Search

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, virtual care has emerged as a promising option to support primary care delivery. However, despite the potential, adoption rates remained low. With the outbreak of COVID-19, it has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of care delivery. As we progress into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need and opportunity to review the impact remote care had in primary care settings and reassess its potential future role. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of General Practitioners (GPs) / Family Doctors on a.) use of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic; b.) perceived impact on quality and safety of care; c.) essential factors for high-quality and sustainable use of virtual care in the future. METHODS: Online cross-sectional questionnaire of GPs, distributed across 20 countries. The survey was hosted in Qualtrics and distributed using email, social media, and the researchers' personal contact networks. General Practitioners were eligible for the survey if they were working mainly in primary care during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed for quantitative variables, and relationships between the use of virtual care and perceptions on impact on quality and safety of care, and participants' characteristics, may be explored. Qualitative data (free-text responses) will be analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Data collection took place from June to September 2020. As of this manuscript's submission, a total of 1,605 GP respondents participated in the questionnaire. Further data analysis is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of virtual care technologies, perceived impact on quality and safety of care and essential factors for high-quality future use. In addition, a description of the underlying factors that influence this adoption and perceptions, in both individual GP/FD characteristics, and the context in which they work, will be provided. While the COVID-19 pandemic may prove the first great stress test of the capabilities, capacity, and robustness of digital systems currently in use, remote care will likely remain an increasingly common approach in the future. There is an imperative to identify the main lessons from this unexpected transformation and use them to inform policy decisions and health service design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: DERR1-10.2196/30099.

Since the 2016 IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, FTU operations have been mainly devoted to experiments on runaway electrons and investigations into a tin liquid limiter; other experiments have involved studies of elongated plasmas and dust. The tearing mode onset in the high density regime has been studied by means of the linear resistive code MARS, and the highly collisional regimes have been investigated. New diagnostics, such as a runaway electron imaging spectroscopy system for in-flight runaway studies and a triple Cherenkov probe for the measurement of escaping electrons, have been successfully installed and tested, and new capabilities of the collective Thomson scattering and the laser induced breakdown spectroscopy diagnostics have been explored.

With the aim to establish advantages and limitations of techniques commonly employed for material characterization of Cultural Heritage objects, we performed comparative measurements by LIBS, X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) on four typologies of materials. The samples include: 1) egg tempera pigments on gypsum ground; 2) oil paints on gypsum ground with light or dark imprimitura; 3) fragments of decorated glazed ceramic, and 4) ancient Roman coins. The optimal choice of an analytical instrument depends also on the sample type, its dimensions and transportability, and for these reasons our measurements involved two types of instruments per technique. The LIBS probing was done by a table-top instrument (on coins and ceramics) and by a stand-off system at distance of 9.5 m (on pigments). The XRF measurements involved a laboratory micro-XRF system (on coins) and a portable instrument (on pigments and ceramics). The PIXE analyses were obtained by TOP-IMPLART accelerator at ENEA Frascati, using a low energy line that produces the proton beam with adjustable energy between 3 and 7 MeV (used for the pigments and ceramics), and by INFN-LABEC system with proton energy of 3 MeV and complemented by Elastic Backscattering Spectrometry (EBS), for coin samples. Results relevant to quantitative analysis of major sample constituents, identification of trace components, and stratigraphy are reported and discussed for the examined typologies of samples. © 2018 Elsevier B.V.

With the aim to establish advantages and limitations of techniques commonly employed for material characterization of Cultural Heritage objects, we performed comparative measurements by LIBS, X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) on four typologies of materials. The samples include: 1) egg tempera pigments on gypsum ground; 2) oil paints on gypsum ground with light or dark imprimitura; 3) fragments of decorated glazed ceramic, and 4) ancient Roman coins. The optimal choice of an analytical instrument depends also on the sample type, its dimensions and transportability, and for these reasons our measurements involved two types of instruments per technique. The LIBS probing was done by a table-top instrument (on coins and ceramics) and by a stand-off system at distance of 9.5 m (on pigments). The XRF measurements involved a laboratory micro-XRF system (on coins) and a portable instrument (on pigments and ceramics). The PIXE analyses were obtained by TOP-IMPLART accelerator at ENEA Frascati, using a low energy line that produces the proton beam with adjustable energy between 3 and 7 MeV (used for the pigments and ceramics), and by INFN-LABEC system with proton energy of 3 MeV and complemented by Elastic Backscattering Spectrometry (EBS), for coin samples. Results relevant to quantitative analysis of major sample constituents, identification of trace components, and stratigraphy are reported and discussed for the examined typologies of samples.

