Transposition Of Directive Research Articles

Green Public Procurement in Spain

We analyse green public procurement (GPP) implementation in Spain by examining thousands of procurement processes for the period 2012 through 2019. Our logistic regressions highlight three main findings: first, the 2014/24/UE directive transposition on public procurements fosters GPP adoption in Spain, its most marked effect being recorded among the more bureaucratic, less flexible, bodies; second, regional and local tiers of government are not as green in their procurement processes when we control for sector effects; and, third, there is a year-end effect that reduces the GPP on central and regional governments.

Non-Financial Disclosure: Isomorphism Effect in the Face of New Regulation

The purpose of this paper is to study the mimetic isomorphism process among firms in a context of expectations of further non-financial disclosure regulation. From the new institutionalism theory approach, we study the effect that the 2014/95/EU Directive transposition into the Spanish law had on 120 companies over an eight-year period and the isomorphism determined by their activity and leadership in reporting before (expectations period) and after the law enactment. Before the law, a trend to increase disclosure was observed, especially among environmentally sensible sectors and low-level reporting firms, while afterwards, the trend was reversed except for leading companies, highlighting the prevalence of the mimetic and normative isomorphism. This work deepens understanding of the adoption processes of coercive norms based on mimetic behaviors and coercive isomorphisms and helps in predicting the effect of a given norm after its announcement and approval, supporting more efficient designs for future legislation.

One Size Fits All? Handling Public Health and Environmental Risks in French Whistleblowing Legislation

Abstract French whistleblower legislation establishes a unified legal regime for the treatment of reports and for the protection of whistleblowers. Drawing on French whistleblower law, recently amended by the transposition of Directive 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019, this article examines whether the specific features of whistleblowing in relation to public health and environmental risks are adequately addressed by this unified regime. The article identifies four key factors for the effective handling of whistleblowing relating to public health and the environment: (1) the possibility of protecting whistleblowers who report facts gathered outside the workplace; (2) the possibility of protecting legal persons as whistleblowers; (3) the possibility of carrying out in-depth investigations to characterise the reality of the risks reported; and (4) the possibility of archiving whistleblowing in order to detect weak signals of risks over the long term. In these four areas, the article provides a nuanced diagnosis of the situation in French law and offers suggestions for improvement.

Spanish CFC Rules Stray from the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (2016/1164)

This article discusses the main aspects of the Spanish CFC rules, which, following their recent amendment in connection with the transposition of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, may give rise to problems of compatibility with EU law from two angles: (i) compliance with the ATAD transposition obligations; and (ii) respect for the fundamental freedoms of the European Union.

Case C-817/19, Ligue des Droits Humains v. Council of Ministers (C.J.E.U.)

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a Grand Chamber, rendered its decision in the preliminary ruling procedure C-817/19, Ligue des Droits Humains v. Council of Ministers. In its ruling, the CJEU held that the surveillance regime established by the Passenger Name Record Directive 2016/681 (PNR Directive) was compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU/EU Charter). Nevertheless, the CJEU strictly circumscribed the Directive's transposition within EU member states' domestic laws. While restricting permissible interpretations of the PNR Directive's provisions and imposing strict limitations on its scope to ensure its conformity with the EU Charter, for the first time the Court upheld an instrument of indiscriminate surveillance as compatible with EU primary law. This represents a significant development in the CJEU's case law on privacy rights, which is likely to affect the negotiation and development of future PNR agreements with third countries, as well as the development of the ePrivacy Regulation, discussions surrounding the regulation of AI, and negotiations for international instruments aiming to address serious crimes. Further, the ruling confirms the CJEU's increasing convergence with the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) case law on the matter, thus inscribing national security as a legitimate exception to the general prohibition of indiscriminate bulk data collection and retention in Europe.

Case C-817/19, Ligue des Droits Humains v. Council of Ministers (C.J.E.U.)

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as a Grand Chamber, rendered its decision in the preliminary ruling procedure C-817/19, Ligue des Droits Humains v. Council of Ministers. In its ruling, the CJEU held that the surveillance regime established by the Passenger Name Record Directive 2016/681 (PNR Directive) was compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU/EU Charter). Nevertheless, the CJEU strictly circumscribed the Directive's transposition within EU member states' domestic laws. While restricting permissible interpretations of the PNR Directive's provisions and imposing strict limitations on its scope to ensure its conformity with the EU Charter, for the first time the Court upheld an instrument of indiscriminate surveillance as compatible with EU primary law. This represents a significant development in the CJEU's case law on privacy rights, which is likely to affect the negotiation and development of future PNR agreements with third countries, as well as the development of the ePrivacy Regulation, discussions surrounding the regulation of AI, and negotiations for international instruments aiming to address serious crimes. Further, the ruling confirms the CJEU's increasing convergence with the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) case law on the matter, thus inscribing national security as a legitimate exception to the general prohibition of indiscriminate bulk data collection and retention in Europe.

