Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Some features of the law and order model in Spain

This research is based on the hypothesis that law and order model is displacing the procedura justice system in Spain. After a thorough review of the international literature, one can observe that the traditional structure of the penal system does not seem to be capable of containing the new forms of crime. The new penal model assumes that public opinion is alarmed and unwilling to understand rational approaches to crime, so it will be likely to accept measures aimed at calming the fear of crime, through extensive control policies and penal tools to manage uncivil behavior. Objectives and methodology A measuring instrument has been developed to confirm this hypothesis, consisting of ten features that characterize the law and order model. This instrument has been used to identify examples of its ten features in the rules and practices developed at each phase of the Spanish criminal justice system. The analysis has focused specifically on public discourse about delinquency, criminal policy decisions, legislative processes, police routines, judicial dynamics, and prison system practices. Main results The investigation has shown that there are many processes and practices indicating that the law and order model is consolidating itself in the Spanish penal system. Nevertheless this process has a different intensity at each phase, being stronger at the legislative stage and softer in the penitentiary enforcement phase. One of the main conclusions is, therefore, that the designed instrument is ideal for measuring the degree of penetration of the model throughout the system. Some of the most striking results of the reasearch will be presented at the conference. Finally, proposals arise that could prevent the new model is fully seated in our criminal justice system, finding that the trend toward more severe penalties shown already unsustainable.

The Arduous Process of Climate Change Negotiations: How Science Can Facilitate the Desired Outcome

Effective interaction between climate science and policy is important for moving climate negotiations forward to reach an ambitious global climate change deal. Lack of progress in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations during recent years is a good reason for taking a closer look at the process of climate science–policy interaction to identify and eliminate existing shortcomings hindering climate policymaking. This paper examines the current state of climate science–policy interaction and suggests ways to integrate scientific input into the UNFCCC process more effectively. Suggestions relate to improvement in institutional structures, processes and procedures of the UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), quality of scientific input, credibility of scientific message and public awareness of climate change.

TAKING ORGANIZATIONS SERIOUSLY: RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, ORGANIZATIONS AND THE CRIMINAL LAW

In the post-Enlightenment period, Anglo-American criminal law has been applied with increased force, and an ever expanding scope, to collective actors like corporations and other organizations. Recent scholarship has focused on developing “truly organizational” bases of liability that break with the conventional approach of imputing individual conduct to an organization and instead analyze culpable conduct and intent in a way that reflects the distinct and independent capacity of organizations to pursue their interests or goals collaboratively. In 2004, Canada enacted amendments inspired by these ideas in the hope they would lead to more effective criminal enforcement against organizations. Twelve years later, however, the promise of Bill C-45 is largely unfulfilled. In this thesis, I explore how much of this failure of law reform to deliver transformational change is attributable to an individualist bias that permeates how we think about what it means to be responsible and how this then shapes the responsibility ascription process. Using an analytical framework that combines criminal law theory with selected aspects of rational-structural theory and organization culture, I suggest that a promising way forward may lie in reframing the essential qualities required to be a subject of the criminal law in a way that captures the unique attributes that make organizations different from individuals. The resulting organizational concept of responsible agency allows for an integration of organizational reality into how we assess organizational culpability while keeping the ambit of criminal liability within the limits of what is practicable and fair. This better aligns with the spirit of Bill C-45: to impose criminal liability in a way that takes organizations – and their crimes – seriously.

EU-North Africa relations in cross-border law enforcement: new legal challenges for the EU in the post-Lisbon and post-Stockholm era

The Stockholm Programme, allied to the Lisbon Treaty, heralds a new era of development of the EU provisions on cross-border law enforcement. The focus is shifting from the ongoing internal EU developments to the external relations of the EU. Many North African countries have had long legal relationships with the EU through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnerships. A number of these partnership agreements make express references, at the political level, to the development of cross-border law enforcement provision, as is the case of Morocco and Algeria with regard to drug trafficking and manufacture, or the lengthy references by Egypt to many of the crimes of interest to the EU’s own law enforcement legal framework. Algeria is currently focusing on modernising their own police forces, with both Algeria and Tunisia, reforming their criminal judicial frameworks. Another key player, Libya, currently has no legal agreements with the EU, and at least until the recent conflict, maintained an observer status in the Euro-Mediterranean process. At a practitioner level, the European Police College (CEPOL) is currently involved in the Euromed Police II programme. Clearly momentum is developing, both within the EU and from a number of Euro-Med North African countries to develop closer law enforcement co-operation. This may well develop further with the recent changes in governments of a number of North African countries. The EU approach in the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) policy area is to develop a legal framework upon which EU cross-border law enforcement will be based. The current EU cross-border law enforcement framework is the product of many years of multi-level negotiations. Challenges will arise as new countries from different legal and policing traditions will attempt to engage with already highly detailed legal and practice frameworks. The shared European legal traditions will not necessarily be reflected in the North African countries. This chapter critically analyses, from an EU legal perspective the problems and issues that will be encountered as the EU’s North African partner countries attempt to articulate into the existing, and still developing EU cross-border law enforcement framework.

Simplifying the air permitting process

DHEC’s Bureau of Air Quality issues construction and operating permits. Here’s a brief overview of the air permitting public notice process, including timeframes for public notice comment periods and information on which permits are required by law to include public notices.

Enhancement to the Mortgage Licensing Process

The Consumer Finance Division of the South Carolina State Board of Financial Institutions is responsible for the supervision, licensing and examination of all consumer finance companies, deferred presentment companies, check cashing companies, and non-depository mortgage lenders and their loan originators. This project specifically focuses on the licensing of Mortgage Lender/Servicer ( company), Mortgage Lender/Servicer Branch (branch) and Mortgage Loan Originator (loan originator) licenses. The problem statement is how the Division can handle increasing the number of mortgage loan originators in the state without delaying the time to process applications. The goal of this project is to make the current licensing process more efficient so that the Division can handle the increased workload without having to hire additional personnel.