Data Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union: An Unequal Playing Field

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-494
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Zell
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Location Based Services ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
The Eu

With the negotiation of its Data Protection Regulation, the European Union seeks to reform an outdated set of laws that has failed to address the evolving data protection challenges inherent in new technologies such as social networks, e-commerce, cloud computing, and location-based services. This article addresses the forthcoming Data Protection Regulation as well as the current state of data protection law in the EU, with a particular focus on Germany. The first part of the article examines Germany's robust data protection framework and the EU's existing authority. The article then raises key issues related to data protection in Germany and the EU—namely, discrepancies in data protection standards and enforcement among EU Member States—as illustrated by recent, high profile cases involving household names like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon. Through this analysis, the article attempts to explain how and why companies doing business in Germany, but established in other EU Member States, are subject to less stringent data protection standards than German companies. Lastly, the article synthesizes the issues in debate with regard to the draft Data Protection Regulation and offers perspectives on what the Regulation could and should mean for data protection in the EU.

The New EU Rules on Insurance Customer/Policyholder Protection Viewed against the NAIC Model Acts

Global Jurist ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Paul Martinez ◽  
Pierpaolo Marano
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
List Type ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Distribution Services ◽  
The Eu

AbstractEffective October 1, 2018, the Member States of the European Union had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of January 20, 2016 on insurance distribution (IDD). The IDD arose out of a desire to give insurance customers equal protection regardless of the type of distributor from which they obtained insurance. Essentially, the IDD seeks to level the playing field of protections for insurance customers by simplifying, consolidating, and expanding customer protections when needed. The IDD has the stated goal of focusing on “the area of the disclosure of information” to customers. The directive is intentionally broad and applies “to persons whose activity consists of providing insurance or reinsurance distribution services to third parties.”Although it is much too early to predict the course of the IDD within the European Union, a comparison can be drawn with the Model Acts promulgated by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in the United States to glean an inkling as to where the IDD might be headed. Parts of the Model Acts have been in place for a number of years and, while the legal regimes they cover are modestly different, there are nonetheless broad lessons that can be drawn in the comparison of the two. Whether the path of the IDD follows the arc of the Model Acts, or not, will perhaps be attributed to three instrumental aspects: 1.The IDD is unquestionably focused on customer protection. The NAIC is more nearly concerned with uniformity. It may be that the IDD’s focus will contribute to better traction among the EU Member States then Model Acts have experienced in the United States.2.Unlike the IDD, the NAIC Model Acts are not comprehensive with respect to customer protection.3.The NAIC Model Acts have seen inconsistent adoption by the states, a factor that has contributed to a lack of uniformity and constancy across any number of insurance products. While the IDD should not suffer from spotty adoption, the relative flexibility of the EU Member States in adopting more stringent rules may lead to a lack of uniformity and consistency similar to that of the Model Acts. Thus, the IDD may very well face the same headwinds faced by the Model Acts in the United States.Accurate predictions are always elusive when dealing with the implementation of regulation and legislation. Accordingly, we will watch with curiosity whether the IDD, which takes a much more global approach in customer protection, will see more success.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

scholarly journals National Food Safety Systems in the European Union: A Comparative Survey

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Central Level ◽  
The Eu

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.

scholarly journals European Green Deal as a matter of security

2021 ◽  
Vol 900 (1) ◽  
pp. 012035
Author(s):  
P Polko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Energy Transport ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Policy Initiatives ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Particular Solutions ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The European Green Deal (EGD) is a set of policy initiatives by the European Union with the overarching and ambitious aim of making Europe climate neutral in 2050. Being world’s first ‘climate-neutral bloc’ and fulfilling other goals extending to many different sectors, including construction, biodiversity, energy, transport, food and others has also an impact on different sectors of security. The implementation of the tasks set out in the EGD requires taking into account the necessity of sustainability in reaching the goals, including not violating sectoral security in the EU Member States. Nexus approach might be useful in the processes of finding and implementation of particular solutions.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law Framework in the European Union: Its Rationale, Origins, Role and International Ramifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-331
Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.

External Aspects of the European Union´s Competitiveness

2018 ◽  
pp. 180-208
Author(s):  
Lenka Fojtíková ◽  
Michaela Staníčková
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Data Envelopment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Trade Area ◽  
National Performance ◽  
Productive Potential ◽  
The Eu

This chapter deals with application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method to multicriteria performance evaluation of the European Union' (EU) Member States in the reference period 2000-2015. The productivity of the EU countries can be seen as the source of national performance and subsequent international competitiveness. International trade, as a major factor of openness, has an increasingly significant contribution to economic growth and thus for competitiveness. The aim of the chapter is to analyse level of productive potential achieved by the EU Member States. The results confirm the heterogeneity that exists among the EU Member States as well as in the trade area. While the calculations show that productivity growth of foreign trade was significant in the case of the entire EU, but the significance of productivity in foreign trade was not the same in the case of individual countries.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

Calls of Duty: Romanian Politicians’ Deontological Discursive Strategies for Securing Free Movement in the European Union

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-66
Author(s):  
Saila Heinikoski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Discursive Strategies ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses how the right to free movement within the European Union is presented as a matter of obligation, a duty of the other EU member states, in the discourse of Romanian Presidents and Prime Ministers (2005–2015). An examination of speeches and other statements from these politicians illuminates Romanian political reactions during the period when Romania became an EU member state, and reflects perceptions of Europeanness and European agreements. These issues take on an additional contemporary significance in the context of the Brexit negotiations, and they also add to the broader debate on whether EU norms and obligations are seen as being both just and equally applied. By analysing different types of argumentative topoi, I examine the deontological (obligation-based) argumentation employed in the free movement context. Furthermore, I examine to what extent these arguments are invoked in support of the right to free movement and who this right applies to. I argue that for Romanian politicians, deontological free movement arguments are connected to other states’ compliance with European treaties and to demands for equal application of European rules without discrimination, or the delegation of responsibility to others. This manifested itself most frequently in the calls for the EU and its member states to do their duty by treating Romanians equally to other EU citizens.

scholarly journals "Core-Periphery" in the European Union – An Economic Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-154
Author(s):  
Ines Kersan-Škabić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Economic Indicators ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Eu

The heterogeneity of economic performances in the EU member states is one of the main reasons for the existence of a “core-periphery” relationship. The goal of this research is to examine various economic indicators to reveal possible divisions between the EU members. This issue emphasized the contribution of rich “core” countries to the imbalances in poorer “peripheral” EU members. By applying cluster methodology and considering the most recent data, two groups of countries were identified, the first comprising 11 countries that form the “centre” or the “core”, and the rest of the EU forming the “periphery”. Considering differences between these countries is necessary and justified for discussions about the future development of the EU that will involve differences between member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document