Creation of Transnational Administrative Structures Governing Internet Communication, The

As the world becomes more economically integrated, increasing numbers of problems arise that are best handled through international treaties and transnational regulatory structures.4 For example, there have been concerns regarding the safety of products shipped from developing countries. These concerns have involved manufactured products, but have been particularly evident with food. Numerous examples can be found. The Japanese “discovered high levels of pesticides in imported spinach,” and U.S. “pets died from eating [imported] pet food contaminated with toxic chemicals.” In France, pesticides were discovered in fish imported from Africa, prompting the French government to suspend the importation of all fishes from Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. This suspension was upheld by the French Council of State which held that it was impossible to trace the origin of imported fishes, and therefore that it was permissible to forbid the importation of all fishes from the affected countries. Between the U.S. and the European Union, there have been disputes regarding U.S. beef laced with natural and synthetic hormones

State of Collective Redress in the EU in the Context of the Implementation of the Commission Recommandation

According to the Commission Recommendation (2013/396/EU), Member States should have collective redress mechanisms available to achieve EU policy objectives such as better enforcement of European Union law, protection of consumers, improvement of access to justice, better efficiency of justice systems, avoidance of abusive litigation and an effective right to compensation. The Recommendation provides for its implementation by July 2015 and for a reassessment of the collective redress landscape across the EU by July 2017. The present study carries out a first assessment and its output will assist the Commission in evaluating if the Recommendation has led to the introduction or development of efficient collective redress regimes in the Members States; whether these regimes coherently take into account the principles set out by the Recommendation; and whether the Recommendation has achieved its policy goals

Procurement of Covid-19 vaccines: why were legal liabilities transferred to the public sector?

he recent release of the Covid-19 vaccine supply contract between the European Commission and Astra Zeneca has caused a political and media storm about vaccine production logistics and supply issues. A lesser noticed but controversial issue revealed by the contract is that of where ultimate liabilities should lie, which has potentially far-reaching consequences for the public purse. Many commercial contracts include so-called indemnity clauses hereby one party contractually agrees to cover liabilities incurred by the other. The European Commission accepted in Article 14 of the agreement an extremely broad indemnity of the manufacturer covering almost any and every defect imaginable whether that be the vaccine’s inherent characteristics, manufacturing / distribution, and storage issues, labelling errors or even problems due to administration of the vaccine. This is a potentially significant burden to place on the state, and ultimately taxpayers

COMPARING NO-FAULT COMPENSATION SYSTEMS FOR VACCINE INJURY

The policy responses to redressing serious adverse reactions caused by vaccines are many and varied. Scholars have identified three broad options for responding to the need for support of those who have been subject to vaccine injury. The first is a minimalist approach that entails injured persons bearing the costs associated with their injuries with assistance provided solely by means of standard social welfare and health benefits provided by the state. Second, compensation may be sought through legal proceedings brought against those responsible for producing, or in certain cases distributing, the vaccines in question. Third, compensation may be sought from a dedicated compensation scheme outside the normal litigation system, generally premised upon no-fault liability. The discussion in this Article focuses on the latter schemes, which are generally government-created and specifically respond to vaccine injuries. The advantages of such a mechanism over the other options, which entail either patients bearing the costs themselves or seeking compensation though litigation against private sector, have been widely discussed, and we will also examine the broader rationales below

A comparative study of state tortious and delictual liablity in damages in English and French Law

Available from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:DN057144 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Compensation for Vaccine Damage in the United Kingdom

International audienceIn this article, the author explains the principle of compensation in the event of damages resulting from a vaccine. It specifies that a law (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) establishes the list of diseases resulting from vaccines which can lead to compensation. The author recalls that a causal link must be proven between vaccination and the disease development. In addition, the author explains the possibility of using an alternative route in order to obtain a compensation for the injury. Indeed, it is possible to turn against the manufacturer of the vaccine by advocating the defect of the product.Dans cet article, l’auteur expose le principe de réparation en cas de dommages résultant d’un vaccin. Il précise qu’une loi (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) établit la liste des maladies issues de vaccins pouvant donner lieu à réparation. Il rappelle qu’un lien de causalité doit être prouvé entre la vaccination et le développement de la maladie. De plus, l’auteur explique la possibilité d’utiliser une voie alternative afin de voir son dommage réparé. En effet, il est possible de se retourner contre le fabricant du vaccin en prônant la défectuosité du produit

