Showing papers on "Directive published in 2017"

2018 reform of eu data protection rules

Abstract: As of May 2018, with the entry into application of the General Data Protection Regulation, there is one set of data protection rules for all companies operating in the EU, wherever they are based. Stronger rules on data protection mean: people have more control over their personal data & businesses benefit from a level playing field . The regulation will become directly applicable on 25 May 2018, 2 years after its adoption and entry into force, replacing Directive 95/46/EC. This issue recaps the main innovations and opportunities opened up by the new EU data protection legislation; takes stock of the preparatory work undertaken so far at EU level; outlines what the European Commission, national data protection authorities and national administrations should still do for bringing the preparation to a successful completion;Sets out measures that the Commission intends to take in the coming months. How to cite: Viorescu, R. (2017). 2018 Reform of EU Data Protection Rules. European Journal of Law and Public Administration , 4(2), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.18662/eljpa/11

The impact of the EU general data protection regulation on scientific research

Abstract: The use of personal data is critical to ensure quality and reliability in scientific research. The new Regulation [European Union (EU)] 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data [general data protection regulation (GDPR)], repealing Directive 95/46/EC, strengthens and harmonises the rules for protecting individuals' privacy rights and freedoms within and, under certain conditions, outside the EU territory. This new and historic legal milestone both prolongs and updates the EU acquis of the previous Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The GDPR fixes both general rules applying to any kind of personal data processing and specific rules applying to the processing of special categories of personal data such as health data taking place in the context of scientific research, this including clinical and translational research areas. This article aims to provide an overview of the new rules to consider where scientific projects include the processing of personal health data, genetic data or biometric data and other kinds of sensitive information whose use is strictly regulated by the GDPR in order to give the main key facts to researchers to adapt their practices and ensure compliance to the EU law to be enforced in May 2018.

Directive 2014/95/EU: Are Italian Companies Already Compliant?

Abstract: According to Directive 2014/95/EU on disclosure of non-financial information from 2017 onwards, large companies (exceeding 500 employees) headquartered in Member States will be required to provide a series of social, environmental, and governance statements. The Directive was transposed into Italian law by Legislative Decree 254 of 30 December 2016.The aim of this paper is to evaluate the information gap for Italian companies and,consequently,the adjustments required by the new Directive on non-financial information. In order to analyze the level of non-financial and diversity disclosure, we created an assessment model called “Non-financial information score”, which records the required information as a percentage. We apply it to a sample of 223 large companies.The results (with an average NFIscore of about 49%) show that, in spite of what has previously emerged in the European debate about the application of the Directive on the part of large companies, an information gap remains, although the implementation of the directive should help to fill it in the coming years.In this sense, the potential contribution of the EU directive to non-financial disclosure in Italy appears to be greater than we had expected. Thus, in accordance with the literature, this paper appears to confirm the role of regulation in improving the quality of disclosure of non-financial information.

Corporate Reporting Practices in Poland and Romania – An Ex-ante Study to the New Non-financial Reporting European Directive

Abstract: The European Directive 2014/95/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups is applicable by European Union-based entities starting with the financial year commencing on 1 January 2017 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are reported to face difficulties when implementing new European or global accounting regulations and models We investigate the quality of non-financial disclosures in Poland and Romania, the biggest CEE countries, prior to the European Directive’s adoption and explain the diffusion of this type of reporting through the lens of the institutional pressures We find that prior regulation, local institutional characteristics, ownership, industry and auditors have an impact on the quality of disclosures Poland experienced a higher extent of voluntary reporting, but Romania faced prior regulatory demands for non-financial reporting (NFR) We find that the overall disclosure score is higher for Romania, which pr

Time for a New EU Regulatory Framework for GM Crops

Abstract: In recent years, the EU legislation on genetically modified (GM) crops has come under severe criticism. Among the arguments are that the present legislation is inconsistent, disproportionate, obsolete from a scientific point of view, and vague in terms of its scope. In this paper, the EU GM legislation (mainly the “Release Directive”, 2001/18/EC) is analysed based on five proposed criteria: legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, scientific adaptability, and inclusion of non-safety considerations. It is argued that the European regulatory framework does not at present satisfy the criteria of legal certainty, non-discrimination, and scientific adaptability. Two ways of reforming the present legislation toward greater accommodation of the values expressed through the proposed criteria are briefly introduced and discussed.

