EU Pundit

Croatians Say Yes to the European Union (EU)

2012-01-23T18:20:00.000+01:00

So where is Croatia? and who are the Croatians?
America's most famous Croatian descendent right now is surely Nick Saban,
head coach of the current American national college football champion Alabama Crimson Tide.

Martin Schulz,
President of the European Parliament,
has issued a press release that
Croatians support EU accession

The BBC reports that the vote was about 2-1 in the EU Referendum, even though a simply majority would have sufficed.

This of course is strong evidence for the strength of the European Union, contrary to all the hype written by the mainstream news media.

European Union Euro Situation: Structure not Funding is the Problem, Says Harvard's Rogoff

2011-12-01T21:49:00.001+01:00

Euro Zone problems are discussed by Steven Erlanger at the New York Times in
New Warnings of Euro Zone Danger

as Erlanger writes:

" For Kenneth S. Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard, the biggest problem for the euro is not money so much as structure, or the lack of it. “This is a deep constitutional and institutional problem in Europe,” Mr. Rogoff said. “It’s not a funding problem.”"

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

Crossposted from LawPundit.

Euro Doomsayers Are Wrong: Jacob Funk Kirkegaard Reports via RealTime Economic Issues Watch at the Peterson Institute for International Economics

2011-11-29T20:39:00.001+01:00

You know, sometimes it all depends on what you choose to read.

At the website of the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard reports via RealTime Economic Issues Watch
on
Why the Euro Doomsayers Are Wrong.

Is he right? Time will tell.

Crossposted from LawPundit.

Donate to EU Pundit and the ISandIS Network

2011-11-29T20:30:00.001+01:00

The blog EUPundit gets quite a few hits daily but we have been unable to devote much time to it in recent months, concentrating on our popular blog at LawPundit.

We have now put up a donation button (to the right) to see if there is enough donor interest out there for us to resume postings about the European Union.

Certainly a lot has been going on in the EU that is worth blogging about in an informative manner.

We shall see.

Thank you.

Learning to Think Critically: Maybe Everyone Should Go to Law School

2011-07-30T22:38:00.000+02:00

At the New York Times discussion of "The Case Against Law School", former dean and former provost, Professor Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago in Learning to Think Like a Lawyer lists five "experiences [that] legal education can offer that are invaluable for future lawyers".

In our opinion, the first of these is by far the most important. As Stone writes:

"First, and most important, it can teach students to “think like a lawyer.” As any lawyer will tell you, this is critical. The practice of law demands a rigorous, self-critical (and critical), creative and empathic (how will my opponent and the judge see this issue?) mind-set. In general, legal education does this brilliantly. This is at the very core of a legal education."

There is a very good reason that people trained in the law have historically dominated and still do dominate leadership positions in society. "Thinking like a lawyer" is one of the principal causes.

Indeed, one problem with modern multinational corporations is that lawyers are being named CEOs less and less, and are being replaced by business "tradesmen", who know their trade but do not know how to ask the right questions. The current world economy shows it -- as it is suffering badly.

People who study the law are not like those who study the humanities or other professions, where the essence of learning is the learning of a trade. You can teach a seal to balance a ball, but not how to successfully resolve human conflict.

The only real way to measure the effectiveness of legal education is by the SUBSEQUENT societal effectiveness of those who were subjected to that education. Law-trained effectiveness puts many other professions in the shadows in terms of measurable performance. There is a reason why so many lawyers earn millions of dollars a year and many other professions earn far less. It is not chance.

Indeed, outside of the law schools and outside of business courses using "the case method", your average university graduate earns his degree in other academic disciplines sort of like a an apprentice in a handicraft. He or she is taught "what the truth is" in that profession. Critical thinking is rare on the average classroom agenda. University exams test knowledge of facts, not the ability to think on one's feet.

Outside of law school education, students learn to regurgitate the accepted state of knowledge in a given field. The better they do it, the higher they rise on the career ladder. They learn to quote the leading authorities of their day according to whatever school of thought happens to prevail at the time in their field, and, after graduation, they don their professional caps and pass on the system they have learned to the next generation. Errors in knowledge are thus subject to the domino effect. I face this ignorance continuously in my studies on the history of civilization, where the historical disciplines involved (Archaeology, Linguistics, Egyptology, Biblical Studies, Assyriology) are dreadfully marked by stong deficits in the capacity for critical thinking. People there tend to be interested in TELLING YOU what the history was, rather than trying to find out what really happened.

In my view, all this discussion about the sense of law school education is therefore superfluous. The real problems are elsewhere.

Law school education and especially the Socratic method of dialogue -- whatever their defects -- are for the most part breathtakingly effective in producing agile minds prepared for the stressful intellectual demands of the modern world. Perhaps law school education can be improved - everything can - but it is far ahead of the game when compared to other academic disciplines.

Where legal education in my opinion should INSTEAD start to become active is by offering special Socratic dialogue-type courses at law schools for ALL the OTHER professions, thus giving college graduates other than lawyers a chance to come out of their universities with some capacity for independent critical thought rather than being robots that repeat like parrots whatever their professors, parents, role models, celebrity idols, or other supposed "authorities" have taught them.

Twenty bishops swearing on a Bible do not make a fact true, if it is false. Children of Republicans become Republicans, usually. Children of Democrats become Democrats, usually. This has nothing to do with the viability of their political dogmas. Rather, political views are largely "inherited". "Critical thinking" about politics has nothing to do with it.

The same is true for religious beliefs, where it is a rare man or woman who has a religious belief system that diverges significantly from what mama and papa taught them. Children for the most part are not taught critical thinking by their parents -- quite the contrary -- they are taught obedience. Families are seldom democracies. Christians become Christians. Jews become Jews. Muslims become Muslims. I have, by the way, great respect for some modern Buddhists I know in the West because they at least CHOSE their religion during their lifetime, and focus thereby on doing GOOD WORKS, rather than on proselytizing and burdening their fellows with THEIR BELIEF system. A belief is the absence of proof. If we had evidence for religious dogmas, belief would be unnecessary. And yet, all sorts of economic "beliefs" guide most of the discussions one hears or reads about political and economic problems. People are merely just repeating what they have heard and what they agree with. That does not make it "true".

For example, many people have "opinions" about taxes and the economy, especially methods of government financing -- even though most people almost always know far less about those subjects than they do about their favorite college or professional athletic teams or players. This does not however keep from them mixing into the discussion and even basing their political voting decisions on insufficient knowledge.

Unfortunately, there are also a good many people in Congress who know not much more than what has been ladled into them by people not knowing much more than the Congressmen/women do about the subjects in question. One could have a great time asking Congressional representatives to explain modern institutions to us, e.g. the Federal Reserve System or the International Monetary Fund. Just ask your Senator: explain that to me please. The classic example here is the late Arizona Senator Ted Stevens who hilariously but seriously -- and totally erroneously -- described the Internet as "a series of tubes". It was too funny for words, except that Stevens, the longest-serving Republican Senator in history, held Congressional seniority positions putting him in charge of Internet regulation. When a country like the USA is in the economic difficulty in which it currently finds itself, it is not without reason. You can not have the blind leading the blind.

Indeed, many people spend some of their leisure time -- we erroneously call this "entertainment" -- listening to and applauding people who have no other real talent other than that they think and/or utter opinions like their audience. NOT TOO CRITICAL, that kind of thinking, or living. A man of intellectual power, by contrast, constantly himself challenges what he knows, "knowing" full well that such a critical path is the only path of true human progress. "Yes men" are a dime a dozen, but that is the way most of the world operates. Nodding is approved.

Try this experiment the next time YOU listen to someone in Congress. Take what they say sentence by sentence and ask: how does he or she know that what they are saying is true? where did they get it? what is the evidence? where is the proof? how has it been checked? who did the checking? what empirical data supports it? who says????? do that with ALL the political parties, not just YOUR favorite. Blind tests with sports fans show that fans as referees call close plays in favor of "their favorite team" 2 to 1 on both sides of the same play. Where e.g. a Husker Big Red fan will see an Oklahoma Sooner personal foul, the Sooner fan will see a Husker foul -- on the same play! It is the same in Congressional partisanship, also in lawmaking, you better believe it. That is why we have a U.S. Supreme Court -- to keep everybody honest.

Someone who has properly assimilated a legal education asks the tough and self-critical questions -- but that may not even be a majority of law school graduates, judging by what we see among JDs in politics. Much of the rest of world BELIEVES what it wants to believe, regardless. Unfortunately, that is no solution for concrete problems.

That is why critical thinkers ultimately always run the show. They are the only ones RATIONALLY examining contemporary issues as problems to be solved, not as battles of political dogma. To obtain that skill status, a legal education via the Socratic Method is a great help.

Born in Europe: The Ph.D.: Are Doctoral Dissertations a Waste of Time? PhDs as Cheap Labor: The Economist Analyzes The Disposable Academic

2011-07-30T22:35:00.000+02:00

A recent article at the Economist, Doctoral degrees: The disposable academic, alerts us to the fact that:

"PhD students are cheap, highly motivated and disposable labour."

That knowledge was confirmed already 10 years ago by Chris M. Golde and Timothy M. Dore in At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education.

There is no doubt: the value of PhD programs and dissertations is questionable and greatly in need of reform.

What has happened to the academic doctorate in our day in age, and is "doctoral research" largely a waste of time?

After all, the more progressive professional doctorates dispensed with the need for research dissertations years ago. Is there any supportable value in terms of academic efficiency to superfluous doctorates copiously and subserviently footnoted to alleged authorities or are they merely drone theses that ultimately simply wind up in the archives, read only by exam referees? As James Frank Dobie (1888–1964) wrote:

"The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another."

One of the problems is that the historical development of "academic" university degrees is understood by few, and surely not by many Ph.Ds, some of whom ignorantly even tout the superiority of research doctorates to law degrees, showing that human stupidity may be infinite, ala Einstein, who quipped:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sureabout the the universe."

We might as an academic "refreshment" consider that the word "doctor" is rooted historically in the Latin docere, meaning "to teach".

Indeed, doctorates as university degrees all started with the law:

"In Europe the first academic degrees were law degrees, and the law degrees were doctorates. The foundations of the first universities were the glossators of the 11th century, which were schools of law [in a specific sense]. The first university, that of Bologna, was founded as a school of law by four famous legal scholars in the 12th century who were students of the glossator school in that city [The Four Doctors of Bologna: Bulgarus, Martinus Gosia, Jacobus de Boragine and Hugo de Porta Ravennate -- see also Glossators, with a connection to ecclesiatical usages, such as Canon Law, the law of the Church].

Furthermore, as things progressed:

"The naming of degrees eventually became linked with the subjects studied. Scholars in the faculties of arts or grammar became known as "master", but those in theology, medicine, and law were known as "doctor". As study in the arts or in grammar was a necessary prerequisite to study in subjects such as theology, medicine and law, the degree of doctor assumed a higher status than the master degree. This led to the modern hierarchy in which the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), which in its present form as a degree based on research and dissertation is a development from 18th and 19th Century German universities, is a more advanced degree than the Master of Arts (M.A.). The practice of using the term doctor for Ph.Ds developed within German universities and spread across the academic world."

Law led, the rest followed. Nothing has changed.

Dear Subscribers: Ignore Previous Data-Mining USA Court Case Posting

2011-06-27T03:09:00.003+02:00

The previous subscriber posting -- now deleted -- about a pharmaceutical data-mining court case in the USA was published inadvertently to EU Pundit during the drafting stage by hitting a wrong keyboard button by mistake and should be deleted.

If interested, you can view the full final posting at LawPundit at:

Medical Prescription Data Mining Case Decided by US Supreme Court in Favor of Pharmaceutical Industry as Corporate Free Speech: Sorrell v. IMS Health

EU Internet Cookie Law Opt-Out Option Deadline: European Union Companies Given One Year by EU Commission to Standardize Cookie Tracking Consent Mechanism to Protect Privacy Rights

2011-06-26T23:30:00.001+02:00

As we previously reported at LawPundit, the European Union "EU Internet Cookie Tracking Law" came into effect on May 26 of this year (2011) via the 2009 EU Directive, protecting user privacy rights by requiring that users be informed by companies of the extent of their cookie tracking and be given the option to "opt out" of such tracking.

The practical problem of implementation has surfaced in the interim and Pinsent Masons LLP at Out-Law.com now reports that EU Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes, who is responsible for "Digital Agenda" of the Commission, has stated that EU companies have a year to standardise cookie opt outs.

As written inter alia at Out-Law.com:

"In 2009 the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive was changed to demand that storing and accessing information on users' computers was only lawful "on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information … about the purposes of the processing"."

In practical terms, this law could mean that EU Internet users will be confronted by dialogue boxes giving them the option to opt out of cookie tracking by any website that they visit that utilizes cookie tracking features.

Of course, after users have initially made their opt-out viz. opt-in cookie tracking choice for websites and/or web pages they often visit where "essential" tracking cookies may be necessary (e.g. log-ins, online banking, other financial transactions, etc.), the law will in fact provide increased privacy protection to those who want it against cookie tracking by websites that use "non-essential" cookies principally for data mining (an example here would be a user online search for "sofas", after which online advertisements for "sofas" would more frequently be shown to that particular identifiable user by the advertising search engine or the websites he visits).

Internet cookies are of course not prohibited and an opt-out is arguably only required for "tracking cookies" by which the identity of the user is to be traced. The opt-out rule could however lead to the paradox that a special cookie may be required to record the specific user's opt-in or opt-out choice (!).

Otherwise, the user will have to opt-in or opt-out of cookie tracking every time he visits a cookie tracking website. It will be interesting to see how the industry tackles and solves this problem.

UPDATE:

I have just downloaded the Mozilla Firefox 5 browser and it has a privacy option check button that reads "Tell web sites I do not want to be tracked". That looks like a more global solution to the opt-in opt-out problem, though of course websites are of course not bound by this choice. That the Firefox 5 update, however, cluelessly deactivates my much-used Google Toolbar from Firefox 4 is however a source of considerable ire as the people at Firefox -- just as at Microsoft -- still do not get it that the USER should decide what he wants, not some dreamy-eyed programmer in Neverland. I am still trying to figure out how to get the old MS Paint XP or Vista version running on Windows 7 rather than the impossibly re-programmed new "ribbon version" which is as good as useless for any serious pixeling MS Paint user. When in doubt, provide the user with OPTIONS !!!

Obama Visits His Irish Roots in Ireland to Start G8 Summit Trip: Address of British Parliament on Tuesday: Deauville on Thursday

2011-05-23T16:18:00.000+02:00

The Village of Moneygall in Offaly, Ireland, home of Obama's great-great-great-grandfather on the mother's side, has been spruced up as Obama kicks off Europe trip with ancestral visit to Ireland, as reported by Honor Mahony at EUobserver.com.

European Union Parliament Handles Financial Crisis in 60-Second Animation

2011-05-23T16:09:00.000+02:00

The European Union EU Parliament has a nice 60-second animation on handling the financial crisis. Their suggestion is "Stick to the Rules", a somewhat simplistic approach that can be regarded as a sign of the times in which institutions and governments are coming under increasing scrutiny as to what they are doing.

Here is the video:

Voice of America Reports on Spain Demonstrations as Inspired by Arab Protests:The Chains of Law and Order: Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-05-21T14:16:00.000+02:00

It is one thing to be for democracy but quite another to cope with what mass democratically-inspired civil unrest can actually mean.

Law and order may be our chains, but they also protect us.

Lauren Frayer at Voice of America News reports on the newest unrest -- in Europe of all things -- in Inspired by Arab Protests, Spain's Unemployed Rally for Change.

Mass movements have been successful historically in deposing oppressive and/or unpopular governments, but the "revolutionary" replacements are not guaranteed to be more democratic and can in fact be far more oppressive than what people had in the first place. Worse, "law and order" can suffer greatly in the interim periods.

You have to be careful what you wish for.

It is imperative that European Union Member States organize their societies in such a manner that mass unemployment is not an issue, otherwise one should not be surprised to discover civil unrest at one's doorstep. Currently, "the pie" is not fairly divided and civil unrest is to some degree pre-programmed.

Europe Day! May 9: A Marriage of Reason but not of the Heart

2011-05-09T22:10:00.002+02:00

As the European Union writes on its website:

On the 9th of May 1950, Robert Schuman presented his proposal on the creation of an organised Europe, indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.

This proposal, known as the "Schuman declaration", is considered to be the beginning of the creation of what is now the European Union.

Today, the 9th of May has become a European symbol (Europe Day) which, along with the flag, the anthem, the motto and the single currency (the euro), identifies the political entity of the European Union. Europe Day is the occasion for activities and festivities that bring Europe closer to its citizens and peoples of the Union closer to one another.

Raf Casert of the AP points out, however, that:

"In EU, Europe Day stands for little: integration may make life easier, but no celebration.... [the EU] has always been a marriage of reason, rarely the heart."

Today is Europe Day

2011-05-09T22:01:00.000+02:00

Leigh Phillips at the EUObserver notes that Europe Day celebrated amid growing criticism of ECB, but points out that:

"On 9 May 1950, one of the two main founders of the EU, Robert Schuman, presented his proposal for an organised Europe, known as the "Schuman declaration" - considered to be the birth of the European project."

The fact is, outside of a few, even in Europe, nobody knows that today is Europe Day.

EU European Union Cookie Law Comes into Effect on May 26, 2011: Compliance and Consent

2011-05-09T21:56:00.000+02:00

Pinsent Masons LLP at OUT-LAW News writes about compliance and consent as regards the new EU cookie law which goes into effect on May 26, 2011.

