Titel Deelnemers "Korte inhoud" "The Right to Strike in the Public Sector: A Catch 22 between Fundamental Right and Fundamental Prohibition : – The Cases of Denmark and Germany with Some Comparative Belgian and Dutch Elements" "Alexander DE BECKER" "The article analyses the impact of the prohibition to strike for public servants in Germany and Denmark and compares it with the right to strike for their collegues in Belgium and the Netherlands." "The right to strike in the public sector : a catch 22 between fundamental right and fundamental prohibition : the cases of Denmark and Germany with some comparative Belgian and Dutch elements" "Alexander De Becker" "The right to strike in Vietnam's private sector" "The governance architecture of the right to strike in Europe" "Pieter Pecinovsky" "Application of international labour standards on the right to strike: the case of Vietnam" "In the Aftermath of the Promusicae Case: How to strike the balance?" "Fanny Coudert" "Copyright societies are currently pushing for increased private enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet, in particular by trying to involve Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in their combat against copyright infringements, and by pushing for new legislative mechanisms. This raises serious legal problems and questions both in terms of the protection of users’ privacy, their right to a fair trial, and the liability of ISPs. This article discusses the difficult task of balancing copyright interests and fundamental rights as debated in the Promusicae case." "Strict adherence to malaria rapid test results might lead to a neglect of other dangerous diseases: a cost benefit analysis from Burkina Faso" "Z Bisoffi, SB Sirima, Filip Meheus, C Lodesani, F. Gobbi, A Angheben, Halidou Tinto, B Neya, K Van den Ende, A Romeo, Jozef Van den Ende" "BACKGROUND: Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have generally been found reliable and cost-effective. In Burkina Faso, the adherence of prescribers to the negative test result was found to be poor. Moreover, the test accuracy for malaria-attributable fever (MAF) is not the same as for malaria infection. This paper aims at determining the costs and benefits of two competing strategies for the management of MAF: presumptive treatment for all or use of RDTs. METHODS: A cost benefit analysis was carried out using a decision tree, based on data previously obtained, including a randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruiting 852 febrile patients during the dry season and 1,317 in the rainy season. Cost and benefit were calculated using both the real adherence found by the RCT and assuming an ideal adherence of 90% with the negative result. The main parameters were submitted to sensitivity analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: At real adherence, the test-based strategy was dominated. Assuming ideal adherence, at the value of 525 E for a death averted, the total cost of managing 1,000 febrile children was 1,747 vs. 1,862 E in the dry season and 1,372 vs. 2,138 in the rainy season for the presumptive vs. the test-based strategy. For adults it was 2,728 vs. 1,983 and 2,604 vs. 2,225, respectively. At the subsidized policy adopted locally, assuming ideal adherence, the RDT would be the winning strategy for adults in both seasons and for children in the dry season. At sensitivity analysis, the factors most influencing the choice of the better strategy were the value assigned to a death averted and the proportion of potentially severe NMFI treated with antibiotics in patients with false positive RDT results. The test-based strategy appears advantageous for adults if a satisfactory adherence could be achieved. For children the presumptive strategy remains the best choice for a wide range of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: For RDTs to be preferred, a positive result should not influence the decision to treat a potentially severe NMFI with antibiotics. In the rainy season the presumptive strategy always remains the better choice for children." "Sensitivity to light sterile neutrino mixing parameters with KM3NeT/ORCA" "Gwenhaël De Wasseige" "A risk to a right? Beyond data protection risk assessments" "Niels Van Dijk, Raphaël Maurice Gellert, Kjetil Rommetveit" "The proposal for a new European Data Protection Regulation introduces the novel obliga- tion of performing data protection assessments. Since these assessments will become a mandatory exercise for those in control of data processing systems, they will become an important apparatus for the governance of new and emerging information technologies. This tool, and in particular the notion of “risks to the rights and freedoms of data sub- jects” which is at its core, epitomises the shift from classical legal practice to more risk- based approaches. Merging risks and rights in the proposed fashion could change their meanings into something hardly predictable. This contribution proposes to explore the nature of the relation between both concepts within the assessment of a “risk to a right”. It will start by mapping out the various relations that exist between risks and rights in different practices. This should serve to identify gaps in the way DPIAs are currently operationalised and might well determine whether the introduction of this methodology in its current form might itself pose a risk to the rights of privacy and data protection. In turn however, it can provide opportunities for improvement and for lessons to be drawn from other practices and expertise that strike