Protecting Animals and Enabling Research in the European Union: An Overview of Development and Implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU

Abstract: In 1986, European Directive 86/609/EEC, regulating the use of animals in research, was one of the first examples of common legislation to set standards for animal protection across the Member States of the former European Economic Community, now the European Union, with the aim of securing a level European playing field. Starting in 2002, a process of revising European animal experimentation legislation was undertaken, with one of its key aims being to ensure high standards of welfare for laboratory animals across Europe. This resulted in Directive 2010/63/EU, which has regulated this activity in Europe since 2013. Since this is a European Union Directive, transposition into national legislation is a necessary and important part of the implementation of the new legislation. This paper gives an overview of the transposition process followed by an analysis of the potential to reach the different objectives of the directive, particularly with a focus on securing the same high standards of animal protection across member countries. The analysis focuses on three separate issues: (1) minimum standards for laboratory animal housing and care, (2) restrictions on the use of certain animal species, and (3) project review and authorization.

Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare

Abstract: The present article describes the main premises emerging from the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare such as the regulation of access to healthcare services for the citizens of the EU Member States and the main tasks and the functioning of National Contact Points which were established by the said Directive. The paper introduces briefly the administrative procedures concerning rendering and receiving health care services within the limits of cross-border health care – both from the perspective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment.

Data Protection by Design and by Default : Deciphering the EU’s Legislative Requirements

Abstract: In this paper, a critical examination is conducted of Article 25 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation 2016/679). Bearing the title ‘data protection by design and by default’, Article 25 requires that core data protection principles be integrated into the design and development of systems for processing personal data. The paper outlines the rationale and legal heritage of Article 25, and shows how its provisions proffer considerably stronger support for data protection by design and by default than is the case under the 1995 Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). The paper further shows that this strengthening of support is in keeping with jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Nonetheless, it is herein argued that Article 25 suffers from multiple flaws, in particular a lack of clarity over the parameters and methodologies for achieving its goals, a failure to communicate clearly and directly with those engaged in the engineering of information systems, and a failure to provide the necessary incentives to spur the ‘hardwiring’ of privacy-related interests. Taken together, these flaws will likely hinder the traction of Article 25 requirements on information systems development.

Directive 2000/31/ec on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market

Abstract: 2 DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC ON CERTAIN LEGAL ASPECTS OF INFORMATION SOCIETY SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IN THE INTERNAL MARKET Arno R. Lodder 2.

