Search

This essay examines how EU criminal law, which regulates certain aspects of criminal procedural law of the twenty-seven EU member states, addresses the situation of persons with disabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. EU law on victims and on suspects and accused persons (partially) addresses disability through the prism of “vulnerability.” This essay argues that associating persons with disabilities with “vulnerability” can be stigmatizing. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires that persons with disabilities have effective access to justice and receive appropriate accommodations, does not link these rights to a prior recognition of “vulnerability.” Even though the EU is a party to the CRPD, the 2013 Recommendation from the European Commission on Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Persons Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings, frames disability in terms of “vulnerability.” In contrast, parts of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive address the situation of individuals with disabilities without using the language of vulnerability.

There is currently no empirical evidence on whether or not the use of childlike sex dolls would prevent or encourage sexual abuse of children. Yet, more and more countries prohibit or contemplate prohibiting these objects, and the EU Commission also announced it would consider this issue in the context of the fight against child sexual abuse. This article describes and compares the laws and policies of five countries in which childlike sex dolls are currently banned: Australia, Germany, Denmark, Norway and the UK. These countries have adopted different approaches to dealing with the newly emerging phenomenon of childlike sex dolls: While in Australia, Germany and Denmark dedicated laws prohibiting these dolls are introduced, in Norway and the UK existing laws are applied to these objects. By juxtaposing and critically assessing the different approaches to prohibiting childlike sex dolls, the article aims to inspire and guide other countries that also contemplate legislative action in this context.

Dutch legislation has prohibited disability discrimination with regard to post-secondary education since 2003, when the Equal Treatment of Disabled and Chronically Ill People Act came into force. The Act prohibits disability discrimination with regard to, inter alia, further and higher education. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) plays an important role in interpreting and applying all Dutch equality legislation. It has a quasi-judicial task and, in this capacity, hears individual complaints and issues Opinions. The NIHR, and its predecessor, the Equal Treatment Commission, have issued numerous Opinions in the context of post-secondary education and (alleged) disability discrimination. For this reason, the Netherlands has been selected for a case study on disability discrimination in post-secondary education. This article examines 70 Opinions in this area and explores: whether individuals with particular forms of disabilities or chronic illnesses are over-represented in the cases brought; the main areas in which cases (alleging) disability discrimination in the context of post- secondary education have arisen; and the types of (alleged) discrimination which are at issue.

Students' evaluations are used to measure teaching effectiveness of staff. As such they are used to assess and appraise staff. The article - taking a doctrinal rather than an educational science approach - shows that there are considerable problems with the hypothesis that students' evaluations measure teaching effectiveness. This is even more so in systems where an overarching teaching philosophy like problem-based learning (PBL) is applied. The article identifies a working hypothesis that students do not use the teaching philosophy as primary motivator to evaluate staff, leading to a perverted incentive. Changes made to the system of evaluation in the law faculty of Maastricht University are described.

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.

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.

Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement establishes rules on the procedures for procurement by contracting authorities with respect to public contracts as well as design contests, whose value is above the European thresholds. Next to purely economic goals, the Directive incorporates common societal goals and aims to contribute to environmental and social objectives and sustainable innovation as well. Directive 2014/24/EU does not refer to cultural considerations in general. It only contains a specific exclusion from the scope of application of the Directive for audiovisual or radio media services and indicates that a special regime is applicable to certain social and other specific services as it is believed that they have by their very nature a limited cross-border dimension. These ‘special’ services are provided within a national context that varies among the Member States due to different cultural traditions. For the procurement of works, supplies and services that do not fall within this special category, specific cultural considerations seem not to be warranted. While on the one hand, procurement procedures have to be applied in conformity with the principle of equal treatment so that all tenderers must have equality of opportunity when formulating their tenders, Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union holds that Member States are the principal actors in charge of the flowering of their cultures, that the EU should contribute to this and that it should respect the Member State’s national and regional diversity. This article will investigate whether and in how far Directive 2014/24/EU allows room for national contracting authorities to explicitly and implicitly take cultural concerns into account in procurement procedures. The purchase of ‘Mozzarella’ by means of a procurement procedure will serve as an example to analyse whether cultural considerations can implicitly play a role to overcome the ‘buy local’ prohibition, even for products that enjoy a protected designation of origin.Keywords: Directive 2014/24/EU, culture, equal treatment, public interest