The UK has New Supreme Court Justices Appointed including the First Appointment Directly From the Bar

2011-05-05T00:29:00.000+02:00

Image linked from BBC News

Are you up-to-date on The Supreme Court and the United Kingdom's legal system?

Did you know that Her Majesty The Queen signed a warranty granting "Courtesy titles for Justices of the Supreme Court" of the United Kingdom so that all Justices are addressed in a similar manner as "Lord" or "Lady"? The non-peerage title is good for life and the spouse of a "Lord" is also to be called "Lady".

There is a changing of the guard in process at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Just last month Sir John Dyson, now Lord Dyson, was sworn in as the UK's 12th Justice to fill a post vacant since the Court started its work in October, 2009. Afua Hirsch has the story and we link to a photograph of the current Court via Akira Suemori of the AP at the Guardian.co.uk website (the Supreme Court website has the same photo):

Is Dyson (back left) that tall or did they just put the other tall guys on the chairs? Check out the article.

This month, as reported in the Guardian by Owen Bowcott, two new Supreme court judges have been appointed to replace retiring Lord Saville and imminently retiring Lord Collins, Lawrence Antony Collins, Baron Collins of Mapesbury, PC, who in his younger days received an LL.M from Columbia Law School in New York.

One appointee is Lord Justice Wilson of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales and the other is Sir Jonathan Sumption OBE QC, soon to be a non-peerage "Lord", "the cleverest man in Britain, with “a brain the size of the planet” and fees to match", a lawyer whose salary of £206,857 at the Supreme Court will be considerably less than the £1 million plus he reportedly earns annually in representing the likes of Russian self-made billionaire Roman Abramovich, now owner, among other things, of the Chelsea football club.

The appointment of Sumption is being touted as bit of a sensation in the UK as it is the first time a barrister has ever been appointed directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, although other judicial appointments from the Bar have been made in the past.

EU Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Goes into Full Force on May 1, 2011: Alternative Medicines to be Sold Must Be Registered for Safety and Efficacy

2011-05-04T19:01:00.000+02:00

After a seven-year transition period which started in 2004, alternative, herbal, Ayurvedic, Chinese, African, etc. medicines must be registered in the European Union for safety and efficacy as of May 1, 2011, or they may not be sold as "medicines".

The EU Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products does not prohibit the sale of traditional herbs or plants but they can not be sold as "medicines" without registration, which requires proof of safety and efficacy.

The EUROPA Press Release of April 29, 2011 by the European Union provides as follows:

"Traditional herbal medicines: more safety for products put on EU market
From tomorrow, EU citizens can be reassured that the traditional herbal medicines they buy in the EU are safe and effective. The expiry of the 7 year transition period set out in the 2004 Herbal Directive (2004/24/EC) means that only medicinal products which have been registered or authorised can remain on the EU market after 1 May 2011. The Herbal Directive introduces a simpler registration procedure than for other medicinal products, in respect of the long history of use of traditional herbal medicinal products. At the same time, the Directive provides the necessary guarantees of their quality, safety and efficacy.
John Dalli, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, said, "We have now reached the end of a long transition period which has given producers and importers of traditional herbal medicinal products the necessary time to show that their products have an acceptable level of safety and efficacy. Patients can now be confident about the traditional herbal medicinal products they buy in the EU."
Simplified procedure
In order to protect public health, all medicinal products, including traditional herbal medicinal products, need a marketing authorisation to be placed on the EU market. The simplified procedure introduced by the Herbal Directive allows these products to be registered without the safety tests and clinical trials that a full marketing authorisation procedure would involve.
Instead, an applicant who wishes to register a traditional herbal medicinal product must provide documentation showing that the product in question is not harmful in the specified conditions of use. They must also provide evidence that the product has a proven track record, ie. that it has been used safely for at least 30 years – 15 of these in the EU.
Seven years to register
The Herbal Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 31 March 2004. It gave an exceptionally long transition period of 7 years for manufacturers to register their traditional herbal products already on the EU market when the Directive entered into force.
Applicants have had 7 years to apply to the competent authority in the Member States(s) where they wanted to market their product. If, by 30 April 2011, a herbal medicinal product is not registered or authorised, then it may not be on the EU market after 1 May 2011. After this date, producers of traditional herbal medicines can still apply for a registration through the simplified registration procedure.
The Herbals Directive:
Does not ban traditional medicines from the European market. On the contrary, it introduces a lighter, simpler and less costly registration procedure than for other medicinal products. Plus it has given producers of traditional herbal medicinal products an exceptionally long transition period of 7 years to register their products.
Does not ban vitamins, mineral supplements and herbal teas.
Does not ban alternative therapies and therapists, homeopathy, plants or books on plants.
Background
Some plants contain substances that may be used to treat diseases. Medicinal products that are made from these substances are known as "Herbal Medicinal Products". Even though they are natural, a number of these products may be harmful to health. Therefore, these products are covered by pharmaceutical legislation, which aims to protect public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products.
"Traditional" herbal medicinal products are a sub group of herbal medicinal products that have been in use for at least 30 years, including at least 15 years in the EU, and that are intended to be used without the supervision of a medical practitioner and are not administered by injection. This category is not limited to European traditional herbal medicinal products; it can also include Chinese and Ayurdevic medicinal products.
The Herbals Directive updated the 2001 Directive on the Community code for medicinal products for human use (Directive 2001/83/EC) by introducing a simplified procedure specifically for traditional herbal medicinal products.
Link to MEMO/11/71
Further information:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/herbal-medicines/index_en.htm
"

Hat tip to EUobserver.

The Recession: Profits Not Taxes or Wages in the UK, Germany and the USA Were Stoked by Economic Recovery and Bailouts

2011-05-03T11:49:00.000+02:00

Nick Pearce of the influential Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) in Wages, profits and the recovery: cui bono? asks:

"Where has the lion's share of the recovery gone in different countries: real wages or profits? This is a question asked by the Economist this week, off the back of a very interesting briefing note from BCA Research."

The results are clear. Profits in the U.K., Germany and the United States have skyrocketed, as banks and other enterprises stuff their pockets with bailout cash and similar benefits, while taxes are reduced and wages even more so, in comparison, increasing the already gigantic gap between the haves and have nots.

The average wage-earner and citizen is being ripped off royally while a small minority are laughing all the way to the bank.

As the old saying goes, fools and their money are easily parted.

Hat tip to the Alex Harrowell at the blog, A Fistful of Euros.

Germany and Austria Open Labor Markets on May 1 to EU Member States in the East Who Joined in 2004: Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia

2011-04-30T00:08:00.004+02:00

As reported by Markus Dettmer and Jan Puhl at the Spiegel Online, the seven-year moratorium on full integration of citizens of the EU Member States added in 2004 by the European Union ends on May 1, 2011. Actually, this applies to 8 of 10 added in 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, of which Cyprus and Malta of course are not in Eastern Europe and were exempted from the moratorium.

For the last seven years, citizens of those EU states could not legally reside or work in Germany or Austria, because Germany wanted the moratorium to protect its own workers in a then down-turned economy.

The booming economy in Germany in particular has changed the market for labor dramatically since that time and Germany now, for example, is looking for new sources of labor, as reported in the Spiegel.

Much of the available skilled labor and many of the best IT experts and programmers from those EU Member States have been absorbed in the interim by countries such as Britain, Ireland, Sweden and the Netherlands, so that no one expects a major exodus to Germany and Austria on the 1st of May, "May Day", (which fittingly, is a national holiday in Germany and Austria, indeed, Labor Day, a day traditionally reserved to hold demonstrations on behalf of worker's rights and among much of the citizenry a day on which to take a long walk in nature, or to raise a Maypole (German Maibaum) on village squares throughout the land as a symbol of the returning Spring. It is a day for feasting and celebration.)

Obviously, some specialists in other Western EU Member States will be able to accept better compensation packages in Germany and Austria, but the cost of living is also higher, so that an increase in salary does not necessarily mean an improvement in the quality of life or in purchasing power. Moreover, things in the Member States in the East have also improved in those seven years so that many skilled workers now have no great incentive to leave their own EU Member State just to work elsewhere in the European Union. Western EU industry has come to them in those seven years, rather than vice versa.

As the Spiegel writes:

""This hesitant attitude, based on fears of a possible negative effect on the German labor market, now turns out to have been a huge mistake," says Klaus Zimmermann, the head of the Bonn-based Institute for the Study of Labor. At a trade conference in Warsaw this week, Zimmermann said German companies shouldn't wait for the people of Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states to turn up, but should actively recruit them while there's still time."

Compulsory Statutory Default Retirement Age of 65 Being Phased Out in the United Kingdom between April and October 2011

2011-04-24T00:32:00.000+02:00

EIROnline at Eurofound.com writes that the UK Government confirms abolition of default retirement age.

The compulsory (statutory default) retirement age of 65 in the United Kingdom is being phased out between April and October of this year.

Europe, Law, Democracy and the Role of Linguistic Diversity in Legal Processes

2011-04-15T23:48:00.000+02:00

Research and Markets at BusinessWire.com asks in Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy:

"What role does linguistic diversity play in European democratic and legal processes?"

Read the article here.

European Union Optional Contract Law Initiative to Facilitate Cross-Border Transactions: European Commission Welcomes EU Parliament Committee Support Vote

2011-04-15T12:40:00.000+02:00

EUROPA - Press Releases - European Commission welcomes European Parliament committee vote in support of an optional European Contract Law

"The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee approved a report today that favours the elaboration of an optional European Contract Law. This is in response to several options put forward by the European Commission for a more coherent approach to contract law (see IP/10/872). Such a measure could be chosen freely by consumers and businesses in their contractual relations. This optional instrument would be an alternative to the existing national contract laws and would be available in all languages. It could apply in cross-border contracts only, or in both cross-border and domestic contracts. It would have to guarantee a high level of consumer protection and legal certainty throughout the life cycle of a contract. In today’s vote, the Legal Affairs Committee adopted an own-initiative report by Diana Wallis.

Vice-President Viviane Reding, the EU's Justice Commissioner, said: 'It is good news for Europe's Single Market that the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee favours work towards an optional European Contract Law to facilitate cross-border transactions, notably for small- and medium-sized enterprises and consumers. The Commission will take the European Parliament's views strongly into account in its further preparation of the European Contract Law initiative. We plan a first initiative on European Contract Law for the Polish Presidency.'

Read the rest here.

Controversial Mosel Bridge in EU "Wine Country" Paused for Coalition Negotiations Between the Social Democratic Party and the Environmentalist Green Party

2011-04-07T01:31:00.001+02:00

On March 3, 2011, prior to elections in the German Rhineland-Palatinate (Rheinland-Pfalz) we posted at LawPundit about the highly controversial 158-meter high and over 1-mile long bridge planned to be built over the Moselle (Mosel) River right through the center of one of the world's leading wine-producing regions -- see Winemakers Unite to Oppose the Building of an Ugly and Unnecessary Bridge over the Moselle River in Germany's Famed Mosel Wine Region. But is it TOO LATE?

We are glad to report that the fantastic result of that election is that the building of the monstrous planned Moselle bridge has been paused for post-election coalition negotiations, for the reason that a major aspect of the political platform of the Alliance '90/The Greens, who emerged from the elections as the political party of the hour, was strong opposition to the bridge.

To get some idea of the gigantic size of this bridge, 158 meters is the same height as the Telecommunications Tower, Torre de las Telecomunicacione viz. Torre Antel (Antel Tower) in Montevideo, Uruguay, the tallest building in the country!

Full resolution‎ (480 × 640 pixels, file size: 64 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Torre de las Telecomunicaciones, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Foto realizada y subida por Federico Corral (aka Shant)

For the planned Mosel Bridge, just extend that height one mile horizonally and add 25,000 tons of steel over one of the most picturesque rural wine-producing areas in the world and you know that some misguided planners' delusions of grandeur have reached their limit.

Here, for comparison, from the German Wikipedia website (Hochmoselübergang) are "before" and "after" images of what the countryside looks like now and what it will look like if this monstrous bridge is built as planned. These gigantic pillars for the Mosel are essentially equivalent to putting a dozen skyscrapers in the middle of French Bordeaux. Would France ever even think of doing such a crazy thing?

The elections are now over and the German environmental party, Alliance '90/The Greens, surely in part also because of the tragic tsunami wave in Japan and the subsequent nuclear catastrophe which has followed, made huge gains in Baden-Wuerttemberg, ousting Chancellor Merkel's CDU party.

Merkel's ruling party was absolutely destroyed there by stupidly supporting the planned demolition in Stuttgart of the Hauptbahnhof, the main train station, a highly regarded cultural and architectural monument, in order to make way for a planned underground station. Police used water cannons to try to remove protestors, inciting even more opposition, and the ruling CDU party did not get the message that they were on the wrong side of the issue. They got what they deserved in the election -- they were ousted. As now written at Deutsche Welle:

"German rail operator Deutsche Bahn (DB) has announced a work freeze on a contentious rail project centered on the southwestern city of Stuttgart following recent state elections."

Baden-Wuerttemberg with its capital Stuttgart is the 3rd largest State in Germany, and corporate headquarters for inter alia Daimler [Mercedes-Benz], Porsche, Robert Bosch, Carl Zeiss, and SAP -- the largest software firm in Europe. Faced with the spectre of the CDU getting thrown out of government in that corporate-oriented State for being -- clearly -- on the wrong side of an important environmental issue, warning signs have gone up for politicians all over Germany.

In the Rhineland-Palatinate, the Alliance '90/The Greens picked up substantial environmental votes, enough votes to go from being completely out of the government previously, to now having to be included in coalition negotiations with the Social Democratic Party (SPD). That SPD, just as the minority Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the Palatinate, has up-to-now supported the bridge for economic reasons. What economic reasons? The bridge is being financed 80% by federal financing and those Euros for the Palatinate constitute the blood money for the otherwise unnecessary bridge.

Thankfully, the German voters are paying attention. In the March 27, 2011 Rhineland-Palatinate elections, this time it was the SPD that lost its ruling majority in the State, gaining 10% fewer votes than in 2006 in the Palatinate. It is a strong political message when Germany's two largest political parties are getting beaten badly because of environmental issues.

By contrast, the Alliance '90/The Greens surged from 4.6% in 2006 in the Palatinate-- not even reaching the 5% government-participation threshold -- to achieving a triumphal 15.4% in 2011, putting them solidly in the government and reaching a voting level they are unlikely to lose anywhere in the near future.

The environmental ramifications of the Fukushima nuclear accidents will be with us for years. MORE environmental protection, rather than less, will be the hallmark of successful politicians.

For Palatinate Minister-President Kurt Beck and the SPD to stay in power and to continue to govern, something has to give in the coalition negotiations, and it is going to be the building of the totally unnecessary monstrous bridge over the Moselle River. That will have to go.

Representatives from the CDU have been quoted post-election as saying that the bridge will be built anyway because of ca. €330 million contracts that have been granted viz. planned for construction of the project.

We are not sure about that.

Those contracts are no hindrance to stopping the bridge.

There is of course no reason to cost people their jobs just because you end an unnecessary construction project. Those same construction firms can be put to work for the same money repairing the roads, bridges and highways that ALREADY EXIST and in part are in a dilapidated state of repair. There is plenty of work to be done.

Or, in a worst case scenario, one could maintain the road-building as planned, but replace the monstrous bridge with a normal "human-size" bridge as already found on the Mosel elsewhere and as suited to a wine-growing and tourist area.

Most people on the Mosel could probably live with that.

Roads and bridges over rivers are necessary in moderation -- but not the monstrous bridge planned for the Mosel. That is NOT necessary.

If the politicians in Berlin still want this monstrous bridge built as a job generator (Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme), we suggest they try to put it in the middle of Berlin on the Ku'damm (Kurfürstendamm) and see what happens. That would be no different than putting that same bridge here on the Mosel.

EU Libel & Defamation Law: Google Rightly Loses Case in Italy for Libelous Search Suggestions Generated by Autocompletion Computer Algorithms

2011-04-05T19:56:00.000+02:00

Sometimes we disagree with Italy, and sometimes we agree.

This time, WE AGREE as Google loses defamation case in Italy.

Google's autocompletion feature -- run by computer algorithms --
led to cases of libelous search suggestions, by computer.

Obviously, that is intolerable.
We are no friends of libel.

Italy is correct in saying that libel is libel, computer-written or otherwise.

E-Privacy Directive Regulations Bring New Cookie Rules to the European Union Effective May 25, 2011

2011-03-13T18:02:00.000+01:00

BBC News reports in New net rules set to make cookies crumble, that:

"From 25 May, European laws dictate that 'explicit consent' must be gathered from web users who are being tracked via text files called 'cookies'....

The changes are demanded by the European e-Privacy directive which comes into force in the UK in late May."

As written by Miya Knights at EWeekEurope.co.uk in ICO Warns On New EU Cookie Rules:

"The new law, which will come into force on 25 May 2011, is an amendment to the EU’s Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive [The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003] designed to keep pace with the constant evolution of online fraud."

A Discriminatory and Flawed Legal Decision by the European Court of Justice ECJ on Drug Tourism and Vice Control in the European Union EU: Case C-137/09

2011-03-02T21:05:00.000+01:00

The control of human vices such as prostitution and drug abuse are major problems for legal systems because they often involve the border-line confrontation of legal bodies and law enforcement agencies with "normal" citizens whose behavior has run contrary to the law statutes in matters that often involve legal and moral principles about which there is a great deal of differing opinion in the populace.

