Search result: 401 articles

x
Year 2020 x
Article

Access_open The Right to Claim Innocence in Poland

Journal Erasmus Law Review, Issue 4 2020
Keywords wrongful convictions, right to claim innocence, reopening of criminal proceedings, miscarriage of justice, revision of final judgment
Authors Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation and Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
AbstractAuthor's information

    Wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, their reasons and effects, only rarely become the subject of academic debate in Poland. This article aims at filling this gap and providing a discussion on the current challenges of mechanisms available in Polish law focused on the verification of final judgments based on innocence claims. While there are two procedures designed to move such judgment: cassation and the reopening of criminal proceedings, only the latter aims at the verification of new facts and evidence, and this work remains focused exactly on that issue. The article begins with a case study of the famous Komenda case, which resulted in a successful innocence claim, serving as a good, though rare, example of reopening a case and acquitting the convict immediately and allows for discussing the reasons that commonly stand behind wrongful convictions in Poland. Furthermore, the article examines the innocence claim grounds as regulated in the Polish criminal procedure and their interpretation under the current case law. It also presents the procedure concerning the revision of the case. The work additionally provides the analysis of the use of innocence claim in practice, feeding on the statistical data and explaining tendencies in application for revision of a case. It also presents the efforts of the Polish Ombudsman and NGOs to raise public awareness in that field. The final conclusions address the main challenges that the Polish system faces concerning innocence claims and indicates the direction in which the system should go.


Wojciech Jasiński Ph.D., habilitation
Wojciech Jasiński is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-1474

Karolina Kremens Ph.D.
Karolina Kremens is Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Procedure of the University of Wroclaw, Poland. orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-2645

    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.

    In a summary proceeding, the Court of Rotterdam has held that it is not clear whether the Non-Seafarers Work Clause, prohibiting lashing work on board of container ships being carried out by the crew, does indeed contribute to better employment and/or working conditions of seafarers. As a result of which the Clause – at this time – cannot be held to be outside the scope of competition law and the claim for compliance with the provision has been rejected. In the media, unions have stated that they will continue to enforce compliance with the Non-Seafarers Work Clause. It remains to be seen whether a court in main proceedings will reach a similar verdict.


Erick Hagendoorn
Erick Hagendoorn is an attorney-at-law at HerikVerhulst N.V., Rotterdam.
Showing 1 - 20 of 401 results
« 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 20 21
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.