This contribution explores the application of data science and artificial intelligence to legal research, more specifically an element that has not received much attention: the research infrastructure required to make such analysis possible. In recent years, EU law has become increasingly digitised and published in online databases such as EUR-Lex and HUDOC. However, the main barrier inhibiting legal scholars from analysing this information is lack of training in data analytics. Legal analytics software can mitigate this problem to an extent. However, current systems are dominated by the commercial sector. In addition, most systems focus on search of legal information but do not facilitate advanced visualisation and analytics. Finally, free to use systems that do provide such features are either too complex to use for general legal scholars, or are not rich enough in their analytics tools. In this paper, we motivate the case for building a software platform that addresses these limitations. Such software can provide a powerful platform for visualising and exploring connections and correlations in EU case law, helping to unravel the “DNA” behind EU legal systems. It will also serve to train researchers and students in schools and universities to analyse legal information using state-of-the-art methods in data science, without requiring technical proficiency in the underlying methods. We also suggest that the software should be powered by a data infrastructure and management paradigm following the seminal FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles.

In the reporting period (February 2019-June 2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union did not deliver any ground breaking rulings that really altered existing coordination rules on social security. Nonetheless, the Court did rule in various interesting cases. These include the material scope of Regulation 883/2004 ( Dreyer), the rules determining the applicable legislation ( SF), invalidity benefits ( Vester), and family benefits ( Bogatu). In addition, the Court brought about clarification of the possibility of retaining worker status (and thus claiming social benefits as a worker) under Directive 2004/38 ( Tarola) and the right of Turkish nationals to export benefits under Decision 3/80 when returning to Turkey ( Coban).

In its efforts to counteract terrorist threats and contain the risks posed by returning foreign fighters, the Netherlands, like several other European states, has enacted legislation introducing denationalisation as a counter-terrorism measure. The Dutch measures target convicted terrorists and foreign fighters alike, the latter without the prior involvement of the judiciary. This practice not only challenges traditional conceptions of citizenship, but also raises several human rights concerns, of which discrimination is the most pressing. This Article therefore examines the measures taken by the Netherlands and analyses their compatibility with Articles 14 and P12-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to assess the measures' disproportionate focus on Dutch-Moroccans from a legal perspective. Based on this conclusion of inequality, the Article then ventures beyond purely legal analysis to discuss the Dutch legislation more broadly, before linking the legal argument with normative critiques on the denationalisation of terrorists, and foreign fighters in particular. Taken together, the legal and normative findings establish that denationalisation as a counter-terrorism measure in the Netherlands cannot be reconciled with the legal or normative dimension of the equality principle.

Against the backdrop of the spanish housing rights crisis of the past decade, this chapter examines the impact and effectiveness of the outcome of cases of alleged violations of the right to adequate housing lodged with the uncescr against spain as part of the individual complaint mechanism under the optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. The authors conclude that, through its active engagement with housing rights issues (in particular evictions), the uncescr has made an important contribution to rendering the right to adequate housing effective, especially in situations of vulnerable victims. Given that the committee is not a judicial body and that its jurisprudence does not constitute judgements, it can be said that its views and recommendations have increased its normative legitimacy within certain segments of spanish society, such as civil society. However, the various branches of the spanish government still have to accept the views and recommendations of the committee as the outcome of a process of international scrutiny of domestic issues that is authoritative and persuasive, while at the same time leaving the sovereign decision-making power unaffected.keywordsright to housingevictionsicescr optional protocolspainnormative legitimacy.

