Aktuálně 22. 10. 2015

Videoworkshop

Centre for Law and Public Affairs (CeLAPA) ve spolupráci s Chaire Hoover d’éthique économique et sociale, Louvain University (Belgie)

a Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno) pořádá

PhD Videoworkshop in Law, Philosophy and Public Policy

Datum: 22. 10. 2015

Místo: Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, Brno

PROGRAM

Coordination: Prof. Axel Gosseries (axel.gosseries@uclouvain.be)

Chaire Hoover and CeLAPA (Franz Weyr Fellow)

14h-14h30. Pavel Loutocký, PhD student in Law

Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno)

Respondent: Antoine Verret-Hamelin

Can European Online Dispute Resolution Work Without Online Negotiation?

One of the main advantages of online dispute resolution (ODR) is the possibility to negotiate online with the other party. eBay experience showed that 80% of online e-commerce disputes can be solve through online negotiations. ODR platform on the basis of the Regulation No. 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes offers online complaint and response form to the parties and it was expected that it would also provide a platform for online negotiations. Such possibility to solve the disputes was however fully left for the willingness of the alternative dispute resolution providers. The presentation will thus assess the impact of excluding online negotiation from the ODR platform and will describe practical implications of such unfortunate decision.

14h30-15h. Anne-France Colla, PhD student in Law

Centre de recherche sur l'Etat et la Constitution (CRECO), Faculty of Law, University of Louvain

Respondent: Pavel Loutocký

On the recent ECJ case law on legitimate expectations

In this paper, I will first distinguish two groups of ECJ cases on issues of legitimate expectations. Second, I will discuss two conditions that should be met for an expectation to be deemed legitimate: the existence of precise assurances from the authority and the unforeseeability of the legal change. Finally, I will explore the extent to which the ECJ protection of legitimate expectations put constraints on legislators willing to reform the law.

15h-15h30. Jakub Míšek, PhD student in Law

Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno)

Respondent: Thomas Ferretti

Can a Hyperlink be personal data?

The presentation is concerned with the question of whether a hyperlink can be personal data. The hypothesis is that due to the broad scope of the “personal data” definition, a hyperlink could be considered as personal data, if certain conditions are met. The presentation aims to examine such conditions and tries to decide on the question. In the first part European legal data protection regime is analysed, with the focus on the possible scope of “personal data” as is defined in the European directive 95/46/EC. The second part offers a case study of different situations in which a hyperlink might or might not serve as personal data in the meaning of the directive. Examined features are e.g. the nature of the person, who publishes the link, nature of the person who uses the link, and technical specifications like text connected with the link or whether it is embedded link or not. The third part tries to identify consequences of hyperlink being perso nal data. It shows different types of data controllers, which might be affected, and it presents legal duties the controllers have.

15 minutes break

15h45-16h15. Antoine Verret-Hamelin, PhD student in Philosophy

Institut d’éthique appliquée, U. Laval (Quebec City) and Chaire Hoover, University of Louvain

Respondent: Lucie Straková

Climate Change and Future Generations. On why individual human rights are not enough

It has been increasingly popular to present environmental degradation and climate change as an issue of human rights held by present and – this is more controversial – future generations. Climate change, it is said, jeopardizes the individual right to life, health, adequate housing, etc. Is this framing captures the whole risk associated with climate change? I will argue that framing the issue in terms of individual human rights doesn’t give us the whole picture since it has a collective blind spot. I will emphasize the collective dimension of climate change risks by bringing together intergenerational justice and environmental justice: there is a high risk that climate change and environmental hazards will be mainly suffered by the most vulnerable individuals of future generations, maybe to a point where it will endanger the mere capacity to form and live in a stable society. In other words, climate change and environmental degradation do not only jeop ardizes individual human rights: it could tear apart entire societies. What is at risk, then, is also a collective right to self-determination. It will be helpful to formulate a generational right to self-determination – and its corollary obligation to mitigate climate change today – by drawing a parallel with one of the reasons advanced for having a perpetual constitution, which is to guarantee the conditions enabling future people to engage in self-government.

16h15-16h45. Lucie Straková, PhD student in Law

Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University (Brno)

Respondent: Anne-France Colla

Is the Constitutional Court entitled to reconsider the evaluation of evidence made by the court of first instance in minor disputes dealing with copyright fees?

In this paper the development of Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic rulings dealing with non-payment of copyright fees associated with communication of copyrighted work to the public and its enforcement is analysed. The decisions of the Constitutional Court dealing with minor claims between collective management societies and subjects suspected of non-payment of copyright fees are examined. These cases were heard by the court because of violation of the right to a fair trial. In the judgements of the Constitutional Court are significant differences in the interpretation of its role and powers in relation to the evaluation of evidence made by courts of first instance. In some judgements, the Constitution Court states that it is not entitled to reconsider the evaluation of evidence, in some other judgement it actively do so. It means that it is examined in which cases the Constitutional Court stated that it is entitled to reconsider the evaluation of evidence made by first instance courts and the circumstances that could have an impact on the decision.

16h45-17h15. Thomas Ferretti, PhD student in Philosophy

Chaire Hoover d’éthique économique et sociale, ESPO Faculty, University of Louvain

Respondent: Jakub Míšek

Egalitarian organizations, stability and legal complexity

Instead of promoting egalitarian organizations, Welfare States prefer to tolerate many inegalitarian forms of organizations and correct inequalities by others means, like redistributive taxation or the support of unions. There would be no problem if these other means were efficient in correcting inequalities. But they are not, for many reasons. One reason is that such an approach to deal with inequalities creates legal and fiscal complexity. This I will argue that this is a problem for the stability of just institutions.