This book corresponds in its core to my Ph.D dissertation which was submitted at the Catolica Global School of Law in October 2012 and discussed publicly in July 2013. Attention is drawn to the following methodological options: a) The dissertation includes apart from the main text, one table of cases, one table of legislation, one table of abbreviations, one table of correspondence, the abstract and the list of bibliographic references; b) Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the dissertation is divided in two main parts, each of them divided in three chapters; c) The numbering of the chapters is autonomous in each part; d) For the sake of simplification, clarity and consistency, all bibliographic references included in footnotes follow the same pattern: AUTHOR(S)' LAST NAME, Title (for books) or "Title" (for articles/working papers), year of publication, relevant page(s); e) Bibliographic references in the same footnote are indicated by chronological order (starting with the oldest), and in case of references of the same year by alphabetical order of the author(s)' name; f) Full bibliographic references may be found in the final list of references; g) Cases are referred to in the main text according to their short designation, and are identified in footnotes only the first time they are mentioned in the text; h) In footnotes, references to cases are included in full and said references may also be found in the table of cases; i) Cases are indicated in footnotes by chronological order following the corresponding number of process regardless of the court which decided them and the date of the final decision; j) All the CJEU's cases cited are available in the Court's website (www. curia.eu); k) Legal acts are referred to in short, with full reference being included in the table of legislation; l) The use of italics is restricted to words, sentences or quotations in foreign languages and/or to highlight concepts or ideas, and are therefore of the sole responsibility of the author; m) Quotations are made in the original language and identified in quotation marks; n) For the sake of simplification, the correspondence between the old and current numbering of the Treaty provisions is not made in the text. The reader should be aware of the Tables of Correspondence annexed to the Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties. The book includes a table with the most cited provisions throughout the text; o) The academic research which grounded the dissertation was concluded around the end of the first semester of 2012. This Ph.D is the result of several years of committed academic research, some travelling (New York, London, Germany, Madrid and Luxembourg), hard working days and sleepless nights. Such work would not have been possible without the love and friendship of many people amongst family, friends and colleagues. Given the impossibility of naming all of them, a "collective" acknowledgment for their support is hereby due. I must thank in particular to Professor Rui Medeiros from Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, Professor Piet Eeckhout from University College London, and Professor Miguel Poiares Maduro from Instituto Universitario Europeo for their contribution, encouragement and patience throughout the process. Also, a word is due to the partners at Campos Ferreira, Sa Carneiro eamp; Associados for their endorsement in the publication of this book. Lastly, I owe a very special thank you to my parents for many years of hard parenting work (and not enough recognition), and to my husband, Miguel, for brightening up my days and making my life so much better. This book is dedicated to him and our daughter, Maria Clara, who was born in the meantime, and whose existence gave life a whole different meaning.

Presents a new approach to prominent judgments of the European Court of Justice drawing on the writings of Judge Robert Lecourt.

Ten years after the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became part of binding primary law, and twenty years since its adoption, this volume assess the application of the EU Charter in the Member States. How often, and in particular by which actors, is the EU Charter invoked at the national level? In what type of situations is it used? Has the approach of national courts in general, and of constitutional courts in particular, to EU law to EU fundamental rights law changed following the entry into force of the Charter? What sort of interplay does the Charter generate with the national bill of rights and the European Convention? Is the life with the Charter on the national level a harmonious 'praktische Konkordanz' or rather a messy 'ménage à trois'? These and other questions are discussed in the four parts that form the book. Part I is dedicated to the normative foundations. Part II sets out Member States' Perspectives, providing a structured, in-depth account of the Charter's operation in 16 different Member States. Part III provides a detailed evaluation of selected rights contained within the Charter. Part IV synthesises the materials presented up to that point to develop a series of broader perspectives, looking to discover underlying lessons about the relationship between EU fundamental rights law and national legal systems.

Information Law Series Volume 45 In a copyright system characterised by broad and long-lasting exclusive rights, exceptions provide a vital counterweight, especially in times of rampant technological change. The EU’s controversial InfoSoc Directive – now two decades old – lists exceptions in which an unauthorised user will not have infringed the rightholder’s copyright. To reform or not to reform this legal framework – that is the question considered in great depth in this book, providing detailed theoretical and normative analysis of the Directive, the national and CJEU case law arising from it, and meticulously thought-out proposals for change. By breaking down the concepts of ‘flexibility’ and ‘legal certainty’ into a set of policy objectives and assessment criteria, the author thoroughly examines such core aspects of the framework as the following: the justifications for exceptions, e.g., safeguarding the fundamental rights of users; the regimes established in legislation and case law for key exceptions; the need to promote technological development; the importance of avoiding re-fragmentation caused by uncoordinated national legislative responses to technological changes; the legal status of digital technologies that rely on unauthorised uses of copyright-protected works; and the pros and cons of importing a fair use standard modelled after that of the United States. In an invaluable concluding chapter, the author puts forward a set of reform proposals, articulating their advantages and responding to potential objections. In doing so, the chapter also identifies, synthesises and critically examines the various proposals that have been advanced in the academic literature. In its decisive contribution to the debate around the InfoSoc Directive and the rules that guide its implementation, interpretation, and application, this book isolates the contentious structural features of the framework and examines them in a critical fashion. The author’s systematised review of scholarly and policymaking proposals for increasing flexibility and legal certainty in EU copyright law will be welcomed by practitioners in intellectual property law and other areas of economic law, as well as by interested policymakers and scholars.

This book explores the theory and practice of judicial jurisdiction within the field of private international law. It offers a revised look at values justifying the power of courts to hear and decide cross-border disputes, and demonstrates that a re-conceptualisation of jurisdiction is needed. Rather than deriving from territorial power of states, jurisdiction in civil and commercial cross-border matters ought to be driven by party autonomy. This autonomy can be limited by certain considerations of equality and critical state sovereign interests. The book applies this normative view to the existing rules of jurisdiction in the European Union and the Russian Federation. These regimes are chosen due to their unique positions towards values in private international law and contrasting societal norms that generate and accommodate these values. Notwithstanding disparate cultural and political ideas, these regimes reveal a surprising level of consistency when it comes to enforcement of party autonomy. There is, nevertheless, room for improvement. The book demonstrates to scholars, policy makers and lawmakers that jurisdiction should be re-centred around the interests of private actors, and proposes ways to improve the current rules.

This book arises from a three-year study of Preventive Justice directed by Professor Andrew Ashworth and Professor Lucia Zedner at the University of Oxford. The study seeks to develop an account of the principles and values that should guide and limit the state's use of preventive techniques that involve coercion against the individual. States today are increasingly using criminal law or criminal law-like tools to try to prevent or reduce the risk of anticipated future harm. Such measures include criminalizing conduct at an early stage in order to allow authorities to intervene; incapacitating suspected future wrongdoers; and imposing extended sentences or indefinate on past wrongdoers on the basis of their predicted future conduct - all in the name of public protection and security. The chief justification for the state's use of coercion is protecting the public from harm. Although the rationales and justifications of state punishment have been explored extensively, the scope, limits and principles of preventive justice have attracted little doctrinal or conceptual analysis. This book re-assesses the foundations for the range of coercive measures that states now take in the name of prevention and public protection, focussing particularly on coercive measures involving deprivation of liberty. It examines whether these measures are justified, whether they distort the proper boundaries between criminal and civil law, or whether they signal a larger change in the architecture of security. In so doing, it sets out to establish a framework for what we call 'Preventive Justice'.