The 2019 Work-life Balance Directive prohibits discrimination whenworkers exercise the rights contained in the Directive, which includerights to take leave for reasons related to caring responsibilities and theright to request flexible working arrangements for caring purposes. Thisarticle explores the relationship between the Work-life Balance Directiveand EU non-discrimination law. It analyses the provisions of the Directiverelated to non-discrimination and compares these to equivalent provisionsfound elsewhere in EU non-discrimination law. It argues that theWork-life Balance Directive should be regarded as forming a new branchof EU non-discrimination law. Such a characterization will be importantfor its interpretation by the Court of Justice. This is also significant for ourunderstanding of how EU non-discrimination law is evolving.

© 2018 The Authors. Treaty obligations: the EU shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and promote social justice and protection - EU institutions responses to social challenges outside of the Social Policy Title - Fragmentation of Social Policy: in many ways deeply unsatisfactory, yet useful lessons may be learnt - Social implications of economic integration - Rethinking EU intervention on the protection of individuals owing to a fundamental rights' narrative. ispartof: European Constitutional Law Review vol:14 issue:1 pages:75-95 status: published

In the international community, there is a continuing trend to deprive citizens of their nationality for certain undesirable behaviour. The 1961 Convention prohibits this practice in cases where the individual concerned would become stateless as a consequence. However, State Parties can reserve certain exceptions to this prohibition by filing a declaration under Article 8 (3) at the time of ratification. This article aims to conduct a thorough analysis and a critical reflection of the declarations of ratifying States of the 1961 Convention submitted under Article 8 (3) of the Convention. This approach includes a quantitative analysis of the submitted declarations against the background of recent geopolitical events, which will show an absolute, yet not a proportional rise, of declarations submitted under Article 8 (3). An analysis of the legality of the submitted declarations as well as a discussion of the corresponding national provisions will be conducted. Furthermore, an evaluation of the reaction of other Contracting States to the submitted declarations will demonstrate serious shortcomings in the due diligence of Contracting States, arguing that a double-standard is applied to declarations submitted under Article 8(3) by Western Contracting States in comparison to the treatment of Contracting States from the Islamic World.

This article discusses the offence of participation in a terrorist group or conspiracy under French law, as applied by the French criminal justice system to prosecute and convict individuals who travel or attempt to travel abroad to participate in armed jihad. In light of a critical assessment of decisions rendered by French courts in cases involving jihadi fighters, it proposes to reflect on the orientation of the criminal law in matters relating to the participation of European nationals in armed jihad in foreign territory. Expressing concern over the excessive reach of substantive criminal-law provisions and of related prosecutorial policies, the article argues that the current legal framework and newly proposed legislation no longer serve the legitimate objective of protecting public order and safety from a tangible threat, and that the criminal law is at risk of becoming a tool of ideological warfare against designated enemies of the state.

ispartof: Review of European Administrative Law vol:13 issue:2 pages:255-265 status: published

This chapter explores the range of jurisdictional principles that have been developed by various states to address the applicability of ne bis in idem to the prosecution of transnational crimes. It first considers two approaches under international law dealing with criminal jurisdiction before discussing state practice on jurisdictional principles, focusing on territorial jurisdiction, the protective principle, the flag principle, and the active nationality principle. The aut dedere, aut judicare principle, passive nationality principle, the domicile principle, the principle of universal jurisdiction, and the principle of complementary jurisdiction/secondary jurisdiction are also examined, along with the justifications for states to vest extraterritorial jurisdiction. The chapter concludes with an analysis of solution mechanisms for the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction and of limitations to jurisdiction.

This contribution maps recent global trends regarding the grounds for acquisition of citizenship by descent and by birth on a particular territory. Questions of nationality law have traditionally been part of the State’s reserved domain. However, it will be seen that some of the trends regarding citizenship acquisition by ius sanguinis and ius soli can be attributed to the inroads made by international law into the rule that each State has absolute autonomy in deciding who its citizens are. Others are the result of the still considerable leeway available to States in nationality matters. Against the backdrop of the current international standards and drawing on data collected by the GLOBALCIT Observatory for 174 countries on five continents, the article analyses national practices in respect of the acquisition by ius sanguinis and ius soli, remedial ius soli for otherwise stateless children, and the nationality effects of the recognition of paternity.

