Intelligent connected mobility 4.0: Regulatory concepts

The last decade reflects undeniable rapid growth in intelligent connected mobility in the European Union and internationally. Whereas automotive producers united forces to address the projected technical difficulties vis-à-vis the deployment of Intelligent Connected Vehicles through coordinated efforts and partnerships, academia is committed to clarifying fundamental new regulatory concepts to reveal potential and foreseeable legal inconsistencies in such technological development. The lack of a determination of the fundamental legal concepts or the vague and ambiguous determination of essential regulatory concepts creates overall legal uncertainty and is considered an obstacle to ensuring the smooth market penetration of Intelligent Connected Vehicles in the European Union. This article claims its contribution to existing literature by integrating further unambiguous and specific regulatory concepts in the context of the regulation of Intelligent Connected Vehicles. This article addresses: (i) the prerequisites for uniform Intelligent Connected Vehicles’ fundamental regulatory concepts based on complex retrospective analysis vis-à-vis road traffic accidents involving conventional vehicles and (ii) the prototype of regulatory concepts that need to be established and accurately distinguished for intelligent connected mobility 4.0, with the cross-border element at the European Union level.

The judicial finetuning of the EU rules determining the applicable social security legislation

The conflict rules enshrined in Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security were created six decades ago to offer those who exercise free movement rights ‘constant social security protection’. The main idea was to ensure that beneficiaries are always subject to the legislation of a single Member State and to indicate which Member State that was. Because beneficiaries were above all ‘standard’ employees working on a full-time basis for an indefinite period of time, it was initially quite easy to determine the ‘competent’ Member State. The processes of flexibilization, digitalization, enlargement and globalization, however, have posed new and often formidable challenges. In today’s dynamic labour market it is often particularly difficult to identify the applicable legislation, issues arise as regards swift and frequent switches in the applicable legislation, increased worker and company mobility may affect social security rights and problems have arisen because of the possible fraudulent use of the rules determining the applicable legislation. This contribution analyses some of the recent CJEU case law on topics like working in to or more Member States, posting, abuse and fraud, employment and/or residence outside the EU and gaps in in social security protection by EU workers. The overarching question is how, in the view of the CJEU, the classic conflict rules are to be applied so as to ensure cross-border movers continue to enjoy constant social security protection.

Progressive turnover-based tax systems and EU state aid law: Case C-562/19 P Commission v. Poland and Case C-596/19 P Commission v. Hungary

In Commission v. Poland (C-562/19) and Commission v. Hungary (C-596/19) the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that progressive tax systems based on turnover do not by definition provide selective advantages to undertakings with lower turnovers in violation of EU state aid law. The European Commission had declared a Polish tax on retailers and a Hungarian tax on advertisement incompatible with Article 107(1) TFEU because the progressive, turnover-based taxes favoured undertakings with smaller turnovers over those with larger turnovers. The General Court annulled both Commission decisions because such advantages were inherent to the content and objectives of the general tax system, which was for Poland and Hungary to define. The Court of Justice dismissed the appeals by the Commission, affirming that Member States are free, in line with their fiscal autonomy, to opt for a progressive and/or turnover-based tax system. While turnover-based corporate taxation may have market-distortive effects, the Court was right to dismiss the Commission's appeals. The principles of fiscal autonomy and legal certainty require an assessment of selectivity in light of Member States’ own definition of the content and objectives of their tax systems.

The employment status of food delivery riders in Europe and the UK: Self-employed or worker?

Online platforms are revolutionizing our daily lives in an attempt to make it easier by offering innovative services. They also have introduced radical new business models which provide a new type of flexible working, facilitating employment. While platforms are revolutionary vehicles, they also denied workers status, resulting in food delivery riders facing precarious working conditions. The current regulatory framework is underdeveloped and unable to guarantee basic social rights to platform workers, except for Spain. At the same time, delivery workers are fighting to get some form of recognition and protection. Consequently, courts have been increasingly requested to determine the riders’ legal status. However, courts are struggling in characterizing those employment relationships resulting in disparities. For instance, the Cour de Cassation in France has established that an employer-employee relationship existed while the UK High Court denied worker status to Deliveroo riders. This lack of harmonization and different rulings could result in the application of EU rules in some countries but not others. It might, therefore, be time for the EU to start recognizing and regulating these jobs to offer better worker protections.