Return directive in law and practice : central themes and issues

Abstract: ....................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................ 3 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 8 1. THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 9 2. THE FORMAT OF THE THESIS ................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER I MIGRATION REGULATION FRAMEWORK IN THE EU ...................................................... 14 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 14 1. MIGRATION REGULATION IN THE EU: GENERAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 16 1.1. General framework: contextual layers .................................................................................. 16 1.2. Political and legislative framework ....................................................................................... 17 1.3. Institutional framework ......................................................................................................... 19 1.4. Territorial scope ..................................................................................................................... 20 1.5. Personal scope ....................................................................................................................... 21 2. ESTABLISHING EU INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND COMPETENCES ............................................................ 23 2.1. Competence and institutional dilemmas ............................................................................... 23 2.2. Pre-Amsterdam framework ................................................................................................... 24 2.3. Post-Amsterdam framework: common immigration policy .................................................. 26 2.4. Post-Lisbon framework .......................................................................................................... 28 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EU MIGRATION LAW .......................................................................................... 34 3.1. Constitutional principles ........................................................................................................ 34 3.2. Fundamental rights ............................................................................................................... 39 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER II EU RETURN POLICY IN THE CONTEXT ........................................................................... 46 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 46 1. IRREGULAR MIGRATION MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 47 1.1. Competence and scope .......................................................................................................... 47 1.2. Territorial scope ..................................................................................................................... 49 1.3. Personal scope and migration terminology ........................................................................... 51 2. COMMON RETURN POLICY .................................................................................................................. 53 2.1. General background .............................................................................................................. 55 2.2. Expulsion from the EU ........................................................................................................... 57 3. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN COMMON RETURN POLICY ................................................................................ 73 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 77 CHAPTER III: ADOPTION OF THE RETURN DIRECTIVE ...................................................................... 79 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 79 1. POLITICAL IMPETUS TO ADOPT A MEASURE ON COMMON RETURN STANDARDS ............................................... 81 1.1. Political background .............................................................................................................. 81 1.2. Decision making rules ............................................................................................................ 85 2. NEGOTIATING THE RETURN DIRECTIVE: IMPACT OF THE CO-DECISION ........................................................... 86 3. SUBSTANCE OF THE RETURN DIRECTIVE: REASONS TO NEGOTIATE ................................................................ 91 3.1. The scope of the Directive ..................................................................................................... 93 3.2. Voluntary departure .............................................................................................................. 95 3.3. Entry bans .............................................................................................................................. 96

Understanding standing: permission to deflect reasons

Abstract: Standing is a peculiar norm, allowing for deflecting that is rejecting offhand and without deliberation interventions such as directives. Directives are speech acts that aim to give directive-reasons, which are reason to do as the directive directs because of the directive. Standing norms, therefore, provide for deflecting directives regardless of validity (i.e., regardless of whether or not a directive succeeds in giving a directive-reason) or the normative weight of the rejected directive. The logic of the normativity of standing is, therefore, not the logic of invalidating directives or of competing with directive-reasons but of ‘exclusionary permission’. That is, standing norms provide for permission to exclude from practical deliberation directive-reasons if given without the requisite standing, regardless of their normative weight. As such, standing is a type of second-order norm. Numerous everyday practices involve the deflection of directives, such as pervasive practices of deflecting hypocritical and officious directives. Of various possible models, the one that best captures the normative structure of these practices of deflection is the standing model. Accordingly, the normativity of standing is pervasive in our everyday practices. Establishing that standing, although a neglected philosophical idea, is a significant and independent normative concept.

Public oversight systems for statutory auditors in the European Union

Abstract: We provide a comparative overview of the process of implementation, harmonization and stabilization of public oversight systems for statutory auditors across the European Union (EU) after Directive 2006/43/EC. We build on institutional change theory to identify potential determinants as to why some countries still lag in this harmonization process. Oversight systems are a key institutional factor to guarantee the quality of financial information, essential to maintain investors’ confidence and deep and stable capital markets. Thus, the harmonization of these systems has long been an objective of the EU. Our analyses serve to identify, analyse and compare how EU countries have incorporated European-wide requirements into their national legal systems. Particularly, we study: (1) basic characteristics of the system and bodies for public oversight, (2) organizational structure, (3) financing (4) transparency, (5) supervisory, and (6) disciplinary mechanisms. We show that significant diversity still exists across systems and that both the incentives for institutional change and the distance between pre-existing systems and the Directive are important explanatory factors of the achieved level of harmonization.

Is a loosely specified regulatory intervention effective in disciplining management commentary? The case of performance indicator disclosure

Abstract: This paper offers a contribution to the call for research on the effectiveness of regulatory interventions governing management commentary disclosure. Specifically, we focus on the mandatory requirement concerning performance indicator disclosure introduced by the Modernisation Directive (2003/51/EC). In keeping with other regulators, the European legislator opted to implement a regulatory approach based on a rule with loose specifications. To understand the effects of this Directive, we have investigated the Italian context, in which neither the national legislator nor the standard setter have supported companies with detailed specifications or guidelines aimed at integrating the European provision. We have compared companies’ disclosure practices before and after the adoption of the Directive, investigating the number of disclosed indicators and also their modalities of presentation, as they are considered essential to guaranteeing the quality of this disclosure. Our results document that a mandatory intervention, even if based on loose specifications, is associated with an increase in disclosure practices. Nevertheless, such regulation does not seem able to guarantee high quality disclosure practices. In fact, before and after the regulation, companies primarily disclose common financial measures. Moreover, the usefulness of such disclosure is undermined by a limited compliance with the international guidelines concerning the modalities of presentation. These results reveal some weaknesses in the European approach to performance indicator regulation. In general, the EU legislator fails to explain the purpose and the objective of performance indicator disclosure and does not take into account the differences between financial and non-financial indicators. Furthermore, it does not provide firms with clear guidelines concerning the presentation modalities.