In the fi rst part of 2015 the Court of Justice (CoJ) of the European Union (EU) delivered a comparatively large number of rulings relevant for the fi eld of social security. None of the twelve rulings selected for purposes of this overview can be labelled as landmark judgments introducing new principles or overruling existing ones. Yet, virtually all of the judgments do bring important clarifi cations by specifying previously recognised principles or interpretations or by applying these in cases involving other factual circumstances. Th e most interesting judgments concern the rules determining the applicable legislation ( Franzen, Kik and Evans), the application of Regulations 1408/71 and 883/2004 to ‘socially earmarked taxes’ ( de Ruyter), the continued legal signifi cance of bilateral social security agreements concluded before the aforementioned Regulations became applicable to the States concerned ( Balasz), the right to unemployment benefi ts for frontier workers ( Mertens), the right of Turkish nationals to export of special non-contributory cash benefi ts (SNCBs – Demirci) and the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of gender in social security matters (Cachaldora Fernandez).

Tax administrations in the European Union exchange an ever-increasing amount of information on taxation matters on a mandatory and automatic basis. This development gives rise to data protection concerns. The aim of this article is to examine how these data protection concerns have been recognized by the Union legislator in the recent and fast process towards a comprehensive automatic exchange of tax data of private taxpayers in the European Union. It will be shown that the combination of data protection rights and exchange of tax information legislation proves to be an uneasy one as the Union legislator appears reluctant to provide for data protection safeguards in Union legislation on tax information exchange.

The central focus of the study is what obstacles might exist in national legislation and practice of the Western Balkan states that might hinder or complicate the efficiency of international cooperation, according to European standards. The states that are included in the study are all states that have expressed their wish to accede to the European Union (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) and Croatia that already has become a Member State. The question “What could amount to impediments to international cooperation?” has been leading throughout the study. The study is therefore to be considered as problem-focused. The study analyses various forms of international cooperation, such as exchange of information, mutual legal assistance, extradition, transfer of proceedings, joint investigation teams, confiscation, as well as the transfer of judgements and prisoners.

In 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) did not deliver landmark rulings establishing new principles relevant for, or overturning previous jurisprudence on, social security. Rather, the cases that were decided by the ECtHR confirmed key principles developed in older case law and clarified their practical meaning and implications by applying these in new or comparable cases. Notably, most of the cases decided by the Court in 2014 concerned pension reforms and the concrete implications of these for individuals.1

This article explores and reviews the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU to defining disability under the Employment Equality Directive and concentrates, in particular, on the two most recent cases which were decided in 2014: Z and Kaltoft and the relevance of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the EU is a party. The article argues that the Court's approach to defining disability, as applied in practice, is not compatible with either the wording or spirit of the CRPD, and there is a real danger that the CJEU's mistaken approach will also trickle down to national courts. This is in spite of the fact that the Court pays lip service to the social contextual model of disability as outlined in the CRPD in its judgments.

ispartof: Review of European Administrative Law vol:8 issue:1 pages:151-173 status: published

For all those following the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in social security matters, the last three months of 2014 were particularly interesting.1 The CJEU delivered its long-awaited judgment in the ‘social tourism case’ of Dano, expressed itself (once again) on the powers of the European Union (EU) to adopt social security measures vis-à-vis third countries (Turkey in United Kingdom v Council) and provided important clarification about the rights of third-country nationals who de facto cannot be treated for the illnesses they suffer from in their countries of origin (M'Bodj and Abdida). In addition, the CJEU delivered noteworthy rulings on planned hospital treatment in other Member States (Petru), old-age pensions (Larcher; Somova) and family benefits (Fassbender-Firman; Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund).