Few areas of law involve so much "bad law" as the perplexing legal issues posed by "substance abuse", whether this be alcohol or marijuana. (We have posted before at LawPundit about the widespread failings of legal systems to deal intelligently with drug abuse problems in society.)

A case in point is recently found at the EU Law Blog
in the posting Cannabis, Coffee Shops, Non-Discrimination and Public Policy: Case C-137/09
regarding Case C-137/09 Marc Michel Josemans v. Burgemeester van Maastricht
of the European Court of Justice (ECJ),

a terrible legal decision which sets back about 2000 years the legal advances made in Europe since Law in Early Rome and the Republic, by which citizens of Rome in that Empire had one set of rights and foreigners another set of rights.

Not only has the modern developing concept of ius gentium -- the "law of nations" by which all people are subject to the same laws, citizens, non-citizens and foreigners alike -- been trampled under foot by the ECJ in Case C-137/09, but the entire principle upon which the European Union is based has been tossed aside.

The principle foundation of the the European Union and a Single Internal EU Market is EQUALITY of the Member States of the EU and its citizens, especially in economic matters. The "four freedoms" in the European Union provide:

"The core of European Union economic and social policy is summed up under the idea of the four freedoms - free movement of goods, capital, services and persons. Sometimes, they are also counted up as five freedoms, namely the free movement of goods, capital, services, workers and the freedom of establishment, but the difference is merely in denomination, they both refer to the same areas of substantive law."

To permit the sale of cannabis in coffee-shops in Maastricht to citizens of the Netherlands but to prohibit such sale to other EU citizens or foreigners turns European Law on its head and makes a mockery of the European Union.

We are not in favor of drug tourism, by the way, and it would be better to prohibit the sale of cannabis anywhere in the EU than to permit this terrible totally discriminatory decision to remain good law.

Google with 80% of EU Market Faces Anti-Trust Problems from Competitors Alleging Abuse of Dominant Market Position

2011-02-27T14:46:00.000+01:00

Valentina Pop at EUobserver.com reports that Google facing second EU anti-trust case "for alleged abuse of its dominant market position." Google controls 80% of the European search engine market and is accused of favoring its own sites in search results. If true, Google may have trouble winning this case.

European Court of Justice (ECJ) based on Request from the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) to Decide Legality of Second-Hand Software Sales as regards Copyright Licensing and Infringement

2011-02-27T14:39:00.000+01:00

OUT-LAW News from Pinsent Masons LLP reports that:

ECJ asked to rule on re-sale of software licences

The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, the highest court in Germany for non-constitutional questions) has requested the highest court in the European Union, the ECJ (European Court of Justice) to clarify the legality of the sale of second-hand software in a case involving second-hand Oracle software sold online by third parties.

Estonia to Become 17th Member of the Euro Area on January 1, 2011

2010-12-30T00:58:00.002+01:00

Estonia to strengthen the euro area

Euro maverick Edin Mujagic writes inter alia:

"Estonia is also a living proof that economic disasters do not have to lead to enormous budget deficits. Disaster is the correct word, as the economy of this tiny Baltic nation has contracted by some 15 percent in 2009 with 2010 not being much better either. But still its government managed to keep the budget deficit at just a tad over 1 percent of its GDP. A remarkable achievement indeed if there ever was one."

Euroskeptics and the Euro - Paul Krugman Op-Ed at the New York Times

2010-12-30T00:48:00.000+01:00

Euroskeptics and the Euro - Paul Krugman Op-Ed at the New York Times

www.theeulobby.eu

2010-12-30T00:45:00.000+01:00

www.theeulobby.eu: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

EU Parliament Adopts EU 2011 Budget

2010-12-30T00:36:00.000+01:00

The EU Parliament adopted the EU 2011 Budget at the European Parliament plenary session 13-16 December 2010.

E.U. Takes Wait and See Approach to Net Neutrality Regulations - NYTimes.com

2010-11-12T02:08:00.000+01:00

See E.U. Sees No Need for Net Neutrality Regulations at the New York Times by Kevin J. O'Brien.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ): The Court of Justice and the General Court plus the Specialized Panels: Getting the Names Right after the Lisbon Treaty

2010-10-25T14:23:00.000+02:00

By virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court of Justice of the European Communities recently changed its name to Court of Justice of the European Union (EU).

Remarkably, as of the last time we looked (22 October 2010), the official EU pages for "the Court" have not been properly edited to reflect all the changes required by the Treaty of Lisbon, which amended the treaties comprising the constitutional framework of the EU. The official EU page currently writes:

"Following the entry into force of a new EU treaty, the content of this page is under revision."

That new treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, now serves as the constitutional basis of the European Union and its institutions:

"The Constitution changes the name of the Court of Justice. In the future, the term "Court of Justice of the European Union" will officially designate the two levels of jurisdiction taken together. The supreme body is now called the "Court of Justice" while the Court of First Instance of the European Communities is renamed "General Court". Article I-29 states that the Court of Justice of the European Union includes "the European Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts"."

As written at the Wikipedia on the European Court of Justice:

"Following the entrance into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the ECJ's official name was changed from the "Court of Justice of the European Communities" to the "Court of Justice" although in English it is still most common to refer to the Court as the European Court of Justice. The Court of First Instance was renamed as the "General Court", and the term "Court of Justice of the European Union" will officially designate the two courts, as along with its specialised tribunals, taken together."

Regarding the General Court (European Union), the Wikipedia writes:

"The General Court (EGC) is a jurisdictional instance of the Court of Justice of the European Union. From its inception on 1 January 1989 to 30 November 2009, it was known as the Court of First Instance (CFI).

The General Court hears disputes (such as disputes brought by those refused a trademark by OHIM, the EU Trade Mark and designs registry). Appeals are sent to the European Court of Justice. The General Court is an independent Court attached to the European Court of Justice.

The creation of the General Court instituted a judicial system based on two levels of jurisdiction: all cases heard at first instance by the General Court may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only....

The General Court (previously known as "the Court of First Instance") is composed of 27 judges, at least one from each Member State, plus a registrar. The Judges are appointed for a renewable term of six years by common accord of the governments of the Member States.

The Members of the General Court elect their President and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges from among their number for a renewable period of three years.

There are no permanent Advocates General attached to the General Court (unlike the European Court of Justice which has 8 Advocates General). However, the task of an Advocate General may be performed in a limited number of cases by a Judge nominated to do so. In practice this has been done only very occasionally."

See in this general regard Struan Robertson at OUT-LAW.COM in How often does the ECJ follow Advocates General? Or should that be CJEU?

As to the special panels of the Court, the Wikipedia writes concerning the specialized tribunal, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal:

"The European Union Civil Service Tribunal is a specialised tribunal within the Court of Justice of the European Union. It was established on 2 December 2005.

The Treaty of Nice provides for the creation of judicial panels in certain specific areas. This provision is later amended and codified in Article 257 (‘specialised courts’) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Treaty of Lisbon:[1]
"The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish specialised courts attached to the General Court to hear and determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas. The European Parliament and the Council shall act by means of regulations either on a proposal from the Commission after consultation of the Court of Justice or at the request of the Court of Justice after consultation of the Commission. [...]"
The Council of the European Union on 2 November 2004, adopted on that basis a decision establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.[2] The new specialised court, composed of seven judges, is called upon to adjudicate in disputes between the European Union and its civil service, a jurisdiction until 2005 was exercised by the General Court. Its decisions will be subject to appeal on questions of law only to the General Court and, in exceptional cases, to review by the European Court of Justice.

We reproduce the following text from the EU website on the Treaty of Lisbon:

"The Treaty of Lisbon amends the EU's two core treaties, the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. The latter is renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In addition, several Protocols and Declarations are attached to the Treaty.

The Treaty of Lisbon
Order your printed copy of the Treaty of Lisbon or download the PDF version of the text

A consolidated text of the two core Treaties, integrating the modifications which the Treaty of Lisbon lists in its articles, is also available.

Consolidated versions of the Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon
Order your printed copy or download the PDF version of the consolidated text"

As written at Consilium - Treaty of Lisbon:

"The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community was signed in the Portuguese capital on 13 December 2007 by the representatives of the twenty-seven Member States. It entered into force on 1 December 2009, after being ratified by all the Member States.

The Treaty on European Union includes a provision for the amendment of the Treaties. Article 48 says that any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission can submit proposals for the amendment of the Treaties to the Council. The Council forwards any such proposals to the European Council, and the national Parliaments are notified. If the European Council agrees to examine the proposed amendments, its President convenes a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, the European Parliament and the Commission. The Convention examines the proposals for amendment and adopts by consensus a recommendation to an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which is convened by the President of the Council. Alternatively and subject to the consent of the European Parliament, the European Council can also decide by a simple majority not to convene a Convention if a Convention is not justified by the extent of the proposed amendments, in which case it is the European Council itself that defines the terms of reference of an IGC, which is then convened by the President of the Council. In any case, an IGC composed of all the Member States is convened (whether preceded by a Convention or not) and any amendment to the Treaties must be ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional requirements.

The Lisbon Treaty is the latest of the Treaties which, to date, have amended the Treaties on the basis of which the Communities and the European Union were founded, such as the Single European Act (1986), the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001)."

A Europe United by Golf Faces a Host of Political Problems Pointing to a Lack of European Integration

2010-10-09T00:16:00.001+02:00

Europe! Europe! Europe! is Roger Cohen's provocative op-ed at the New York Times on European integration in the European Union -- or -- what does golf have that the politics of European integration otherwise lacks?

Hat tip to CaryGEE.

European Union Fair Trial Rights: EU Justice Ministers Approve a Law to Guarantee Translation and Interpretation Rights in Criminal Proceedings in All EU Courts

2010-10-08T23:32:00.000+02:00

Several egregious miscarriages of justice have occurred in the past in the European Union (EU) because criminally accused persons have been criminally tried without knowing the language of the accusing EU Member State. A landmark precedential development on fair trial rights in criminal proceedings in the EU is thus in the make to solve this problem.

Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, at her EU website on the topic of Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, writes that the European Union Justice Ministers have approved an EU law which ensures translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings in ALL European Union courts, and this includes RECEIVING LEGAL ADVICE:

"EU justice ministers approved a law today that ensures translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings, following backing from the European Parliament earlier this year. The law guarantees the right of suspects to obtain interpretation in their own language throughout criminal proceedings in all courts in the EU, including when receiving legal advice. 'This is an important step towards better and stronger justice in Europe,' said Vice-President Viviane Reding, calling on lawmakers to accelerate their work on the Commission’s second measure, the letter of rights, which was proposed in July."

See also Catherine Heard and Daniel Mansell at EUobserver in [Comment] EU starting to wake up to lacking defence rights who discuss the background of issues leading to this law, starting with:

"How do 27 countries, all with their own distinct legal systems, juggle the competing demands of combating cross-border crime while safeguarding the free movement and other fundamental rights of those on their territory? This is the question the EU has been attempting to answer for the last ten years."

See the respective Press Release Fair trial rights: EU Justice Ministers approve law ensuring translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings which is abstracted as follows:

"European Union Justice Ministers approved a law that ensures translation and interpretation rights in criminal proceedings. The European Commission and the European Parliament backed the law earlier this year (IP/10/746). It is the first ever EU measure setting common minimum standards for the rights of the defence in criminal matters. The law guarantees the right of suspects to obtain interpretation throughout criminal proceedings, including when receiving legal advice, in their own language in all courts in the EU. This is a long overdue first measure to ensure a fair trial for everyone throughout the entire EU. The law is the first of a series of fair trial measures to set common EU standards in criminal cases. EU Member States now have three years to put the measure into their national laws."

See the Justice and Home Affairs Council Memo Justice and Home Affairs Council: 7-8 October 2010 in Luxembourg which contained inter alia the following text in discussing how and what needs to be done to ensure fair trial rights in the EU:

"1. Ensuring fair trial rights in the EU

Procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the next five years. Minimum standards for the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between citizens and the judicial authorities of different Member States, without which mutual recognition may never work properly.

What is expected at this Council? The right to interpretation and translation is expected to enter into force less than a year after first being proposed. The European Parliament backed the Directive in June. (IP/10/746)

The Council is expected to formally adopt legislation to help people exercise their fair trial rights anywhere in the EU when they cannot understand the language of the case.

Commission position: The Commission welcomes the adoption of the Directive, the first step in a series of measures to set common EU standards in criminal cases. The law guarantees the right of suspects to be informed about evidence used and receive legal advice in their own language in criminal proceedings in all courts in the EU. The Commission is keen to ensure that common minimum standards exist in all EU Member States for defendants. These standards should be fully compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Meanwhile, the Commission will present its proposal for the right to information in criminal proceedings, which was proposed in July (IP/10/989). The proposal, if adopted by the European Parliament and EU Ministers of Justice, will help to avoid miscarriages of justice and reduce the number of appeals. Authorities prosecuting the case will have to ensure that suspects are given information about their rights. When someone is arrested, they will be given this information in writing – in a Letter of Rights – drafted in simple, everyday language. It will be provided to the suspect upon arrest in all cases, whether he asks for it or not, and translated if necessary.

Background: The Commission has been committed to common EU standards in relation to criminal proceedings for many years and has been working on EU legislation with a step-by-step approach. These measures will allow the Commission to develop a truly common and ambitious EU framework on the level of protection and fair trial rights."

Europe and the UK

2010-10-03T20:05:00.000+02:00

David Meyer on ‘Europe’. OK, you can wake up now.

Latvia: EPP hails victory of PM Dombrovskis; another centre-right victory for Europe

2010-10-03T19:46:00.000+02:00

Latvia: EPP hails victory of PM Dombrovskis; another centre-right victory for Europe

Tag der Deutschen Einheit - President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso Addresses Germans in German Language on German Unity Day

2010-10-03T19:21:00.000+02:00

Today, October 3rd, is German Unity Day, in German, der Tag der Deutschen Einheit

President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso addresses all German speakers here in German language on the 20th anniversary of the reunification of Germany, 3 October 2010.

If you speak German, take a look.

Cloud Computing Limited in the European Union by Privacy Laws Limiting Movement of Information

2010-09-21T22:56:00.000+02:00

At the New York Times, Kevin J. O'Brien reports that Cloud Computing Hits Snag in Europe as privacy laws put strict limits on movement of information beyond EU borders.

Hat tip to GigaLaw.com

A Landmark EU Ruling by the European Court of Justice on the Prohibition of Online Lottery Betting Services in Germany

2010-09-09T01:00:00.000+02:00

Eric Pfanner at the New York Times reports on a landmark decision by the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union, in E.U. Court Bats Down Germany’s Protection of Betting Monopolies.

The Grand Chamber [Plenary Session of 13 of the 27 Judges] of the Curia held in its judgment as follows :

"1. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, an operator wishing to offer via the internet bets on sporting competitions in a Member State other than the one in which it is established does not cease to fall within the scope of the said provision solely because that operator does not have an authorisation permitting it to offer such bets to persons within the territory of the Member State in which it is established, but holds only an authorisation to offer those services to persons located outside that territory.

2. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, where a regional public monopoly on sporting bets and lotteries has been established with the objective of preventing incitement to squander money on gambling and of combating gambling addiction, and yet a national court establishes at the same time:

– that other types of games of chance may be exploited by private operators holding an authorisation; and

– that in relation to other games of chance which do not fall within the said monopoly and which, moreover, pose a higher risk of addiction than the games which are subject to that monopoly, the competent authorities pursue policies of expanding supply, of such a nature as to develop and stimulate gaming activities, in particular with a view to maximising revenue derived from the latter;

that national court may legitimately be led to consider that such a monopoly is not suitable for ensuring the achievement of the objective for which it was established by contributing to reducing the opportunities for gambling and to limiting activities within that area in a consistent and systematic manner.

The fact that the games of chance subject to the said monopoly fall within the competence of the regional authorities, whereas those other types of games of chance fall within the competence of the federal authorities, is irrelevant in that respect.

3. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, where a system of prior administrative authorisation is established in a Member State as regards the supply of certain types of gambling, such a system, which derogates from the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC, is capable of satisfying the requirements of that latter provision only if it is based on criteria which are objective, non‑discriminatory and known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion so that it is not used arbitrarily. Furthermore, any person affected by a restrictive measure based on such a derogation must have an effective judicial remedy available to them.

4. On a proper interpretation of Article 49 EC, national legislation prohibiting the organisation and intermediation of games of chance on the internet for the purposes of preventing the squandering of money on gambling, combating addiction to the latter and protecting young persons may, in principle, be regarded as suitable for pursuing such legitimate objectives, even if the offer of such games remains authorised through more traditional channels. The fact that such a prohibition is accompanied by a transitional measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings is not capable of depriving the said prohibition of that suitability."

This is a potentially important ruling for people who were accustomed to buying an online lottery ticket every now and then via private operators, but recently -- through a monopolistic federal German law -- were forced to walk down to the corner drugstore and buy a government-monopolized lottery ticket, because an online purchase from private operators was forbidden.

The EU court ruling does not prohibit Germany from outlawing online betting, or online lottery betting, but it does require the government to be consistent in its lawmaking with respect to betting services, which it has not been.

The German government alleged -- as the basis for prohibiting online lottery services by private operators -- that the online lottery betting prohibition as applied to private operators was made to prevent incitement to squander money on gambling and to combat gambling addiction.

At the same time, however, government operators were advertising the purchase of lottery tickets and developing new schemes to attract lottery money. Moreover, other kinds of betting and gambling, some much more addictive than the purchase of lottery tickets, were being tolerated by the government.

The fact is that the online lottery betting prohibition had been made to protect billion-euro government revenues earned from the government-sponsored lottery and to keep private operators from cutting into government revenues by offering online services.