The EU floods directive in Sweden: opportunities for integrated and participatory flood risk planning

Abstract: This study analyses the implementation of the EU Floods Directive in Sweden. The question here centres on the possibilities promoted by the directive for sustainable flood risk management, with an emphasis on integrated and participatory management forms. Key persons are interviewed, using a set of criteria for sustainable river basin management as a theoretical framework. The study shows that work in this area is guided by a wide array of values, and that the involved experts provide a broad knowledge basis for this work. The need for better coordination between authorities, pieces of legislation and policy fields however remains critical while the merits of participatory planning approaches are not yet sufficiently utilised. One of the primary tasks here is to develop a shared understanding of the formal context and roles of the process while also developing forms for effective collaboration both within the new administration and between the administration and other key actors, most importantly the municipalities. The case of Sweden can provide useful insights into this process for other member states.

Study on Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco

Abstract: The purpose of this Study is to contribute to the Impact Assessment of a possible revision of Council Directive 2011/64/EU on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. The Study includes a baseline assessment of a series of issues emerged from the previous evaluation of the Directive and analyses how these problems may evolve if no EU action is taken. Secondly, the Study formulates a set of possible policy options to address these problems, assesses their likely impacts (market functioning and development, regulatory costs, tax revenues, tobacco control policies, illicit trade etc.), and compares the outcome with the baseline situation.

Workers' health surveillance: implementation of the Directive 89/391/EEC in Europe

Abstract: Background European Union (EU) Directive 89/391 addressed occupational health surveillance, which recommends to provide workers with `access to health surveillance at regular intervals', aiming to prevent work-related and occupational diseases. Aims To investigate how EU countries adopted this Directive. Methods We invited one selected representative per member state to complete a questionnaire. Results All 28 EU countries implemented the Directive in some form. Workers' health surveillance (WHS) is available to all workers in 15 countries, while in 12, only specific subgroups have access. In 21 countries, workers' participation is mandatory, and in 22, the employer covers the cost. In 13 countries, access to WHS is not available to all workers but depends on exposure to specific risk factors, size of the enterprise or belonging to vulnerable groups. In 26 countries, the employer appoints and revokes the physician in charge of WHS. Twelve countries have no recent figures, reports or cost-benefit analyses of their WHS programmes. In 15 countries where reports exist, they are often in the native language. Conclusions Coverage and quality of occupational health surveillance should be evaluated to facilitate learning from good practice and from scientific studies. We propose a serious debate in the EU with the aim of protecting workers more effectively, including the use of evidence-based WHS programmes

Shaking the normative foundations of EU equality law : evolution and hierarchy between market integration and human rights rationales

Abstract: With the adoption of the Race Equality Directive (2000/43/EC), the Framework Directive (2000/78/EC) and the Gender Directive on goods and services (2004/113/EC), the landscape of EU non-discrimination law has changed dramatically. From a medium to advance market integration, non-discrimination has evolved toward a genuine fundamental right of equality. However, the Court of Justice’s efforts to give substance to this general principle of equal treatment have met political backlash. At the same time, while advancing the principle of equal treatment, the reforms have also instilled hierarchy within equality. More than sixteen years after the first comprehensive reforms, in a climate of political mistrust towards the EU, it is unlikely that new legislation will level off the ground. Today, how has the interplay of market-based and fundamental-rights-based rationales transformed the advancement of the principle of non-discrimination in Europe? This paper first examines the shift operated in the EU transformative equality enterprise, from a legislative and adjudicative focus towards a focus on enforcement, as a response to pushback. Second, the paper argues that the interplay between an instrumental market-based and an imperative rights-based understanding of equality, underlying this pushback, has transformed non-discrimination into a hybrid but effective principle. The third section, however, puts forward that the existence and effectiveness of this principle of non-discrimination is threatened by several lines of hierarchy within the European equality monument.

