Does it pay to be a faithful investor? A risk-based approach performance analysis of Islamic funds vs UCITS schemes

PurposeThis paper empirically investigates the performance of Islamic funds, which have been praised for weathering the 2008 financial storm relatively well and compares it to a European product designed to protect the most vulnerable of investors, UCITS funds.Design/methodology/approachThis paper builds on 128 time-series regressions using various factor models to analyse the risk-return relationship of 242 Islamic and UCITS funds relative to a market benchmark, over a 10-year period starting January 2006, to capture severe bear and bull market conditions.FindingsIslamic funds do not face a competitive disadvantage arising from their strict compliance with Shariah principles, and their performance and investment style is relatively similar to UCITS schemes.Practical implicationsIslamic funds represent a low risk investment due to their very mild betas. Therefore, when forming part of a diversified portfolio, they can act as a hedging tool against adverse market movements.Social implicationsMuslim investors are not punished relative to conventional retail investors when following their own beliefs. Other investors can consider Islamic funds in their portfolio allocation, especially those who seek socially and ethically responsible investments.Originality/valueThis paper fills a lacuna in the existing literature, because the sample is made up of Islamic funds established worldwide and includes not only equity, but also fixed income and mixed allocation funds.

Die Zweckmäßigkeit der arzneimittelrechtlichen Gefährdungshaftung

In this doctoral thesis, the medicinal product law strict liability from § 84 AMG is evaluated with regard to its expediency. First, the institute of strict liability is comprehensively explained. The focus of the work is the problem of proving causality. It becomes clear in the work that even the presumption of causality from § 84 para. 2 AMG does not solve the problems of proof. The author argues for a lowering of the standard of proof and cites European law arguments for this. In the author's opinion, the presumption of causality from § 84 Para. 2 AMG contradicts the European Product Liability Directive, which, in the author's opinion, must guide medicinal product liability.

Democracy, courts and proportionality analysis in Asia

While proportionality analysis (PA) may have originated from Germany, it has not remained a European product. PA has been locally transplanted across Anglophone nations, found in mixed legal systems that are rooted in the common law and even adapted in parts of Latin America and Asia. This article explains why PA is flourishing in parts of Asia – for example, South Korea and Taiwan – and why it is faltering in other countries, such as Singapore and China, where the absence of PA can be attributed to the non-fulfilment of Kant’s first prerequisite for perpetual peace: a republican government (liberal democracy).

Products in a Pandemic: Liability for Medical Products and the Fight against COVID-19

A multitude of medical products are being developed and produced as part of efforts to tackle COVID-19. They are varied in nature and range from test kits to tracing apps, protective equipment, ventilators, medicines and, of course, vaccines. The design, testing and manufacture of many of these products differs from production in normal times due to the urgency of the situation and the rapid increase in demand created by the pandemic. This article considers the legal issues arising as a result of the production of emergency products, particularly from a products liability perspective. To what extent do existing concepts under the European Product Liability Directive, such as defect, causation and the various defences, permit the pandemic to be taken into account when a Court is considering issues of liability? What is the impact on liability of the modified regulatory regime? In light of that discussion, the case for alternative responses is examined from a comparative and European perspective, including the issue of Government indemnities for the manufacturers of products, legal exemptions from liability and alternative no-fault compensation schemes.