Result of the Research Project entitled ‘Cross-border Family Law Matters before national Courts and CJEU’, funded by the European Commission’s Justice Programme (GA - JUST/2014/JCOO/AG/CIVI/7722)

U članku se analiziraju procesnopravni aspekti priznanja i izvršenja arbitražnih odluka koje su poništene u državi gdje su donesene. Rad se koncentrira na relativno nedavno odlučene slučajeve u SAD i Nizozemskoj, u kojima su sudovi primijenili ponešto drugačiji pristup od onoga koji je primijenila sudska praksa u Francuskoj prije više godina. Pravno rezoniranje francuske sudske prakse kod priznanja poništenih arbitražnih odluka temelji se na primjeni domaćega prava o priznanju i izvršenju arbitražnih odluka. Naime, domaće pravo Francuske povoljnije je od režima priznanja prema Newyorškoj konvenciji o priznanju i izvršenju stranih arbitražnih odluka iz 1958. Sudovi u SAD i Nizozemskoj nedavno su primijenili drugačiji pristup prilikom priznanja i izvršenja poništenih odluka. Sudovi u ovim državama preispitivali su sudske presude kojima su poništene arbitražne odluke te odlučili kako se u određenim okolnostima može otkloniti učinkovitost takvih presuda i priznati odnosno izvršiti poništena arbitražna odluka unatoč odluke o poništenju koju je donio nadležni sud u državi sjedišta arbitraže. Iako pristupi sudova u SAD i Nizozemskoj imaju nekih sličnosti, ipak se pravno rezoniranje sudova u ove dvije jurisdikcije bitno razlikuje. U svojoj odluci iz studenoga 2017. Vrhovni sud Nizozemske (pre)naglašava iznimni karakter okolnosti koje bi opravdale priznanje i izvršenje poništene arbitražne odluke, tako da bi se na prvi pogled mogao steći utisak kako je ponešto ublažena razlika ovoga pristupa sa pravnim rezoniranjem sudova u SAD. Međutim, detaljna analiza ova dva pristupa ukazuje da suštinske razlike ostaju. U članku se iznosi kritika općenito priznanja ili ovrhe poništenih arbitražnih odluka. Osobito se kritizira različitost pravnih pristupa na kojima se u pojedinim državama temelji priznaje poništenih arbitražnih odluka kada je priznanje jednostrano, tj., ne temelji se na nekoj međunarodnoj konvenciji kao što je Europska (Ženevska) konvencija o međunarodnoj trgovačkoj arbitraži iz 1962. U članku se nadalje sugerira postavljanje međunarodno prihvaćenih standarda u interesu pravne sigurnosti i predvidivosti, ukoliko je među arbitražnim stručnjacima prevladavajuće mišljene o načelnoj prihvatljivosti priznanja i izvršenja poništenih arbitražnih odluka., This contribution examines the procedural aspects of the enforcement of arbitral awards that were set aside in the jurisdiction where they were rendered. It focuses on recent cases in the United States and the Netherlands, which adopted a different line of reasoning than the approach taken by French judiciary many years ago. According to the latter, an arbitral award set aside in the ‘country of origin’ may be enforced in France in reliance on national law. Namely, French law on enforcement is more favourable than the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral. The courts in the United States and in the Netherlands in recent cases have taken a different approach. They examine the judgment setting aside the award and ignore the effects of the annulment in certain circumstances. Even though there are some common denominators, there are substantial differences between the line of reasoning of the courts in the US and the Netherlands. They remain distinct although a more recent decision of the Dutch Supreme Court emphasises an exceptional nature of such enforcement so that the difference between the two approaches may seem somewhat mitigated. However, a closer look reveals that substantial discrepancies between the courts in these two jurisdictions have remained. The article provides for a critical view on the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards in general. In particular, it points to drawbacks of variety of unilateral approaches amongst various jurisdictions. Additionally, it suggests the development of internationally accepted standards for the sake of legal certainty and predictability of arbitration, should the acceptance of the enforcement of annulled arbitral appear a majority view amongst academics and arbitration practitioners., Diese Arbeit analysiert prozessrechtliche Aspekte der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Schiedssprüchen, welche im Land, nach dessen Recht sie ergangen sind, aufgehoben wurden. Die Arbeit fokussiert sich auf die vor kurzem beschlossenen Fälle in den Niederlanden und den USA, an welche die Gerichte anders als die in Frankreich vor einigen Jahren herangegangen sind. In Frankreich dürfen die Gerichte bei der Anerkennung aufgehobener ausländischer Schiedssprüche das inländische Recht über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung der Schiedssprüche anwenden. Französisches Recht bietet nämlich ein günstigeres Umfeld im