La protezione dei diritti sociali nell'ordinamento dell'Unione Europea

This study deals with the protection of social rights in Europe and aims to outline the position currently held by these rights in the EU law. The first two chapters provide an overview of the regulatory framework in which the social rights lie, through the reorganisation of international sources. In particular the international instruments of protection of social rights are taken into account, both at the universal level, due to the activity of the United Nations Organisation and of its specialized agency, the International Labour Organization, and at a regional level, related to the activity of the Council of Europe. Finally an analysis of sources concludes with the reconstruction of the stages of the recognition of social rights in the EU. The second chapter describes the path followed by social rights in the EU: it examines the founding Treaties and subsequent amendments, the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989 and, in particularly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the legal status of which was recently treated as the primary law by the Treaty of Lisbon signed in December 2007. The third chapter is, then, focused on the analysis of the substantive aspects of the recognition of the rights made by the EU: it provides a framework of the content and scope of the rights accepted in the Community law by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is an important contribution to the location of the social rights among the fundamental and indivisible rights of the person. In the last section of the work, attention is focused on the two profiles of effectiveness and justiciability of social rights, in order to understand the practical implications of the gradual creation of a system of protection of these rights at Community level. Under the first profile, the discussion is focused on the effectiveness in the general context of the mechanisms of implementation of the “second generation” rights, with particular attention to the new instruments and actors of social Europe and the effect of the procedures of soft law. Second part of chapter four, finally, deals with the judicial protection of rights in question. The limits of the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice are more obvious exactly in the field of social rights, due to the gap between social rights and other fundamental rights. While, in fact, the Community Court ensures the maximum level of protection to human rights and fundamental freedoms, social rights are often degraded into mere aspirations of EU institutions and its Member States. That is, the sources in the social field (European Social Charter and Community Charter) represent only the base for interpretation and application of social provisions of secondary legislation, unlike the ECHR, which is considered by the Court part of Community law. Moreover, the Court of Justice is in the middle of the difficult comparison between social values and market rules, of which it considers the need to make a balance: despite hesitancy to recognise the juridical character of social rights, the need of protection of social interests has justified, indeed, certain restrictions to the free movement of goods, freedom to provide services or to Community competition law. The road towards the recognition and the full protection of social rights in the European Union law appears, however, still long and hard, as shown by the recent judgments Laval and Viking, in which the Community court, while enhancing the Nice Charter, has not given priority to fundamental social rights, giving them the role of limits (proportionate and justified) of economic freedoms.

Bewertungsportale im Internet – Meinungsfreiheit versus Datenschutz und Haftungsfragen der Portalbetreiber

Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit rechtlichen Fragestellungen rund um Bewertungs-portale im Internet. Zentrale Themen der Arbeit sind dabei die Zulässigkeit der Veröffentlichung der von den Nutzern abgegebenen Bewertungen vor dem Hintergrund möglicherweise entgegenstehender datenschutzrechtlicher Bestimmungen und der Persönlichkeitsrechte der Betroffenen. Des weiteren wird der Rechtsschutz der Betroffenen erörtert und in diesem Zusammenhang die haftungsrechtlichen Risiken der Forenbetreiber untersucht. Gegenstand der Arbeit sind dabei sowohl Online-Marktplätze wie eBay, auf denen sowohl der Bewertende als auch der Bewertete registriert und mit dem Bewertungsverfahren grundsätz-lich einverstanden sind (geschlossene Portale), als auch Portale, auf denen – oftmals unter einem Pseudonym und ohne vorherige Anmeldung – eine freie Bewertungsabgabe, zu Pro-dukteigenschaften, Dienstleistungen bis hinzu Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen des Bewerteten möglich ist (offene Portale). Einleitung und Erster Teil Nach einer Einleitung und Einführung in die Problematik werden im ersten Teil die verschie-denen Arten der Bewertungsportale kurz vorgestellt. Die Arbeit unterscheidet dabei zwischen so genannten geschlossenen Portalen (transaktionsbegleitende Portale wie eBay oder Ama-zon) auf der einen Seite und offenen Portalen (Produktbewertungsportale, Hotelbewertungs-portale und Dienstleistungsbewertungsportale) auf der anderen Seite. Zweiter Teil Im zweiten Teil geht die Arbeit der Frage nach, ob die Veröffentlichung der durch die Nutzer abgegebenen Bewertungen auf den offenen Portalen überhaupt erlaubt ist oder ob hier mögli-cherweise das Persönlichkeitsrecht der Betroffenen und hier insbesondere das Recht auf in-formationelle Selbstbestimmung in Form der datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen die freie Bewertungsabgabe unzulässig werden lässt. Untersucht werden in diesem Zusammenhang im einzelnen Löschungs- bzw. Beseitigungsan-sprüche der Betroffenen aus § 35 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 1 BDSG bzw. §§ 1004 i. V. m. 823 Abs. 1 BGB (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht). Die Arbeit kommt in datenschutzrechtlicher Hinsicht zu dem Schluss, dass die Bewertungen personenbezogene Daten darstellen, die den datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen unterlie-gen und eine Veröffentlichung der Bewertungen nach dem im deutschen Recht geltenden da-tenschutzrechtlichen Erlaubnisvorbehalt grundsätzlich nicht in Betracht kommt. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser den tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten und Interessenlagen im Internet nicht mehr gerecht werdenden Gesetzeslage diskutiert der Autor sodann die Frage, ob die datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen in diesen Fällen eine Einschränkung durch die grund-gesetzlich garantierten Informationsfreiheiten erfahren müssen. Nach einer ausführlichen Diskussion der Rechtslage, in der auf die Besonderheiten der ein-zelnen Portale eingegangen wird, kommt die Arbeit zu dem Schluss, dass die Frage der Zuläs-sigkeit der Veröffentlichung der Bewertungen von einer Interessenabwägung im Einzelfall abhängt. Als Grundsatz kann jedoch gelten: Ist die bewertete Tätigkeit oder Person in Bezug auf die bewertete Eigenschaft ohnehin einer breiten Öffentlichkeit zugänglich, erscheint eine Veröffentlichung der Daten nicht bedenklich. Dagegen wird man einen Löschungs- bzw. Be-seitigungsanspruch bejahen müssen für die Bewertungen, die Tätigkeiten oder Eigenschaften des Bewerteten, die in keinem Zusammenhang mit ihm als öffentlicher Person stehen, betref-fen. Anschließend geht die Arbeit auf die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Betroffenen und der sich hier-aus ergebenden Beseitigungs- und Unterlassungsansprüchen gemäß der §§ 1004 Abs. 1, 823 Abs. 1 BGB ein, verneint jedoch wegen dem Vorrang der spezialgesetzlichen Bestimmungen aus dem Bundesdatenschutzgesetz letztlich eine Anwendbarkeit der Anspruchsgrundlagen. Schließlich wird in diesem Teil noch kurz auf die Zulässigkeit der Bewertung juristischer Per-sonen eingegangen, die im Grundsatz bejaht wird. Dritter Teil Sofern der zweite Teil der Arbeit zu dem Schluss kommt, dass die Veröffentlichung der Be-wertungen zulässig ist, stellt sich im dritten Teil die Frage, welche Möglichkeiten das Recht dem Bewerteten bietet, gegen negative Bewertungen vorzugehen. Untersucht werden, dabei datenschutzrechtliche, deliktsrechtliche, vertragliche und wettbe-werbsrechtliche Ansprüche. Ein Schwerpunkt dieses Teils liegt in der Darstellung der aktuellen Rechtsprechung zu der Frage wann eine Bewertung eine Tatsachenbehauptung bzw. ein Werturteil darstellt und den sich hieraus ergebenden unterschiedlichen Konsequenzen für den Unterlassungsanspruch des Betroffenen. Diejenigen Bewertungen, die eine Meinungsäußerung darstellen, unterstehen dem starken Schutz der Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit. Grenze der Zulässigkeit sind hier im wesentlichen nur die Schmähkritik und Beleidigung. An Tatsachenbehautpungen dagegen sind schärfere Maßstäbe anzulegen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob vertragliche Beziehungen zwischen den Beteiligten (Bewertenden, Bewertete und Portalbetreiber) die Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit einschränkt, was jedenfalls für die geschlossenen Portale bejaht wird. Vierter Teil Der vierte Teil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den „Zu-gut-Bewertungen“. Es geht dabei um wettbewerbsrechtliche Ansprüche im Falle verdeckter Eigenbewertungen. Solche Eigenbewertungen, die unter dem Deckmantel der Pseudonymität als Werbemittel zur Imageverbesserung in entsprechenden Bewertungsportale verbreitet werden ohne den wahren Autor erkennen zu lassen, sind in wettbewerbsrechtlicher Hinsicht grundsätzlich unzulässig. Fünfter Teil Im letzten Teil der Arbeit wird schließlich der Frage nach der Verantwortlichkeit der Portal-betreiber für rechtswidrige Bewertungen nachgegangen. Zunächst wird die Feststellung getroffen, dass es sich bei den von den Nutzern abgegebenen Bewertungen um fremde Inhalte handelt und somit die Haftungsprivilegierungen der § 11 Abs. 1 TDG, § 9 Abs. 1 MDStV eingreifen, wonach die Forenbetreiber für die rechtswidrigen Bewertungen jedenfalls so lange nicht verantwortlich sind, solange sie hiervon keine Kenntnis haben. Da von dieser Haftungsprivilegierung nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs die Störerhaftung nicht umfasst ist, wird die Reichweite die Forenbetreiber aus der Störerhaftung treffenden Überwachungspflichten diskutiert. Die Arbeit kommt hier zu dem Ergebnis, dass in den Fällen, in denen dem Adressaten der Bewertung die Identität des Verfassers bekannt ist, sich die Verpflichtungen der Forenbetrei-ber auf die Beseitigung bzw. Sperrung der rechtswidrigen Bewertung beschränken. Sofern die Identität des Bewertenden unbekannt ist, haften die Forenbetreiber als Mitstörer und dem Be-troffenen stehen Unterlassungsansprüche auch gegen die Forenbetreiber zu.

