Towards Harmonised Frameworks for the Liquidation of Non-Systemically Relevant Credit Institutions in the EU?

As part of its ongoing consultation on the European crisis management and deposit insurance framework currently available for the management of bank failures within the EU generally and the Banking Union in particular, the European Commission has called for the respondents’ views as to the need for further harmonisation of resolution arrangements for banks that currently do not qualify for resolution under the auspices of the Single Resolution Mechanism. In this respect, the consultation takes up a broader discussion on the need for harmonised bank insolvency regimes within the EU, which also ties in with an earlier international debate on the functional characteristics of optimal bank insolvency regimes initiated by international standard setters in the early 2000s. Against this backdrop, the paper analyses the case for further reform, and identifies potential impediments (both technical and political) to be expected in this regard. It argues that, while a full harmonisation of resolution powers and the centralisation of decision-making powers can be expected to address relevant concerns regarding the status quo, a comprehensive harmonisation can also be expected to meet with substantial political opposition, which in turn requires a better understanding of the functional requirements to be met by less ambitious reforms.

DIGITAL CONTENT CONTRACTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: STATUS QUO AND WAYS FURTHER

One of the effects of the COVID-19 crisis is the significant acceleration of e-commerce. The number of companies and the varieties of products in the online markets increased, as well as the numbers of consumers and consumers’ segments diversification. The e-commerce in pandemic times offered clear benefits and opportunities for the consumers. It also created situations where the lack of confidence in e-commerce may intensify. This comes from the consumers’ uncertainty on their key contractual rights and it is particularly a case when it comes to the contracts for supply of digital content and digital services. The European Union considered that legal certainty for consumers (and businesses) will increase by full harmonisation of key regulatory issues and that this would lead to growth of the potentials the e-commerce has on the common market. Aiming to achieve a genuine digital single market the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament in May 2019 have adopted the Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services (the "Digital Content Directive") and the Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods (the "Sales of Goods Directive") that regulate the supply of digital content and digital services and sale of goods with digital elements, respectively. Both directives lay down specific rules on the conformity of digital content or a digital service i.e., goods with digital elements with the contract, remedies in the cases of a lack of conformity or a failure to supply, as well as the modalities for the exercise of those remedies. The paper analyses the mechanisms for regulation of the contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services and the specific rights and obligations of the parties to these contracts. The main objective of the research is to assess to which extent these mechanisms are novelty in the European Consumer Law and to examine the obstacles that the application of consumer law to digital content contracts may encounter.

The Unfair Contract Terms Directive

The harmonisation of consumer law in Europe has been an important objective within the EU. Efforts have focused not only on improving the functioning of the internal market, but also on securing a high level of consumer protection in the Member States. With regard to consumer contracts, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive has come to play a key role, not least due to the case law of the European Court of Justice in this area in recent years. This article examines the need for an unfairness test of standard contracts and argues that the directive can be expanded to also include individually negotiated contract terms, and terms that relate to the main subject matter of the contract, the adequacy of the price, and changed circumstances. Such amendments would result in a greater correspondence between EU law and Swedish and Nordic law. Although full harmonisation is not possible in the short term, I will argue that a revision should point in this direction. However, I will begin my account with a presentation of the directive and how it has been implemented in Swedish law.

Health Union and Bioethical Union: Does Hippocrates Require Socrates?

Health Union raises bioethical questions ranging from resource allocation and risk balancing to respect for specific bioethical prohibitions, as an analysis of the European Parliament’s proposal for such a union shows. To date, European Union (EU) health law has succeeded in avoiding or circumscribing such questions, leading to the limited and inconsistent patchwork of EU bioethical provisions we currently have. Can this continue with a Health Union? This article argues that whilst full harmonisation is neither possible nor desirable, Health Union should entail a deepening of bioethical integration. This should occur via a robust legislative process involving citizen panels and ethical advisory group input; if Treaty change occurs, this process could be included in primary law. This is so for three reasons. First, addressing Health Union’s unavoidable bioethical questions coherently and openly reduces the risk of inadequate protection and, conversely, of interest groups “smuggling in” unsupported answers. Second, this will ensure respect for primary law, including Article 2 TEU and Article 3 CFR. Third, EU biolaw offers a middle ground between limited national and weak international human rights law on bioethics, whilst also consolidating European identity.

Notification data and criteria during a large Q-fever epidemic reassessed

From 2007 to 2010, the largest reported Q-fever epidemic occurred in the Netherlands with 4026 notified laboratory-confirmed cases. During the course of the epidemic, health-seeking behaviour changed and awareness among health professionals increased. Changes in laboratory workflows were implemented. The aim of this study was to analyse how these changes instigated adjustments of notification criteria and how these adjustments affected the monitoring and interpretation of the epidemic. We used the articles on laboratory procedures related to the epidemic and a description of the changes that were made to the notification criteria. We compared the output of a regional laboratory with notifications to the regional Public Health Service and the national register of infectious diseases. We compared the international notification criteria for acute Q-fever. Screening with ELISA IgM phase II and PCR was added to the diagnostic workflow. In the course of the epidemic, serology often revealed a positive IgG/IgM result although cases were not infected recently. With increasing background seroprevalence, the presence of IgM antibodies can only be suggestive for acute Q-fever and has to be confirmed either by seroconversion of IgG or a positive PCR result. Differences in sero-epidemiology make it unlikely that full harmonisation of notification criteria between countries is feasible.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Harmonisation

When we talk about harmonisation, we may mean quite different things. There is a close, yet often unclear, relationship between minimum harmonisation and mutual recognition on the one hand, and between full harmonisation and the country of origin principle on the other hand. This paper will discuss harmonisation in relation to these other regulatory models with, among others, the Tobacco Products and Services Directives as illustrations. Moreover, many years after Tobbaco Advertising I and II it remains entirely unclear how minimum harmonisation instruments must be designed in order to be lawful. This paper proposes a consistent reading of the case law on what is called legislative minimum harmonisation based on Article 114 TFEU. It is also shown that the Court of Justice of the European Union applies a lenient standard to more stringent national measures under what is called constitutional minimum harmonisation based on competences for social policy and the environment.