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it aims to examine the phenomenon of student mobility and the benefits associated therewith, arguing that there are real benefits attached to free movement of students: in short, student mobility promotes the creation of a mobile, highly skilled and ‘EU aware’ citizenry. It will further be submitted that, when analysed from the perspective of this ‘output’, student mobility qualifies as a public good. This carries with it important implications: decentralized provision is unlikely to lead to a socially optimum ‘production’ of the public good that is student mobility. Rather, there is scope for centralized intervention by the community, here the EU. Secondly, the article will examine the extent to which such intervention has already taken place. By examining the case law of the Court of Justice, it seeks to investigate whether the accumulated decisions have led to a system of rules whereby, in any situation involving a mobile student, a Member State is designated as financially responsible (in the sense of being obliged to provide study grants and/or loans under its domestic system) for that student. The article will eventually conclude that there are still significant gaps in the framework established by the Court, and that the framework also is plagued by questionable principles, requiring further action at EU level.

This edited volume is based on the European Law Institute's project, 'The Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Law', co-ordinated by the European Law Institute (ELI) and the University of Luxembourg. The project ran from 2013 to 2017 and was conducted under the auspices of the ELI and the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR). The study sought to explore options for a coherent regulatory mechanism for the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law. Currently, there is no binding instrument establishing a mechanism to resolve conflicts of (exercising) jurisdiction in criminal matters in the EU, although such a mechanism is essential for the effective functioning of a European criminal justice area based on mutual recognition. Building on empirical research and a comparison with civil law solutions to the problem of conflicts of jurisdiction, this volume seeks to impact the EU policy debate by proposing three fully-formed models for legislative action, coupled with extensive analysis of related themes.

Justice Without Borders is a collection of essays on international criminal law, European criminal law and international cooperation of distinguished authors that honours Judge Wolfgang Schomburg on the occassion of his 70th birthday on 9 April 2018.

It is well known that the dominant paradigm underlying the free movement jurisprudence of the Court of Justice has progressively shifted from the 'market citizen' to the EU citizen: in order to invoke free movement and equal treatment rights an economic nexus is no longer needed, allowing, for example, students to claim equal treatment with host Member State nationals as regards access to education and the receipt of study grants. Normatively, however, this raises important questions. The classic logic whereby these free movement and equal treatment rights were provided to Member State nationals as a quid pro quo for their contribution to and participation in a project of European integration-the establishment of the common market-is undermined. A new 'aim' or 'rationale' is thus needed, capable of explaining and informing the citizenship jurisprudence of the Court. The purpose of this article is to construct a conceptual framework for the Court's EU citizenship jurisprudence by relying on a cosmopolitan vision of citizenship as set out by Immanuel Kant in his seminal work Zum ewigen Frieden. It is submitted in this article that Kant's cosmopolitan right of hospitality, meant to guarantee interaction between the peoples of the world with a view to developing a shared universal conscience characterised by a desire for peace and prosperity, in essence informs the EU citizenship jurisprudence of the Court.

Introducing a ‘sporting nationality’ that is completely independent of the standard legal nationality linking individuals to a state is neither feasible nor desirable, as the term nationality and its connotations are broader than the mere sporting context. Since the literature on sport law (lex sportiva) is not clear about the differences and similarities between sporting nationality and standard legal nationality, the concept of sporting nationality remains vague. This article argues that nationality should remain the underlying tie between athletes and their country of representation. Instead of introducing a sporting nationality, the recommendation is to establish a uniform set of rules that provides athletes with a ‘sporting license’ of the country of which they are nationals. This avoids confusion as to whether a sporting nationality entails some of the rights and duties traditionally linked to the concept of nationality.