Reti transeuropee e servizi nei settori dell'energia, delle telecomunicazioni e dei trasporti

Le reti transeuropee sono uno dei vettori della competitività, dell’integrazione e dello sviluppo sostenibile dell’Unione. La tesi mette in luce la progressiva affermazione di una coerente politica infrastrutturale europea a carattere strumentale, esaminando tale evoluzione sotto tre profili: normativo, istituzionale e finanziario. In primo luogo, sotto il profilo normativo, la tesi evidenzia, da un lato, la progressiva emancipazione delle istituzioni dell’Unione dall’influenza degli Stati membri nell’esercizio delle proprie competenze in materia di reti transeuropee e, dall’altro, lo sviluppo di relazioni di complementarietà e specialità tra la politica di reti e altre politiche dell’Unione. L’elaborato sottolinea, in secondo luogo, sotto il profilo istituzionale, il ruolo del processo di «integrazione organica» dei regolatori nazionali e del processo di «agenzificazione» nel perseguimento degli obiettivi di interconnessione e accesso alle reti nazionali. La tesi osserva, infine, sotto il profilo finanziario, l’accresciuta importanza del sostegno finanziario dell’UE alla costituzione delle reti, che si è accompagnata al parziale superamento dei limiti derivanti dal diritto dell’UE alla politiche di spesa pubblica infrastrutturale degli Stati membri. Da un lato rispetto al diritto della concorrenza e, in particolare, al divieto di aiuti di stato, grazie al rapporto funzionale tra reti e prestazione di servizi di interesse economico generale, e dall’altro lato riguardo ai vincoli di bilancio, attraverso un’interpretazione evolutiva della cd. investment clause del Patto di stabilità e crescita. La tesi, in conclusione, rileva gli sviluppi decisivi della politica di reti europea, ma sottolinea il ruolo che gli Stati membri sono destinati a continuare ad esercitare nel suo sviluppo. Da questi ultimi, infatti, dipende la concreta attuazione di tale politica, ma anche il definitivo superamento, in occasione di una prossima revisione dei Trattati, dei retaggi intergovernativi che continuano a caratterizzare il diritto primario in materia.

Ist die staatliche Risikoübernahme bei Terrorrismusrisiken mit dem europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht vereinbar?

Nach den terroristischen Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 wurde sowohl in der Versicherungspraxis als auch in der Wissenschaft kontrovers darüber diskutiert, ob der Staat bei solchen als "nicht versicherbar" geltenden Terrorismusrisiken mithaften soll. Als Folge der Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 ist in Deutschland die Extremus Versicherungsaktiengesellschaft entstanden, die Versicherungsschutz gegen Terrorismusrisiken anbietet und an de-ren Haftung der deutsche Staat beteiligt ist. Fraglich ist, ob eine solche Staatsbeteiligung an der Extremus AG eine unzulässige Beihilfe im Sinne des Art. 87 EGV darstellt und damit gegen das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht verstößt. Die wettbewerbsrechtliche Überprüfung der Extremus AG hat ergeben, dass die der Extremus AG gegebene staatliche Beihilfe in Form von Staatsgarantie ausnahmsweise zulässig ist.