Vergleich zu dem im Jahr 1958 erlassenen New Yorker Übereinkommen über die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Schiedssprüche. Die Gerichte in den USA und den Niederlanden haben vor kurzem eine andere Vorgehensweise bei der Anerkennung und Vollstreckung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche gewählt. Sie haben die Rechtssprüche, durch welche die Schiedssprüche aufgehoben wurden, überprüft, und haben beschlossen, dass man unter bestimmten Umständen den aufgehobenen Schiedsspruch anerkennen kann. Obwohl die Gerichte in den USA und den Niederlanden ähnliche Vorgehensweisen bei ihren Rechtssprüchen ausgewählt haben, gibt es trotzdem wesentliche Unterschiede in deren Argumentationen. Aus dem im Jahr 2017 gefassten Rechtsspruch des Obersten Gerichtshofs der Niederlande geht hervor, dass die Umstände, welche die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung des aufgehobenen Schiedsspruches als Ausnahme anzusehen sind, so dass man den Eindruck bekommen könnte, dass die Argumentationen dieser Gerichte ähnlich sind. Nähere Analyse zeigt aber, dass es wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen ihnen gibt. In der Arbeit wird die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche kritisiert. Insbesondere kritisiert man unterschiedliche Vorgehensweisen für die Anerkennung aufgehobener Schiedssprüche in einzelnen Staaten, wenn die Anerkennung einseitig ist, beziehungsweise wenn sie sich auf keine völkerrechtliche Konventionen stützt, wie zum Beispiel auf der Europäischen Konvention über Internationale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. In der Arbeit wird vorgeschlagen, dass man völkerrechtliche Standards in diesem Bereich festsetzen sollte, falls sowohl Akademiker als auch Schiedsgerichtsexperte die Ansicht vertreten, dass man aufgehobene Schiedssprüche anerkennen und vollstrecken sollte., Nello scritto si analizzano gli aspetti processuali del riconoscimento e dell'esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali che sono annullate nello stato dove sono state emesse. Il lavoro s'incentra sui casi recentemente risolti negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi, dove le corti hanno adottato impostazioni in parte diverse rispetto a quella della giurisprudenza in Francia diversi anni fa. Il ragionamento giuridico della giurisprudenza francese in occasione del riconoscimento delle decisioni arbitrali annullate si basa sull’applicazione del diritto interno sul riconoscimento e sull’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali. Precisamente, il diritto interno francese è più conveniente rispetto al regime di riconoscimento in forza della Convenzione di New York per il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle sentenze arbitrali del 1958. Negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi recentemente si sono adottati approcci diversi in occasione del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni annullate. Le corti in questi stati hanno vagliato le sentenze giudiziali con le quali sono state annullate le sentenze arbitrali e hanno deciso che in determinate circostanze si possa rimuovere l’efficacia di tali decisioni e riconoscere ovvero dare esecuzione alla decisione arbitrale annullata a prescindere dalla decisione sull’annullamento che è stata emessa dal tribunale competente nel paese sede dell’arbitrato. Benché le impostazioni delle corti negli USA e nei Paesi Bassi hanno alcune similitudini, nondimeno il ragionamento giuridico delle corti in queste due giurisdizioni si differenzia notevolmente. Nella propria decisione del novembre 2017 la Corte suprema dei Paesi Bassi evidenzia (troppo) il carattere eccezionale delle circostanze che giustificherebbero il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione della decisione arbitrale annullata, sì che di primo acchito si potrebbe avere l’impressione che la differenza di questo approccio rispetto all’argomentazione giurisprudenziale statunitense non sia poi così netta. Tuttavia, un’analisi dettagliata di queste due impostazioni dimostra l’esistenza di differenze di fondo. Nel lavoro si espone una critica generale al riconoscimento ed all’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali annullate. In particolare, si critica la diversità di impostazioni giuridiche sulle quali nei singoli stati si fonda il riconoscimento delle decisioni arbitrali annullate allorquando il riconoscimento è unilaterale, e cioè si fonda su di una Convenzione internazionale come la Convenzione europea (di Ginevra) sull’arbitrato commerciale internazionale del 1962. Nel lavoro, inoltre, si suggerisce la creazione di standard internazionali riconosciuti al fine di garantire la certezza del diritto e la prevedibilità, qualora tra gli esperti di arbitrato sia invalso il parere di massima sull’accettabilità del riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni arbitrali annullate.