The German prohibition also had the effect of prohibiting such services in other EU Member States.

The Curia holding in this regard refers to the operative Article 49 EC of the European Treaty which is the fundamental law of the European Union. As written at the page of the European Commission on the EU Single Market concerning General principles: Freedom to provide services / Freedom of establishment:

"The freedom of establishment, set out in Article 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) of the Treaty and the freedom to provide cross border services, set out in Article 56 (ex Article 49 TEC), are two of the “fundamental freedoms” which are central to the effective functioning of the EU Internal Market.

These provisions have direct effect. This means, in practice, that Member States must modify national laws that restrict freedom of establishment, or the freedom to provide services, and are therefore incompatible with these principles. Member States may only maintain such restrictions in specific circumstances where these are justified by overriding reasons of general interest, for instance on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; and where they are proportionate.

Under the Treaties the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law, including Articles 49 and 56, is correctly applied. As the guardian of the Treaty, the Commission has the option of commencing infringement proceedings against a Member State which they believe to be incompatible with Community law.

The recently adopted Services Directive aims to create a legal framework for ensuring that both service providers and recipients benefit more easily from the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty. The directive complements existing Community instruments and its provisions are, to a large extent, based upon the case law of the European Court of Justice...."

The European Court of Justice in its holding has now essentially said that Germany can not justify its online betting prohibition by the excuse that it is protecting its population from the evils of gambling, while at the same time it is permitting other kinds of gambling and is itself profiting from that gambling and is actively propagating it for its own benefit, excluding similar private services to be offered in EU Member states.

Germany, therefore, has no legal alternative but to adopt consistent standards, whatever they may be, but it can no longer maintain a government-owned monopoly on betting services, online or off.

As nationalism rises, will the European Union fall?

2010-08-31T01:53:00.000+02:00

As nationalism rises, will the European Union fall?: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

EU Advocates General of European Court of Justice (ECJ, CURIA) Find Proposed Common Patent System Incompatible with EU Treaties

2010-08-26T21:07:00.000+02:00

This is a bit late but the original opinion was in French and only released in English translation a few days ago.

The Council of the European Union requested an opinion from the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ, CURIA) on the Compatibility of the Proposed European Patent Court System with EU Treaties. The Advocates General found the proposal incompatible (see the English version of the opinion here, translated from the French -- Request of the Council of the European Union for an Opinion on the compatibility of the proposed European Patent Court System with European Treaty Law, Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion of the A-G, No. 1/09, 2 July 2010, translation provided by Pierre Véron, Véron & Associés), stating inter alia:

"“As it stands at present, the envisaged Agreement creating a unified patent litigation system is incompatible with the treaties.”".

Bravo. The European Union should not take a bad example from the United States and its balloon-expanding USPTO and self-serving special Federal Circuit Court for patents, but should rather see to it that its patent protections are reduced, with a corresponding decrease in the bureaucracies that serve the economy-sapping patent industry.

For more on the Advocates General opinion see:

Axes H. Horns at IP::JUR EU Patent: Advocates General Suggesting To 'Rise The Bar' In a Different Way
Dr. Roy Schestowitz at TechRight.org, EU: Advocate General on Community Patent and Software Patents Still at Stake
PatLit, The Advocate General's Opinion: thumbs down for the proposed Court

Europe Resumes Financial Data Sharing with U.S. - NYTimes.com

2010-07-08T22:40:00.000+02:00

Europe Resumes Financial Data Sharing with U.S. - NYTimes.com

Cookie compliance: privacy regulators make the best of a bad law | Pinsent Masons LLP

2010-07-03T12:53:00.000+02:00

Cookie compliance: privacy regulators make the best of a bad law | Pinsent Masons LLP

ECJ rules on reconciling data protection law with freedom of information law | Pinsent Masons LLP

2010-07-03T12:52:00.000+02:00

ECJ rules on reconciling data protection law with freedom of information law | Pinsent Masons LLP

Austerity budgets could rock Europe - UPI.com

2010-06-15T13:26:00.000+02:00

Austerity budgets could rock Europe - UPI.com

UPDATE: Europe's Private Equity Trade Body Elects New Chair - WSJ.com

2010-06-15T13:24:00.000+02:00

UPDATE: Europe's Private Equity Trade Body Elects New Chair - WSJ.com

EU Economic Governance

2010-06-14T23:58:00.000+02:00

For the EU, see Economic governance

The EU as an Innovation Union : European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Geoghegan-Quinn, Invites Online Debate, June 17, 2010

2010-06-12T11:32:00.000+02:00

The European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, invites to an online debate at the European Commission's Webcast chat page (June 17, 10:00-11:00 a.m. Central European Time***) on how to transform Europe into an Innovation Union.

Questions can be asked live or sent in advance to rtd-innovation-union@ec.europa.eu.

Languages: Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish.

***09h00-10h00 UK, Ireland, Portugal
11h00-12h00 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,Finland

See the video at "Innovation Union" webstreaming event

Mobile Phone Roaming Caps in the EU Upheld by European Union Court of Justice (ECJ)

2010-06-12T11:14:00.002+02:00

A number of sources have picked up the story that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has upheld an EU law, the so-called Roaming Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 544/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services), which puts caps on mobile phone roaming charges in the European Union.

See e.g.:

EU Court Rules in Favor of Roaming Caps, by Mike Gordon at the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Technology

Roaming cap is lawful, rules ECJ | Pinsent Masons LLP

Phone operators fail over roaming fees move, by Stanley Pignal in Brussels, Financial Times

Roaming cap is lawful, rules ECJ | Pinsent Masons LLP

2010-06-12T10:36:00.000+02:00

Roaming cap is lawful, rules ECJ | Pinsent Masons LLP

European Union : EU Borders : Where Does Europe End?

2010-06-12T10:32:00.002+02:00

YouTube - Let's talk about EU, Where Europe Ends

EU sets strict biofuel standards - UPI.com

2010-06-12T10:22:00.000+02:00

EU sets strict biofuel standards - UPI.com

UK, US slam EU hedge fund rules | EurActiv

2010-06-12T10:21:00.000+02:00

UK, US slam EU hedge fund rules | EurActiv

U.S. Falls From Internet Elite, Aims to Catch Hungary (Update1) - BusinessWeek

2010-06-08T21:11:00.000+02:00

U.S. Falls From Internet Elite, Aims to Catch Hungary (Update1) - BusinessWeek

2010 Eurovision Song Contest, Oslo, Norway: Geographic Map of Finalists Reveals Clear Pattern : plus Betting Odds and Comments Going into the Finals

2010-05-29T19:33:00.000+02:00

After semifnals reduced the field of contestants from 39 countries, 25 nations compete this evening in the Finals of the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest which will be seen by over one hundred million viewers.

Who will win?

Our geographic map below of the finalists for Eurovision 2010 contains some fat surprises.

The countries shaded in the map in red, orange and brown DID NOT make the finals and they show a contiguous mass of nations running from Sweden and Finland in the North to Italy and Malta in the South, including most of what we might call the traditional "Eastern Europe" border countries.

The various shades of green show the countries that DID make the finals and they are concentrated in what we might call "Asiatic Europe" while the two yellow shades show the "Big 4 nations" (Germany, UK, France and Spain) who are the major financial supporters of Eurovision and who do not have to qualify for the finals. This geographic map in 2010 is REMARKABLE to say the least because it shows how the focus of this year's finalists has shifted quite definitely to Asiatic Europe, where a winner in 2010 is the most likely.

The trend suggests that although the competition takes place in last year's winner Norway, the north countries of Europe have generally not done well thus far in this year's competition, with Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all failing to make the finals. Three+one of those countries (Sweden, Finland, Latvia, plus Norway) are all former Eurovision winners. So, in terms of the Eurovision music trends, we are looking for a winner further South this year.

Bwin.com has the following odds posted for the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest (odds as of 15:49 Central European Time, 29 May 2010, so they may change from that yet in coming hours). Other bookmakers have different odds but we think bwin.com is closest to reality - of course, only the actual contest results will reveal the truth. We disclaim any and all liability for any reliance on this posting which is made only in good fun and not as advice of any kind.

Below are some of our comments on some of the major contenders based on our review of rehearsals and newest developments:

Azerbaijan 3.70
Safira's second rehearsal - Azerbaijan

This is currently the top favorite, having only slight edge over Germany. It is rather incredible and a great credit to the country that Azerbaijan is being handled as a favorite of this contest. Azerbaijan is on the far east end of "Europe" on the Caspian Sea, far from the European mainstream countries. Safura has a great song and a professional voice, if it holds up live -- which may be an issue, but the stage steps and costuming in the 2nd rehearsal were distracting - these negative live show effects could cost Azerbaijan the win. After all, it is the TOTAL performance which is essential, not merely the song.

Germany 3.75
Lena's second rehearsal - Germany

Lena was long the favorite coming into the finals and many still think she is the prohibitive favorite, quite apart from the polls and betting agencies, since she has the ability to win instant supporters, which may turn the tide in her favor when the professional juries AND public vote on the winner. Lena is someone who you either like or not, there seems to be no inbetween. Being from Germany, we are of course biased and will root that Lena wins. This is a zippy unique song written in part by an American, and the success of the son is very much dependent on the artist's presentation, which must match the song's innocent mood. If Lena sings in the final in anything less than fairly conservative dress and does not cover her upper arms, otherwise revealing a totally inappropriate tattoo on her inside left arm, seen in the second dress rehearsal, she is lost, for it takes away from the whole message and style of the song, which is a carefree if buoyant innocence. Tattoos give exactly the opposite expression.

Armenia 5.00
Eva Riva's second rehearsal

A favorite made in Armenia? but it is true. Eva Riva has undeniable natural star allure and the song itself is good enough to put Armenia into the upper echelons this year, though we doubt that it can win because of the song's strong "Eastern" tone and lack of uniqueness.

Israel 11.00
Harel Skaat - Israel

This is a nice chanson, of which there are many, and we see nothing that sets this song apart from hundreds of others. It will receive lots of middle-field votes but it is not unique enough to win.

Turkey 12.00
maNga's second rehearsal - Turkey

Because of the many Turks living in Europe who vote straight Turkey, the Turkish song is almost always a force to be reckoned with in the voting. Turkey to its credit has also been successful in producing some great songs for Eurovision. maNga continues this tradition with a great show. The song itself is probably not universal enough to win and the robot to human transformation in the background is at best only a distraction

Denmark    15.00
Chanée & N'evergreen's second rehearsal
The Danes have the ability year after year to produce eminently listenable songs and this is one of them., a male-female duet. The presentation probably lacks the show effects necessary to win.

Greece 17.00

Giorgos Alkaios & Friends second rehearsal - Greece
Opa!! This our personal favorite to whom we would give 12 points.
We love this song from Greece which just makes you smile all the way through. The Greeks are a definite dark horse contender, though the all-male element of the presentation may not be everyone's cup of tea. The dance choreography has an intuitive happy character while the entire presentation exudes power. The song "Opa" - the word in Greek is an expression of jubilation -- is a real crowd pleaser and the odds on a win by Greece have been moving steadily downward.

Belgium 26.00
Tom Dice's Second rehearsal

For someone strumming a guitar and singing along to win Eurovision, the voice and/or song would have to be sensational. As it is, it is nice, but this is not an Eurovision winner. We would not rank the Belgian song this high.

Romania 31.00
Paula Seling & Ovi's first rehearsal
"Playing with Fire" is a great title, but is Eurovision ready for two pianos and leather? Paula has definitely got it, but the song itself is nothing in particular.

Serbia    67.00
Milan Stanković's second rehearsal

Can "modern ethnic" gather in votes? We shall find out. If they can, Serbia may do better than expected.

IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

2010-05-27T01:11:00.000+02:00

IAM Magazine - IAM Blog - German Supreme Court software patent decision "not a landmark ruling", says expert

Latvian hacker exposes fat cats: News24: Sci-Tech: News

2010-05-27T00:29:00.000+02:00

Latvian hacker exposes fat cats: News24: Sci-Tech: News

EU Digital Agenda Foresees Higher R&D Investment

2010-05-20T15:58:00.000+02:00

As reported at CORDIS News, the European Union Digital Agenda unveiled on May 19, 2010, "focuses on more investment in research and development (R&D)" in the EU.

By way of comparison, for example, the US earmarked €88 billion Euros for information and communication technology (ICT) in 2007 as compared to €37 billion in the European Union. Europe seeks to close that gap.

European Union (EU) Commission Unveils Digital Agenda to Boost Prosperity and Well-Being in Europe

2010-05-20T15:43:00.000+02:00

EUROPA - Press Release:
Digital Agenda: Commission outlines action plan to boost Europe's prosperity and well-being

"[Abstract ]Implementing the ambitious Digital Agenda for Europe unveiled today by the European Commission would contribute significantly to the EU's economic growth and spread the benefits of the digital era to all sections of society. Half of European productivity growth over the past 15 years was already driven by information and communications technologies (see IP/10/571) and this trend is likely to accelerate. The Agenda outlines seven priority areas for action: creating a digital Single Market, greater interoperability, boosting internet trust and security, much faster internet access, more investment in research and development, enhancing digital literacy skills and inclusion, and applying information and communications technologies to address challenges facing society like climate change and the ageing population. Examples of benefits include easier electronic payments and invoicing, rapid deployment of telemedicine and energy efficient lighting. In these seven areas, the Digital Agenda foresees some 100 follow-up actions, of which 31 would be legislative. The Digital Agenda is the first of seven flagship initiatives under the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (see IP/10/225).

"We must put the interests of Europe's citizens and businesses at the forefront of the digital revolution and so maximise the potential of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) to advance job creation, sustainability and social inclusion", said Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes. "The ambitious strategy set out today shows clearly where we need to focus our efforts in the years to come. To fully realise the potential of Europe's digital future we need the full commitment of Member States, the ICT sector and other vital economic players.""

Read the full press release here.

Crossposted from LawPundit.

On the Improvement of EU Language Rights at ECJBlog.com

2010-05-13T23:12:00.000+02:00

On the Improvement of EU Language Rights at ECJBlog.com

European Court of Justice Sets Absolute €1134.71 Liability Limit on Lost Baggage of Airline Passengers

2010-05-06T14:42:00.003+02:00

Stephanie Bodoni at BusinessWeek.com writes that EU Airline Passengers Can’t Get More Than $1,450 for Lost Bags.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has issued press release 43/10, dated 6 May 2010, in the case C-63/09, Axel Walz v Clickair SA, writing at the outset:

"The Court confirms that the liability of air carriers for loss of baggage is limited to €1134.71

That limit is absolute and includes both material and non-material damage

Under European Union law1, the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage is governed by the Montreal Convention2. Thus, that convention provides that the liability of a carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage is limited to the sum of 1000 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for each passenger (a sum equivalent to approximately €1134.71)3, unless a passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case, as a rule a carrier is liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum."
...
__________
¹ Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (OJ 1997 L 285, p.1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2).
² Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39).
³ The Special Drawing Rights in the Montreal Convention are deemed to refer to the Special Drawing Right as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Therefore, those sums are to be converted into national currencies. The amount of €1134.71 corresponds to 1000 SDR as at 21 April 2010.

Read the full press release here.

European Union EU Privacy Law as a Model for the United States

2010-05-06T14:13:00.002+02:00

New Congressional draft legislation outlining online and offline privacy rules has been released.

Stephanie Clifford at the New York Times writes in Privacy Bill Finally in Draft, as Both Sides Weigh In:

"A long-awaited draft of a Congressional bill would push American privacy legislation closer to the strict rules that the European Union uses, and would extend privacy protections both on the Internet and offline."

Need we say that EU privacy law is years ahead of the USA? Whatever legislation the USA adopts, it is bound to be too weak by European standards.

Andy Greenberg writes at Forbes.com in New Web Ad Privacy Bill Riles All Sides:

"Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., released a draft Tuesday of a privacy bill aimed at defining broad new regulations for the data collection practices of online advertising. The bill would require sites to offer easier methods of letting users prevent their behavior from being tracked online, warn users about data collection with a symbol on Web pages and require sites to render anonymous any data they collect after 18 months."

We do not understand why it is so difficult in the U.S. to comprehend that many people and companies in the United States are running roughshod in the Internet over the privacy rights of users and that stricter laws are inevitable, sooner -- or after much damage -- later. Stomping on privacy rights under the argument that it is essential for advertising is nonsense -- it is only essential so that the greedy among us can make even more money than they already do.

The recent push of Facebook to Share Your Info for Money has to be about the most egregious privacy invasion -- even by current law -- that we have seen in this millennium. If Congress does not have the courage to pass strict legislation, the country will have to pay the price down the road.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the EU and Selected World Countries per capita in U.S. Dollars at Current Prices 2009 - Source: IMF Chart Generator | Denmark Leads the Normal World in Income Equality and Happiness

2010-05-06T14:11:00.000+02:00

We put together the following chart for internal use recently and pass it on as a potentially useful piece of information in assessing the world economic and political situation.

It is singularly remarkable that the country with the highest GDP for a "normal economy", i.e. not one based on oil or banking, is Denmark -- and that is also the country with the greatest equality of income in its population according to the Gini coefficient. The result? The Danes are also the world's happiest people.

Maybe the rest of the world has the wrong formula?

It also appears to us that the conflict in the world today is economic and not religious, based on these figures, which show a clear division of the world between the "haves" and the "have nots".