Open Source und Kartellrecht

„Open source and European antitrust laws: An analysis of copyleft and the prohibition of software license fees on the basis of art. 101 TFEU and the block exemptions“ Open source software and open source licenses (like the GNU GPL) are not only relevant for computer nerds or activists – they are already business. They are for example the fundament of LINUX, the only real rival of MICROSOFT’s WINDOWS-line in the field of operating systems for IBM PC compatibles. Art. 101 TFEU (like the identical predecessor art. 81 TEC) as part of the EU antitrust laws prohibits contract terms like price fixing and some forms of technology control. Are copyleft – the „viral effect“, the „cancer“ – and the interdiction of software license fees in the cross hairs of this legal rule? On the other side the European Union has since 2004 a new Technology Transfer Block Exemption with software license agreements for the first time in its scope: a safe harbour and a dry place under a umbrella for open source software? After the introduction (A) with a description of open source software the following text analyses the system of the European Unions competition law respectivley antitrust law and the requirements of the block exemptions (B). Starting point of antitrust analysis are undertakings – but who are the untertakings (C) in the field of widespread, independent developers as part of the „bazar organization“? To see how much open source has to fear from the law of the European Union, at the end the anti competitive and pro competitive effects of open source are totalized within the legal framework (D). The conclusion (E) shows: not nothing, but not much.

Interoperabilität von Software Art. 6 der Comperterprogramm-Richtlinie aus heutiger Sicht

This article reviews Article 6 of the Software Directive and discusses the need for a revision. Beyond clarification of the scope of the very limited provision on reverse engineering, it seems that the introduction of the clause into copyright was unfortunate. The indirect protection of ideas by prohibiting reverse engineering is foreign to the copyright concept. Permitting reverse engineering altogether would promote research and development and further other goals like ICT security. Innovation would not be retarded, which is the reason why US trade secret law permits reverse engineering based also on economic arguments. The notions of compatibility Article 6 tries to address are better dealt with by Competition Law, which was demonstrated by the Microsoft Decision of the European Court in 2007.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Cloud Computing in the EU Policy Sphere Interoperability, Vertical Integration and the Internal Market

Cloud computing is a new development that is based on the premise that data and applications are stored centrally and can be accessed through the Internet. Thisarticle sets up a broad analysis of how the emergence of clouds relates to European competition law, network regulation and electronic commerce regulation, which we relate to challenges for the further development of cloud services in Europe: interoperability and data portability between clouds; issues relating to vertical integration between clouds and Internet Service Providers; and potential problems for clouds to operate on the European Internal Market. We find that these issues are not adequately addressed across the legal frameworks that we analyse, and argue for further research into how to better facilitate innovative convergent services such as cloud computing through European policy – especially in light of the ambitious digital agenda that the European Commission has set out.

Typology of the Tools of EC Communications Regulation

The present article is an abridged version of a chapter to the book EC Electronic Communications and Competition Law (London: Cameron May 2007). It explores in a neutral manner the pros and cons of the currently applied toolkit of European Community communications law, i.e. the generic competition law rules and the sector specific regulatory framework. A number of criteria are introduced and these tools are then tested as to their efficiency and efficacy.

Electronic Communications as a Distinct and Unique Object of Regulation

The present paper is an abridged version of the first chapter to the book EC Electronic Communications and Competition Law (London: Cameron May, 2007). It is intended to pinpoint the contours of the communications sector as an object of regulation - an exercise that is essential to any thoughts on appropriate regulatory design. The communications sector is defined through its salient features of being (i) network-bound; (ii) dynamic; (iii) converging; (iv) sensitive to regulation and society’s reactions; and as one (v) with special societal role and as (vi) part of the new economy.

