scholarly journals The United Kingdom (UK)

2020 ◽  
pp. 119-136
Author(s):  
Nina Amelung ◽  
Rafaela Granja ◽  
Helena Machado
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Nation State ◽  
Dna Databases ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Intelligence ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Dna Database ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Uk

Abstract The UK is the possessor of the world’s oldest and largest DNA database by proportion of population: the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, established in 1995. As a nation-state that holds one of the world’s largest DNA databases, the UK has been dealing systematically with the societal effects triggered by various ethical controversies. In terms of bordering practices, the UK serves as an example of an ambivalent mode of re- and debordering. This ambivalence derives from the UK’s changing position regarding the Prüm system. In 2014, the UK government, driven by the parliament, decided to opt out of the Prüm Decisions. In 2015, after a Prüm-style pilot project run with other EU Member States, the UK decided to opt in. This decision, nonetheless, included the imposition of limits on other EU countries’ access to the UK’s data. Consequently, the UK’s debordering practices co-exist with rebordering attempts aimed at restricting access to their own data.

scholarly journals Features of transformation of legal entities in the conditions of Brexit

2021 ◽  
pp. 531-538
Author(s):  
Olha Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Actual Location ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Entities

In connection with the decision to withdraw the UK from the EU a number of companies will need to take into account that from 1 January 2021 EU law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and will become a "third country" for EU Member States, unless the provisions of bilateral agreements or multilateral trade agreements. This means that the four European freedoms (movement of goods, services, labor and capital) will no longer apply to UK companies to the same extent as they did during the UK's EU membership. The purpose of the article is to study, first of all, the peculiarities of the influence of Great Britain's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal regulation of the status of European legal entities. Brexit results in the inability to register European companies and European economic interest groups in the UK. Such companies already registered before 01.01.2021 have the opportunity to move their place of registration to an EU Member State. These provisions are defined in Regulations 2018 (2018/1298) and Regulations 2018 (2018/1299).British companies with branches in EU Member States will now be subject to the rules applicable to third-country companies, which provide additional information on their activities. In the EU, many countries apply the criterion of actual location, which causes, among other things, the problem of non-recognition of legal entities established in the country where the criterion of incorporation is used (including the United Kingdom), at the same time as the governing bodies of such legal entities the state where the settlement criterion is applied. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of possible non-recognition of British companies, given the location of the board of such a legal entity in the state where the residency criterion applies, it seems appropriate to consider reincarnation at the actual location of such a company. Reducing the risks of these negative consequences in connection with Brexit on cross-border activities of legal entities is possible by concluding interstate bilateral and multilateral agreements that would contain unified rules on conflict of law regulation of the status of legal entities.

Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit:

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.

scholarly journals Was this an ending? The destruction of samples and deletion of records from the UK Police National DNA Database

BJHS Themes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 99-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID SKINNER ◽  
MATTHIAS WIENROTH
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Biological Data ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Dna Database ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Genetic Collections

AbstractBetween December 2012 and September 2013 the United Kingdom government oversaw one of the largest destructions of a collection of human-derived samples ever conducted. Approximately 7,753,000 DNA samples and 1,766,000 DNA computerized profiles associated with the UK's policing National DNA Database (NDNAD) were destroyed or deleted. This paper considers this moment of exceptional erasure and the consequent implementation of new processes for routinely discarding and keeping samples and their associated computer records. It is divided into two parts. The first discusses the rapid growth of the NDNAD; the changing legal, ethical and political landscape within which it was promoted and contested; and the developments that led to the decision to limit its scope. The second shifts focus to the operational challenge of implementing the destruction of samples and deletion of records. The NDNAD case allows us to examine the labour and continuing uncertainties involved in erasure of biological data and the emerging norms and practices associated with collecting DNA in differing formats. It also sheds new light on the importance, interconnection and ongoing instability of the ethical and practical biovalue of genetic collections: as the paper argues, far from ending the NDNAD, a more rigorous regime of erasure has helped, for the moment at least, to secure its future.

scholarly journals Affected for good or for evil: The formation of issue-publics that relate to the UK National DNA Database

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-605
Author(s):  
Nina Amelung ◽  
Helena Machado
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Issue Publics ◽  
Criminal Intelligence ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Dna Database ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Issue Public

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of collecting and storing DNA data for criminal identification purposes. The development of the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database has been accompanied by public controversies. Building on recent developments in Science and Technology Studies on public engagement, we elaborate on the concept of emergent and co-produced issue-publics. We explore which different types of issues affect and mobilize publics along the historical development of the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, and how publics take shape alongside the institutionalization of regulatory and governance solutions. We identify three related issue-publics: a ‘biological citizen issue-public’ concerned with human and civil rights regarding the collection of biological material; a ‘watchdog issue-public’ that emerges to identify the problems surrounding a lack of civic accountability; and a ‘co-decision making issue-public’, including the stakeholders who advise on decisions relating to the database.

A Channel Apart: Why the United Kingdom has Departed from the European Commission’s Recommendation on Class Actions

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 36-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael MULHERON
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Uk

AbstractOver the course of 2013–15, there have been significant developments in the reform of class actions in Europe. The European Commission published its Recommendation of common principles concerning collective redress in June 2013, whilst the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – which was introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament in January 2014 and obtained Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 – contains a class action for competition law infringements. Although there is some ‘common ground’ between these legislative instruments, their divergences are far more legally significant, and comprise the focus of analysis in this article. Regarding the two topics of standing to sue, and the opt-in versus opt-out approach to forming the class, the approaches of the European Commission and the UK Parliament differ markedly, reflecting the deep policy, political and judicial divisions which have manifested in this area of reform for over a decade. The legislators have also ultimately chosen different scopes of application, with the European Commission preferring a ‘horizontal’ approach to reform, whilst the UK Parliament has pursued a sector-specific reform agenda. In respect of standing to sue and the opt-in versus opt-out debate, there are numerous sound legal and political reasons that manifestly support the UK law-makers’ decision to depart from the 2013 Recommendation. However, in respect of the horizontal-versus-sectoral debate, the topsy-turvy history of reform at both European and domestic levels has resulted, ironically, in both the Commission and UK policy-makers reversing the views which each had initially adopted within the past decade. Undoubtedly, as these reform measures demonstrate, the collective redress landscape is both evolving and controversial.

