The French ‘Code de procédure pénale’ provides the possibility to revise final criminal convictions. The Act of 2014 reformed the procedure for revision and introduced some important novelties. The first is that it reduced the different possible grounds for revision to one ground, which it intended to broaden. The remaining ground for revision is the existence of a new fact or an element unknown to the court at the time of the initial proceedings, of such a nature as to establish the convicted person’s innocence or to give rise to doubt about his guilt. The legislature intended judges to no longer require ‘serious doubt’. However, experts question whether judges will comply with this intention of the legislature. The second is the introduction of the possibility for the applicant to ask the public prosecutor to carry out the investigative measures that seem necessary to bring to light a new fact or an unknown element before filing a request for revision. The third is that the Act of 2014 created the ‘Cour de révision et de réexamen’, which is composed of eighteen judges of the different chambers of the ‘Cour de cassation’. This ‘Cour de révision et de réexamen’ is divided into a ‘commission d’instruction’, which acts as a filter and examines the admissibility of the requests for revision, and a ‘formation de jugement’, which decides on the substance of the requests. Practice will have to show whether these novelties indeed improved the accessibility of the revision procedure.

The article presents the status quo of the law of retrial in Germany and gives an overview of the law and practice of the latter in favour of the convicted and to the disadvantage of the defendant. Particularly, the formal and material prerequisites for a successful petition to retry the criminal case are subject to a detailed presentation and evaluation. Because no official statistics are kept regarding successful retrial processes in Germany, the actual number of judicial errors is primarily the subject of more or less well-founded estimates by legal practitioners and journalists. However, there are a few newer empirical studies devoted to different facets of the subject. These studies will be discussed in this article in order to outline the state of empirical research on the legal reality of the retrial procedure. Against this background, the article will ultimately highlight currently discussed reforms and subject these to a critical evaluation as well. The aim of the recent reform efforts is to add a ground for retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant for cases in which new facts or evidence indicate that the acquitted person was guilty. After detailed discussion, the proposal in question is rejected, inter alia for constitutional reasons.

In principle, healthcare received on initiative of an insured person, in another Member State than the Member State of residence, constitutes ‘scheduled treatment’ within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation 883/04/EC, the reimbursement of which is subject to prior authorization. This can be different in ‘individual circumstances’.

In its consideration of Ms Hebberecht’s request to extend her posting, EEAS could not exclude equal treatment aspects from the consideration on grounds that they were not deemed relevant in the interests of the service.

The reference period determining whether a collective dismissal took place, can be any 30-/90-day period in which the largest numbers of relevant dismissals took place.

Difference in treatment of teaching staff not found to be age discriminatory, but may be in breach of the fixed-term work directive.

Internal disciplinary case, claims rejected.

Deductions from pensions larger than a certain threshold do not necessarily constitute gender and/or age discrimination.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that the provision under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) which renders changes to employees’ terms and conditions void if they are made because of the transfer applies to changes that are advantageous as well as detrimental to employees. On the facts of the case, this meant that owner-directors who had made significant improvements to their own employment terms before a TUPE transfer could not enforce these against the transferee employer.

Regulation 492/2011 precludes legislation based on which a Member State denies a citizen from another EU member state his social benefits when his children still go to school in the (first) Member State. Unfortunately, no English translation is available yet.

Posting of Workers: Directive 96/71/EC applies to the road transport sector. A worker is posted if his/her work has a sufficient connection with the host country.The ECJ’s summary of the case is available on: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3345527/en/

The Danish Supreme Court recently held that an employer had discharged the reversed burden of proof in a case concerning a physiotherapist who was dismissed shortly after her return from maternity leave.