Flexible implementation and the EU Sexual Abuse Directive

This report concerns the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (SAD). It assesses the room for flexible implementation it provides and the way in which EU Member States have made use of this. The sample of Member States includes Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. The Directive includes various ways to allow for flexible implementation. The directive establishes thresholds for the maximum terms of imprisonment that the Member States should include in their laws (minimum harmonization). The directive equally contains provisions with elaboration discretion for the Member States, allowing them to further flesh out the content of these provisions in national law. This is especially the case with regard to the provisions on prevention and protection of victims. The directive further contains open-worded and non-defined terms which also allow for differentiated implementation. Our analysis demonstrates that implementation legislation varies quite substantially across the Member States. Frequently, the national implementation strategy has been informed by the wish not to unnecessarily change existing laws. From an input legitimacy perspective this may be criticised, but also be understood from the particular nature of criminal law and legislation. This report has not identified major implementation problems, but especially the open worded provisions may create legal uncertainties.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Flexible implementation and the energy efficiency directive

This paper analyses patterns of differentiated implementation in four member states (Czechia, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands) under the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). Differentiated implementation occurs when member states makes use of the discretion given to them in EU legislation. This paper seeks to analyse whether differentiated implementation occurred under the EED and what this means for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Directive. The EE offers broad discretion to member states in choosing and specifying targets and measures related to energy efficiency. The four member states have made extensive use of this discretion. The dominant pattern in this regard is that member states have used the discretion to retain domestic measures that were already in place. This pattern is driven by a combination of inertia and the wish not to disrupt well-working approaches. Overall, the pattern of differentiated implementation that resulted has arguably had a positive effect on goal-achievement under as well as domestic acceptance of the EED. At the same time, the Directive’s impact on domestic policies and approaches has been limited.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Flexible implementation and the energy efficiency directive

This paper analyses patterns of differentiated implementation in four member states (Czechia, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands) under the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). Differentiated implementation occurs when member states makes use of the discretion given to them in EU legislation. This paper seeks to analyse whether differentiated implementation occurred under the EED and what this means for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Directive. The EE offers broad discretion to member states in choosing and specifying targets and measures related to energy efficiency. The four member states have made extensive use of this discretion. The dominant pattern in this regard is that member states have used the discretion to retain domestic measures that were already in place. This pattern is driven by a combination of inertia and the wish not to disrupt well-working approaches. Overall, the pattern of differentiated implementation that resulted has arguably had a positive effect on goal-achievement under as well as domestic acceptance of the EED. At the same time, the Directive’s impact on domestic policies and approaches has been limited

Flexible implementation and the Consumer Rights Directive

This report shows that despite the full harmonisation approach promoted by the European Commission and adopted by the EU legislature in the case of the Consumer Rights Directive, the member states still have some opportunities to adjust European norms to the national reality. Nevertheless, our sample of four EU countries – Czechia, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands – documents that the member states do not use the space for discretion offered by the Directive’s substantive provisions to a great extent. Our analysis shows that the four member states tried to preserve their existing consumer protection regimes to the greatest possible extent. They used discretion in such a way that enabled retaining existing domestic laws and practices. In contrast to largely harmonized substantive CRD norms, the enforcement rests largely in member states powers. The means of putting the consumer contract law into practice shows some overlaps, but their use varies largely. The member states differ, importantly, in the overall emphasis on private or public enforcement. More specific differences include lists of remedies, persons who can bring the complaints, bodies dealing with the complaints or in the range and severity of penalties. The availability of class actions and ADR, but especially their use, differs wildly

Flexible implementation and the Consumer Rights Directive

This report shows that despite the full harmonisation approach promoted by the European Commission and adopted by the EU legislature in the case of the Consumer Rights Directive, the member states still have some opportunities to adjust European norms to the national reality. Nevertheless, our sample of four EU countries – Czechia, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands – documents that the member states do not use the space for discretion offered by the Directive’s substantive provisions to a great extent. Our analysis shows that the four member states tried to preserve their existing consumer protection regimes to the greatest possible extent. They used discretion in such a way that enabled retaining existing domestic laws and practices. In contrast to largely harmonized substantive CRD norms, the enforcement rests largely in member states powers. The means of putting the consumer contract law into practice shows some overlaps, but their use varies largely. The member states differ, importantly, in the overall emphasis on private or public enforcement. More specific differences include lists of remedies, persons who can bring the complaints, bodies dealing with the complaints or in the range and severity of penalties. The availability of class actions and ADR, but especially their use, differs wildly.This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 822304. The content of this document represents only the views of the InDivEU consortium and is its sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains

Type of calcineurin inhibitor and long-term outcomes following liver transplantation in patients with primary biliary cholangitis – an ELTR study

