LegalPost.eu

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of EU law establishes rules and procedures to protect ‘whistleblowers’, individuals who report information they acquired in a work-related context on breaches of EU law in key policy areas. Breaches include both unlawful acts or omissions and abusive practices. KEY POINTS The directive covers reports on: breaches of rules in the following areas (listed in detail in Part I of the annex) public procurement financial services, products and markets; prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing product safety and compliance transport safety in the railway, road, maritime and inland waters sectors protection of the environment, ranging from waste management to chemicals radiation protection and nuclear safety food and feed safety, animal health and welfare public health, including patients’ rights and tobacco controls consumer protection protection of privacy and personal data, security and information

Capital punishment: facts and figures By 2019, 142 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, leaving 56 countries still using capital punishment. There were 657 recorded executions in 20 countries (excluding China, where thousands of executions are believed to have been carried out), with more than 25,000 people on death row. The number of executions in 2019 was at the lowest level in at least a decade, down from 690 in 2018 and 993 in 2017. Some 86% of all recorded executions in 2019 took place in just four countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt. Figures are unknown for China, since this data is a state secret. (Source  Amnesty International ) There is strong opposition to abolishing the death penalty in Asia, the Arab World and the US. However, four fifths of the 55 African countries have abolished capital punishment or operate moratoriums. How the EU fights the death penalty As part of its commitment to defending  human rights , the EU is the lar

By Mpia Tsolaki, Lawyer** Freedom of movement for workers is founded on Article 45(1) TFEU and enshrined in fact in the abolition, set out in its second paragraph, of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment [1] . That prohibition has been regarded since the beginnings of the establishment of the single European Market as an indispensable corollary to its full integration since it has crucially promoted mobility of the workforce throughout the European Union (hereinafter EU) [2] .  From that point of view, it is therefore of outmost importance for ascertaining its ambit to determine at the outset the concept of "worker", which is not defined by neither the primary nor the secondary EU legislation. As expected, the Ariadne’s thread has been offered by the European Court of Justice (hereinafter ECJ) that has been constantly producing an ample case-law, which keepi

In its decision in the case of Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl v. Iceland (application no. 29297/18) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction and fine for homophobic comments he had made in response to an online article. The Court found that the applicant’s comments had amounted to hate speech within the meaning of its case-law. It accepted the Icelandic Supreme Court’s finding that the comments had been “serious, severely hurtful and prejudicial”, and that the decision which had originally sparked the debate, concerning measures to strengthen education in schools on lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender matters, had not warranted such a severe reaction. The domestic courts’ decisions in the case, taken after an extensive balancing exercise between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the rights of gender and sexual minorities, had therefore been reasonable and

An important decision was issued recently by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the indefinite retention of personal data (DNA profile, fingerprints and photograph) of a man who had a spent conviction for driving with excess alcohol in Northern Ireland. In the case Gaughran v. the United Kingdom (application no. 45245/15) the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court underlined that it was not the duration of the retention of data that had been decisive, but the absence of certain safeguards. In the applicant’s case his personal data had been retained indefinitely without consideration of the seriousness of his offence, the need for indefinite retention and without any real possibility of review. Noting that the technology being used had been shown to be more sophisticated than that considered by the domestic courts in this case, particul

The European Court of Justice in its Judgment in Case C-234/18 [1] ruled that EU law does not preclude Member States from providing for civil proceedings for confiscation which are unrelated to a finding of a criminal offence. Such proceedings are not covered by the Framework Decision on the confiscation of property. BP, the Chair of the supervisory board of a Bulgarian bank was subject to criminal proceedings for having incited others, from December 2011 to 19 June 2014, to misappropriate funds belonging to that bank in the sum of approximately €105 million. The criminal proceedings are pending and have not yet given rise to a final judgment. Independently of those criminal proceedings, the Bulgarian Commission for the combatting of corruption and for the confiscation of assets found that BP and members of his family had acquired assets of a considerable value whose origin could not be established. That commission therefore brought civil proceedings before the Sofiyski grads

By Chris Iacovides and Andri Antoniou- joint Liquidators* According to a press release issued by the Cypriot police, on 31st January 2020, a 42-year-old Ukrainian national had been arrested in Budapest pursuant to a European arrest warrant, extradited to Cyprus and remanded in custody, in connection with financial fraud totaling $92m, orchestrated through Cypriot-registered companies.  The individual arrested was the CFO of Mriya Agro Holding Public Ltd (“Mriya”), the Cypriot holding company of what was once one of Ukraine’s largest agricultural groups . Others wanted in connection with this matter are in hiding in Switzerland, where the authorities are known to be slow in executing international arrest warrants. This is the outcome of a lengthy investigation by the Cypriot police following a criminal complaint made by the Liquidators of Mriya 4 years ago and vindicates what has recently been identified in a report of the Council of Europe’s anti money laundering body, Mo