Loyalty Shares: an International Perspective. A Suitable Instrument to Fight Short-Termism?

Abstract 556 The Act 5/2021, April the 12th, that modifies the Spanish Companies Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2010 of 2nd July (“LSC”) goes beyond the Transposition of Directive 2017/828 and introduces ex novo “loyalty shares” within the Spanish Companies Act (Official Journal, April 13th). This novelty is an evolution in the corporate legislation, the purposes of which is to encourage long-term ownership. Under the self-explanatory heading “Additional loyalty votes”, the law implementing Directive 2017/828/EC introduces a set of rules (Arts. 527 ter to 527 undecies) fundamentally equipollent to the ones already in place in both France and Italy and, more recently, in Belgium. According to the preamble to the Bill, long-term ownership is a new concept promoted by policy makers (including the European Commission), some institutional investors, stakeholders and even issuers who have been facing for a while an increasing pressure to maximize short term results. Against this background, the question that immediately arises (duly discussed in this paper) is whether loyalty shares really promote long-term ownership. More intriguingly, the question is whether short termism is really a problem for listed corporations. The short term vs. long term dichotomy has led us to analyse the rise of the prominent role played by “activist” investors. If short termism exists, are loyalty shares the proper mechanism whereby a real change can really materialise? Moreover, are these new instruments the right solution to overcome the entrenched shareholder apathy and, therefore, the key to achieve their engagement?557

Overarmed or underdressed? whistleblowers between anti-discrimination law and freedom of expression

Does retaliation against a whistleblower qualify as discrimination or an infringement of freedom of expression? In France, whistleblowing legislation has built whistleblower protection on the model of discrimination. The transposition of the European Directive 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of EU law, reinforced by domestic case law, shifts the balance towards freedom of expression. Standing at the crossroads of discrimination and freedom of expression, the protection of whistleblowers is in urgent need of conceptual clarification, which this article seeks to provide. To this end, the article proposes to consider the status of whistleblower as a layered legal regime, in addition to an underlying legal status such as employee, civil servant, journalist or other. The articulation between discrimination and freedom of expression thereby gains a strategic dimension that is essential to it. This understanding helps to clarify how discrimination law and freedom of expression can benefit whistleblowers and thus strengthen rather than weaken their protection.

Communication and the first steps towards the electronification of labour relations?

This academic paper deals with current changes to Slovak legislation in connection with the transposition of the European directive on transparent and predictable working conditions. Both authors primarily concentrate on two newly established rights related to communication between employees, employee representatives, and employers and the right to electronic communication in the business sphere between the subjects of social relations, including the right to feedback. We pay specific attention in particular to the expected impact on applied practice, which often corresponds to the authors' legal considerations of de lege ferenda. The key paradigm of the author's interpretation consists in the analysis of success in introducing a new model of communication into the more or less traditionalist approach between the subjects of labour relations, including the impact on their rights and legitimate interests.

Wpływ dyrektyw 2019/770 oraz 2019/771 na poziom ochrony konsumenta w ramach reżimu rękojmi w prawie polskim

Legislative changes introduced during the transposition of Directives 2019/770 and 2019/771 affected the level of consumer protection in Polish law in different ways. Regulating contracts for the supply of digital content and services, introducing new criteria for compliance with the contract, expressly requiring a qualified consensus if the subject of the contract is defined as deviating from the standard, addressing the issue of update, legal defects, partial withdrawal from the contract, and the possibility of withholding payment of the price until fulfillment of obligations due to non-compliance of the item with the contract improved consumers’ protection. In contrast, introducing a hierarchy of remedies for non-conformity of sold goods and the obligation to take into account the need to promote more sustainable consumption and circular economy when interpreting the provisions transposing Directive 2019/771 have a negative impact on consumer legal position. Finally, chosen manner of transposition lead to the fragmentation of the system of liability for non-conformity with the sales contract and further fragmentation of the regulation of contracts for the supply of digital content and services.

