/library/oar/handle/123456789/1904 2025-11-09T22:42:41Z 2025-11-09T22:42:41Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/15770 2020-05-15T06:54:39Z 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: Master of Laws in European and Comparative Law 2014 Abstract: A list of the dissertations in Master of Laws in European and Comparative Law submitted in 2014 Description: LL.M.EUR.COMP.

2014-01-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/2692 2018-03-07T07:46:50Z 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: The notion of ancillary restraints under EU competition Abstract: The aim of this thesis is to examine the concept of ancillary restraints within the context of EU competition law. The introduction includes a brief exposition of all the relevant elements including Article 101, the Merger Regulation and the Sherman Act. It also incorporates a succinct explanation on the emergence of ancillary restraints, including its bifurcating into commercial and regulatory ancillarity. The first chapter focuses on the three elements that make up a valid ancillary restraint. Case law, and European Guidelines, here, help in organizing these elements and establishing how they were developed through time and are interpreted in practice. The second chapter concentrates on the relationship between Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 101(3) TFEU, and how this affects the analysis required of agreements before they are to be deemed compatible, or not, to the article. A common argument has been that of having the analysis required under Article 101(1) to be tantamount to the US Rule of Reason. This allegation is examined here. Lastly, it deals with how the notions at hand facilitate the idea of having only the actual harmful agreements being deemed incompatible. The third chapter, then, deals with the specific sphere of acquisitions and joint ventures. European Guidelines are analysed as to how several common restraints are to be interpreted. The notion of self-assessment by undertakings, in practice, is examined. Finally, the conclusion aims at connecting the points established in the prior chapters and answering the question of where, under Article 101, ancillary restraints are analysed and up to which level is the analysis permitted. Description: LL.D.

2014-01-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/2196 2017-09-22T07:50:33Z 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: The locus standi of private applicants after the treaty of Lisbon : was it extended? Abstract: The private applicants’ possibility of initiating annulment proceeding against EU acts is highly dependent on the requirements of locus standi. The interpretation of the standing rules given by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been criticised as being overly restrictive and preventing individual parties from enjoying the effective judicial protection of their rights. To this end, the drafters of the Lisbon Treaty decided to amend the rules governing the locus standi of private applicants. The main novelty introduced in the new Article 263(4) TFEU (ex. 230(4)) was the relaxation of the standing requirements in relation to the new category of acts, i.e. regulatory acts. This thesis will focus on the impact of the Lisbon amendments in on the position of the private applicants in annulments proceedings. The restrictive interpretation of locus standi and how this has developed in the CJEU case law will first be discussed. Then the thesis will analyse the attempts of Advocate General Jacobs in the UPA case and the General Court in the Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission case to reform the restrictive standing rules which are directly linked to the amendments in the Lisbon Treaty. The discussion will then turn towards an assessment of the scope of the Lisbon reform. In order to do this, references will be made to the relevant judgements of the EU Courts (Case C-583/11P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; Case T- 262/10 Microban International) which, to a certain extent, aid in the interpretation of the new concept of ‘regulatory acts’. Finally, the thesis will examine whether the problem of access to judicial review of EU acts by private parties was addressed successfully by the Lisbon Treaty and if the principle of effective judicial protection has been strengthened by these amendments. Description: LL.M.

2014-01-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/2195 2017-10-17T07:53:23Z 2014-01-01T00:00:00Z

Title: Worker entitlements under the working time directive Abstract: The above extract perfectly reflects the main idea behind the Working Time Directive. Every worker should be able to reach a balance between private life and working life. The working conditions, mostly working time, have always been an issue as from the Industrial Revolution. In fact, the Industrial Revolution made it possible for a larger segment of the population to work year-round, because labour was not tied to a particular season and artificial lighting made it possible for workers to work longer hours each day. Peasants and farm labourers moved from rural areas to factories and working time during the year increased significantly. Working time is one of the working conditions protected by the EU. In line with the Treaty, the EU defines minimum requirements at European level in the field of working conditions. The Treaty and the Commission encourage the European Social Partners to have a special role in the preparation of labour law initiatives at EU level. The Commission can also put forward legislative proposals to the Council and the Parliament. The protection of working time is tied with the protection afforded under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as it is the right of every worker to have fair and just working conditions. Besides, the link between the Working Time Directive and the Directive on Health and Safety is stumbled upon all through the provisions of the Directive. This link is the focal point of the entire Directive in that each provision in the Directive wants to ensure proper protection of the health and safety of workers at work. This is because it is quite obvious that when a worker works for long hours, his/her health and safety would be at risk. Fatigue raises the risks of injury at the place of work and this should be avoided. That is why the Working Time Directive lays down proper rest periods and maximum working hours which are to be followed by workers. It is true that the Directive lays down a number of derogations and opt-outs, but this does not mean that the Directive does not properly protect workers. The Directive is a minimum harmonisation Directive and that is why it allows for derogations and opt-outs. This does not mean that Member States can do what they want because Member States should still abide by the minimum standards established under the Directive. The Directive itself, in its preamble, declares that the derogations and opt-outs were included with the aim of allowing for flexibility in the application of certain provisions of the Directive whilst ensuring compliance with the provisions of health and safety at the place of work. The Directive continues by stating that derogations are to be subject to a case-by-case analysis by Member States which should always take account of the needs of the workers. The EU‟s Working Time Directive requires EU Member States to guarantee a limit to weekly working hours, which must not exceed forty-eight hours on average, including any overtime. Member States should also guarantee a minimum daily rest period of eleven consecutive hours in every twenty-four hours together with a rest break during working hours if the working day is longer than six hours. A minimum weekly rest period of twenty-four uninterrupted hours for each seven-day period, in addition to the eleven hours' daily rest is also to be guaranteed by Member States. Finally, Member States should also allow a period of at least four weeks per year to be taken by a worker as paid annual leave. Although the Directive emerged in 1993 and was subsequently amended in 2000, consultation is still ongoing on the possible re-amendment to the Directive. Working conditions changed in the 21st century especially with the introduction of more sectors of work and with the fact that the number of women deciding to continue working increased a lot lately. This entails the need to have better protection to help in maintaining the balance between family life and working life as this is another pivotal issue which needs protection under the Directive. Description: LL.M.

2014-01-01T00:00:00Z