scholarly journals Reverse Discrimination – How Fundamental Rights Might be Changed without Notice

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-92
Author(s):  
Natalia Wojtyła
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
True Meaning ◽  
The Uk

Abstract This article addresses the issue how meaning of fundamental rights might be amended by international treaties, based on example of non-discrimination principle, in particular context of putting own national in less favoured situation than non-national (reverse discrimination). Two European Union (EU) member states, the United Kingdom (UK) and Poland, were then selected for testing the practice. The main reason for the choice of the UK and Poland lies on their opposite legislation tradition. Polish Constitution expressly prohibit any kind of discrimination, whereas in the UK there is no such an unified act. Firstly, articles defined that the reverse discrimination is. Secondly, it seeks whether the possibility to offset losses from a subsidiary is treated equally to residents and non-residents. National provisions guarantee general rights and freedoms, but their scope and the meaning are continuously modified. Not only judgements of national courts, but also international treaties might define the true meaning of fundamental rights.

scholarly journals Brexit: Benefits and Costs for the United Kingdom – Reflections for Observers in Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Marian Żukowski ◽  
Monika Nowakowska
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Negative Evaluation ◽  
British Society ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU structures creates a new chapter in the history of the European integration. For the first time, after several decades of steady and secure functioning of the EU, a split occurs. Lofty ideas about creation of strong, coherent, wealthier and safer Europe lose in the competition with economic indicators and the national interest of the United Kingdom. Brexit is an expression of the negative evaluation of the EU functioning by the British society. This opinion is grounded in difficulties of the EU with solving current economic, social and political problems of contemporary Europe, as well as in decreased cooperation among member states. The following most important reasons for Brexit should be mentioned: the uncontrolled inflow of immigrants, increased terror threat, loss of economic independence and national identity. It is also worth noticing the successful actions of right-wing politicians who used the situation to build their own vision of the state. Consequences of Brexit shall affect both the United Kingdom and the EU member states but also non-EU countries. They shall have political, economic and social dimensions. However, at the current stage of the negotiations, it is difficult to predict all effects of the decisions taken. According to analysts, the UK shall incur financial losses, competitiveness of economy will decline, GDP will go down, political relations with neighbour states will deteriorate. Brexit shall affect particularly these states which are close trade partners of the United Kingdom. Loss of the UK as one of the economic pillars of the EU shall influence the economic situation of the entire European Union. Brexit is also a crack in the EU image as an organization cherishing the values of solidarity and humanism. Individual interests of particular member states can be a contagious example.

Part III Prospectus Liability and Litigation, 26 United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
McMeel Gerard
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Prospectus Liability ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter provides an overview of the relevant UK law. The timing of the coming into force in EU Member States of the Prospectus Regulation posed some problems of exposition of the law in the United Kingdom of liability for information in prospectuses. The date of the Regulation coming into force was when it was originally intended that the UK would leave the European Union. When the date for ‘Brexit’ was extended, the Regulation automatically came into force in accordance with orthodox EU and UK arrangements. However, after changing prime ministers, the date for Brexit became uncertain. Furthermore, there were questions as to whether the UK would leave pursuant to the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement or some other withdrawal agreement, or with no agreement with the EU (the ‘no deal’ scenario) at all. The chapter tries to address the various possible scenarios arising from these complications introduced by Brexit.

TBE in United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Clinical Disease ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Probable Case ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
South West ◽  
Louping Ill ◽  
The Uk ◽  
North And South ◽  
South West England

Until 2019, TBE was considered only to be an imported disease to the United Kingdom. In that year, evidence became available that the TBEV is likely circulating in the country1,2 and a first “probable case” of TBE originating in the UK was reported.3 In addition to TBEV, louping ill virus (LIV), a member of the TBEV-serocomplex, is also endemic in parts of the UK. Reports of clinical disease caused by LIV in livestock are mainly from Scotland, parts of North and South West England and Wales.4

EUROPEAN UNION´S SUGAR MARKET CONCENTRATION UNDER THE SUGAR QUOTA PRODUCTION SYSTEM

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ľuboš SMUTKA ◽  
Helena ŘEZBOVÁ ◽  
Patrik ROVNÝ
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Quota System ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Sugar Market ◽  
Current Production ◽  
High Dynamic ◽  
Production Capacities ◽  
Very High ◽  
The Eu

The European sugar beet quota system is in very high dynamic process in recent years. The number of sugar companies involved in this system has been constantly decreasing. The aim of this paper is to define subjects (companies/alliances), which possess the current production capacities working under the production quotas system. The paper is determining especially the level of beet sugar production quota holder system concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The paper provides the following findings. The European quota holder system is extremely concentrated and it is becoming more and more dominated by fewer players. Sugar quota is distributed among 19 EU-Member States. In this regard, the quota is generous, especially in relation to France, Germany, Poland and United Kingdom. In Finland, Lithuania, Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the United Kingdom controlled by two or even one subject (companies, alliances). There is a large discrepancy between political efforts to distribute equitable R 1308/2013-sugar quotas among states and the actual reality of those distributions. While the EU-quota holder system does not indicate an extreme concentration, an analysis according to the headquarters´ location and allocated quotas to owners of production capacities provides the evidence of extreme concentration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document