different relations between risks and rights, like the ones found in environmental governance and courts." "For whom I love I want to be known : the scope of EU citizens' family reunification rights : addressing legal fragmentation in the European UnionU+2019s multi-layered legal order" "Hester Kroeze" "Family is everything, but the possibility to enjoy family life is not always self-evident. The right to exercise family life is a fundamental principle that is widely recognized in international human rights law, but this right does not include the privilege to choose a specific country where family life can unfold. Families who are disseminated over different countries are therefore dependent on the rules of migration law to be (re)united. The acknowledgment of a residence right to the family member of a national or resident of a State for the purpose of exercising family life is called family reunification.This thesis focuses on family reunification between EU citizens and their family members who are nationals from a country outside of the European Union. The competence to regulate these rights is divided between the European Union and its Member States. EU citizens who exercise free movement rights fall within the scope of EU law. EU citizens who remain in their home Member State fall within the scope of national law. National law often imposes more stringent requirements for family reunification than EU law. Nationals of a Member State are then reversely discriminated in comparison with EU citizens who exercise free movement rights. EU law itself also differentiates in the requirements that must be fulfilled to obtain a right to family reunification, but on the basis of economic status rather than nationality and residence of an EU citizen.In 1992, EU citizenship was introduced. Every person who holds the nationality of a Member State is also EU citizen. Historically, the concept of citizenship is connected to the principle of equality, which is also a principle of EU law. The introduction of EU citizenship led to questions about the compatibility of the differentiation between EU citizensU+2019 rights on the basis of nationality, residence and economic status with this principle of equality, but the division of competences between the EU and its Member States makes it very difficult to overcome. Since then, there have been legislative and judicial developments which further fragmented family reunification rights for EU citizens. This fragmentation continues to be problematic from an equality point of view, and it causes legal uncertainty about the conditions which EU citizens must fulfill to enjoy family reunification rights derived from EU law.This thesis addresses these problems in two ways. First, the thesis aims to clarify the currently applicable legal framework. When is EU law applicable, and what conditions apply in which situation? Secondly, the thesis aims to connect the different developments in the field of EU citizensU+2019 family reunification rights and aspires to find elements that could be used to redesign the legal framework and diminish fragmentation. The structure of the thesis follows the different steps that must be followed to determine whether an EU citizen is able to derive family reunification rights from EU law.First, it must be assessed whether the situation of the EU citizen who seeks to be reunited with his or her family members falls within the scope of EU law. Traditionally, this requires movement to or residence in another Member State. In the last two decades, the Court of Justice decided that in some situations EU law also applies to EU citizens who remain in the Member State of their nationality. In this case law, a development is visible towards the protection of a right to reside on the territory of the European Union as a whole.Secondly, it must be determined which family members of an EU citizen are eligible for family reunification. EU law provides a list of potentially eligible family members, but it is the competence of the Member States to define which relationships they recognize as family relationships within their national legal order. For instance, not all Member State recognize the same-sex spouse of an EU citizen as a family member. In recent case law, the Court of Justice restricted the discretion of the Member States to define which relationships qualify as family members of an EU citizen U+2013 at least for the purpose of exercising EU rights.Thirdly, it must be established which material requirements EU citizens and their family members must fulfill to effectuate their family reunification rights in EU law. Due to the fragmentation of family reunification rights, there are many different sets of rules that could apply. The requirements that must be fulfilled before a family member can derive a residence right form EU law vary depending on the nationality, residence, and economic status of the EU citizen. The differences between the different sets of rules are meant to strike a fair balance between the interest of EU citizens and the interest of the Member States, depending on the circumstances of the case.The thesis ends with a return to the discussion of the meaning of EU citizenship. At the time of its introduction, EU citizenship did not carry sufficient normative weight to effectively address inequality between EU citizens based on their nationality, residence and economic status, but since then much has happened. These changes possibly altered the constitutional character of the European Union and could offer an entry for real change."