Doctoral researcher (PhD student) in Law at the University of Luxembourg

The Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance of the University of Luxembourg is recruiting a Doctoral researcher (PhD student) in Law. A specialisation is foreseen in (European) Criminal Law and Criminal procedure.

The doctoral researcher will be working within the Department of Law. The doctoral researcher is expected to contribute to research projects in the area of Criminal Law. Particular interest in Europeanization of Criminal Law with an interdisciplinary context would be an asset.

The candidate’s main task will be to prepare a doctoral thesis in the field of European Criminal Law, under the supervision of Professor Stefan Braum. The thesis work will be undertaken at the University of Luxembourg but can also be part of a jointly-supervised with another university.

Τhe doctoral researcher will contribute to the teaching of classes ranging from one to three hours per week, of small group teachings and tutorials.

The candidate must have:

  • Master’s degree in Law
  • The  linguistic skills to evolve in a multilingual environment: fluency in either English or French, good understanding of the second language and possibly a third language, German in particular, will be considered an advantage.

Further information at academicpositions.com

(photo:pixabay)

Comments

  1. james johnMarch 20, 2021 at 10:58 PM

    I am definitely enjoying your website. You definitely have some great insight and great stories.
    Assignment Writing Service Uk

    ReplyDelete
  2. imlanguagesJuly 23, 2021 at 12:08 PM

    I prefer high-quality content, which I discovered in your article. The information you've provided is useful and important to us. Continue to post articles like these. Thank you very much. British dissertation editors reviews

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Access to documents: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled (CJEU)

Image
In its Judgment dated 14/5/2025 in Case T-36/23 (Stevi and The New York Times v Commission), the General Court ruled that the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled. By an application based on the Access to Documents Regulation, [1], Matina Stevi, a journalist working for the daily newspaper The New York Times, requested the European Commission to provide access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.  The Commission rejected that application on the ground that it did not hold the documents covered by it. Ms Stevi and The New York Times requested the General Court of the European Union to annul the Commission’s decision.  In its judgment, the General Court upholds the action and annuls the Commission’s decision. The Court re...
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

Depriving the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki of its ownership of a plot of land acquired before the Second World War was not lawful (ECtHR)

Image
In Chamber’s judgment in the case of Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece (application no. 13959/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the dismissal in 2019 of the applicant community’s demand to be judicially recognised as the sole owner of a plot of land on the grounds that it had been categorised as “enemy property” after the end of the Second World War – although the ownership of the plot had been transferred to them in 1934. The Court found in particular that the Court of Cassation’s 2019 interpretation of the relevant domestic legislation and its application to this case had not been foreseeable. It was not reasonable to expect the applicant community to have known that the property which had already come under its ownership in 1934 would be affected in 1950 and 1955 by the legislation concerning enemy...
Read more