Considerations regarding the New Trade Register Law (Law No. 265/2022 regarding the Trade Register)

Law no. 265/2022 regarding the trade register and for amending and supplementing other normative acts with incidence on the registration within the trade register has entered into force on November 26, 2022. Through the new normative act, simplification and digitization in the field of registrations in the trade register was pursued, in order to streamline and accelerate procedures, constituting a transposition of Directives (EU) no. 1132/2017 and no. 1151/2019. This article proposes a brief analysis of the elements of novelty brought by the new trade register law. Greater attention will be given to the regulation of the status of the registrar of the trade register, given the fact that there have been failed attempts in the past to do so.

Some notes on the transposition of the transparency Directive and conciliation Directive in the Italian legal system

Some notes on the transposition of the transparency Directive and conciliation Directive in the Italian legal system

Self-regulating platforms?

The deadline for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/790 (the CDSM Directive) into national law expired on 7 June 2021. Some EU Member States have failed to perform the transposition, and so they also failed to introduce the new obligations under Article 17 prescribing brand new requirements that online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) shall comply with. As a part of these rules, OCSSPs shall amend their end-user licence agreements (EULAs) to include terms on the enforcement of the mandatory limitations and exceptions (quotation, criticism, review, as well as use for the purpose of caricature, parody and pastiche) under Article 17(7) and the establishment of an effective complaints and redress mechanism regarding the removal of the user-generated content in line with Article 17(9). In the second phase of our ongoing EU-funded research project, we examined the extent to which specific OCSSPs have amended their EULAs to meet these EU obligations. Our empirical data show that, besides only little progress, new sources of conflict have emerged.

‘Transposition’ of EU regulations: the politics of supplementing EU regulations with national rules

ABSTRACT This article argues for the inclusion of regulations in studies of EU policy implementation and compliance. Although both EU directives and EU regulations are to be implemented by the member states, the literature has devoted almost exclusive attention to directives. This is because, first, directives are considered more important than regulations. Second, the notification of the transposition of directives provides a convenient way to compare implementation records. Third, the transposition of directives allegedly introduces an extra implementation step. However, upon closer inspection all three reasons are flawed. Regulations – like directives – often require national rules to enter into effect, a fact long accepted by the European Court of Justice. This creates a situation remarkably similar to the transposition of directives. By analysing two case studies, we contribute by detailing this politico-legal situation, demonstrating its empirical relevance and sketching a new research agenda on the supplementation of EU regulations with national rules.

Legal Regulation of Unfair Trade Practices in Food Supply Chain

Abstract Recent changes in concentration in the EU markets affected also the organisation of the food supply chains. These significant changes severely impacted especially small and medium–sized enterprises which are likely to be exposed to unfair trading practices. Imbalances in bargaining power between large and small enterprises lead to competition inequalities and unfair trade practices that need a specific legislation governance. This paper provides an overview of the Slovak and EU legislation regulating unfair trade practices in agro–food sector. The main aim of both the European and Slovak legal acts regulating unfair trading practices is to ensure protection and fair income for businesses and quality and wider choice for consumers. In addition, the article also brings the overview of the EU directive transposition to the legal framework of individual EU member states.

Political and Legal Conditions of Marketing Activity of Businesses in the European Market

Abstract The article tackles the political and legal environment within the borders of the European Union (EU) member states. Determinants of the political and legal environment of the European market were identified on two levels: (1) the framework, i.e. supranational European political and legal conditions; (2) the classical political and legal environment of the EU member states. Afterwards, an analysis of individual factors of the political and legal environment in the aforementioned levels was performed. Four legal areas in the EU states were demonstrated: Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and mixed; three jurisdictional systems were identified: case law, continental and Scandinavian law; and the legal framework of the Union was found to consist of primary legislation, secondary legislation and adjudications of the Court of Justice of the EU. The problem of excessive duration of the administrative procedures, untimeliness and incomplete transposition of directives into the national law of the member states was discussed. It was also brought to attention that the diversity of laws and taxes is still a significant barrier to foreign operations of businesses in the EU internal market. It was also indicated that the integration of European law enables economic entities to perform marketing activities in the European market in the form of a representative office or a foreign branch without legal entity. Finally, it was stated that the factors of the political and legal environment are significantly unified in the supranational environment, while in the classical environment, there are some differences among the EU countries, but they allow for the use of unified marketing concepts, e.g. the concept of euromarketing.

The Transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1151 into Romanian National Law

"Directive (EU) 2019/1151 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards the use of digital tools and processes in company law, which was adopted by the European Parliament on 20 June 2019 and entered into force on 31 July 2019 (hereinafter as: Directive), is the first of two directives in the company law package. Promoting the use of digital tools and processes is the main purpose of the Directive, which involves three main things, i.e. enabling: online filing and accessing of company information, the online formation of certain types of companies, and the online registration of branches. In Romania, the transposition deadline of the Directive has been extended to 1 August 2022, with the authorization of the European Commission. The recent legislative evolution in the field of company law within the Romanian national law gives cause for hope. However, a normative act aiming at the implementation of the Directive into Romanian legislation is still far from completion, so the transposition procedure remains to be an ongoing process. The legislative evolution of the Romanian company law is quite dynamic despite the significant delay in the transposition of the Directive."

The Polish transposition of the press publishers’ right: waiting for the miracle?

... The implementation process of the press publishers’ related right introduced in Article 15 of the CDSM Directive is either nearing completion or has already been completed in most Member States. The implementation of the right that entitles press publishers to control the use of their publications by information society service providers (ISSPs) and to negotiate the appropriate remuneration is mandatory. Poland is still at the initial stage of the implementation process. On 30 June 2020, the Ministry of Culture announced a public consultation on the transposition of the CDSM Directive, which ran until 30 September 2020. The Council of Ministers scheduled the draft bill to be approved by the end of 2021. Unfortunately, to this day, it has not been published. It is worth recalling that the CDSM Directive should have been implemented by 7 June 2021, and the first country to introduce the press publishers’ right was France, which amended its Intellectual Property Code with the law n° 2019–775 on 24 July 2019. These significant time gaps in the regulation of press publishers’ right may consequently contribute to disparities in the level of publisher protection from one Member State to another, as well as creating legal uncertainty. On a side note, it is worth noting that not all scholars praise the quality of the French implementation,1 so the question of whether the speed of the right’s adoption always implies a good outcome.

Investigation of Nodal Numerical Adjoints From CMFD-Based Acceleration Methods

In this work, the attribute of mathematical adjoints acquired from various CMFD (coarse-mesh finite difference) accelerated nodal methods based on the nodal expansion method (NEM) is presented. The direct transposition is implemented to the NEM-CMFD system matrix that includes correction factors to acquire the adjoint flux. Three different acceleration schemes are considered in this paper, which are, namely, CMFD, pCMFD, and one-node CMFD methods, and the self-adjoint attribute of migration operator for each acceleration scheme is studied. With regard to the one-node CMFD acceleration, a mathematical description for encountering negative adjoint flux values is given alongside an adjusted one-node CMFD scheme that stifles such an occurrence. The overall features of the aforementioned acceleration methods are recognized through analyses of 2D reactor problems including the KWU PWR 2D benchmark problem. Further systematic assessment is conducted based on the first-order perturbation theory, where the obtained adjoint fluxes are applied as weighting functions. It is clearly shown that the adjusted one-node CMFD scheme results in an improved reactivity estimation by excluding the presence of negative adjoint flux values.

Strategic responses to sustainability reporting regulation and multiple stakeholder demands: an analysis of the Spanish EU non-financial reporting directive transposition

PurposeThis paper aims to study companies’ strategic responses to regulative institutional pressures on sustainability reporting. Particularly, it investigates the role of multiple stakeholder demands in shaping corporate responses to Law 11/2018 that transposes the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive in Spain.Design/methodology/approachInformed by Oliver’s framework, the study analyzes the 2018 non-financial information of Spanish listed companies mandated to report under Law 11/2018 to explore the relationship between adopting a particular strategic response and companies’ stakeholder configuration.FindingsCompanies facing multiple stakeholder pressures tend to use a compromise strategy favoring the disclosure of relevant topics to a specific stakeholder type. Specifically, environmentalists are the most influential stakeholder in determining the coverage of sustainability topics to the detriment of other stakeholders when companies suffer from regulatory pressures.Research limitations/implicationsThe study contributes to disentangling the factors determining how companies respond to sustainability reporting regulation. Future research could perform longitudinal and large multinational analyses to study the evolutionary process of corporate responses.Practical implicationsThe study is relevant to managers and policymakers as it highlights that sustainability reporting regulation should promote the coverage of relevant topics to less influential stakeholders.Social implicationsThe study explores the extent to which current sustainability reporting regulation can increase transparency on sustainability issues for all stakeholders.Originality/valueIn contrast to previous literature exploring the extent to which firms comply with regulation, the study considers that companies can respond more actively to mandatory sustainability reporting requirements.