The U.K. Races to Catch Up on COVID-19

The United Kingdom (U.K.) responded differently than other countries at the start of the coronavirus crisis. The government’s initial policy, in hindsight, appears ill thought-through and has already faced growing criticism. The U.K. subsequently took a more orthodox approach—adopting social distancing measures, restricting movement, and ultimately implementing a nationwide lockdown. As with many other countries, the U.K. government adopted emergency legislation as part of its strategy to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak. Parliament fast-tracked legislation in break-neck speed—receiving Royal Assent for the Coronavirus Act 2020 on March 25. The government also adopted additional regulations to implement the lockdown. In total, these amount to some of the most restrictive measures the U.K. has ever implemented during peacetime. The Coronavirus Act 2020 introduces temporary measures designed to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on the workforce and health services. This law provides for new registration powers to increase the number of health care and social care workers and to allow for emergency volunteers. It also grants certain officials—such as police, immigration officers, and public health officials—powers to detain and screen persons with or suspected to have COVID-19. From a financial perspective, the Coronavirus Act implements a series of targeted measures to support individuals, including modifications to the sick pay scheme and pension rules. The law also supports institutions by providing financial assistance to industry and enabling Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—a non-ministerial department of the government—to create the furlough system. Other measures include protecting residential and certain commercial tenants from eviction, using video technology in court proceedings, and expanding covert surveillance powers. Given the sweeping powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the fast-tracked parliamentary process, the opposition in Parliament pushed to include sunset clauses. The law is subject to a sunset clause by which the majority of the provisions lapse after two years—a somewhat long period of time. The law is, however, subject to a review by Parliament after six months. Similar legislation in other countries such as Ireland and France seems to be subject to more robust provisions. In Scotland, Part One of the Coronavirus Act expires automatically after six months, and the Scottish Parliament can only extend the provisions for a maximum of 12 months. In addition to the Coronavirus Act 2020, the U.K. government also enacted health protection regulations to impose a nationwide lockdown. These regulations, premised upon the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, impose severe restrictions on liberty and freedom of movement of persons in the United Kingdom. The regulations require certain businesses to close and restrict movement and gatherings. The centerpiece of the regulations—found in Regulation 6—is a requirement that provides that during the emergency period no persons shall leave their homes until further notice other than for limited purposes (“without reasonable excuse”). Those who breach that obligation are subject to a criminal offense, punishable with a fine. The regulation prohibits gatherings of more than two people except in restricted circumstances. Certain types of businesses are also closed. Police officers—and others designated by local authorities or Ministers—can enforce these restrictions. The enforcement powers are very broad. They allow police officers to direct someone who is not at home to return home or to remove them physically to the place where they are living—subject to proportionality requirements. It is understandable that the government would implement extensive measures to ensure an effective response to the COVID-19 crisis. Nevertheless, the scope and extent of the powers contained in the health protection regulations are extremely expansive. Critics have raised concerns from human rights and rule of law perspectives. The U.K. government has already amended the regulations. One particular concern has been about the asymmetrical nature of these rules across the nations of the U.K., due in part to the fact that health is a devolved matter within the U.K.’s constitutional set up. This has been a recurrent pattern during the COVID-19 crisis, illustrated by different nations within the U.K. adopting different guidelines to regulate issues such as school closures and exit strategies. Such a disjointed approach is not ideal when a clear message from government is important for influencing public behavior. This asymmetry is reflected in the lockdown where the rules set out in the health protection regulations that apply to England differ from those that apply to other nations of the United Kingdom. More fundamentally, there has been a good deal of discussion about the lawfulness of the regulations, in particular the restrictions on movement. Barrister and peer Lord David Anderson of Ipswich first raised the issue of whether the relevant restrictions on movement were actually within the powers conferred upon the government by the relevant statute. After a careful review of the provisions, he concluded that the “impact on personal liberty in Regulation 6 goes right up to the limit of what is permitted under its parent statute, and arguably beyond.” Tom Hickman, a barrister and academic at University of College London, and other scholars have raised similar concerns that portions of the regulations may exceed statutory authority. They point out, however, that in times of crisis, courts may adapt rules of statutory interpretation “in a way that confers the widest powers on Government that the words will reasonably bare.” Nevertheless, these commentators’ ultimate conclusion is critical, and they consider it preferable for the measures to be “placed on a firmer legislative footing.” Other scholars have made contrary arguments. In particular, Professor Jeff King of the University of College London has argued powerfully in a recent piece that the lockdown provisions are in fact lawful and can be supported by a literal reading of the Public Health Act’s enabling powers as conferring powers to impose the lockdown. The U.K. government may have been slow to react in the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, but since then it has moved swiftly to implement expansive lockdown restrictions. These restrictions push the limits of the government’s statutory authority, and it would have been preferable for the government to have based its lockdown provisions on clear and unambiguous statutory authority based upon primary legislation such as the Coronavirus Act 2020. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that a court would find the regulations to be unlawful. This does not mean, however, that additional safeguards would not be welcome

John Bell, David J. Ibbetson (dir.). -European Legal Development, The Case of Tort, 2012

Fairgrieve Duncan. John Bell, David J. Ibbetson (dir.). -European Legal Development, The Case of Tort, 2012. In: Revue internationale de droit comparé. Vol. 65 N°4,2013. pp. 1002-1005