Although there are some exceptions, in general, the Dutch courts are very well versed in applying the New York Convention. Besides, the Dutch arbitration statutory law, which has been recently revised, presents significant improvements regarding implementation of the New York Convention in Netherlands. This chapter, while indicating the changes brought by the new law, also provides extended discussions of cases that relate to the application of the New York Convention. Vesna Lazić is Associate Professor on International Commercial Arbitration at the Utrecht University and a senior researcher in International Commercial Arbitration and Private International Law at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut. In 2013 she was appointed professor of the European Civil Procedure International at the University of Rijeka. Dispute settlement, especially international litigation and commercial arbitration, private international law, insolvency and commercial law are the fields of her particular interest and expertise. This contribution is based on the research concluded on 1 March 2015 so that the literature and relevant cases published after this date are not considered.

This chapter will discuss the relationship between the Brussels Ibis Regulation and other international conventions which regulate the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards in civil and commercial matters. Since a number of such conventions are in force, a possible collision with the Brussels Ibis Regulation may occur. As to the preceding Brussels I Regulation, the Court of Justice has already addressed the problem of conventions that may concur with the Regulation. This raises the question whether this case law remains untouched by the entry into force of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. Also, the relationship of Brussels Ibis with the Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements of 2005 will be discussed, since this Convention has not been signed by Member States but instead by the Council on behalf of the European Union. Thus, a different approach to a possible collision between the two instrument may be required. Lastly, the position of the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958 will be dealt with. Though explicitly excluded from the substantive scope of Brussels Ibis, arbitration has still been subject to some debate vis-a-vis its position in light of the Brussels I regime. The recent Gazprom case is an interesting example in this respect, which will be looked at in more detail.

One of the pillars of international commercial litigation is party autonomy as it has developed over the past fifty years. In Europe, the Brussels regime established considerable freedom for parties to select the court that would have jurisdiction. The enforceability of choice of court agreements has gained ground in many countries worldwide, and the freedom to select the competent forum is exercised widely in commercial practice. Early in 2015, the new Brussels Ibis Regulation became applicable, altering the rules on choice of court. These amendments, particularly the exception to the lis pendens rule, aim at increasing the efficiency of choice of court agreements and at preventing torpedo litigation tactics. This year also marks the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention that had been adopted ten years earlier. The present paper explores the concept and development of the party autonomy paradigm from the perspective of different disciplines, and discusses the empirical evidence available on the use of party autonomy in commercial practice. It also examines the main changes brought about by the Brussels I recast and the entry into force of the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and analyses these against the background of the party autonomy paradigm, as well as their contribution to effective litigation.

Laser induced plasma formation on or inside liquids is characterized by large energy losses due to liquid evaporation. Ablation of a liquid surface is followed by hydro-dynamical instabilities and splashing. Plasma generation inside bulk liquids is affected by the light absorption and scattering, and it is accompanied by intense pressure waves and successive vapor cavitation. Efficient LIBS analyses in presence of liquids require different considerations; the examples are reported and discussed in following. © 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Since the coming into force of the Charter as primary law of the EU, Article 47 CFR is ‘the reference standard’ when the Court deals with issues of ffective judicial protection. However, the general principle of effective judicial protection existed already for some 25 years, developed in the case law of the Union courts. While the interpretation and application of Article 47 build upon this case law, a number of changes can be pointed out. What was formerly under the loose umbrella of effective judicial protection and related principles is now split over three different articles of the Charter. On the one hand, these provisions are partly overlapping; on the other hand, their configuration also leads to a lacuna. This gap is bridged by the unwritten general principles such as the rights of defence. When compared to the pre-Charter era, Article 52(1) CFR structures the review of limitations of fundamental rights in a more compelling fashion. Specifically for Article 47 CFR, which has to be interpreted in harmony with Article 6 ECHR, the implicit limitations of Article 6 ECHR constitute a potential trap of ‘double limitation’. Article 47 may be relied upon by individuals alleging a violation of rights and freedoms conferred upon them by EU law. However, the principle of effective judicial protection is broader in application, providing protection against acts that adversely affect an individual’s interests. In so far as the interpretation of Article 47 would not reach the same scope and level of protection as the general principle of effective judicial protection, this principle should continue to apply.