scholarly journals Digital Content Portability and its Relation to Conformity with the Contract

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-84
Author(s):  
Pavel Koukal
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Digital Content ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Consumer Rights ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Cross

In this paper the author analyses the possible convergences and divergences of two current legislative proposals of the European Commission: the Portability Regulation and the Digital Content Directive. Both proposals address the issue of access to digital content from different perspectives and complement each other, although they use different legal terminology and in some respects have a different scope of application in the question of cross-border portability of the digital content provided for monetary counter performance to consumers. The Portability Regulation focuses on the cross-border portability of digital content [Art. 3 (1) Portability Regulation), while the Digital Content Directive specifies the consumer rights related to the distribution of digital content and subsumes the accessibility of digital content under the concept of “conformity of the digital content with the contract” [Art. 6 (1), (2) Digital Content Directive). The author aims to answer whether a consumer who is not allowed to use the digital content in EU Member States besides the Member State of his residence will be entitled to pursue claims arising from the non-conformity of the digital content with the contract.

scholarly journals Measuring the efficiency of medical tourism industry in EU member states

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorena Androutsou ◽  
Theodore Metaxas
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Medical Tourism ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Tourism Industry ◽  
Border Health ◽  
Hospital Discharges ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Cross

Purpose Under the Directive 2011/24/EU, medical tourism and cross-border health are interrelated terms regarding the freedom to move to get the most accessible medical treatment into EU Member State within the defined procedures for reimbursement. Little known empirically regarding the efficiency of the cross-border health/medical tourism industry. This study aims to measure its efficiency in Europe for the years 2010-2014, by using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Design/methodology/approach Data obtained from OECD and the European Core Health Indicators (ECHI), which is collecting the data through Eurostat. Eurostat collects data on health-care activities and provides data on hospital discharges, including the hospital discharges of non-residents and these include hospital discharges of in-patients and day care patients. The analysis uses “DEA.P, 2.1 for windows” by Coelli (1996). Findings The results show that the Members States health systems were very efficient in handling non-residents in-patients; however, when managing day cases/outpatients, the efficiency scores dropped. Practical implications The findings would have significant associations affecting intentions to revisit clinics and the destination country. In addition, will be useful to those seeking a better understanding of the cross-border health and medical tourism industry efficiency. Originality/value Extending the findings of the European Commission report (2015c) by examining how well medical tourists are informed about the decision they are making, would be of perceived value. These are important indicators at European level by helping each Member State to measure its medical tourism services.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Land Policy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Direct Discrimination ◽  
Quality Of Living

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.

Estimating efficiency of Directive 2011/24/EU cross-border healthcare in member states

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 827-834
Author(s):  
Mustapha D Ibrahim ◽  
Mevhibe B Hocaoglu ◽  
Berna Numan ◽  
Sahand Daneshvar
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Healthcare Policy ◽  
Data Envelopment ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Patients Experience

Aim: Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare facilitates EU citizens' access to and reimbursement for healthcare provided or prescribed in a member state other than the member state of affiliation. Materials & methods: The efficiency of cross-border healthcare policy is evaluated using data envelopment analysis of relevant items in Eurobarometer Survey on Safety and Quality of Care and Patients’ Rights in the EU. Results: Our study shows policy inefficiency in 52% of the 25 EU member states included in the analysis. Addressing difficulties patients encounter while seeking reimbursement from their national health service or health insurer and reducing the number of adverse events patients experience when receiving healthcare improves policy efficiency. Conclusion: Our findings confirm that there is country-level variation in cross-border healthcare policy efficiency.

Reimagining EUrope through the Governance of Migration

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-269
Author(s):  
Maurice Stierl
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Global South ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract In its own narrative, EUrope conceives of itself as a postnational and transborder project, often through tropes of movement and the transgression of borders. In light of this imaginary, recent mass migrations provoked a serious conundrum. How would the EUropean polity reconcile the dominant idea of itself with its desire to erect barriers to cross-border movements from the “Global South”? This article inquires into tensions between, first, Hungary and, second, Italy vis-à-vis the European Commission and other EU member states over the control and regulation of unauthorized migrations in 2015 and 2018. Both examples allude to divergent and conflictual ways of governing migration, often associated with different levels of governance, particularly the supranational and the national, and different values, particularly those of tolerance and intolerance vis-à-vis the “migrant other.” While the illusion of “EUropean” and “un-EUropean” ways of governing migration is meant to be kept intact, not least through a recoding of antimigrant violence, a closer look reveals the deep entanglement of forms of migration governance that has given rise to a thoroughly EUropean border regime. This article points to the need to develop a new conceptual vocabulary in order to capture the EUropeanness of the border.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE TREATIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 160-163
Author(s):  
Sevil Aliheydar Damirli ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Guardian ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu

As in any community, coexistence and cooperation only works if it is well organized. In the EU, there are EU bodies for this purpose. We all know that living together of different members can often lead to a dispute. In the European Union, the subject of dispute can not only be the violation of primary law, but also the violation of secondary community law. In order to better understand the important role of the Commission in the EU, we examine in this paper its composition and Tasks. We know that the European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every EU activity is based on treaties that have been accepted by all EU Member States on a voluntary and democratic basis. A contract is a binding agreement between the EU member states. It sets out the objectives of the EU, the rules governing the EU institutions, the decision-making process and relations between the EU and its Member States. Therefore it is important to adhere to these treaties to carry out community policy. According to Art. 258 and 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, actions for breach of contract can be filed against a Member State by the EU Commission or another Member State (1, Art.258-259). For the European Commission, as the «Guardian of the Treaties», this option is a particularly important instrument of power politics that it can use against member states' governments that do not recognize or do not comply with the norms of Community law. In practice, the infringement procedures requested by the Commission are of particular importance for ensuring compliance with Community law by the Member States. In no other area does the Commission have so much power and independence against the Member States. Now we should take a closer look at the EU institution and especially the EU Commission.

