Search result: 400 articles

x
Year 2020 x
Article

Access_open Correcting Wrongful Convictions in France

Has the Act of 2014 Opened the Door to Revision?

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Final criminal conviction, revision procedure, grounds for revision, preparatory investigative measures, Cour de révision et de réexamen
Authors Katrien Verhesschen and Cyrille Fijnaut
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Katrien Verhesschen
Katrien Verhesschen is PhD candidate and teaching assistant at the Institute of Criminal Law KU Leuven.

Cyrille Fijnaut
Cyrille Fijnaut is Emeritus Professor of Criminal Law & Criminology at Erasmus University Rotterdam, KU Leuven and Tilburg University.
Article

Access_open Mechanisms for Correcting Judicial Errors in Germany

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2020
Keywords criminal proceedings, retrial in favour of the convicted, retrial to the disadvantage of the defendant, Germany, judicial errors
Authors Michael Lindemann and Fabienne Lienau
AbstractAuthor's information

    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.


Michael Lindemann
Michael Lindemann is Professor for Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Bielefeld University, Germany.

Fabienne Lienau
Fabienne Lienau is Research Assistant at the Chair held by Michael Lindemann.

    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’.

Pending Cases

Case C-426/20, Temporary Agency Work

GD and ES – v – Luso Temp – Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A., reference lodged by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga – Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos (Portugal) on 10 September 2020

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Temporary Agency Work


Claire Toumieux
Claire Toumieux and Susan Ekrami is partner at Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.

Susan Ekrami
Susan Ekrami is a senior associate with Allen & Overy LLP in Paris, www.allenovery.com.
Pending Cases

Case C-485/20, Disability Discrimination

X – v – HR Rail, SA de droit public, reference lodged by Conseil d’État (Belgium) on 29 September 2020

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Disability Discrimination
Rulings

ECJ 19 November 2020, Case C-93/19 P (EEAS – v – Hebberecht), Gender Discrimination, Miscellaneous

European External Action Service (EEAS) – v – Chantal Hebberecht, EU case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Gender Discrimination, Miscellaneous
Abstract

    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.

Rulings

ECJ 11 November 2020, Case C-300/19 (Marclean Technologies SLU), Collective Redundancies

UQ – v – Marclean Technologies SLU, Spanish case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Collective Redundancies
Abstract

    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.

Pending Cases

Case C-344/20, Religious Discrimination

L.F. – v – S.C.R.L., reference lodged by Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) on 27 July 2020

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Religious Discrimination
Rulings

ECJ 8 October 2020, Case C-644/19 (Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” Sibiu and Others), Age Discrimination, Fixed-Term Work

FT – v – Universitatea « Lucian Blaga » Sibiu and Others, Romanian case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Age Discrimination, Fixed-Term Work
Abstract

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

Pending Cases

Case C-389/20, Gender Discrimination

CJ – v – Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, reference lodged by the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.º 2 de Vigo (Spain) \ on 14 August 2020

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Gender Discrimination

    Internal disciplinary case, claims rejected.

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


Andreea Suciu
Andreea Suciu is Managing Partner at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm in Bucharest, Romania.

Teodora Manaila
Teodora Manaila is a Senior Associate at Suciu | The Employment Law Firm in Bucharest, Romania.
Pending Cases

Case C-411/20, Free Movement, Social Insurance

S – v – Familienkasse Niedersachsen-Bremen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, reference lodged by the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) on 2 September 2020

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Free Movement, Social Insurance

    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.


Lisa Dafydd
Lisa Dafydd is an associate at Lewis Silkin LLP.
Rulings

ECJ 6 October 2020, Case C-181/19 (Job Center Krefeld), Social Insurance

Jobcenter Krefeld – Widerspruchsstelle – v – NK AG, Austrian case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Social Insurance
Abstract

    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.

Rulings

ECJ 1 December 2020, Case C-815/18 (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging), Applicable Law, Posting of Workers and Expatriates

Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging – v – Van den Bosch Transporten BV, Van den Bosch Transporte GmbH, Silo-Tank Kft, Dutch case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 4 2020
Keywords Applicable Law, Posting of Workers and Expatriates
Abstract

    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.


Christian K. Clasen
Christian K. Clasen is a partner at Norrbom Vinding, Copenhagen.
Showing 1 - 20 of 400 results
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 20
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.