It is not allowed to vary benefits of workers with children in another member state depending on the price level in the country of residence of the children.

Flight and cabin crew not covered by E101 certificates who work for 45 minutes per day in an airline’s premises intended to be used by staff located at Bergamo airport and who are on board that airline’s aircraft the rest of the time, are subject to Italian social security legislation.

A Member State can impose rules for the dismissal of data protection officers which are stricter than those of the GDPR, but they may not undermine the GDPR’s objectives.

The definition of online dispute resolution (ODR) has become increasingly contested, particularly fueled by the recent explosion in the use of technology during the pandemic by courts and alternative dispute resolution practitioners. The recent expansion of stakeholders has contributed productively to the on-going discussion of the parameters of ODR that have implications for ethical practice. Does the use of video conferencing constitute ODR? What new procedural and substantive justice concerns arise with the use of technology in dispute handling and how should they be addressed? Since technology not only alters the role of third parties and disputants but also serves as a fourth party, what are the ethical implications for example, of employing artificial intelligence? How can explorations of the boundaries of ODR foster a re-imaging of 21st Century justice systems?
This article explores the importance of the parameters of ODR for the ethical practice of dispute resolution and introduces a paper, Framing the Parameters of Online Dispute Resolution (National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, 2022) that offers a descriptive ODR Framework; one that encompasses the broad range of views on the boundaries of ODR along an axis of increasing reliance on technology through various functions and stages of dispute handling. The article discusses the implications of this ODR Framework for enhancing ethical guidance and regulation for whatever definition of ODR is utilized.

While court administrations/justice departments were not among the early adopters of online dispute resolution (ODR) they can clearly, as gatekeepers to the majority of civil disputes, have an enormous influence on ODR and, in particular, the speed at which ODR is adopted as a widely accepted practice in dispute resolution.
Systems being rolled out by or for courts have been piecemeal as individual administrations pursue research into their own future. Early systems tend to be in either case management and/or e-filing but little in the way of e-negotiation or aids to resolution. What is shared is the existing challenges to the courts from rising costs, process delay and growth in the numbers of citizens unable, owing to cost, to pursue or defend litigation.
In Europe what is bringing court administrations together in their development of ODR has been the issue of human rights and access to justice, which explains why an overall influence in the sharing of knowledge and experience in ODR has been the Council of Europe. This was a body set up in the immediate aftermath of World War II with a view to encouraging European states to work together in advancing and protecting human rights. Its greatest creation has been the European Convention on Human Rights and, of particular relevance, Article 6, which secures the right to a “public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
This article tracks various developments from bodies within the structure of the Council of Europe with regard to the application of ODR to the judicial system. These developments extend from research and debate on whether the overall impact on human rights and, in particular, access to justice, of ODR could be seen as a threat, and thus something to be protected against, or in a more positive light and, therefore, to be encouraged. This article tracks the formation of various bodies within the Council of Europe, such as the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice , The Working Group on Cyberjustice and Artificial Intelligence and, most recently, the European Cyberjustice Network. This article also notes outcomes such as the Report on the impact of ODR on Human Rights produced by the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe and the European Ethical Guidelines on the use of AI in judicial systems produced by The Working Group on Cyberjustice and Artificial Intelligence of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice.

In this article, we investigate whether the conditions for the emergence of an online dispute resolution (ODR) market in Portuguese-speaking countries have been met. The size of the Portuguese-speaking population and the internet penetration in Portuguese-speaking countries may look promising, but what is called networked readiness as well as the legal context needs to be factored in before any conclusion may be drawn.

Various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year.

The Danish Ministry of Employment has been held liable for a protracted legislative process following the ECJ’s ruling in the Ole Andersen case (C-499/08), which concluded that the Salaried Employees Act was not compliant with Directive 2000/78/EC concerning equal treatment in employment and occupation (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age).

Once a child and a parent have obtained a right of permanent residence, they do not need a comprehensive sickness insurance cover. However, they do need it when they want to obtain an initial right of residence for more than three months.

National courts must ensure that penalties for non-compliance with administrative obligations are proportionate

The Iaşi Court of Appeal in Romania has upheld a decision issued by the Vaslui Tribunal which found that an employee cannot be the subject of disciplinary action for the refusal to perform work during their weekly rest notwithstanding that a working time schedule imposed by the employer was based on the applicability of an internal company policy.

Working as a rider for the Deliveroo platform is a professional activity that can be performed as a self-employed worker, the Labour Tribunal of Brussels has decided, which also ruled out the possibility of Deliveroo riders enjoying the fiscally beneficial status available for workers active on electronic platforms of the collaborative economy (or ‘sharing economy’).

Judges and public prosecutors across Europe continue to be the main source of referral of cases to restorative justice programmes organised in the context of the criminal justice system. As a result, the training of these two groups of legal professionals regarding what restorative justice is and what it can offer to victims, offenders and the community has for many years been identified as a priority for the development of restorative justice in the European Union (EU). However, little information is available about what actually exists in terms of judicial training on restorative justice within the national judicial training institutions responsible for the initial and/or continuous training of judges and/or public prosecutors. Therefore, we developed an online survey on judicial training on restorative justice and invited 38 judicial training institutions operating in the (then) 28 EU Member States to participate in our study. We were able to make relevant observations regarding the reasons for the non-existence of restorative justice training in most of the judicial training institutions studied and identify important elements of the architecture of the restorative justice training offered by the judicial training institution of Czech Republic.

Restorative justice has been criticised for not adequately giving serious consideration to the ‘public’ character of crimes. By bringing the ownership of the conflict involved in crime back to the victim and thus ‘privatising’ the conflict, restorative justice would overlook the need for crimes to be treated as public matters that concern all citizens, because crimes violate public values, i.e., values that are the foundation of a political community. Against this I argue that serious wrongs, like murder or rape, are violations of agent-neutral values that are fundamental to our humanity. By criminalising such serious wrongs we show that we take such violations seriously and that we stand in solidarity with victims, not in their capacity as compatriots but as fellow human beings. Such solidarity is better expressed by organising restorative procedures that serve the victim’s interest than by insisting on the kind of public condemnation and penal hardship that retributivists deem necessary ‘because the public has been wronged’. The public nature of crimes depends not on the alleged public character of the violated values but on the fact that crimes are serious wrongs that provoke a (necessarily reticent) response from government officials such as police, judges and official mediators.

Evaluations of restorative justice frequently report that only a minority of schools succeed in adopting a whole-school approach. More common are a consortium of practices necessitating the evaluation of schools not implementing the whole-school model but still achieving positive results. Previous research established that unconventional models have successful outcomes, yet little is known about the contextual factors and the causal mechanisms of different practices. This study finds that models of restorative justice facilitating student voice and consequently procedural justice have promising outcomes. Importantly, alternative models may be less resource-intensive, making them more feasible to fully implement.