence of Parliament’s practice since 1993, we finally discuss means and ways for pragmatic reform and Treaty revision.

Ekstern forfatter

Andreas MAURER, Michael C. WOLF

El Derecho de excepción, una perspectiva de Derecho Comparado - España: estado de alarma

08-07-2020

Este documento se integra en una serie de análisis que pretenden, desde la perspectiva del Derecho Comparado, presentar el Derecho de excepción en diferentes Estados, con especial atención a aquellos fundamentos jurídicos en que se basan las medidas de emergencia que se pueden adoptar ante crisis, como puede ser la crisis sanitaria provocada por la pandemia del COVID-19. El presente análisis tiene como objeto el caso de España. Se trata de la segunda edición.

Este documento se integra en una serie de análisis que pretenden, desde la perspectiva del Derecho Comparado, presentar el Derecho de excepción en diferentes Estados, con especial atención a aquellos fundamentos jurídicos en que se basan las medidas de emergencia que se pueden adoptar ante crisis, como puede ser la crisis sanitaria provocada por la pandemia del COVID-19. El presente análisis tiene como objeto el caso de España. Se trata de la segunda edición.

Ekstern forfatter

Gabriel LECUMBERRI BEASCOA

Association agreement between the EU and Ukraine

07-07-2020

The European implementation assessment (EIA) evaluates the implementation of the association agreement (EU AA), including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), between the EU and Ukraine. The evaluation forms an update of an evaluation published in July 2018. The EIA shows progress and challenges in the implementation of the agreement in Ukraine and stresses the importance of further reforms in this Eastern Partnership country. The EIA consists of two parts, an opening analysis ...

The European implementation assessment (EIA) evaluates the implementation of the association agreement (EU AA), including the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), between the EU and Ukraine. The evaluation forms an update of an evaluation published in July 2018. The EIA shows progress and challenges in the implementation of the agreement in Ukraine and stresses the importance of further reforms in this Eastern Partnership country. The EIA consists of two parts, an opening analysis prepared internally by the DG EPRS and a briefing paper prepared externally by the Polish Institute of International Affairs. The EIA has been prepared to accompany the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) in its scrutiny work, namely on its work on the own-initiative annual implementing report on the EU association agreement with Ukraine.

Il diritto di eccezione: una prospettiva di diritto comparato - Italia: stato di emergenza

26-06-2020

Questo documento s’inserisce in una serie di analisi che hanno come scopo di spiegare, da una prospettiva di diritto comparato, il diritto di eccezione in diversi Stati, con speciale attenzione alle basi giuridiche su cui si fondano le misure di emergenza che possono essere adottate in caso di crisi, come ad esempio la crisi sanitaria provocata dalla pandemia del COVID-19. La presente analisi ha come oggetto il caso dell’Italia.

Questo documento s’inserisce in una serie di analisi che hanno come scopo di spiegare, da una prospettiva di diritto comparato, il diritto di eccezione in diversi Stati, con speciale attenzione alle basi giuridiche su cui si fondano le misure di emergenza che possono essere adottate in caso di crisi, come ad esempio la crisi sanitaria provocata dalla pandemia del COVID-19. La presente analisi ha come oggetto il caso dell’Italia.

Ekstern forfatter

Alfonso ALIBRANDI

The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence

25-06-2020

This study addresses the relation between the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and artificial intelligence (AI). It considers challenges and opportunities for individuals and society, and the ways in which risks can be countered and opportunities enabled through law and technology. The study discusses the tensions and proximities between AI and data protection principles, such as in particular purpose limitation and data minimisation. It makes a thorough analysis of automated decision-making ...

This study addresses the relation between the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and artificial intelligence (AI). It considers challenges and opportunities for individuals and society, and the ways in which risks can be countered and opportunities enabled through law and technology. The study discusses the tensions and proximities between AI and data protection principles, such as in particular purpose limitation and data minimisation. It makes a thorough analysis of automated decision-making, considering the extent to which it is admissible, the safeguard measures to be adopted, and whether data subjects have a right to individual explanations. The study then considers the extent to which the GDPR provides for a preventive risk-based approach, focused on data protection by design and by default.

Ekstern forfatter

DG, EPRS_The study was led by Professor Giovanni Sartor, European University Institute of Florence, at the request of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. It was co-authored by Professor Sartor and Dr Francesca Lagioia, European University Institute of Florence, working under his supervision.

Partnere