Is the assessment under Article 8 ECHR for migrants justifiable?

The paper analyses the protection granted under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights for different immigration cases. The way the European Court of Human Rights determines compliance with Article 8 for settled migrants differs from the way the Court determines compliance for foreign nationals seeking entry or requesting to regularize their irregular migration status. The paper argues that the European Court of Human Rights application of different principles when determining a States’ positive and negative obligations is contradicting its own case law. It also argues that the absence of justification grounds for the refusal of foreign nationals who are seeking entry lacks legitimacy. By treating all immigration cases under Article 8(2) the paper suggests that the differentiation between cases should be based on how a refusal of entry or an expulsion would impact on the family life. The paper also suggests that more consideration should be given towards the insiders interests when balancing the individual rights against the state's interests. These changes would lead to a more consistent and fair case law and generate a more convergent practice by the states which will increase the precedent value of the Court's judgements.

Foreign experience in prosecutor's participation institution development in Kazakhstan civil procedure

The question of the purpose and functions of the participation of the prosecutor in the civil process is relevant, since the idea of them helps to increase the efficiency of his activities. This article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the possibility of applying foreign experience in the prosecutor's participation in institution development in Kazakhstan civil procedure. The article used both general scientific methods of cognition – logical, analysis, and synthesis – and private scientific methods – formal legal, system analysis. It analysed the various points of view on the issue of the legal status and functions of the participation of the prosecutor in the civil process. The scientific novelty is determined by the fact that functions describe the procedural status of the subjects of civil procedure, allowing the streamlining of the multilateral procedural activities of state bodies, officials and other persons involved in civil proceedings. The practical significance of the study is determined by the fact that its results can be used for in-depth research of the functions of the prosecutor in civil proceedings.

Coherence in law: A way to stimulate the transition towards a circular economy? A critical analysis of the European Commission's aspiration to achieve full coherence between chemicals legislation and waste legislation – and product legislation

This article examines the (lack of) coherence between the legislative fields that govern the life cycle of materials and products and thus are relevant to the transition towards a circular economy in the EU: EU chemicals, product and waste legislation. After examining the notion of coherence in law, it provides insight into the role of coherence in EU chemicals, product and waste legislation in light of the transition towards a circular economy. The article examines the (possible) issues that exist at the interface between these three legislative fields by reviewing literature and EU policy documents and looks into the relation between these issues and the (lack of) coherence between EU chemicals, product and waste legislation. It is argued that, when looked at in light of the transition towards a circular economy, several issues might be related to a lack of coherence. Nonetheless, the aspiration to achieve full coherence should be looked at critically.

The inadequate approach of Directive (EU) 2019/771 towards the circular economy

The current social context (overconsumption, planned obsolescence, etc.) will be presented in this paper to illustrate the need for the European Consumer Law to be more aligned with sustainability objectives. To this end, the relatively recent Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods will be analysed to conclude that it does not reflect any of the guidelines contained in the two Action Plans for the circular economy (2015 and 2020). Despite the fact that this Directive (EU) 2019/771 aims at full harmonization, a certain margin of manoeuvre is (fortunately) granted in favour of the Member States. Finally, a reference to the possibility of the market moving towards circularity (as there is now a greater demand for sustainable products) will also be made.

The Tango Between Art.17(3) Brussels Ibis and Art.6(4)(b) Rome I under the Beat of Package Travel Directive

Package travel tourists are explicitly protected as consumers under Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, but not under Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis since it does not even mention the term ‘package travel’. Such discrepancy is widened with the replacement of Directive 90/314 by Directive 2015/2302 with enlarged notion of package travel. As regards protecting package travel tourists as consumers with favorable jurisdiction and applicable law rules, this article argues that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis is two steps behind Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. In order to close the gap, a uniform concept of package travel should be given. To this end, it is suggested that Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis should adopt the notion of package travel employed in Article 6(4)(b) Rome I. Despite this, these two provisions only cover packages containing transport, as an exception of transport contracts. Packages not including transport do not fall under the exception of transport contracts. Since all package travel contracts should be protected as consumer contracts, regardless of containing transport or not, it is more logical to delete the exception of transport contracts and create a separate provision to protect package travel contracts as consumer contracts.