A Selected List of The GDP in US Dollars of
EU Euro-Zone and non-Euro-Zone Countries 2009
(+ EFTA and some non-European countries added for comparison)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita U.S. $$ at current prices
Source: IMF Chart Generator, as selected and reordered by LawPundit
(some columns have been deleted, some labels have been shortened
and the numbers have been rounded -- go to the IMF Chart Generator
or to this page at Wikipedia if you want original or more inclusive data)

Country (State)	Subject Descriptor (GDP per capita 2009, current prices)	2009 U.S. $$
Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates
Luxembourg - EU (world's #1 - via banking), Liechtenstein, not ranked by the IMF, surely has a higher GDP	GDP per capita	104,512
Norway - EFTA, EEA (oil)	GDP per capita	79,085
Qatar (oil)	GDP per capita	68,872
Switzerland - EFTA (via banking)	GDP per capita	67,560
Denmark - EU (world's best income distribution & world's happiest people)	GDP per capita	56,115
Ireland - EU	GDP per capita	51,356
Netherlands - EU	GDP per capita	48,223
United Arab Emirates (oil)	GDP per capita	46,857
United States	GDP per capita	46,381
Austria - EU	GDP per capita	45,989
Australia	GDP per capita	45,587
Finland - EU	GDP per capita	44,492
Sweden - EU	GDP per capita	43,986
Belgium - EU	GDP per capita	43,533
France - EU	GDP per capita	42,747
Germany - EU	GDP per capita	40,875
Japan	GDP per capita	39,731
Canada	GDP per capita	39,669
Iceland - EFTA, EEA	GDP per capita	37,977
Singapore	GDP per capita	37,293
Italy - EU	GDP per capita	35,435
United Kingdom - EU	GDP per capita	35,334
Spain - EU	GDP per capita	31,946
Hong Kong SAR	GDP per capita	29,826
Greece - EU	GDP per capita	29,635
Cyprus - EU	GDP per capita	29,620
Slovenia - EU	GDP per capita	24,417
New Zealand	GDP per capita	27,259
Israel	GDP per capita	26,797
Brunei Darussalam	GDP per capita	26,325
The Bahamas	GDP per capita	21,529
Portugal - EU	GDP per capita	21,408
Malta - EU	GDP per capita	19,111
Czech Republic - EU	GDP per capita	18,557
South Korea	GDP per capita	17,074
Taiwan	GDP per capita	16,392
Slovak Republic - EU	GDP per capita	16,282
Saudi Arabia	GDP per capita	14,486
Estonia - EU	GDP per capita	14,267
Croatia	GDP per capita	14,243
Hungary - EU	GDP per capita	12,927
Latvia - EU	GDP per capita	11,607
Poland - EU	GDP per capita	11,288
Lithuania - EU	GDP per capita	11,172
Turkey	GDP per capita	8,723
Russia	GDP per capita	8,694
Brazil	GDP per capita	8,220
Mexico	GDP per capita	8,135
Romania - EU	GDP per capita	7,542
Malaysia	GDP per capita	6,897
Bulgaria - EU	GDP per capita	6,223
South Africa	GDP per capita	5,824
Serbia	GDP per capita	5,809
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	GDP per capita	4,482
Iran	GDP per capita	4,460
Bosnia and Herzegovina	GDP per capita	4,279
Thailand	GDP per capita	3,940
Albania	GDP per capita	3,825
China	GDP per capita	3,678
Syria	GDP per capita	2,579
Egypt	GDP per capita	2,450
Indonesia	GDP per capita	2,329
Iraq	GDP per capita	2,108
Philippines	GDP per capita	1,746
Vietnam	GDP per capita	1,060
India	GDP per capita	1,031
Pakistan	GDP per capita	1,017
Bangladesh	GDP per capita	574
Afghanistan	GDP per capita	486

Interactive Maps of the Status of Debt in Europe

2010-05-06T14:06:00.002+02:00

Take a look at this set of interactive maps in the Global Business section of the New York Times -- Debt Rising in Europe.

EU Commission Lifts Baltic Views, Sees Latvian Stabilization - WSJ.com

2010-05-06T14:03:00.000+02:00

EU Commission Lifts Baltic Views, Sees Latvian Stabilization - WSJ.com

Is Large-Scale Tax Evasion One Cause of Greek Financial Problems? Their GDP Indicates the Government of Greece Should Not Have Money Problems: Analysis of GDP in Euro Area States

2010-05-06T13:59:00.000+02:00

We generated the following chart at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook Database online for GDP, current prices, expressed in U.S. $$ for the Euro area 2009, i.e. not including all EU States (please note that we have retained the IMF original footnotes but have shortened some of the labels from the original chart to make the chart fit on LawPundit):


You will find notes on the data and options to download the table below your results.

Country	Subject Descriptor	Units	Scale	2009
Shaded cells indicate IMF staff estimates
Austria	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	381880
Belgium	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	470400
Cyprus	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	23603
Finland	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	238128
France	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	2675915
Germany	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	3352742
Greece	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	330780
Ireland	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	227781
Italy	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	2118264
Luxembourg	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	51736
Malta	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	7955
Netherlands	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	794777
Portugal	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	227855
Slovak Republic	GDP, Current Prices	U.S. $$	Billions	88208
Slovenia	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	49217
Spain	GDP, current prices	U.S. $$	Billions	1464040

As can be seen, the GDP of Germany (population ca. 82 million) is roughly 10 times that of Greece (population ca. 11 million), while the GDP of Greece is nevertheless higher than that of eight other "Euro area" states on this list (half the list). There is in fact not a great deal of difference between the per capita GDP in Greece as compared to Germany.

So where is the money??

How can it be that the Greek government is now in such allegedly deep financial difficulties and is asking the world and the European Union for untold billions of dollars in financial aid when its citizens may be basking in weatlh?

One severe causal problem is discussed by Suzanne Daley at the New York Times in Greek Wealth Is Everywhere but Tax Forms, suggesting that the Greeks are by no means poor, but that a failing morality regarding the correct declaration of taxable income means that the Greek government sees little of the money that is actually earned in Greece -- indeed, as Daley writes:

"Various studies, including one by the Federation of Greek Industries last year, have estimated that the government may be losing as much as $30 billion a year to tax evasion — a figure that would have gone a long way to solving its debt problems. "

The legitimate question can thus be raised whether tax evasion is at the root of the Greek problem, posing the query as to why countries with a better tax declaration morality, such as Germany, where large tax burdens are shouldered by the citizens and by industry, should suffer the Greek government's financial burdens and bail out Greece, where the money is actually there in the Greek's own communities?

The Future of the Internet in EUROPE According to the European Commission

2010-04-19T22:41:00.000+02:00

The Future of the Internet in EUROPE According to the European Commission - Press Release

EU Funding for Innovation

2010-04-16T19:19:00.000+02:00

EU Funding for Innovation

A Changed Germany as German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Speak on April 15, 2010 at Stanford University

2010-04-15T01:13:00.000+02:00

See
News Analysis - Germany's E.U. Policy Shift Reflects Generational Change - NYTimes.com
and
Stanford University News

No Free Lunch for Greece: Germany and France in a Struggle over the Greek Debt Crisis

2010-04-15T01:04:00.002+02:00

French and German Ties Fray Over Greek Crisis - NYTimes.com
by Steven Erlanger, April 12, 2010, who writes inter alia:

"France and Germany traditionally have been the “motor” of the European Union, but relations between the two countries are badly strained over the Greek debt crisis, which is just the latest example of a new German willingness to resist the demands of Europe and assert its self-interest under Chancellor Angela Merkel....

Germany has insisted that any aid to Greece come as a last resort, and in the loan package arranged on Sunday it insisted that Greece pay a significant penalty in interest rates. This was well within Mrs. Merkel’s guidelines and does not represent a subsidy to Greece, said Thomas Klau of the European Council on Foreign Relations."

Recent developments in European Consumer Law

2010-04-13T12:59:00.000+02:00

We note here a relatively new law blog (blawg) on
Recent Developments in European Consumer Law

Paul Krugman at the New York Times writes about European Leisure

2010-04-06T02:56:00.000+02:00

Paul Krugman at the New York Times writes about European Leisure. The fact is that average "vacation time" in Europe is much longer than in the United States, also in terms of paid vacations, and it does not seem to negatively impact productivity. In fact, the increased leisure time helps to develop leisure-related products and service industries, raising general quality standards in recreation and accomodations that are probably unique to Europe.

Krugman refers to the Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 2068 on Work and Leisure in the U.S. and Europe: Why so Different?* by Alberto F. Alesina, Edward L. Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote which writes in its Abstract:

"Americans average 25.1 working hours per person in working age per week, but the Germans average 18.6 hours. The average American works 46.2 weeks per year, while the French average 40 weeks per year. Why do western Europeans work so much less than Americans? Recent work argues that these differences result from higher European tax rates, but the vast empirical labor supply literature suggests that tax rates can explain only a small amount of the differences in hours between the U.S. and Europe. Another popular view is that these differences are explained by long-standing European "culture", but Europeans worked more than Americans as late as the 1960s. In this paper, we argue that European labor market regulations, advocated by unions in declining European industries who argued "work less, work all" explain the bulk of the difference between the U.S. and Europe. These policies do not seem to have increased employment, but they may have had a more society-wide influence on leisure patterns because of a social multiplier where the returns to leisure increase as more people are taking longer vacations.

_______
*Alesina, Alberto F., Glaeser, Edward L. and Sacerdote, Bruce, Work and Leisure in the U.S. and Europe: Why so Different? (April 2005). Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 2068. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=706982 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.706982

Riga Latvia as European Capital of Culture in 2014

2010-03-30T21:14:00.000+02:00

Valentina Pop writes at EUobserver.com in Riga says it can handle expense of being EU Capital of Culture:

"Despite slashed budgets and economic woes, Latvia's capital, Riga, is confident of being able to raise the necessary funding for a series of cultural events in 2014, when it is due to become the European capital of culture, its mayor told this website."

Keep up on Europe with EUobserver Blogs

2010-03-12T22:45:00.000+01:00

Keep up on doings in Europe with these blogs from EUobserver.com:

Neighbourhood
Nicu Popescu
Europe not EU
Bruno Waterfield
Europa-Transparent
Hajo Friedrich
Behind the Scenes
Honor Mahony
Brussels and beyond
Ole Ryborg
A View from the Outfield
Peter Sain ley Berry
Vive l’Europe
Tobias Gräs
Poland in the EU
Dominika Pszczolkowska
Merchant of Venice
Roberto Foa
Belarus Reloaded
Maryna Rakhlei
State of the Union
Jamie Smyth
The Digger
Stephen Gardner
Watchdog
Brigitte Alfter
Geopolitics
Alexandros Petersen
Ukraine and Post-Soviet Space
Olena Prystayko
Safer Cities?
Gemma Galdon Clavell
Feeding the habit
Nick Jacobs
Progressive Change
Vasilis Margaras
Political Economy 101
George Irvin
Euro maverick
Edin Mujagic

EDGE: "Europe, Where the Idea of Competition in the Internet Space Appears to Focus on Litigation, Legislation, Regulation, and Criminalization"

2010-03-08T15:35:00.000+01:00

Does Europe especially need to reconsider their approach to the Internet? EDGE would say yes:

Edge: TIME TO START TAKING THE INTERNET SERIOUSLY By David Gelernter: "Introduction: Our Algorithmic Culture" by John Brockman:

"Edge was in Munich in January for DLD 2010 and an Edge/DLD event entitled 'Informavore' — a discussion featuring Frank Schirrmacher, Editor of the Feuilleton and Co-Publisher of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Andrian Kreye, Feuilleton Editor of Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Munich; and Yale computer science visionary David Gelernter, who, in his 1991 book Mirror Worlds presented what's now called 'cloud computing.'

The intent of the panel was to discuss — for the benefit of a German audience — the import of the recent Frank Schirrmacher interview on Edge entitled 'The Age of the Informavore.' David Gelernter, who predicted the Web, and who first presented the idea of 'the cloud', was the scientist on the panel along with Schirrmacher and Kreye, Feuilleton editors of the two leading German national newspapers, both distinguished intellectuals....
Take a look at the photos from the recent Edge annual dinner and you will find the people who are re-writing global culture, and also changing your business, and, your head. What do Evan Williams (Twitter), Larry Page (Google), Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web Consortium), Sergey Brin (Google), Bill Joy (Sun), Salar Kamangar (Google), Keith Coleman (Google Gmail), Marissa Mayer (Google), Lori Park (Google), W. Daniel Hillis (Applied Minds), Nathan Myhrvold (Intellectual Ventures), Dave Morin (formerly Facebook), Michael Tchao (Apple iPad), Tony Fadell (Apple/iPod), Jeff Skoll (formerly eBay), Chad Hurley (YouTube), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos (Amazon) have in common? All are software engineers or scientists.

So what's the point? It's a culture. Call it the algorithmic culture. To get it, you need to be part of it, you need to come out of it. Otherwise, you spend the rest of your life dancing to the tune of other people's code. Just look at Europe where the idea of competition in the Internet space appears to focus on litigation, legislation, regulation, and criminalization. [emphasis added]"

Read the whole thing here.

Hat tip to the Encyclopaedia Britannica at Facebook.

The Antithesis of Justice : Criminal Convictions in Italy of Google Execs Point to Flaws in European Union (EU) Law

2010-03-05T22:58:00.001+01:00

We posted about this absurd case previously at EU Pundit.

Struan Robertson, editor of out-law.com, writes on March 3, 2010 in Google convictions reveal two flaws in EU law, not just Italian law inter alia as follows regarding the inexcusable criminal convictions of Google execs - made in absentia in Italy - for alleged untimely takedown of criminally offending video material posted online by youthful criminals in Italy and totally unknown to Google execs at the time for which their criminal conviction for non-action applies:

"Web hosts are unfairly exposed all across the EU and two legal changes are needed....

Problem 1: An unreasonable caveat to safe harbour....

Problem 2: We don't know enough about notice and takedown...."

Read the whole posting here.

Robertson in our opinion in focusing on the ill-drafted EU laws and on the shambles of law in Italy is much too lax with the misguided officials in Italy and with the responsible lawmakers in the European Union, all of whom are much more directly at fault than Google for the appearance of the offending video.

Why have government officials in Italy and the EU not instituted effective procedures in their own law enforcement systems to timely catch criminal postings in their areas of jurisdiction - AS IS THEIR JOB, rather than putting the entire onus of "policing" on Google or other online providers. Why should Google be more effective in catching criminals than THE government institutions are - it is not Google's line of business at all.

Everyone always wants to put the blame on the other guy, rather than honestly shouldering their true part of the blame themselves. Policing is a responsibility of government institutions and not of Google. Maybe nations and communities should not have 90% of their officers playing cops and robbers with normal citizens for minor things like traffic violations etc. - and should direct more of the attention of their own State employees to combatting real crime. Now - THAT would be a major change.

If the purpose of Italy's convictions is to seek scapegoats, which the guilty often do to ward culpability away from themselves, it would be equally logical to issue criminal convictions for all those in Italy and the EU responsible for what happened in the instant video case, and we would not stop at judges, legislators and officials, but would also include the teachers and parents of the criminals, who were unable to keep the offenders from doing their offensive acts. Google is at the end of a very long chain of societal and legal blunders and errors which create criminal offenders to begin with.

As it now stands, the people FURTHEST REMOVED from the actual criminal video activity have been held criminally responsible rather than those CLOSEST to it. How convenient for all of the institutions involved, whose members via overinflated salaries are all stuffing their pockets with taxpayer monies but of course disclaiming any responsibility themselves for the state of affairs in their own jurisdiction. Some distant executive from a far-away jurisdiction will be picked to shoulder the blame - a blame which ITALY and the EU rightly should share among themselves.

That is not a miscarriage of justice. It is the ANTITHESIS of justice.

European Commission - Education & Training - External Programmes and Policies - Study In Europe

2010-02-27T18:49:00.000+01:00

European Commission - Education & Training - External Programmes and Policies - Study In Europe

ePractice.eu : eGovernment and eInclusion in Europe

2010-02-27T01:52:00.001+01:00

Here is a useful site for government facts and doings in Europe: ePractice.eu.

"ePractice.eu is a portal created by the European Commission which offers a new service for the professional community of eGovernment, eInclusion and eHealth practitioners. It is an interactive initiative that empowers its users to discuss and influence open government, policy-making and the way in which public administrations operate and deliver services.

ePractice.eu involves practitioners from all 27 Member States, EU-member candidate states and EFTA countries. Practitioners from other countries outside the EU are also welcome to join."

They have a very useful set of factsheets at "An overview of the eGovernment and eInclusion situation in Europe":

"The ePractice eGovernment and eInclusion factsheets aim to provide an overall picture of the situation and progress of eGovernment and eInclusion in 34 European countries: EU Member States, EU Candidate countries and EFTA countries. Local editions of the ePractice eGovernment factsheets are being produced in cooperation with local organizations. Print copies of the ePractice eGovernment factsheets are available upon request and stock availability. For more information about print copies please contact idabc@ec.europa.eu"

Progress on Patent Reform in the European Union (EU)

2010-02-26T00:45:00.000+01:00

James DeGiulio writes at Patent Docs in Europe Takes Step Closer to Single EU Patent and Patent Court that:

"On December 4, 2009, the European Competitiveness Council unanimously adopted a legislative package designed to create a single EU patent and EU patent court....

The reform proposal still needs to undergo an official review by the European Council and the European Parliament ... [and] the European Court of Justice has yet to deliver an opinion on the compatibility of the patent court and draft agreement with EU treaties. This opinion is expected at the earliest by summer 2010."

Also in the EU, the wheels of patent legislation turn slowly.