Human rights and international trade

Economic globalization and respect for human rights are both highly topical issues. In theory, more trade should increase economic welfare and protection of human rights should ensure individual dignity. Both fields of law protect certain freedoms: economic development should lead to higher human rights standards, and UN embargoes are used to secure compliance with human rights agreements. However the interaction between trade liberalisation and human rights protection is complex, and recently, tension has arisen between these two areas. Do WTO obligations covering intellectual property prevent governments from implementing their human rights obligations, including rights to food or health? Is it fair to accord the benefits of trade subject to a clean human rights record? This book first examines the theoretical framework of the interaction between the disciplines of international trade law and human rights. It builds upon the well-known debate between Professor Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, who construes trade obligations as human rights, and Professor Philip Alston, who warns of a merger and acquisition of human rights by trade law. From this starting point, further chapters explore the differing legal matrices of the two fields and examine how cooperation between them might be improved, both in international law-making and institutions,in dispute settlement. The interaction between trade and human rights is then explored through seven case studies:freedom of expression and competition law; IP protection and health; agricultural trade and the right to food; trade restrictions on conflict WHO convention on tobacco control; and, finally, human rights conditionalities in preferential trade schemes.

Disciplining Investment Incentives: A Lost Cause?

An E15 Initiative think piece: Investment incentives rank among the most important policy instruments governments employ to influence the locational decisions of multinational firms. In the wake of the recent increase in locational competition and the growing impact of investment incentives and support measures for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the need for enhanced disciplines on investment incentives has gained political and academic salience. This think piece explores the evolution of investment incentives from a development and rule-making perspective. It summarises the existing literature and examines current practices and recent trends in FDI flows and the use of various investment incentives. This is followed by a discussion of the reasons for the observed stalemate in attempts at disciplinary rule-making. The paper concludes by putting forth recommendations for data gathering and transparency that could further the move toward improved global governance founded on the increasing complementarities of trade, investment, and competition law and policy as the core pillars of a more open, inclusive, and just world economy.

Poder da marca: interações entre direito antitruste e direito industrial

O presente trabalho busca analisar os diferentes tratamentos dispensados à marca no âmbito do controle preventivo e no controle repressivo de condutas. A análise da função social das marcas demonstrou que esta é uma propriedade que se realiza na concorrência e pela concorrência. Nesse sentido, não há dúvidas de que está sujeita aos princípios do Direito Concorrencial. Todavia, a maneira como esses princípios balizam a marca no controle de atos de concentração, de um lado, e no controle repressivo de condutas, de outro, difere. No âmbito do controle de atos de concentração, a atuação da autoridade concorrencial é orientada por uma variante do princípio da precaução, o que a autoriza a tomar decisões e impor restrições aos direitos marcários mesmo em um contexto de incerteza. No âmbito do controle repressivo de condutas, todavia, a intervenção do CADE está sujeita aos princípios do Processo Administrativo Sancionador. Neste contexto, as condutas que envolvem o uso de direitos de propriedade intelectual, incluindo as marcas, devem ser analisadas à luz do princípio da estrita legalidade. Um critério jurídico objetivo é necessário para distinguir o lícito do ilícito, sobretudo em um cenário no qual estão em jogo duas políticas públicas distintas: a de proteção à concorrência e a de proteção à direitos de propriedade industrial. Sendo essas duas políticas instrumentais e parciais, voltadas a um fim maior de política econômica, devem harmonizar-se, e não sobrepor-se uma a outra. Ademais, o escopo de atuação da autoridade concorrencial em processos que investiguem o uso abusivo de direitos marcários e atos de concorrência desleal deve ser esclarecido. O direito concorrencial, enquanto ramo autônomo do direito, com princípios e métodos interpretativos próprios, pode analisar institutos e figuras de outros ramos que com ele guardem relação sem ter de ficar adstrito ao posicionamento de outras instâncias.

REACH: A killer whale for SMEs? CEPS Policy Brief No. 307, 9 December 2013

REACH is a very demanding system for any business either large or small, yet right from the start one of the more serious concerns was whether and how SMEs could cope with the Regulation. After all, some 27,600 companies in EU chemistry are SMEs (95% of all firms). Seven years down the line, many of these fears are materialising. Assuming no significant changes are introduced to REACH, this paper suggests the following recommendations: Above all, we strongly encourage SMEs to start early and develop a strategy for REACH compliance well before 2018. Address the potential competition law implications of current SIEF arrangements, e.g. through a Guidance document from DG Competition by 2014 (in time for 2018) Facilitate the exchange of information along the value chain by adopting pragmatic approach to the content and format of Safety Data Sheets. More can be done on the IT front as well, for instance by developing tools that generate compliant Safety Data Sheets. Improve the communication of REACH and its intended goals, that is, the health and environmental benefits, to the wider public. SMEs regret the unawareness of the public in the light of the enormous efforts they have to undertake. In the event of a later review of REACH, the logic should be risk-based rather than hazard-based.