bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Third Form of Justice
Authors: Perry Ronen 
Published: July 2016

IzhakEnglard, a prominent tort scholar and a former justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, has dedicated the last few years to an unprecedented research project, aimed to “retrace the long and complex history of the Aristotelian conceptual distinction between distributive and corrective justice from antiquity to the present day.” Modern legal theorists are well versed in the Aristotelian concepts. But although these concepts have engaged “the most brilliant philosophical, legal, and theological minds for generations,” the millennial treatment of the Aristotelian distinction has been disregarded in recent times. Englard’s recently published book brings the cumulative knowledge to the attention of contemporary thinkers, offering an opportunity to enhance and deepen ongoing jurisprudential discourse.Englard has structured the book chronologically (with a single exception), on the grounds that a topical arrangement would be impractical due to its complexity. Nonetheless, one can break down his sequential analysis of discrete manuscripts and extract fascinating inter-temporal debates on concrete questions that have occupied the minds of Western thinkers for centuries. This Critical Notice focuses on one of the main themes that run throughout the book, and may be of the greatest importance to contemporary legal theorists, namely the place of retributive (punitive, vindictive) justice within the Aristotelian framework. Following a short presentation of the Aristotelian text, this Critical Notice utilizes Englard’s painstaking study to systematically evaluate four possible attitudes to the place of retributive justice vis-à-vis the Aristotelian forms: (1) retribution is part of corrective justice (the Thomist position); (2) retribution pertains to distributive justice (the Scotist position); (3) retribution combines both forms of justice; (4) retribution is a third form of justice.
Doing the Full Monty: Will Publicizing Tax Information Increase Compliance?
Authors: Kornhauser Marjorie E. 
Published: July 2016

Publicity of information is a fundamental principle of American democracy. Not only is it instrumental in increasing compliance with the laws, a necessity of any government, but also it is an essential element of the right to know-which itself is an aspect of the first amendment right to free speech. Unfortunately, publicity often conflicts with another fundamental right-the right to privacy. In regards to taxes, citizens essentially have two rights to know: a right to know what the tax laws are, and a right to know that these laws are being administered fairly. Publicity in the tax context traditionally means making tax return information public records in an attempt to ensure the fair administration of the tax laws. This type of publicity, however, generates intense hostility because taxpayers perceive it as a huge invasion of their privacy.After examining the pros and cons of traditional publicity of tax information, this Essay suggests that tax publicity be reconceived more broadly. Redefined in the dictionary sense of simply the transmission of information, tax publicity can include a wide array of communications, varying as to content and audience, which can better achieve publicity’s underlying goals with minimal invasions of privacy. A large portion of publicity in this broad sense can be-and should be-educational.The Essay outlines four publicity proposals to stimulate discussion. Three use the expanded definition of publicity and focus on individual taxpayers: an annual tax statement, a short booklet to accompany the 1040, called Know Your Taxes, and an annual W-4. These essentially educational programs should deliver tax information to taxpayers more effectively than currently occurs. The fourth, more controversial, proposal suggests partial publicity-in the traditional sense. It attempts, however, to minimize the customary objections to publicizing tax return information by reducing invasions of privacy.All the proposals will cost money, but probably less than the costs of enforcing compliance only through increased audits and litigation. They may also have psychic and political costs. Although recent studies show that more informed taxpayers are often more compliant, some of the information may trigger negative attitudes which would decrease compliance and/or create pressure for lower taxes.Regardless of whether taxpayer reactions to the increased information are positive or negative, the greater publicity proposed in the Essay could have salutary effects, especially if it occurred in the context of a rational debate by elected officials about tax policy (instead of the current inflammatory rhetorical sound bites). On the one hand, if taxpayers respond positively to publicity, compliance will increase. If they act negatively, and their hostility to taxes increase, at least the publicity will arm them with more precise information that will allow them to focus their objections to the income tax and thereby lobby more effectively for real tax reform.
Judicial Review and EC Merger Control: Reflections on the Effectiveness of the System with Regard to the Standard of Review and Speed
Authors: Fountoukakos Kyriakos 
Published: July 2016