Court in Italy Convicts 3 Google Execs in Absentia for Privacy Violation Due to Delay in Takedown of Previously Flagged Objectionable Online Video

2010-02-25T00:42:00.000+01:00

Italian Court Convicts 3 Google Executies in Absentia for Privacy Violation Due to Delay in Takedown of Flagged Online Video

Via Sylvia Poggioli at npr.org, the Associated Press informs us that:

"An Italian court convicted three Google executives of privacy violations Wednesday because they did not act quickly enough to remove [an objectionable] online video....

In the first such criminal trial of its kind, Judge Oscar Magi sentenced the three in absentia to a six-month suspended sentence and absolved them of defamation charges....

Google Italy, which is based in Milan, said it took down the video two hours after being notified by police, as is required by law. Prosecutors argued that viewers had flagged it well before police contacted Google, and the fact that it shot to the top of a 'most entertaining videos' list on the Italian site, had 5,500 views and 800 comments during the two months it was online meant it should have been noticed sooner. [emphasis added]

Thanks to the footage and Google's cooperation, [the young criminals responsible were] identified and sentenced by a juvenile court to community service. The events shortly preceded Google's 2006 acquisition of YouTube."

Read the full story here.

There is a saying in jurisprudence that hard cases often make bad law and this is such a case. No normal person wants to condone the online publication of the type of objectionable material in question, but there are no laws on the books - also not in Italy - that Internet providers have to pre-screen material posted to the Internet, nor are they required by law to screen such material within a given time period if such material is "flagged" by users as objectionable, nor are there standards in place for what kinds of "flagged" material must be taken down - or not. Who is to play the role of the "judicial God" in such cases?

Indeed, as noted in the posting cited above:

"In the United States, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 generally gives Internet service providers immunity in cases like this, but no such protections exist in Europe."

One reason for that of course is that the European Commission and its EU lawmakers are still asleep on many critical issues of Internet governance and competent leadership should be found in Brussels to move things forward.

The Italian judge in this case of course rightly wants to put an end to the uploading of this kind of material, but imposing criminal sanctions on executives of Internet providers is most certainly not the right legal path to do this, as it inflicts punishments upon those who are totally unaware - given the state of the laws - that they are committing a crime (within the definition of the law). That of course is an absurd result, legally seen.

Using the criminal law against Internet providers in court is also a flagrant violation of the basic rules that apply to the imposition of criminal sanctions. See Herbert Packer and The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. The criminal law is not a cure-all for all social ills.

It is up to the legislatures - and NOT the courts - to remedy the Internet situation by legislating appropriate - reasonable - standards. It is simply not the job of any judge to MAKE "his" law in a case such as the one at issue here, even if that judge might wish that the law on the books supported his well-meant intentions in this particular case.

This appears to be an instance which must soon be corrected by the legal system in Italy because it erodes the basic foundations upon which the entire Internet is built. One can not make Internet builders or their lawful representatives criminals in the courts just because of the many criminals out there in society who criminally use the new technologies that they have devised. That - my dear judge in Italy - can NEVER be the law.

Otherwise, we might as well shut down the entire mobile communications of the world because it is known by everyone that mobile (cell) phones are used for criminal purposes, also in the political sphere. Making executives of mobile communications companies criminally liable for such use would be as equally absurd as the Italian decision in this case.

The fault is not with Google. The fault is with Italy. Get your laws straightened out folks. Present the companies of the world with clear legislative standards in your jurisdiction and those companies will abide by them, simply as a matter of good business practice.

Where is the Money and Who Has That Money? Greek Financial Crisis Provokes Protests in Athens

2010-02-24T15:36:00.001+01:00

Via the Houston Chronicle the AP reports that Clashes break out at Greek crisis protests.

"ATHENS, Greece — Police fired tear gas and clashed with demonstrators in Athens after some 50,000 people finished a peaceful march against cutbacks intended to fix the country's debt crisis....

The European Union has issued a vague promise to support Greece, which has some euro 53 billion in debt coming due this year, but the government of Prime Minister George Papandreou has pressed for more specific guarantees to shore up market confidence.

The government says it won't need a bailout and will stick to its plans to make sharp cutbacks."

What is lacking in all of these news reports is an accounting of "WHERE IS THE MONEY?" and "WHO HAS THAT MONEY?" i.e. how could so much indebtedness be built up and what was the money spent for.

Outsourcing and Data Protection in the European Union: EU Standard Contract Clauses Must Be Changed Regarding Overseas Transfers of Personal Data

2010-02-24T15:29:00.001+01:00

Out-law.com alerts us to the fact that a recent formal Decision of the European Commission requires that Model clauses for overseas transfers of personal data be updated, writing

"Outsourcing companies outside the EU will now have to get written permission to subcontract the processing of personal data after the European Commission changed arrangements permitting the export of such information.

The EU's data protection regime limits the export of personal data outside the European Economic Area (EEA) which comprises the EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

A small handful of countries have proved their data protection regimes the equivalent of the EU's and so are permitted to receive personal data without further steps (Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey), while the US has a special arrangement, the Safe Harbour scheme, under which participating US companies can receive data if they promise to abide by rules over and above US law.

For transfers to all other countries there must be specific data protection contractual arrangements in place before the personal data of EU residents can be sent to companies based there for processing. The European Commission produces standard clauses that are used in such contracts.

The Commission has changed the terms of those clauses to allow companies in non-European Economic Area (EEA) countries to sub-contract work, but only with the explicit permission of client companies." [emphasis added]

Read the full article here for more details and a link to an Out-law.com guide to overseas transfer of personal data.

Baltic States Reconsider Plans to Adopt the Euro

2010-02-24T14:54:00.000+01:00

Baltic States Reconsider Plans to Adopt the Euro

"The tiny Baltic states have pursued closer integration with Europe with enormous zeal. But the price of monetary union may be giving them pause....

“Countries like Estonia and Latvia were once desperate to get in,” said Alf Vanags, director of the Baltic International Center for Economic Policy Studies in Riga. “The euro is not looking so attractive now.”"

Europe should adopt US behavioural advertising icon, and quick | Pinsent Masons LLP

2010-02-06T16:35:00.000+01:00

Europe should adopt US behavioural advertising icon, and quick | Pinsent Masons LLP

EU Commission outlines plans to strengthen privacy law | Pinsent Masons LLP

2010-02-03T23:05:00.000+01:00

EU Commission outlines plans to strengthen privacy law | Pinsent Masons LLP

"The European Commission is planning to beef up the Data Protection Directive, strengthening the enforcement of the EU law and including introducing new demands that technologies and processes include 'privacy by design'.
advert: Pinsent Masons Data Protection and Freedom of Information Advice Lines

The Directive is implemented in the UK by the Data Protection Act and governs the use that can be made of people's personal data."

Changes to EUR-Lex, Official Journal of the European Union (EU), Legislative Acts, New Numbering in Treaties : EUR-Lex Newsletter 8/1/2010

2010-02-03T22:55:00.001+01:00

The EUR-Lex Newsletter 8/1/2010 : Access to European Union Law contains important information about changes to EUR-Lex, to the Official Journal of the European Union, to a distinction introduced between legislative and non-legislative acts, and reference to the new numbering of the 'Treaty on European Union' and the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' as per the Lisbon Treaty. EUR-Lex writes:

"The EUR-Lex website has been harmonized with the other websites of the Publications Office....

From first January 2010 the structure of the Official Journal is adapted in order to take account of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon....

In particular a distinction between 'Legislative acts' (L I) and 'Non-legislative acts' (L II) has been introduced in conformity with the Treaty of Lisbon....

Articles, sections, chapters, titles and parts of the 'Treaty on European Union' and of the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' are renumbered (Treaty of Lisbon article 5 and Annex)."

For more details, see the Newsletter.

EUR-Lex : Free Access to European Union EU Law : Official Journal, Treaties, Legislation, Case Law, Legislative Proposals

2010-02-03T22:42:00.001+01:00

EUR-Lex

"EUR-Lex provides direct free access to European Union law. Here you can consult the Official Journal of the European Union as well as the treaties, legislation, case-law and legislative proposals. You can also use the extensive search facilities available on EUR-Lex."

Objectives of the fiveIPoffices : EPO, JPO, KIPO, SIPO, USPTO

2010-02-03T22:14:00.002+01:00

For the Objectives of the "five IP offices" - EPO, JPO, KIPO, SIPO, USPTO - see here.

European Patent Office (EPO) Official Journal January 2010 is Now Online

2010-02-03T22:08:00.000+01:00

The Official Journal of January 2010 of the European Patent Office (EPO) is now online here.

Doing Business in Europe – the legal pitfalls | Enterprise Europe

2010-02-03T21:53:00.000+01:00

Doing Business in Europe – the legal pitfalls | Enterprise Europe

"Considering doing business with Europe? Come along to this new seminar to find out how to avoid some of the legal pitfalls when you sell your goods....

Thursday 4th February 2010, Holiday Inn Rochester [UK]

8.30am - 10.30am

Light breakfast included
To book for this event, click here...."

European Commission Report on Social Trends in Europe

2010-02-03T21:46:00.000+01:00

Social climate in Europe – European Commission survey delivers mixed results

"Europeans quite happy with their personal situation, but less satisfied with economic and social climate in their country.

Despite hard economic times, Europeans are generally satisfied with their lives and optimistic about their short-term prospects, an EU survey published today suggests.

Nearly 27 000 people were polled across 30 countries – the 27 EU countries and Croatia, Turkey and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.

The survey was conducted over three weeks in May and June, when Europe was struggling to pull itself out of the deepest recession in decades. The results form part of the commission’s 2009 report on social trends in Europe."

Europe Direct Leeds - Bringing Europe To You!

2010-02-03T21:42:00.000+01:00

Europe Direct Leeds - Bringing Europe To You!

"Europe Direct Leeds is part of a network of 16 centres in the UK, 500 across Europe which aim to act as an interface between the EU and its citizens at local level. We can help with general questions on every aspect of Europe and can put you in touch with relevant specialist services if required. We have leaflets, brochures and materials [...]"

EU Commission Economic Review of Deadlines for Malta, Lithuania, Hungary and Latvia to Bring Public Debt to 3% of GDP Results in 2 Extensions

2010-02-01T20:57:00.009+01:00

Four EU states given economic reviews - UPI.com

The UPI via EUObserver reported that the European Commission considered the economic status of Malta, Lithuania, Hungary and Latvia in their EU obligation "to bring public debt to under 3 percent of their gross domestic products."

Hungary and Latvia were seen as being on track to meet their current deadlines of 2011 and 2012 respectively, and were given no extensions of those deadlines.

Malta and Lithuania, on the other hand, due to economic difficulties, were extended to 2011 and 2012 respectively.

EU Personal Data Protection and Privacy Laws to Target Social Media : Facebook, Twitter, Myspace et al.

2010-02-01T20:48:00.000+01:00

Leigh Phillips at the EUobserver in New EU laws to target Facebook writes that:

"[T]he European Commission ... announced plans for comprehensive new laws that have in their sights the massively popular website [Facebook]....

Underscoring its new powers under the Lisbon Treaty and the legal basis given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the commission said it wants to create "a clear, modern set of rules" guaranteeing a high level of personal data protection and privacy....

Mentioning Facebook, Myspace and Twitter by name, [EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media] Ms Reding said she will start this year with a revision of the 1995 Data Protection Directive...." [link added by LawPundit]

Read the whole article here.

To fix the Greek crisis, deal with the eurozone’s imbalances | Brussels Blog | FT.com

2010-02-01T12:05:00.000+01:00

To fix the Greek crisis, deal with the eurozone’s imbalances | Brussels Blog | FT.com

"[T]he Greek turmoil reflects a wider crisis of imbalances in the 16-nation eurozone, and everyone will have to make a contribution to bring this wider crisis under control. Specifically, Greece and a few other countries - notably, Portugal and Spain - have very big current account deficits, while Germany, Europe’s champion exporter and the the eurozone’s largest economy, tends to run big current account surpluses. The Greek deficit was a remarkable 12 per cent of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2009, and Portugal’s stood at 10 per cent."

Eurostat to audit the national governments of EU Member States?

2010-02-01T11:27:00.001+01:00

AFP: Europe acts to police data as debt levels spiral

Roddy Thomson (AFP) observes:

"The EU's executive arm will propose next month that the bloc's data office, Eurostat, be allowed to 'carry out audits' on information provided by national governments...."

Whether that will work?

EU Commission - Information Society - Latvia : Laws relating to Electronic Documents

2010-01-26T02:25:00.000+01:00

European Union - EU - European Commission - Information Society: "Legal and Administrative Practices Regarding the Validity and Mutual Recognition of e-Documents - 17 December 2006

The study clarifies the present situation concerning the national legal and administrative practices in 32 countries (the 25 Member States, 3 EFTA countries parties to the EEA Agreement (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), 2 Acceding Countries (Bulgaria and Romania) and 2 Candidate Countries (Croatia and Turkey); it assesses them comparatively and identifies the remaining legal barriers concerning the validity and mutual recognition of e-documents.

The ELDOC Study Team, consisting of K.U.Leuven-ICRI and the Belgian Law Firm Lawfort [since disbanded], have been contracted by the European Commission – DG Enterprise and Industry to perform the Legal Study N° ENTR/04/67, with a view to identifying the existing legal barriers for enterprises (“the ELDOC Study”). The first part, 32 National Reports, is an overview of the existing legal and administrative practices in the Member States, EEA countries and Candidate Countries, with regard to the treatment of electronic documents in e-Commerce transactions. The second part, a Summary final report, examines and assess these practices, identifying any remaining legal barriers to the use of such electronic documents in e-Commerce transactions, and potential solutions to any such barriers, particularly on a cross-border level."

Electronic Documents Law in Latvia

(The material below is taken directly from pp. 274- 288 of ELDOC | LEGAL STUDY ON LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES REGARDING THE VALIDITY AND MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS | D3.4 – First Interim report (country reports) July 2006 | Interim Report October 2006 Version 1.0 | Prepared for the DG [Directorate General] - Enterprise & Industry Technology for innovation / ICT industries and E-business | European Commission | Prepared by: The ELDOC Study Team, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium | Lead contractor: K.U.Leuven Research & Development, Belgium | Project manager: prof. Jos Dumortier http://www.icri.be/ | Subcontractor: Lawfort [since disbanded] – ICT Law Department, Belgium, Head: prof. Jos Dumortier http://www.lawfort.be | For further information about DG Enterprise: European Commission - Enterprise and Industry DG, Information and Documentation Centre, BREY 5/150, B - 1049 Brussels, Fax: +32 (0)2 296 99 30, Website http://www.eu.int/comm/dgs/enterprise/index_en.htm).

Note by LawPundit: In this posting we convert part of the EU document referenced above to an online text format in order to make it more easily searchable than the original .pdf and this includes putting the relevant footnotes at the end.

***** the document excerpt (pp. 274-288) starts here *****

Latvia National Profile

A. General legal profile

Latvia (the Republic of Latvia) is a unitary parliamentary republic. According to the constitution⁸⁸¹ Latvia is composed of four regions – Kurzeme, Zemgale, Vidzeme and Latgale. There are two territorial levels of local administration – local government - in Latvia. There were a total of 563 local governments on January, 2005:

(1) 530 municipalities (7 republican cities and 53 towns, 444 parishes, 26 amalgamated local municipalities) perform in local or first territorial level;
(2) 33 municipalities (26 counties and 7 republican cities) perform in regional or second territorial level.

Commerce and contract law is a central matter, which is generally incorporated into the Civil Code⁸⁸² and the Code of Commerce⁸⁸³, both of which largely follow Roman Civil Code and German legal traditions.

eCommerce is also regulated at the central level, through a number of specific laws adopted by the Parliament⁸⁸⁴ and regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers⁸⁸⁵. On lower administrative level, the municipalities may adopt binding regulations⁸⁸⁶, but only within the competence specified by Municipality Law.⁸⁸⁷ Regulations on commercial transactions do not fall within this competence.

Disputes regarding commercial relations are typically dealt by the regular courts. For matters with a financial value of LVL 30 000 or less – by the district (city) courts⁸⁸⁸; or by regional courts⁸⁸⁹ for matters of higher value. Appeals against the decisions of the district (city) courts can be lodged with the regional court, and against the decisions of the regional courts with the Chamber of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court⁸⁹⁰. The Senate of the Supreme Court⁸⁹¹ is a revision instance, which only hears points of law. The Latvian system of jurisprudence does not have any binding power of precedent, although the decisions of the Senate of the Supreme Court are authoritative and should be taken into account by the courts of lower instances.

B. eCommerce regulations

Many questions regarding the validity and recognition of electronic documents must be answered based on doctrine, and the interpretation of legislation does not always provide a clear answer. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, the court practice with respect to these issues is not well developed. In this section, the Latvian laws and doctrine regarding the legal value of electronic documents are briefly commented.

B.1 eCommerce contract law

B.1.1. General principles

Generally, the Latvian legal system envisages that in case of commercial contracts the formation and proof should be more flexible than for other civil contracts. However, both civil and commercial contracts are regulated by the Civil Code, as the Code of Commerce does not contain separate rules for the conclusion of commercial transactions. The assessment that the formation of the commercial contracts is more flexible can nevertheless be derived from certain rules of the Code of Commerce, which reflect the purpose of ensuring smooth functioning of commercial market.

