The EU-General-Data-Protection-Regulation (GDPR) provides a Europe-wide and mostly uniform system of Data-Protection, which has also impact on social security. Public authorities must have a legitimate reason for processing data; the legal grounds are given by the GDPR, some have to be specified by domestic law. The processing of special categories of data is strictly prohibited, if there is not an exemption. Consent is not always necessary in order to process personal data, but when it must be freely and unambiguously given and can be just as easily withdrawn. The doctor-client-privilege has to be observed separately. In respect to the rights of the data subject it has always to be checked, if the rights are applicable or if there is a restriction by the GDPR itself or by domestic law. Infringement of the GDPR can cause damage compensation, fines and inadmissibility of evidence.
This article briefly presents the attitude towards same sex-marriages and registered partnerships of legislators in those EU Member States which have decided not to participate in the adoption of EU regulations concerning property matters for spouses and registered partners. It also provides an overview of these regulations in order to indicate which provisions have triggered such decisions. Finally, it points out some examples of clashes resulting from the different systems being applied in participating Member States and non-participating Member States.
Creditworthiness assessment is a valuable tool in avoiding irresponsible lending. Both the Consumer Credit Directive and the Mortgage Credit Directive provide for the requirement of a creditworthiness assessment before the conclusion of the credit agreement. However, neither the Consumer Credit Directive nor the Mortgage Credit Directive adequately regulate the content of the information to be collected by creditors in order to assess creditworthiness, with the result that quite different approaches are followed in different Member States. At the same time, while the Mortgage Credit Directive provides clear direction as to the granting or not of the loan depending on the outcome of the assessment, the corresponding provision of the Consumer Credit Directive leaves much room for interpretation.
With around 351. 8 billion Euro the cohesion policy accounts for almost one third of the European Union’s budget in the period 2014–2020. Numerous programmes and projects are co-funded by the so-called European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). Errors in public procurement cause almost half of all irregularities detected in these programmes and projects. Many of these errors could be avoided if ESIF-programmes would not foresee such strict rules for purchases and the intensity and frequency of controls of programmes and projects would be reduced to an adequate level. Based on five hypotheses the present article illustrates difficulties and helpful approaches for the challenging balancing act between ESIF- and EU-procurement rules.
Removing obstacles to e-commerce in the Single Market and ensuring effective taxation in the context of the digital economy has been high on the political agenda both in the European Union and beyond. Recently the VAT rules on cross-border e-commerce have gone through a thorough modernisation with a package of new provisions in the EU VAT legislation coming into effect as of 2019 and 2021. Further measures with the objective of laying down solid foundations for an effective, fair, simple and fraud-resistant taxation of e-commerce transactions have been envisaged. This article helps to navigate a complex set of new provisions and offers reflections on whether the new rules will achieve their objective.
This article considers declarations and agreements on choice of law under the EU Succession Regulation and the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation. It also considers last wills and matrimonial property agreements created in accordance with these two EU Regulations. The article includes some practical examples of such declarations, agreements and last wills and also a practical recommendation for when such documents are being created.
After the transposition of the Payment Accounts Directive a right of access to a bank account with basic features has been implemented in all Member States. As the Member States had different options when transposing the directive the situation differs both regarding which credit institutions are obliged to open an account and what fee the credit institution may charge for the service. This article argues that the options most used by Member States lead to a “race to the bottom” regarding fees and conditions and let the practical effectiveness of the right of access seem questionable.