The Role of National Parliaments in European Decision-Making

National parliaments can be considered as victims of the European integration process. National parliaments ceded legislative powers to the EU and often lost leverage over their national executive branch, which continued to play a central role in EU decision-making. Different domestic parliamentary scrutiny systems have been established to enhance parliamentary involvement and control over EU affairs. In 2006 the Barroso Commission provided an additional impetus for parliaments to get involved, by offering to transmit its policy proposals directly to national parliaments with an open invitation to comment on them. The Lisbon Treaty foresees the possibility that national parliaments carry out subsidiarity checks on policy proposals. This paper argues that the different national and European provisions for parliamentary involvement do not amount to much. However, if we consider the combined effect of the different avenues in a dynamic perspective, they might jointly trigger a reassertion of national parliamentary influence in the European policy process

Key Legislative and Jurisprudential Developments of Polish Antitrust Law in 2011

The article presents key developments in Polish antitrust legislation and jurisprudence of 2011. Its legislative part focuses on the renewal of Polish Group Exemption Regulations for vertical agreements, specialization and R&D agreements as well as cooperation agreements in the insurance sector. Noted is also the sole amendment of the Competition Act introduced in 2011 which concerns the financial liability of the Polish competition authority. The article covers also the new Guidelines of the UOKiK President on the criteria and procedures of merger notifications. Presented in its jurisprudential part is a number of 2011 rulings, mainly those rendered by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, divided according to their subject matter with respect to particular types of restrictive practices and other problems related to the decision-making process of the UOKiK President

Land Use Policies in Selected States

PDF pages: 2

Co-operative Labour-Management Relations in Australia

Report Presented to International Evidence: Worker-Management Institutions and Economic Performance Conference, U.S. Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations.Report_Hartnett_Australia.pdf: 1377 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

This chapter examines an approach to crime reduction which differs from many others in that it focuses, not on the offender or their reasoning for committing an offence, but upon the environment in which an offence takes place. This approach also differs in its consideration of who should hold responsibility for the reduction of crime, with a focus, not solely upon the traditional criminal justice system agencies, but also upon planners, architects, developers and managers of public space. The approach is based on the presumption that offenders will maximise crime opportunities, and therefore, those opportunities must be avoided (in the first place) or removed (following the emergence of a crime problem). In the 2001 publication ‘Cracking Crime through Design’, Pease introduces the concept of design as a means of reducing crime, but more importantly, the premise that it is the moral responsibility of many different actors and agencies to improve the lives of those who may fall victim to crime, those who live in fear of crime, and (less obviously) those who will, through the presentation of unproblematic opportunities, be tempted into offending. In the case of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), it is the planners, designers, developers and architects who risk acting (as Pease paraphrases the poet John Donne) as the gateway to another man’s sin

Regulating Corporate Behaviour in Digital Ecosystems: Increasing Fairness and Contestability of Digital Markets with Free Software

The dominant power of digital corporations over internet devices has sparked policy, regulatory, and legal reactions trying to impose accountability on such large enterprises controlling how end-users should use their equipment. Corporate monopolistic control is exercised over key features and components of devices, such as operating systems, browsers, and apps stores. Although smartphones, tablets, and laptops are general purpose computers, consumers are restricted in their ability to run software to make full use of the hardware. Such limitations have an impact on open technologies and the usage of digital commons. The monopolised power over devices is prejudicial to fair competition and consumer welfare, affecting end-user freedom of choice and individual self-determination. Reestablishing policies centred on consumer welfare requires the promotion of distributed forms of control over devices and alternative routes for access to online content and services. This article puts into perspective EU legislative initiatives aimed at economic regulation of corporate behaviour towards digital devices, and the role Free Software has facilitating the process of achieving fairness and contestability of digital markets. As a case study, this article presents the recent regulatory developments involving routers and modems in the EU, and the interaction telecom operators’ monopolistic practices have with Free Software.MIC 2023, Joint International Conference, Trieste, Italy, 7–10 June 202