Background &amp; Aims: Tacrolimus has been associated with recurrence of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) after liver transplantation (LT), which in turn may reduce survival. This study aimed to assess the association between the type of calcineurin inhibitor used and long-term outcomes following LT in patients with PBC. Methods: Survival analyses were used to assess the association between immunosuppressive drugs and graft or patient survival among adult patients with PBC in the European Liver Transplant Registry. Patients who received a donation after brain death graft between 1990 and 2021 with at least 1 year of event-free follow-up were included. Results: In total, 3,175 patients with PBC were followed for a median duration of 11.4 years (IQR 5.9–17.9) after LT. Tacrolimus (Tac) was registered in 2,056 (64.8%) and cyclosporin in 819 (25.8%) patients. Following adjustment for recipient age, recipient sex, donor age, and year of LT, Tac was not associated with higher risk of graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.07, 95% CI 0.92-1.25, p = 0.402) or death (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90-1.24, p = 0.473) over cyclosporin. In this model, maintenance mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was associated with a lower risk of graft loss (aHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.87, p &lt;0.001) or death (aHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p &lt;0.001), while these risks were higher with use of steroids (aHR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.52, p &lt;0.001, and aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15-1.56, p &lt;0.001, respectively). Conclusions: In this large LT registry, type of calcineurin inhibitor was not associated with long-term graft or recipient survival, providing reassurance regarding the use of Tac post LT in the population with PBC. Patients using MMF had a lower risk of graft loss and death, indicating that the threshold for combination treatment with Tac and MMF should be low. Impact and implications: This study investigated the association between immunosuppressive drugs and the long-term survival of patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) following donation after brain death liver transplantation. While tacrolimus has previously been related to a higher risk of PBC recurrence, the type of calcineurin inhibitor was not related to graft or patient survival among patients transplanted for PBC in the European Liver Transplant Registry. Additionally, maintenance use of mycophenolate was linked to lower risks of graft loss and death, while these risks were higher with maintenance use of steroids. Our findings should provide reassurance for physicians regarding the continued use of Tac after liver transplantation in the population with PBC, and suggest potential benefit from combination therapy with mycophenolate.</p

Flexible implementation and the EU Sexual Abuse Directive

This report concerns the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (SAD). It assesses the room for flexible implementation it provides and the way in which EU Member States have made use of this. The sample of Member States includes Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. The Directive includes various ways to allow for flexible implementation. The directive establishes thresholds for the maximum terms of imprisonment that the Member States should include in their laws (minimum harmonization). The directive equally contains provisions with elaboration discretion for the Member States, allowing them to further flesh out the content of these provisions in national law. This is especially the case with regard to the provisions on prevention and protection of victims. The directive further contains open-worded and non-defined terms which also allow for differentiated implementation. Our analysis demonstrates that implementation legislation varies quite substantially across the Member States. Frequently, the national implementation strategy has been informed by the wish not to unnecessarily change existing laws. From an input legitimacy perspective this may be criticised, but also be understood from the particular nature of criminal law and legislation. This report has not identified major implementation problems, but especially the open worded provisions may create legal uncertainties

Flexible implementation and the EU Sexual Abuse Directive

This report concerns the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (SAD). It assesses the room for flexible implementation it provides and the way in which EU Member States have made use of this. The sample of Member States includes Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. The Directive includes various ways to allow for flexible implementation. The directive establishes thresholds for the maximum terms of imprisonment that the Member States should include in their laws (minimum harmonization). The directive equally contains provisions with elaboration discretion for the Member States, allowing them to further flesh out the content of these provisions in national law. This is especially the case with regard to the provisions on prevention and protection of victims. The directive further contains open-worded and non-defined terms which also allow for differentiated implementation. Our analysis demonstrates that implementation legislation varies quite substantially across the Member States. Frequently, the national implementation strategy has been informed by the wish not to unnecessarily change existing laws. From an input legitimacy perspective this may be criticised, but also be understood from the particular nature of criminal law and legislation. This report has not identified major implementation problems, but especially the open worded provisions may create legal uncertainties

Flexible implementation and the Consumer Rights Directive

This report shows that despite the full harmonisation approach promoted by the European Commission and adopted by the EU legislature in the case of the Consumer Rights Directive, the member states still have some opportunities to adjust European norms to the national reality. Nevertheless, our sample of four EU countries – Czechia, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands – documents that the member states do not use the space for discretion offered by the Directive’s substantive provisions to a great extent. Our analysis shows that the four member states tried to preserve their existing consumer protection regimes to the greatest possible extent. They used discretion in such a way that enabled retaining existing domestic laws and practices. In contrast to largely harmonized substantive CRD norms, the enforcement rests largely in member states powers. The means of putting the consumer contract law into practice shows some overlaps, but their use varies largely. The member states differ, importantly, in the overall emphasis on private or public enforcement. More specific differences include lists of remedies, persons who can bring the complaints, bodies dealing with the complaints or in the range and severity of penalties. The availability of class actions and ADR, but especially their use, differs wildly

Flexible implementation and the energy efficiency directive

This paper analyses patterns of differentiated implementation in four member states (Czechia, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands) under the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). Differentiated implementation occurs when member states makes use of the discretion given to them in EU legislation. This paper seeks to analyse whether differentiated implementation occurred under the EED and what this means for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Directive. The EE offers broad discretion to member states in choosing and specifying targets and measures related to energy efficiency. The four member states have made extensive use of this discretion. The dominant pattern in this regard is that member states have used the discretion to retain domestic measures that were already in place. This pattern is driven by a combination of inertia and the wish not to disrupt well-working approaches. Overall, the pattern of differentiated implementation that resulted has arguably had a positive effect on goal-achievement under as well as domestic acceptance of the EED. At the same time, the Directive’s impact on domestic policies and approaches has been limited