For example, one of the basic issues for every contract is that it shall be concluded between parties or their duly authorized representatives. According to the Civil Code, if the representative of the party did not have the necessary authority, the contract is binding only to the representative, not to the party itself.⁸⁹² On the other hand, the Code of Commerce provides that all contracts concluded by a legal representative of the merchant who is registered as legal representative with the Commercial Register, shall be presumed binding to the merchant itself, as the limitations of the representation rights of the legal representatives are not valid with respect to the third parties.⁸⁹³ Also, even if the representative is not legally registered with the Commercial Register, but is otherwise authorized to pursue commercial activities on behalf of the merchant (e.g., sales representatives, commercial agents, shop assistants, etc.), it is presumed that the contracts concluded by them within the normal course of commercial activities are binding to the merchant.⁸⁹⁴

This flexibility is rooted in the basic principles of the contract law of Latvia, which is more based on the principle of autonomy of will, and not on formal requirements. The Civil Code provides that the form of a legal transaction depends on the discretion of parties, except the cases directly indicated in the law. The parties may conclude an agreement orally or in a written form, invite witnesses, as well as involve a notary.⁸⁹⁵ The main principle is the will of the parties to become bound by the contract. The will of the parties is crucial also in cases where the law requires a certain form. The Senate of the Supreme Court has recognized that even if there are formal defects, the court should always assess their significance and the real intention of the parties. If the intention of the party may be proved by other means, the defect of form cannot constitute the base for a total invalidity of the contract. Thus a non-observance of formal requirements doesn’t always result in the nullity of the transaction.⁸⁹⁶

A legal definition of an electronic document is provided in the Electronic Documents Law⁸⁹⁷. Article 1 of the Electronic Documents Law states: “an electronic document - any electronically created, stored, sent or received data, which ensures the possibility to use it for the performance of any action, for the use and protection of any rights.”

Generally, the validity of electronic documents in contract law is recognised by the law: the Electronic Documents Law envisages that an electronic document is legal evidence and there should be no restrictions for submitting an electronic document as evidence to the competent authority based on the fact that the document is electronic or that it lacks a secure electronic signature.⁸⁹⁸

The Electronic Documents Law distinguishes between an “electronic signature” and a “secure electronic signature”. An electronic signature is characterized as electronic data, attached to the electronic document or logically associated with this document, which ensure the authenticity of the document and confirm the identity of the signatory.⁸⁹⁹ A secure electronic signature is such electronic signature, which confirms to all of the following requirements:

(a) it is uniquely linked to the signatory;
(b) it is capable of identifying the signatory;
(c) it is created using means of creating a secure electronic signature that the signatory can maintain under his sole control;
(d) it is linked to the signed electronic document in such a manner that any subsequent change of the document is detectable;
(e) it is confirmed with a qualified certificate.⁹⁰⁰

It should be stressed that at the moment of drafting this report, the secure electronic signature has not been introduced in practice, as there are no providers of certification services, nor a system for issuing qualified certificates.

The Electronic Documents Law also says that if there is a requirement in law for a written form, then the electronic document fulfils this requirement only if it has the electronic signature and if the electronic document confirms to other requirements stipulated by law. The Electronic Documents Law does not specify what these “other requirements” might entail.

It may be assumed that these “other requirements” should be assessed on case-to-case basis, taking into account the specific legal relationship and the laws regulating it. For example, the Civil Procedure Law⁹⁰¹ stipulates that the arbitration clause shall be concluded in writing, and it specifies that it is deemed that the agreement is made in writing, if it is made by exchange of letters, fax messages, telegrams, or by using other telecommunication means, which ensure that the will of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration is fixed.⁹⁰² An electronic document should fall within the ambit of other telecommunication means, thus this requirement for a written form is rather flexible.

Nevertheless, taking into account that the Electronic Documents Law uses the notion of the “document”, a reference may be made to the requirements stipulated by Regulations on Drafting and Processing Documents⁹⁰³, which apply to any documents issued, received or stored by any person. These regulations state that the document has a legal force if inter alia it has been signed.⁹⁰⁴ As the Electronic Documents Law does not regulate the requirements for the general legal force of the electronic documents, the necessity of the existence of signature is applicable also to electronic documents: an electronic document is deemed to be signed by the individual only if it has a secure electronic signature.⁹⁰⁵ An alternative: the parties have agreed that the document may be signed by an electronic signature (in such a case this agreement must be written on paper and signed or, if in electronic form, confirmed by a secure electronic signature).⁹⁰⁶ Consequently, a full legal validity may be achieved only by a secure electronic signature or by a relevant agreement of the parties to use and mutually recognize other mode of electronic authentication.

In addition, although generally the Latvian legal system provides contractual freedom by allowing the parties to conclude agreements on which form they wish, there are cases envisaged by the law where a specific form is required and its non-observance makes the transaction invalid. As stated in the legal doctrine, a certain form may be necessary either due to the contents of the act (corpus) or due to ensuring the evidence (onus probandi).⁹⁰⁷ For example, if the law requests that the agreement must be concluded at the public notary, then an agreement ignoring this requirement is void. ⁹⁰⁸

Notwithstanding the mandatory requirements, otherwise the Latvian laws allow the parties to agree upon the form of their contracts to be legally binding.⁹⁰⁹ This applies to all types of contracts. The parties are free to choose the form, unless it is already stipulated by mandatory requirements of the law. For electronic documents, the consensus of both parties is not a precondition if the document has a secure electronic signature: in such cases one party may not refuse to accept it. However, if the document does not have a secure electronic signature, its validity is subject to the agreement of the parties.⁹¹⁰ The special exceptions with respect to the transactions which may not be concluded in electronic form are included in the Electronic Documents Law (for a detailed description see section B.1.2. below). Latvian laws do not directly regulate the sending of electronic notifications instead of paper documents. However, it should be noted that the Civil Code does not require a paper form for the notifications. The form of the notification depends on the substantial transaction to which this notification is related. If the notification is related to an already concluded contract (e.g., a notification on termination of the contract), then it normally shall be made in the same form as the contract itself: according to the Senate of the Supreme Court, the rule “from the larger to the smaller” shall be applied, i.e., if the contract itself was concluded in a written form, also all notifications in relation to it shall have the same form.⁹¹¹ So, electronic notifications are allowed if the contract itself was concluded either in an electronic form or orally. Also, in case of written contract, an electronic notification having an electronic signature should be deemed as valid, unless the law or the contract requires the signing of such notification.

Electronic notifications without a secure electronic signatures are allowed if the parties agree to it or if the law or the transaction itself did not require a signed document (e.g., when agreeing on using arbitration, the Civil Procedure Law allows a notification by “other telecommunication means”, which should include an electronic notification⁹¹²). In case the parties are not in contractual relations yet, e.g., when accepting an offer, the form of such notification would depend on the form of the offer: if the offer does not require any specific form for its acceptance, it may also be given electronically. Additionally, special requirements for sending electronic notifications within the realm of information society services are stipulated by the Law on Information Society Services.⁹¹³

The Latvian legal system has not implemented a framework for sending electronic registered mail. The sending of electronic mail is regulated only with respect to the communication within state and municipal institutions and between such institutions and private parties.⁹¹⁴ The regulations provide that the electronic documents shall be circulated by use of electronic mail, special online forms, or 3,5” floppy disks. If the document has been sent by electronic mail or by special online forms, it is deemed that the addressee has received it within two business days after its sending. In case of dispute, the institution has the burden to prove that the document has been sent.

With respect to electronic archiving, the Electronic Documents Law provides that generally electronic documents shall be archived in the same cases and order as paper documents. These rules do not apply to the electronic archiving of paper documents, for which there is no special regulation. For the archiving of electronic documents, the following special requirements are applicable: the possibility to use the data shall be ensured; storage is done in the original form; and the stored data allows to determine the origin or destination of the document, the time of its sending or reception.⁹¹⁵ Also, there are special rules for transferring the electronic documents for archiving to the State archive.⁹¹⁶ The regulations apply to state and municipal institutions and to those private legal entities who have the duty to transfer their documents for storage to the State archive. The state and municipal institutions are also required to draft internal instructions on circulation of electronic documents, including their storage.⁹¹⁷

B.1.2. Transposition of the eCommerce directive

The eCommerce directive has been transposed in Latvian legislation through the Electronic Documents Law and by the Law on Information Society Services.

The transposition applies only to information society services. The law does not apply to areas governed by laws on personal data protection and on gambling services where a monetary award may be gained.⁹¹⁸

Article 9 of the Directive (formal requirements in an electronic context) is not transposed by the Law on Information Society Services. Instead, it is transposed by the Electronic Documents Law: Article 3, parts 4 and 6 reflect the provisions of the Directive, Article 9, parts 1 and 2 respectively. Thus the Electronic Documents Law provides that generally contracts may be concluded by electronic means and that such contracts may not be deprived of legal effectiveness and validity on account of their having been made by electronic means.

Also, Latvian legislators have used the discretion provided by Part 2 of Article 9 of the Directive to exclude the application of the general validity of electronic documents to specific categories of contracts. The following categories of contracts shall be concluded on a written (paper) form and may not be carried out by electronic documents: (1) agreements by which the rights to real estate are created or transferred (except lease rights); (2) agreements, which according to law are invalid if not approved as requested by law (usually by the public notary); (3) guarantee agreements and security of pledge, if such guarantees or securities are given by persons acting in the realm not connected with their profession, business, or trade; (4) transactions within the area of family and inheritance law – for example, marriage contracts, testaments, inheritance agreements, etc.).⁹¹⁹

The specific requirements for the use of electronic signatures are also provided by the Electronic Documents Law. The law distinguishes between regular electronic signatures and secure electronic signatures. An electronic signature is defined as electronic data attached to the electronic document or logically connected with this document and which ensures the authenticity of the electronic document and confirms the identity of the signing person. A secure electronic signature is such electronic signature, (i) which is linked only to the signing person, which ensures the identification of the signing person; (ii) which is created by a secure means of creating the electronic signature, (iii) which are under the sole control of the signing person, (iv) which is connected with the signed electronic document in such a way that later amendments to this document would be noticeable, and (v) which is approved by a qualified certificate. Full recognition is given only to electronic documents signed by a secure electronic signature: a document is deemed to be individually signed if it has a secure electronic signature. Alternatively, the parties may agree in writing (within the traditional (hand written) sense, or this writing is confirmed by the secure electronic signature) that they deem the electronic document to be individually signed even if it has a nonsecure electronic signature.

B.2 Administrative documents

The Electronic Documents Law applies also to the use of electronic documents in administrative procedures. This process is regulated in more detail by Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.473 of 28 June 2005 entitled “Order of drafting, forming, storing and circulation of electronic documents in state and municipal institutions and order how the circulation of electronic documents within state and municipal institutions or between these institutions and natural or legal persons takes place”.⁹²⁰

These rules aim towards providing a general legal framework for electronic communication with public administrations, as well as mandates the acceptance of electronic documents by public institutions as of 1 January 2004.⁹²¹

The scope of regulation is broad: it applies to all state and municipal institutions. It should be noted, however, that in practice the regulations are not functioning, since at the moment of drafting this report a secure electronic signature has not yet been introduced. The institutions interpret their obligation to accept electronic documents in such a way that they would have to accept only documents with a secure electronic signature. This is based on the presumed lack of legal force of documents without a secure electronic signature, as according to Regulations on Drafting and Processing of Documents the signature is a necessary component for the legal force of the document.

Another possibility is to agree on the acceptance of electronic documents. So far, the State Revenue Service has taken up an initiative to conclude such agreements with taxpayers, enabling them to file the tax reports as electronic documents.⁹²²

Certain other institutions have introduced electronic filing of documents, however, mostly subject to further confirmation in paper form.⁹²³

C. Specific business processes

In this section of the study, we will take a closer look at certain sections of the applicable Latvian legislation and legal and administrative practice. Specific examples of common document types will be examined to assess the validity and recognition of their electronic counterparts.

The section below is organised according to four stages in the electronic provision of goods on the European market. They comprise the credit arrangements, transportation and storage, cross border trade formalities and financial/fiscal management. As a preliminary note it should be pointed out that there is practically no local court practice with respect to the use of electronic documents in the areas described above. In addition, the use of electronic documents in these business processes is not very common, as it is hindered by the incapability to apply a secure electronic signature.

C.1 Credit arrangements: Bills of exchange and documentary credit

C.1.1. Bills of exchange

Bills of exchange are governed by two rather old laws, both adopted in 1938.⁹²⁴ The laws do not contain a definition of a cheque or a bill of exchange, however, they list the necessary components. One of the necessary components is the signature of the issuer. If there is no signature, the bill of exchange is not valid.

Taking into account that the respective laws were adopted in the first part of the last century, as well as the fact that their renewal in 1992 took place without any substantial amendments to the text, a literal and historical interpretation of their wording excludes the use of electronic documents. However, the laws should be interpreted in accordance with the system of laws currently in place, also taking into account the purposes of the regulation. Thus, if the necessary requirement of the bill of exchange is the signature of the issuer, the Electronic Documents Law may be applied, which states that the document is deemed to be individually signed, if it has a secure electronic signature. Consequently, the cheques and bills of exchange should be deemed valid if they have a secure electronic signature.

On the other hand, certain wordings of the law make its application difficult for electronic document, as they presume the use of the paper. E.g., it is stated that the endorsement shall be written on the bill of exchange or on the page attached to it.⁹²⁵ Also, some sections envisage the striking out of certain sections or writing across an already written text. Problems might occur also with respect to the originality of the bill. Normally, a paper bill of exchange is a single unique document (or several identical documents), signed by the issuer. Any copies must be clearly designed as such and duly numbered.⁹²⁶ In case of electronic documents, it remains to be solved how the authenticity of the original bill is ensured. Nevertheless, the use of paper is nowhere explicitly requested, thus a teleological interpretation of the law should allow the use of electronic documents, with a condition that a secure electronic signature is included.

It should be noted that there is no explicit regulation how electronic bills of exchange should be formed and used, nor are the criteria for their validity clear.

C.1.2. Documentary credit

There is no specific legal regulation for documentary credits in Latvia. Thus the documentary credit is largely subject to the general rules of the contract law. Consequently, there is also no specific legal framework for electronic documentary credit agreements.

In broad terms, the documentary credit would fall under the guarantee under the Civil Code. According to the Civil Code, a guarantee is a duty undertaken by an agreement to be liable to the creditor for the debt of the third party, however, not liberating the latter from its debt.⁹²⁷ With respect to the formal requirements, the guarantee needs to be in a written form.⁹²⁸ According to the Electronic Documents Law, the requirement to have a written form is fulfilled if the electronic document has an electronic signature (not necessarily a secure electronic signature). In addition, the practice of issuing documentary credits largely follows the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCC-500), created by International Chamber of Commerce. Banks usually give a reference to these customs in their rules on issuing documentary credits.⁹²⁹

As there is no detailed regulation, the parties have a significant freedom to agree on the practical organization of the documentary credit. They may agree to present certain document in an electronic form. In practice, however, the filing of applications for documentary credits and presentation of documents takes place on paper form. The banks request that the applications are signed by the authorized representatives of the person applying for documentary credit. As there is no secure electronic signature, the signature on a paper document presents the only possibility. Alternatively, several banks allow a possibility to fill in the applications for several types of credit electronically, if the person is already a bank client and has received the necessary password for the use of internet banking. Nevertheless, a secure electronic signature should present a workable solution.

C.2 Transportation of goods: Bills of Lading and Storage agreements

C.2.1. Bills of lading

A bill of lading is a document issued by the carrier of goods to the sender and confirming that the goods are received for transportation and the carrier’s commitment to transport them. It is issued by the carrier at the sender’s request. The holder of the bill of lading is entitled to receive the goods upon arrival at their final destination.

The use of bills of lading for maritime transport is governed by the Maritime Code.⁹³⁰ The Maritime Code provides the mandatory details to be included in the bill of lading. There are no special requirements as to the form of the bill, however, it is indicated that it shall be signed by the shipmaster or a person authorized by the carrier.

There are no explicit regulations with respect to the use of electronic documents. However, as there is a requirement for signing, it may be derived that electronic documents may be allowed only if signed by a secure electronic signature. When using electronic documents, it would be crucial to designate the original bill of lading, as only the presentation of the original entitles the holder to receive the goods.

C.2.1. Storage contracts

A storage contract is generally governed by the Civil Code. Within the understanding of the Civil Code, by the storage contract the custodian undertakes to store a movable property, which has been entrusted to him.⁹³¹ A storage contract is a real contract, which means that the contract comes into force only when the relevant property has been transferred to the custodian. The law does not contain any requirements in which the contract on storage terms should be concluded, so the terms may be agreed in any form, including electronically. In any case, the agreement will come into force only after the property to be stored will have been transferred physically to the storage by the custodian.

With respect to storage contracts evidenced by the use of International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations (FIATA) documents, such as FCR (Forwarders Certificate of Receipt) and FWR (FIATA Warehouse Receipt)⁹³², it should be noted that it is crucial to distinguish between the original document and its copies. Thus, in case of using electronic documents, the authenticity of the original shall be clearly designated (e.g., by a secure electronic signature).

C.3 Cross border trade formalities: customs declarations

According to recently adopted regulations, it is possible to file customs declarations in an electronic form.⁹³³ The regulation codifies two earlier instructions of the State Revenue Service of 28 October 2004 On Permissions to Declare Goods Electronically and instruction of 28 April 2004 On certification of declaring persons.⁹³⁴

The regulations state that the State Revenue Service shall ensure the possibility to file custom declarations in electronic form. The person wishing to do the electronic declaration shall receive a relevant permit from the State Revenue Service. Upon issuing the permit, the State Revenue Service also grants a user name and password, which shall further on be used for electronic declaring. The State Revenue Service decides on issuing the permit within 30 days after reception of the application and accompanying documents.