The central problem [with the current system of EC merger control] is that the Commission acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, with little meaningful right of appeal or other form of redress from a prohibition decision, since cases take a considerable time to reach the Community Courts, and even if the Courts overturn a prohibition decision, the case is only remitted to the MTF, as only the Commission has the power to clear a Community concentration. By that stage of course, the result is entirely academic, since the proposed deal in question will be long dead.The above quotation from the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) response to the European Commission’s (hereinafter, ‘the Commission’) Green Paper on the reform of the EC Merger Regulation in 2002 still summarises quite aptly the criticism expressed in recent years by members of the business and legal community about what the critics perceive as a serious shortcoming in the current system of EC merger control: the lack of effective, meaningful in practical terms, judicial control over the administration’s decisions in this area.
People-Trafficking: Some Reflections on the EU Legislation, and its Implementation in the UK
Authors: Spencer John R 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
This chapter examines the efforts in Europe and and the UK to deal with the problem of people-trafficking. As readers will see, it is in five Sections. The first sets the scene by explaining what ‘people-trafficking’ is, and outlining the history of international attempts to repress it and to relieve its human consequences. The second describes the recent legislative attempts to deal with it in Europe, and in particular, the EU Framework Decision of 2002. The third examines the UK legislation enacted with the aim—not entirely accurate, as we shall see—of implementing it. The fourth looks at the way the UK legislation is working. And the final section concludes with two general reflections. It is based on a study carried out in 2007 for ECLAN, the European Criminal Law Academic Network. Any reader who reaches the end with a thirst for further knowledge will find further refreshment in the book that resulted from the ECLAN study, which was published earlier this year.
Administrative Law and Multi-Level Administration: An EU and US Comparison
Authors: Donnelly Catherine 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to assess what, if anything, administrative law can demonstrate about multi-level administration in the European Union and the United States. The particular focus of the examination is not on the content of administrative law in each legal order, but rather on the impact of EU and US federal administrative law on the Member States and US States respectively. It will be seen that, while US federal administrative law has primarily only influential effect on US States, EU administrative law is often binding on Member States. This observation challenges presumptions often made, particularly in political science, as to the degrees of inter-penetration in administration in the EU and the US. It will be argued that the cause of divergence is largely derived from differing judicial attitudes as to the fundamental tenets of the co-operation between the different levels of administration, and indeed, more general understandings of federalism in the two jurisdictions. In this way, this study also provides a useful prism through which to consider integration in the EU and US more broadly.
Connecting Tort and Crime: Comparative Legal History in England and Spain since 1850
Authors: Dyson Matthew 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
This chapter explores the relationship between tort law and criminal law. In particular it tracks one line of developments in the procedural co-ordination of criminal and civil law: the ability of criminal courts to award compensation for harm. It is a study of legal change or development: how and why law has evolved from the middle of the nineteenth century through to the present day. The chapter is also comparative, looking at the English and Spanish legal systems. The history of powers to compensate has highlighted two fundamentally different ways to resolve claims based on a concurrently tortious and criminal wrong. The English system has slowly moved from disparate and piecemeal provisions to a general if under-theorised system. On the other hand, Spain created a novel and complete system of liability to be administered by the criminal courts. This chapter seeks to trace and explain this development with a view to understanding how much civil and criminal law can perform the same function: compensation.
An Overview of Regulatory Innovation in the European Union
Authors: van Calster Geert 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
This chapter reviews the regulatory innovation process in the European Union, with a focus on the environmental sector. It examines the EU documents on regulation and, in particular, the ‘eight pillars of European governance’ listed by the European Commission in its follow-up to the 2001 White Paper on European Governance, as a useful means of categorising the practical consequences which the European Union attaches to the different implications of the governance debate in the EU. It goes on to summarise the initiatives on regulatory innovation as kick-started by the White Paper on Governance, and to map the current state of each of these initiatives. It concludes that no fundamental reform is required, but rather only a slim number of targeted remedies; the only real solution to the regulatory fog is acceptance and deregulation.
The ‘New’ French Constitution and the European Union
Authors: Boyron Sophie 
Published: July 2016

AbstractFor a long time, French constitutional law did not appear to concern itself unduly with the European Communities and the process of European integration: the French Constitution did not contain any reference to the European Communities and the Conseil constitutionnel had little involvement with international treaties and their enforcement as a result of an early decision. However, the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 triggered a process of deep constitutional change in France. Since then, the text of the French Constitution has been repeatedly amended to respond to the quickening pace of European integration. Furthermore, the Conseil constitutionnel has totally transformed its control of the constitutionality of international treaties. An assessment of these constitutional changes seems opportune at this juncture. More specifically, an investigation into the manner in which the French constitution reacted to the changing European Union helps cast some light on the impact of European integration on national constitutions.
Normative Interactions and the Development of Labour Law: A European Perspective
Authors: Robin-Olivier Sophie 
Published: July 2016

