This article explores public perceptions of restorative justice through the examination of media articles and negative online reader comments surrounding a high-profile incident in a Canadian university in which a restorative process was successfully engaged. Utilising relational discourse analysis, we identify how restorative justice is presented in the media and how that presentation is taken up by the public. Media representations of restorative justice create understandings among the public that are profoundly different from how many restorative justice advocates perceive it. The aim of this article is to examine media representations of restorative justice and how these are received by the public so that we can respond constructively.

This article is part of a broader discussion about attaining a full-fledged child-friendly (criminal) justice. Attaining that goal is particularly challenging in cases of international parental abduction, due to the involvement of two branches of law. It is examined to what extent the current interaction guarantees a decision in the best interests of the child. More specifically, the implications of the adage le criminel tient le civil en état are scrutinised from a children’s rights perspective.
The central research question reads: “to what extent can the adage le criminal tient le civil and état be upheld when further elaborating the best interests of the child in criminal law, more specifically in the interaction between civil and criminal law?” The research wants to contribute to the debate of the difficult triangular relationship between civil law, criminal law and children's rights law.
In cases of child abduction, the link and interaction between the two procedures goes beyond the traditionally accepted scope of civil damages arising from a criminal offense. Nevertheless, both procedures following a parental abduction are based on the same facts and are inextricably linked, which means that they have to be assessed together, which means that they should be judged together. The question arises as to how the two parallel procedures can be coordinated better, now that it is clear that they may significantly influence each other.
A full-fledged application of the adage means that a decision concerning the return of the child can only be handed down from the moment when the criminal proceeding (concerning the prosecution of the parent) is completed. It is immediately clear that this cannot be in the best interests of the child.
It is argued that the adage must be abandoned or reversed to guarantee article 3 CRC. This statement is substantiated with arguments of both practical (referring to the time course) and fundamental (importance of the child best interets as a first consideration) nature. Thereby counterarguments are anticipated.
---
Dit artikel kadert binnen de bredere discussie inzake het streven naar een kindvriendelijk (straf)rechtssysteem. In zaken van internationale parentale ontvoering, waarbij twee rechtstakken betrokken zijn, is dit bijzonder uitdagend. Er wordt onderzocht in welke mate de huidige interactie tussen beide rechtstakken het belang van het kind waarborgt. Concreet wordt het adagium le criminel tient le civil en état vanuit een kinderrechten-perspectief aan een kritische blik onderworpen.
De centrale onderzoeksvraag luidt: “in welke mate is het adagium le criminel tient le civil and état houdbaar in de verdere uitwerking van het belang van het kind in het strafrecht, meer bepaald in de wisselwerking tussen burgerlijk en strafrecht?” Het artikel wil aan het belang van het kind een duidelijkere positie geven in de moeilijke driehoeksverhouding tussen burgerlijk recht, strafrecht en kinderrechten.
In zaken van kinderontvoering gaat het de toepassing van het adagium verder dan de traditioneel aanvaarde reikwijdte van civielrechtelijke schadevergoedingen die voortvloeien uit een strafbaar feit. Niettemin zijn beide procedures, volgend op een parentale ontvoering, gebaseerd op dezelfde feiten en onlosmakelijk verbonden met elkaar, wat betekent dat ze samen moeten worden beoordeeld. De vraag rijst hoe de twee parallelle procedures beter gecoördineerd kunnen worden, nu duidelijk is dat ze elkaar op een significante manier kunnen beïnvloeden.
Onverkorte toepassing van het adagium betekent dat de burgerlijke beslissing betreffende de terugkeer van het kind pas kan plaatsvinden vanaf het moment dat de strafrechtelijke procedure (betreffende de vervolging van de ouder) is voltooid. Het is meteen duidelijk dat dit niet in het belang van het kind kan zijn.
Er wordt geargumenteerd dat het adagium moet worden verlaten dan wel omgedraaid om artikel 3 IVRK te garanderen. Argumenten van zowel praktische (verwijzend naar de tijdsverloop) als fundamentele (belang van het kind als eerste overweging) aard onderbouwen dit standpunt. Daarbij wordt geanticipeerd op tegenargumenten.

In this transnational road transport case, the Dutch Supreme Court had to elaborate on the ECJ Koelzsch and Schlecker cases and asks for guidance from the ECJ on the applicability and interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive.

Restriction of second language in a job application procedure to English, French and German in selection procedure is invalid.

A decision taken by an employer based on gender which respects the national legislation was considered discriminatory based on EU legislation.

A new system of remuneration and advancement according to which the initial grading of the contractual public servants is calculated according to their last remuneration paid under the previous system of remuneration and advancement, which was based on discrimination on grounds of the age of the contractual public servants, is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2000/78, read in combination with Article 21 of the Charter and inconsistent with Article 45(2) TFEU.

The Latvian Supreme Court recently used the ECJ Max Planck and Kreuziger judgments to explain how an employer can escape its obligation to compensate an employee for unused leave at the end of the employment relationship. The employer must prove that (a) it was possible for the employee to use the leave, and (b) the employer has in good time informed the employee that leave, if not used, might be lost and will not be compensated.