This article explores the various exceptions to the non-discrimination principle and the justifications for different treatment that apply in the disability context. For the purposes of this article, exceptions are situations that are excluded from the scope of non-discrimination law and where different treatment is allowed, whilst justifications are situations in which non-discrimination law applies, and where de facto different treatment is either required or allowed, and the limits to such requirements. The article begins by briefly discussing the peculiarities of disability non-discrimination law, addressing the requirement to make a reasonable accommodation, the asymmetrical nature of disability non-discrimination law, and positive action obligations. The article then introduces the key non-discrimination requirements found in United Nations and European Union disability equality law, before proceeding to examine a number of exceptions to the non-discrimination principle and justifications for different treatment. The article concludes that exceptions and justifications can be a tool to fine-tune or target non-discrimination law, with the potential to both limit and extend protection, in the context of disability.

This contribution examines the role of the duration of lawful residence and the assessment of the facts of the individual case for the determination of the rights of (European) Union citizens and their family members by the Court of Justice of the European Union. While the Court initially embraced an approach which aimed at furthering and strengthening the rights of Union citizens, a conceptual shift has become visible over the last couple of years which seems to aim at limiting Union citizen’s rights. This article seeks to shed light on the underlying rationale of the Court’s judgments regarding Union citizens and their third-country family members by focusing on the application of the criterion of an individual assessment and the criterion of the duration of lawful residence respectively. To that end, it examines the Court’s case law in four selected areas of European Union law: the protection against expulsion, the right of permanent residence, access to non-contributory cash benefits, and the right of residence of third-country family members of Union citizens upon return to the latter’s Member State of nationality after having exercised free movement rights. It is submitted that the Court’s application and interpretation of these criteria in the areas under scrutiny seems to be driven primarily by the aim to limit citizens’ rights and not by the attainment of legal certainty which has been brought forward by the Court.

One of the most controversial questions that arose during negotiations on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons (CRPD) concerned whether or not health interventions could ever be performed without the recipient’s consent. This is particularly important in relation to persons with severe mental impairments whose consent to or refusal of treatment may be rendered irrelevant under mental health or guardianship legislation. In its General Comment No 1, the United Nations CRPD Committee has stated that States Parties have an obligation to require mental health practitioners to obtain the free and informed consent of persons with disabilities prior to any treatment. This article analyses recent case law in Australia that indicates that while there has been some attention paid to human rights breaches in relation to the detention of persons with mental impairments for treatment purposes, there is a large gap between what the CRPD Committee requires and the ‘weak’ protection that continues to be afforded in relation to informed consent to medical treatment.

The adoption of a developed disability policy, including the adoption of disability non-discrimination legislation, is a relatively recent concern for the European Union. For most of the history of the EU, the founding Treaties contained no explicit reference to disability, and therefore no disability-specific competence existed. Nevertheless, occasional references to disability, and disabled people, were found in a handful of legal instruments and soft law initiatives, although these did not amount to an attempt to develop a broad disability policy or programme until relatively recently. From a competence-related perspective, the major breakthrough occurred with the Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force in 1999, and which included the first explicit mention of disability. The inclusion of Article 13 (now Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) in the European Communities Treaty in 1999 sparked a flurry of academic speculation on its potential value and implications for EC non-discrimination law on grounds including disability. The rapid adoption of two directives, the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive, based on Article 13 EC, generated a further round of academic discussion. Since then the legal situation has evolved significantly: Member States have transposed the directives and a body of related case law has emerged in both the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and within some Member States. Meanwhile the Council has declined to adopt a Commission proposal for a new non-discrimination directive to fill some of the perceived gaps left by the initial two directives.

Confidentiality restrictions on the disclosure of evidence in international criminal proceedings is an issue that comes up frequently and leads to interesting debates in trial proceedings. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has paved the way for the rules currently applicable at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular, with the decisions rendered in the Blaskic case. This article analyses the origins of confidentiality restrictions and their evolution in the jurisprudence of the ICTY. Overall, it will be seen that proceedings before the ICTY led states to take precautionary measures to protect national security interests during negotiations leading to the Rome Statute. The question, however, remains whether the current confidentiality regime before the ICC hinders the accused's right to a fair trial.