AbstractIn important recent cases dealing with labour law issues, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relied on a combination of international, European and domestic sources to justify their decisions. In Viking and Laval, the ECJ recognised that the right to take collective action as a fundamental right protected by EU law. In Demir and Baykara v Turkey, the ECtHR decided, for the first time, that the right to bargain collectively is an essential elements the right to form and to join trade unions covered by Article 11 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights. This chapter considers the reliance on multiple sources of law in this series of cases and questions the ‘combination method’ used by European courts to identify or interpret human right provisions. It argues that globalisation of legal sources in the area of labour law does not necessarily lead to ‘globalisation’ of labour law, allowing common solutions or, at least, harmonised solutions to come to life. The outcome of normative interaction is not universal labour law but instead largely depends on which court decides the case. Therefore, litigation strategies in the field of labour law should make use of the potential of normative interactions without ignoring the opportunities offered by the diversity of courts.
Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law
Authors: Dougan Michael 
Published: July 2016

AbstractThe question of exactly who benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of which range of persons and bodies should be recognised as legally competent to enforce any given provision of Union law before the national courts, is surprisingly murky. This lack of clarity is due partly to the inherent complexity of the question, as well as to the complication posed by the interdependent relationship between the Union and national legal orders. The confusing approach adopted by the Court of Justice compounds the matter. This chapter discusses some observations on why this is a question which poses particular policy challenges for the Union legal order, before going on to summarise the relevant tools employed by the Court of Justice when addressing issues about the decentralised enforcement of Union law by private and public actors. It is argued that, despite the apparent confusion, it is possible to construct a workable division of labour between the role of Union law in defining its own protective scope (on the one hand) and the discretion of each Member State over access to the courts for the enforcement of Union law (on the other hand). A detailed analysis of the case law is conducted in order to identity the weakest links in the system, or at least those which suffer from the greatest degree of doctrinal and conceptual neglect. The question of who exactly benefits from the Treaties, in the sense of enjoying rights of standing to enforce Union law before the national courts, presents both surprisingly difficult challenges and promising research issues for the future.
Transparency and Clear Legal Language in the European Union: Ambiguous Legislative Texts, Laconic Pronouncements and the Credibility of the Judicial System
Authors: Sharpston Eleanor 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
The legal system of the European Union generates particular problems of opacity and lack of clarity. This chapter seeks to identify some of the causes of those problems. First, the nature of the texts with which the Court of Justice deals—’Union legislation’, orders for references from national courts and submissions to the Court—is examined. Problems here include the multi-lingual and multi-cultural backgrounds of those involved in the process, vagueness in legislative drafting and lack of clarity in references and submissions placed before the Court. Secondly, the Court’s own judgments and the opinions of its Advocates General are considered. Problems here include the factors governing the drafting of a single consensus judgment and the fact that it is not always easy to strike the correct balance between speed and quality. Lastly, a number of suggestions for change are offered. The obstacles are not insuperable and improvements can be made.
Years an EU Lawyer—Apologia Pro Vita Sua Or EU Law—A 40-Year Journey and Still Motoring
Authors: Dashwood Alan 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
This lecture offers a justification of the choice of a career as an EU lawyer, which was made at the beginning of the 1970s. Its 40-year perspective covers a variety of themes, beginning with the political aims and values that underpin the European project. This is followed by a section on the development of the Treaty and Union structure, from the three original Communities to the Union of the Lisbon Treaty. Other themes are: the progressive enlargement of the Union’s membership, including the legal challenges facing new Member States; the expansion of Union competences, from the original objective of establishing a general common market; and, finally, the Union’s functional constitution, described as the chef d’oeuvre of the Court of Justice.
Identifying an Unlawful Margin Squeeze: The Recent Judgments of the Court of Justice in Deutsche Telekom and TeliaSonera
Authors: Jones Alison 
Published: July 2016

Abstract
The chapter will consider what a margin squeeze is, whether it is appropriate for a competition authority to try and prevent margin squeezes using competition law rules and, if so, what tests can be used to identify an unlawful margin squeeze and to distinguish it from legitimate competition on the merits.
Tax Law and the Internal Market: A Critique of the Principle of Mutual Recognition
Authors: Ghosh Julian 
Published: July 2016