scholarly journals La protección del crédito transfronterizo mediante la orden europea de retención de cuentas. En torno a la STJUE C-555/18 de 7 de noviembre de 2019 = The protection of the cross-border credit by the European Account Preservation Order. Regarding the ECJ Judgment C-555/18 Of 7 November of 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 444
Author(s):  
Isabel Antón Juárez
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Measure ◽  
Provisional Measure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Sobre Todo ◽  
The Way

Resumen: La orden europea de retención de cuentas es una medida muy útil que intenta facilitar el cobro de las deudas transfronterizas. La sentencia del TJUE de 7 de noviembre de 2019 es la primera sentencia sobre el Reglamento 655/2014. Reglamento europeo que instaura esta medida cautelar europea en todos los Estados miembros de la UE a excepción de Dinamarca. Esta sentencia muestra que la aplicación de la orden europea de retención de cuentas puede no resultar fácil de aplicar a los tribunales nacionales. Una de las razones es que su aplicación requiere de una combinación armónica entre lo dispuesto en el Reglamento 655/2014 y los derechos procesales nacionales. El TJUE, con esta sentencia que analizamos, intenta allanar el camino hacia la búsqueda de esa aplicación armónica y sobre todo homogénea del R. 655/2014 por los tribunales nacionales de los Estados miembros.Palabras clave: medida cautelar, orden europea de retención de cuentas, deuda transfronteriza.Abstract: The European Account Preservation Order is a very useful measure that attempts to facilite the collection of cross-border debts. The ECJ judgment of 7 of November of 2019 is the first about the Regulation 655/2014. This Regulation establishes the European precautionary measure in all EU member states with the exception of Denmark. This ruling shows that the application of the European Account Preservation Order may not be easy to apply to national courts. One of the reasons is that its application requires a harmonious combination between the provisions of Regulation 655/2014 and national procedural orders. The ECJ with this judgment that we analyze tries to pave the way towards the search for that harmonious and especially homogeneous application of R. 655/2014 by the national courts of the member states. Keywords: provisional measure, European Account Preservation Order, cross-border debt.

European Cross-Border Banking

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Dalvinder Singh
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Foreign Bank ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Counterparty Credit Risk ◽  
Bank For International Settlements ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Over Time

This chapter discusses the interconnected nature of cross-border banking between European Union (EU) Member States in terms of counterparty credit risk exposure at both country and institutional level. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) consolidated data shows how inflows and outflows of loans and deposits are impacted by events over time. The potential impact of the bank legal form is also important: significant assets held by a branch, as opposed to a subsidiary, lead to different levels of exposure to the home and host Member State. The chapter then shows that cross border banking integration across the EU Member States is not homogenous. The size of the foreign bank presence in each Member State is distinct and can potentially give rise to the risk of contagion. Notably, the size of branch presence rather than subsidiary presence in a respective member state offers an indication of the extent it’s financial system is exposed to systemic spillovers from either the home or host state.

Implementation of the Cross-border Care Directive in EU Member States: Luxembourg

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Schwebag
Keyword(s):  
Patient Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Patients Rights ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Cross

Abstract The Cross-border Care Directive sets up basic patient rights in case of cross-border healthcare. These rights concern both the country of affiliation and the country of treatment of the patient. The article briefly describes the state of the transposition in Luxembourg, with a focus on the draft act on patients’ rights and obligations. This new act on patient rights and obligations will apply without distinction to domestic and cross-border patients, thus transposing most of Luxembourg’s obligations as a country of treatment of a cross-border patient.

A Social Enterprise Company in EU Organisational Law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-35
Author(s):  
J S LIPTRAP
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Social Enterprise ◽  
Social Economy ◽  
Member States ◽  
Regulatory Issues ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Social ◽  
Proposal A

Abstract This article explores the European Parliament's July 2018 non-legislative resolution proposing to the European Commission a directive for facilitating social enterprise companies’ cross-border activities. The proposal is first situated within the context of the social economy and how the sector has grown in importance to European integration. The proposal and the European Commission's response are then examined. Although the European Commission was not convinced that Member States would be amenable to the proposal, a consensus may already exist that is sufficient to garner their support. Even if this prediction is wrong, however, it is argued that there are reasons to surmise that the proposal will likely be reassessed and ultimately successful at some future point. Finally, the proposal is viewed with a reflexive harmonisation lens. Through the analysis, regulatory issues are identified, and a solution is then suggested.

The Sentence is Only the Beginning: Hiccups in the Cross-Border Execution of Judgments in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 189-217
Author(s):  
Johannes Keiler ◽  
André Klip
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Preliminary Phase ◽  
Country Specific

Abstract The cross-border execution of judgments remains difficult in practice for European Member States. This article seeks to analyze why this may be the case with regard to four different modalities of sentences: (1) prison sentences and other measures involving deprivation of liberty, (2) conditional sentences and alternative measures, (3) financial penalties and (4) confiscation orders. Based on a comparative analysis, this article investigates the problems at stake regarding the cross-border execution of judgements in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands and identifies possible causes and explanations for these. The analysis shows that impediments to cooperation may inter alia stem from differences in national law and diverging national sentencing practices and cultures and may furthermore be related to a lack of possibilities for cooperation in the preliminary phase of a transfer. Moreover, some obstacles to cooperation may be country-specific and self-made, due to specific choices and approaches of national criminal justice systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document