C.4 Financial/fiscal management: electronic invoicing and accounting

C.4.1. Electronic invoicing

The eInvoicing Directive⁹³⁵ has been transposed in Latvian laws by various amendments to VAT laws, as well as related regulations.⁹³⁶ However, none of the amendments address specifically the issuing of electronic invoicing. Consequently, there is no explicit authorization for the use of electronic invoices. There are also no provisions for the storage or archiving of electronic invoices.

The VAT law does not explicitly require that the invoice should be signed, thus formally complying with the provision of the eInvoicing directive that the member states shall not request the signature on the invoice. However, it should be noted that the VAT law states that the VAT invoice is a document.⁹³⁷ Consequently, the requirements of the Regulations on Drafting and Processing of Documents can be applied, inter alia, the stipulation that the legal force of the document is ensured only by its signing. Therefore an electronic invoice might be issued only with a secure electronic signature.

C.4.2. Electronic accounting

The accounting procedures are governed by the Law On Accounting.⁹³⁸ The law generally allows to carry out the accounting in electronic form, but with a rather broad condition that the requirements of this law may not be violated. Specifically, entries in the accounting registers shall be timely, complete, precise and systematically arranged. Entries, the content or quantifiers of which differ from corroborative documents, shall not be allowed. If entries in the accounting registers or documents are amended, their initial content shall be visible, and each correction shall be justified and confirmed with a signature. Corrections may not be made in such a manner that it is not comprehensible when and why such have been made. Furthermore, representation of the data in a form legible to third persons, and provision of their printout, if necessary, shall be ensured.

If corroborative documents are prepared with computers, the signatures of persons responsible for the performance of the economic transactions and correctness of information may be replaced by their electronic confirmation (authorisation). The procedures for electronic confirmation (authorisation) at an enterprise shall be determined by the manager of the enterprise. Electronic confirmation (authorisation) of external documents may be utilised only if the parties to the transaction have mutually agreed upon the procedures by which an electronic exchange of corroborative documents shall be performed and upon the procedures for electronic confirmation (authorisation).⁹³⁹

Thus, generally it is possible use fully electronic accounting, if the all of the above conditions are observed.

It should be noted that the Latvian laws require a deposit of the company’s annual account with the competent authority (the Company Register).⁹⁴⁰ The law does not contain an explicit provision that the annual account shall be drafted and submitted in a paper form, however, it provides that the annual account shall be duly signed by the legal representatives of the company.⁹⁴¹ The law provides that the documents may be submitted to the Company Register electronically, if they are accompanied by a written confirmation that the submitted documents are identical to the originals.⁹⁴² As soon as a secure electronic signature is introduced, there should be no legal obstacle to submit the annual account fully in an electronic form.

D. General assessment

D.1 Characteristics of Latvian eCommerce Law

Latvian eCommerce Law is based largely on the laws transposing the relevant EU directives: the eCommerce Directive and the eSignature Directive. In broad terms, Latvia has adopted the general legal framework for enabling the functioning of eCommerce. The main legal act ensuring this is the Electronic Documents Law, which introduces notions of electronic documents, electronic signature, secure electronic signature, certification services, and which also establishes the validity of electronic documents and their legal equivalence to traditional documents. However, the practical functioning of eCommerce is currently impeded due to the lack of infrastructure for activities of certification services providers and for creating secure electronic signatures.

The Electronic Documents Law is the lex specialis for eCommerce, while the Civil Code still has to be applied as the general law. The Civil Code is quite flexible with respect to the formal requirements of the documents, and its principal aim is to ensure the autonomy of will of the parties.
Following the Electronic Documents Law a range of secondary legal acts have also been adopted, governing specific issues in relation to circulation of electronic documents, the technical requirements, requirements for providers of certification services, etc. The following regulations are adopted on basis of the Electronic Documents Law: regulations on the use of electronic documents in state and municipal institutions⁹⁴³; regulations on storing and archiving⁹⁴⁴; regulations on information to be indicated in the description of systems of certification services⁹⁴⁵; regulations for order and terms of examination of systems of certification services⁹⁴⁶; regulations on minimum insurance of providers of certification services⁹⁴⁷; regulations on technical and organizational requirements for qualified certificate⁹⁴⁸.
The content issues of eCommerce are governed also by the Law on Information Society Services, which largely copies the provisions of the eCommerce Directive.

D.2 Main legal barriers to eBusiness

In fact, there are no substantial legal barriers to eBusiness, as the necessary legal acts have been adopted.
However, the most important barrier is that so far these legal acts have not been implemented in practice, as the possibility to create a secure electronic signature has not been ensured. There is no system for issuing qualified certificates and there are no certification service providers.

Consequently, electronic commerce and business cannot be carried out in practice, as according to Electronic Documents Law the document is deemed to be individually signed only if it has a secure electronic signature. As lots of documents involved in commercial transactions need to be individually signed (e.g., documents to be submitted to public institutions), the lack of secure electronic signature forces the use of the traditional paper form. Moreover, the general regulations for the legal validity of any documents require the signature as a necessary precondition for legal enforceability.

It is to be hoped that the problem of the lack of the necessary structure for a secure electronic signature will soon be solved. On 15 June 2005 the Republic of Latvia entered into an agreement with SIA Lattelekom (largest fixed telephony operator controlled by state with 51% shares) and VAS Latvijas Pasts (fully state owned postal services provider) by which it is agreed that Latvijas Pasts will become a reliable provider of certification services, and Lattelekom will be a technological partner, ensuring the necessary infrastructure and services.⁹⁴⁹ o On 7 November 2005 the Cabinet of Ministers approved a Concept on Choice of the Carrier of Secure Electronic Signatures and Introduction of Secure Electronic Signatures. By this concept it is envisaged that the device for carrying the secure electronic signature shall be a smart card.⁹⁵⁰ According to the Ministry for Special Assignments for Electronic Government Affairs, the secure electronic signature should be introduced by September 2006.⁹⁵¹

D.3 Main legal enablers to eBusiness

As described above, the flexibility with respect to the formal requirements of documents and the party autonomy principle are the key factors for enabling the functioning of eBusiness. Also, the Electronic Documents Law presents a workable framework for use of the electronic documents by establishing criteria according to which the traditional requirements may be fulfilled in electronic form, such as substitution criteria for individual signatures and for stamping requirements. Thus, as soon as there is be a practical possibility to use a secure electronic signature, there should be no significant legal obstacles to eBusiness.
On the other hand, it also cannot be excluded that a practical and more common use of electronic documents (including use of secure electronic signatures) may reveal additional impediments in the form of wording of certain legal acts (e.g., implication of the use of paper, requesting certain procedures presumed to be performed in paper form, etc.).
Nevertheless, such problems may be solved by systemic and teleological interpretation of such laws and by adopting a flexible approach to formal requirements. Within eCommerce as in the business in general the intention of the parties is the key factor, and this may be derived also from electronic documents, if their authenticity and originality is ensured.
eBusiness would be substantially encouraged if there would be a relevant court practice confirming the correctness of the above described understanding and interpretation of applicable laws, however, according to our best knowledge, currently there is little or no such practice.

___________________
⁸⁸¹ Satversme ⁸⁸² The Civil Code (Civillikums), adopted on 28.01.1937, legal force renewed on 01.09.1992 (introduction part, property law, and inheritance law), on 01.03.1993 (contract law), and on 01.09.1993 (family law). ⁸⁸³ The Code of Commerce (Komerclikums), adopted on 13.04.2000, in force from 01.01.2002. ⁸⁸⁴ Saeima ⁸⁸⁵ Ministru Kabineta noteikumi ⁸⁸⁶ Pašvaldību saistošie noteikumi ⁸⁸⁷ The Municipality Law (Par pašvaldībām), adopted on 19.05.1994, in force from 09.06.1994. ⁸⁸⁸ Rajona (pilsētas) tiesa ⁸⁸⁹ Apgabaltiesa ⁸⁹⁰ Augstākās tiesas Civillietu tiesu palāta ⁸⁹¹ Augstākās tiesas Senāts ⁸⁹² Article 1518 of the Civil Code. ⁸⁹³ Article 223, part 3 (regarding Management Board members in private limited liability companies); Article 303, part 3 (regarding Management Board members in public limited liability companies); Article 92, part 2 (regarding legal representatives of general and limited partnerships); Article 36, part 1 (regarding procuration holders). ⁸⁹⁴ Articles 40 to 42 of the Code of Commerce. ⁸⁹⁵ Articles 1473 and 1474 of the Civil Code.
⁸⁹⁶ Judgment of the Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Civil Cases in case No.SKC-304, 3 November 2004.
⁸⁹⁷ Electronic Documents Law (Elektronisko dokumentu likums), adopted on 20.11.2002, in force from 01.01.2003. This law implements the Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (hereinafter: eSignature directive) and partly also the Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (hereinafter: eCommerce directive). ⁸⁹⁸ Article 3, part 4 of the Electronic Documents Law. ⁸⁹⁹ Article 1, paragraph 4 of the Electronic Documents Law. The definition is substantially similar to definition included in eSignature Directive, Article 2, paragraph 1. ⁹⁰⁰ Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Electronic Documents Law. Sections (a) to (d) substantially quote the relevant provisions of the eSignature Directive, Article 2, paragraph 2. ⁹⁰¹ The Civil Procedure Law (Civilprocesa likums), adopted 14.10.1998, in force from 1.03.1999. ⁹⁰² The Civil Procedure Law, Article 492, part 2. ⁹⁰³ Regulations No.154 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 23.04.1996. “Regulations on Drafting and Processing of Documents” (Dokumentu izstrādāšanas un noformēšanas noteikumi). ⁹⁰⁴ Paragraph 18 of the Regulations on Drafting and Processing of Documents. ⁹⁰⁵ Article 3, part 2 of the Electronic Documents Law. ⁹⁰⁶ Ibid. ⁹⁰⁷ Sinaiskis V. “Latvijas Civiltiesību apskats. Lietu tiesības. Saistību tiesības” (Overview of Latvian Civil laws. Property law. Contract law), Rīga: 1996., p.125. ⁹⁰⁸ Article 1486 of the Civil Code. ⁹⁰⁹ Article 1473 of the Civil Code. ⁹¹⁰ Article 3, part 2 of the Electronic Documents Law. ⁹¹¹ Judgment of the Senate of the Supreme Court Department of Civil Cases in case No.SKC-223, 25 April 2001; also in case No.SKC-441, 22 September 2002.
⁹¹² See above, footnote 14 [.pdf document online]. ⁹¹³ Law on Information Society Services (Informācijas sabiedrības pakalpojumu likums), adopted on 4.11.2004, in force since 01.12.2004. ⁹¹⁴ Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.473 of 28 June 2005 “Order of drafting, forming, storing and circulation of electronic documents in state and municipal institutions and the order how the circulation of electronic documents within state and municipal institutions or between these institutions and natural or legal persons takes place” (Elektronisko dokumentu izstrādāšanas, noformēšanas, glabāšanas un aprites kārtība valsts un pašvaldību iestādēs un kārtība, kādā notiek elektronisko dokumentu aprite starp valsts un pašvaldību iestādēm vai starp šīm iestādēm un fiziskajām vai juridiskajām personām). ⁹¹⁵ Article 7 of Electronic Documents Law. ⁹¹⁶ Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.117 of 02.03.2004 “Regulations on way of assessment, order of storage and transfer for storage to state archive” (Noteikumi par elektronisko dokumentu izvērtēšanas veidu saglabāšanas kārtību un nodošanu valsts arhīvam glabāšanā). ⁹¹⁷ Article 6, part 4 of Electronic Documents Law. ⁹¹⁸ Article 2, part 2 of Law on Information Society Services. ⁹¹⁹ Article 3, part 6 of the Electronic Documents Law. ⁹²⁰ See footnote 26 above [.pdf document online]. ⁹²¹ Paragraph 1 of the Transition Terms of Electronic Documents Law. ⁹²² On 24.03.2006. came force a State Revenue Service instruction No.1 of 13.03.2006. "Agreement on the signing of electronic documents with the electronic signature by using the services of the electronic reporting system of State Revenue Service and the ensuring of these services”. According to this instruction the State Revenue Service is entitled to conclude agreements with tax payers on the signing of electronic documents with the electronic signatures. The tax payers who have concluded this agreement may file their tax reports in an electronic form and do not have to submit them on paper anymore. ⁹²³ Bureau of Tender supervision allows to apply for publishing of tender announcements electronically. However, the applications are reviewed only after a printed application form with regular signature is received. ⁹²⁴ The Law on Cheques (Čeku likums), adopted 27.09.1938; The Law on Bills of Exchange (Vekseļu likums), adopted 27.09.1938; the force of both laws renewed on 01.10.1992.
⁹²⁵ Article 13 of the Law on Bills of Exchange; Article 16 of the Law on Cheques. ⁹²⁶ Articles 64 to 67 of the Law on Bills of Exchange; Article 49 of the Law on Cheques.
⁹²⁷ Article 1692 of the Civil Code. ⁹²⁸ Article 1695 of the Civil Code. ⁹²⁹ E.g., General Terms and Conditions for Issuance of Letters of Credit of Nordea Bank Plc. Latvia branch (http://www.nordea.lv/sitemod/default/index.aspx?pid=69282). ⁹³⁰ The Law Shipping Code (Jūras kodekss), adopted on 29.05.2003, in force since 01.08.2003. ⁹³¹ Article 1968 of the Civil Code. ⁹³² More information available in www.fiata.com. FIATA documents are commonly used in freight forwarding, including the storage of goods. ⁹³³ Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.999 of 27.12.2005 “The Order how the permits for submitting custom declarations in electronic form shall be issued” (Kārtība, kādā izsniedzamas atļaujas muitas deklarāciju iesniegšanai elektroniskā veidā). ⁹³⁴ Instructions No.1808 of the State Revenue Service of 28 October 2004 On Permissions to Declare the Goods Electronically (Par atļaujām deklarēt preces elektroniski) and instruction No.664 of 28 April 2004 On certification of declaring persons (Par deklarētāju sertifikāciju). ⁹³⁵ Directive 2001/115/EC amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax. ⁹³⁶ Law on Value Added Tax, adopted on 9.03.1995, in force from 01.05.1995; Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.339 of 25.06.2003. “Regulations on the strict recording waybills-invoices” (Noteikumi par stingrās uzskaites preču pavadzīmēm-rēķiniem). ⁹³⁷ Article 8, Section 5.1. ⁹³⁸ Law On Accounting (Par grāmatvedību), adopted 14.10.1992. ⁹³⁹ Article 7 of the Law on Accounting. ⁹⁴⁰ Law on the Annual Accounts, adopted 14.10.1992. ⁹⁴¹ Article 61 of the Law on the Annual Accounts. ⁹⁴² Article 66 of the Law on the Annual Accounts. ⁹⁴³ See footnote 26 above [.pdf document online]. ⁹⁴⁴ See footnote 28 above [.pdf document online]. ⁹⁴⁵ Regulations No.357 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 01.07.2003 “Regulations on the information to be indicated in the security description of information systems, equipment, and procedures of provision of certification services” (Noteikumi par sertifikācijas pakalpojumu sniegšanas informācijas sistēmu, iekārtu un procedūru drošības aprakstā norādāmo informāciju). ⁹⁴⁶ Regulations No.358 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 01.07.2003 “Regulations on the order and terms of the security examinations of information systems, equipment, and procedures of provision of certification services” (Sertifikācijas pakalpojumu sniegšanas informācijas sistēmu, iekārtu un procedūru drošības pārbaudes kārtība un termiņi).
⁹⁴⁷ Regulations No.267 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 19.04.2005 “Regulations on the minimum amount of civil insurance of a reliable provider of certification services” (Noteikumi par uzticama sertifikācijas pakalpojumu sniedzēja civiltiesiskās atbildības minimālo apdrošināšanas summu). ⁹⁴⁸ Regulations No.514 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 12.07.2005. “Regulations on technical and organisational requirements to which a qualified certificate and a reliable provider of certification services shall confirm, on secure tools for creating a secure electronic signature, as well as on order how a secure electronic signature shall be verified (Noteikumi par tehniskajām un organizatoriskajām prasībām, kādām atbilst kvalificēts sertifikāts, uzticams sertifikācijas pakalpojumu sniedzējs, droši elektroniskā paraksta radīšanas līdzekļi, kā arī kārtību, kādā veicama droša elektroniskā paraksta verificēšana).
⁹⁴⁹ Approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on 14 June 2005, protocol No.35 30.§. ⁹⁵⁰ Approved by the Direction of the Cabinet of Ministers No.714. ⁹⁵¹ Press release of 27.04.2006, available at www.eparvalde.lv.

Euro Drops Because of Greece and China: China in the news at UnderstandingChina.eu

2010-01-23T01:44:00.000+01:00

Euro Drops because of Worry about Greece and China:
China in the news at UnderstandingChina.eu

"Concerns over Greece and indications China could take steps to cool its economy this year weighed heavily on the euro in Asian markets on Thursday, with the common currency reaching a five-month low against the dollar."

Agri-Trade in the European Union and EU Policy

2010-01-23T01:39:00.000+01:00

EU:the world’s sleeping trade giant « Feeding the habit

Nick Jacobs writes:

"[O]ne of the key conundrums Europe faces: how can trade policy facilitate/regulate the flow of foodstuffs in and out of Europe in a way that helps secure European and global farm livelihoods, while bolstering the global food supply against a backdrop of growing climate and resource constraints."

As usual, the problem is more easily stated than the solution.