AbstractThe principle of mutual recognition tests a potential breach of internal market treaty provisions and restricts the scope for a Member State to justify a breach by reference to what happens, or has happened, in a different Member State. The principle of mutual recognition is a distinct principle to that of non-discrimination and does not apply by reference to the functional equivalence of Member States’ regulatory regimes. Mutual recognition has been developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as a distinct principle (perhaps a general principle) of EU Law, quite separate to the settled principles of non-discrimination and prohibition of obstacles to market access. The principle of mutual recognition entrenches a neo-functionalist model of the Union project and acts as an accelerant to the harmonisation of the domestic regimes of Member States which are subject to its application, in areas where harmonisation is realistically possible. In areas where harmonisation is not realistically possible, the application of the internal market by reference to the principle of mutual recognition sets aside non-internal-market-compliant Member States’ regulatory provisions, leaving an unsatisfactory space in these regulatory regimes. However, the principle of mutual recognition is, in the light of the application of the principles of non-discrimination and the prohibition of obstacles to market access, quite unnecessary and operates to frustrate legal certainty and the legitimate expectations of the Member States.
Consumer Protection in EU Residential Mortgage Markets: Common EU Rules on Mortgage Credit in the Mortgage Credit Directive
Authors: Josipović Tatjana 
Published: July 2016

AbstractFor many years now, there has been an attempt in the European Union to create a common legal framework for mortgage credit contracts and cross-border activities in the mortgage financial sector. One of the greatest challenges has been the establishment of a corresponding level of consumer protection in EU residential mortgage markets. This issue has become particularly important at the time of financial crisis. Consumers are increasingly exposed to the risk of losing their homes because of failing to fulfil, in due time, their obligations arising from mortgage loans, and thus losing confidence in the EU financial sector. Therefore, the European Union has intensified its efforts to improve consumers’ ability to inform themselves of the potential risks when entering into mortgage loans and mortgaging their real property. On 4 February 2014 the EU adopted the new rules on mortgage credits in the Mortgage Credit Directive. The main objective of the Directive is to increase the protection of consumers in EU mortgage markets from the risks of defaults and foreclosures. A higher level of protection must be ensured by consumers’ increased information capacity related to mortgage credits, as well as by developing a responsible mortgage lending practice across the EU. The Mortgage Credit Directive is also aimed at contributing to the gradual establishment of a single internal market for mortgage credits. In this chapter, the author analyses previous and current attempts by the EU to establish a uniform market of mortgage loans, and assesses the possible impact of the Mortgage Credit Directive on the protection of consumers in the market of mortgage credits and on the development of cross-border activities in the mortgage financial sector. Special emphasis is placed on the possible impact of the new EU rules on mortgages on national protection measures aimed at consumer protection at the time of financial crisis. The transposition of the Mortgage Credit Directive will undoubtedly contribute to a higher level of consumer protection when consumers enter into home loan contracts. However, the question arises whether, because of different levels of harmonisation of some rules laid down in the Directive, its implementation will actually contribute to an increase in cross-border home loans. The possibility for Member States to opt for increased consumer protection in some aspects of credit agreements when implementing the Directive, or the existence of different options for the exercise of individual rights that they may use cannot bring about an integration of mortgage credit markets.
Fundamental Rights, General Principles of EU Law, and the Charter
Authors: Tridimas Takis 
Published: July 2016

AbstractThe purpose of this chapter is to explore selected aspects of the relationship between the general principles of EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The chapter first looks at the expansion of fundamental rights in EU law and the importance of general principles by reference to three principles which have provided fruitful grounds for judicial activism: the right to judicial protection, the principle of non-discrimination, and the right to personal data. It then examines the sources of fundamental rights under Article 6 TEU and the relationship between Charter rights and general principles. Finally, it explores a pivotal issue in EU constitutional discourse, namely, the scope of application of the Charter and the general principles of law. The chapter concludes by observing that, far from declining in importance, the general principles of law continue to be an integral part of judicial methodology; that, following the introduction of the Charter, the CJEU applies a heightened level of judicial scrutiny; and that it favours a centralised approach opting for an autonomous interpretation of the Charter, granting it precedence over national constitutional norms, and understanding broadly its scope of application.
EC Law and International Agreements of the Member States—An Ambivalent Relationship?
Authors: Schütze Robert 
Published: July 2016

The European Community (EC) was established in 1957 on the basis of an international treaty. The Treaty of Rome formed part of international law, though the Court of Justice was soon eager to emphasise that the ‘Community constitutes anew legal orderof international law’, and that:By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the E … C Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their Courts are bound to apply.