Baulemente des unionalen Produktzulassungsrechts

Zusammenfassung Das CoC ist ein zentrales Element auf dem Weg zur Kfz-Zulassung. Eine „gültige (…) Übereinstimmungsbescheinigung“ i. S. d. Art. 26 der Kraftfahrzeug-Rahmenrichtlinie 2007/46/EG (RRL) ist deren Voraussetzung, ihr Fehlen kann u. U. Grund für die Aufhebung der Zulassung sein. Will man den Begriff der „Gültigkeit“ bestimmen, ist auf die Funktion des CoC abzustellen. Dieses erfüllt im unionalen Fahrzeug-Zulassungssystem eine Brückenfunktion zwischen EG-Typgenehmigung und Zulassungsentscheidung. Daher ist es notwendig, eine phasenspezifische Fehlerfolgenlehre zu entwickeln, die die einzelnen Elemente (Richtlinie – EG-Typgenehmigung – CoC – Zulassung) sinnvoll aufeinander und mit den jeweiligen Kompetenzen der beteiligten Behörden abstimmt. Die unionsrechtlich angeordnete Einweisung der mitgliedstaatlichen Behörden in bestimmte Zuständigkeiten darf durch den Gültigkeitsbegriff nicht überspielt werden. Drei zentrale Elemente sind insoweit zu benennen: Lediglich die Genehmigungsbehörden besitzen die hinreichende technische Kompetenz zur Beurteilung der Genehmigungskonformität. Die Genehmigungsbehörden verfügen über ein Arsenal an Möglichkeiten, auf die Nichtkonformität von Fahrzeugen zu reagieren, die von einem Rückruf über eine Änderung der Genehmigung bis zu ihrer Aufhebung reichen können. Die EG-Typgenehmigung macht die Fahrzeuge in Verbindung mit dem CoC im gesamten Binnenmarkt verkehrsfähig. Daher kann sie von den Behörden und Gerichten anderer Mitgliedstaaten grundsätzlich nicht, etwa durch Verweigerung der Zulassung, in Frage gestellt werden. Dieses Ergebnis darf ebenfalls nicht auf mittelbarem Wege erreicht werden, indem dem CoC eine Erklärung über die Richtlinienkonformität entnommen wird und die Zulassungs- oder Marktüberwachungsbehörde eine Ungültigkeit des CoC daraus herleitet, dass die betroffenen Kraftfahrzeuge gegen die Richtlinienanforderungen verstießen und das CoC insofern eine Falschaussage träfe. Die Kompetenz zu dieser Aussage ist in den Händen der Genehmigungsbehörde konzentriert. Die Übereinstimmungsbescheinigung (CoC) ist keine privatrechtliche Erklärung, sondern die Erklärung eines Privaten im Rahmen einer öffentlich-rechtlichen Regelungsstruktur. Für diese Erklärung ist ein Fehlerregime zu entwickeln, das die Fehlerhaftigkeit nicht kurzerhand mit der Ungültigkeit gleichsetzt. Aus alledem folgt, dass lediglich formelle Fehler und offensichtlich erkennbare Abweichungen von der EG-Typgenehmigung zur Ungültigkeit des CoC mit der Folge des Wegfalls der Zulassungspflicht führen können. Dieses restriktive Verständnis der Ungültigkeitsbedingungen liegt nicht an dem begrenzten Aussagegehalt des CoC, sondern resultiert im Wesentlichen aus dem Erfordernis, das durch die Richtlinie etablierte Fahrzeug-Zulassungssystem funktionsfähig zu halten. Elements of European product safety law: The certificate of conformity and its validity as established by the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC A valid certificate of conformity (coc) constitutes a core element of the European type-approval system for motor vehicles established by the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC and the new Regulation 2018/858. It is a prerequisite for the obligation of the national authorities to register such vehicles and let them enter into service. Therefore, it is crucial to determine the meaning of the term “a valid certificate of conformity” (Art. 26). As this declaration issued by a private entity is not governed by private law but forms a part of a public law scheme, the interpretation has to take this role into account. In the European type-approval system, the coc bridges the gap between the type approval on the one hand and the vehicle’s registration in the respective EU country. An interpretation of the term “valid” has to take into account the interplay between the different elements of this system (directive – type approval – coc – registration), especially the distinct competencies of the authorities involved. Particularly the approval authorities’ competences must not be hampered by an extensive interpretation of the term “valid”: Only the type approval authorities possess the necessary technical capabilities to assess the conformity of a vehicle with the requirements of the directive. Only the type approval authorities command a variety of powers to tackle the non-conformity of vehicles. The EU type approval together with a coc is the instrument to grant access to the EU market. Therefore, the type approval must not be questioned by the authorities or courts of another EU country. For the same reasons the validity of the coc cannot be questioned for reasons of non-conformity with EU type-approval requirements. For these reasons, only formal mistakes and obvious deviations from the type approval may render a coc invalid, with the result that a vehicle may not be registrated. This restrictive interpretation is mainly based upon the requirement to keep the type approval system working.

Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Pilot Phase—Comparability over Flexibility?

The main goal of the European product environmental footprint (PEF) method is to increase comparability of environmental impacts of products within certain product categories by decreasing flexibility and therefore achieving reproducibility of results. Comparability is supposed to be further increased by developing product category specific rules (PEFCRs). The aim of this paper is to evaluate if the main goal of the PEF method has been achieved. This is done by a comprehensive analysis of the PEF guide, the current PEFCR guide, the developed PEFCRs, as well as the insights gained from participating in the pilot phase. The analysis reveals that the PEF method as well as its implementation in PEFCRs are not able to guarantee fair comparability due to shortcomings related to the (1) definition of product performance; (2) definition of the product category; (3) definition and determination of the representative product; (4) modeling of electricity; (5) requirements for the use of secondary data; (6) circular footprint formula; (7) life cycle impact assessment methods; and (8) approach to prioritize impact categories. For some of these shortcomings, recommendations for improvement are provided. This paper demonstrates that the PEF method has to be further improved to guarantee fair comparability.