The Data Protection Directive and Medical Research Across Europe

Abstract: Contents: Introduction And Keynote Papers: Introduction, Deryck Beyleveld, Segolene Rouille-Mirza, David Townend and Jessica Wright An overview of Directive 95/46/EC in relation to medical research, Deryck Beyleveld The concept of privacy: an analysis of the EU directive on the protection of personal data, Mette Hartlev Anonymization and pseudonymization: the legal framework at an European level, Carlos MarA-a Romeo-Casabona The scope for exemptions for medical research, Herman Nys The duty to provide information to the data subject: articles 10 and 11 of Directive 95/46/EC, Deryck Beyleveld Overriding data subjects' rights in the public interest, David Townend Genetic information and the data protection directive of the European union, Lasse A. Lehtonen. Report Framework And Comparative Studies: EU, Norway and the NAS law report framework, Deryck Beyleveld and David Townend Comparative study on the implementation and effect of Directive 95/46/EC on data protection in Europe: general standards, Segolene Rouille-Mirza and Jessica Wright Comparative study on the implementation and effect of Directive 95/46/EC on data protection in Europe: medical research, Segolene Rouille-Mirza and Jessica Wright Index List of cases.

Comparing the Implementation of the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive

Abstract: The paper analyses the implementation of the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive in four European Member States: UK, Germany, France and Italy. The first part reviews the main trends, key differences and potential difficulties or unexpected consequences of the Directive. The paper then explores in more detail key substantive elements of the Directive, and how these have been dealt with by each of the surveyed states. This section includes an overview of the scope and format, environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors to report on, the information to be provided, the notion of materiality, the verification process, the basis of reporting and the consequences of non-compliance. The paper also presents a comparative table and comprehensive analysis of the domestic transpositions of each of the four countries under review. The Directive provides the first comprehensive framework for ESG reporting at the EU level but gives considerable leeway to Member states in the transposition process. Whilst generally the new EU-wide legislation has been a positive step, there are a number of gaps in the Directive itself, which have not been adequately addressed in the implementing legislation.

The European Commission's Proposal for a Directive on Preventive Restructuring Proceedings

Abstract: On 22 November 2016 the European Commission (EC) published a proposal for a directive on preventive restructuring proceedings (COM(2016) 723 final. The proposed directive, when adopted, will require the Member States of the European Union (EU) to introduce preventive restructuring proceedings into their national systems. This will drastically change the restructuring and insolvency landscape of Europe and have a profound impact on how international restructurings with a European nexus will be dealt with in the future. The preventive restructuring procedure that the EC seeks to introduce can perhaps best be described as a light-touch “stand alone” pre-insolvency plan procedure available outside the context of traditional more heavy-handed insolvency proceedings. The proposed plan procedure is strongly inspired by the English scheme of arrangement and the plan procedure contained in Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and features elements of both. A majority within a class will be able to bind a minority within the same class. The procedure will also feature the ability to impose a plan over the objections of one or more dissenting classes subject to certain requirements (cram down). In a number of ways the procedure proposed by the EC will, however, be more efficient and streamlined than its existing English and American counterparts. This paper offers a discussion and critique of the restructuring procedure set forth in the proposed directive. It discusses the relevant provisions of the EC’s proposal and offers an in-depth discussion of certain more fundamental aspects, including i) the justification for and nature of the proposed proceedings, ii) the question who should have the right to propose a plan and when, iii) the distribution rules that should apply upon cram down and iv) the protection of the rights of creditors who would be entitled to a distribution in cash upon liquidation. The conclusion is that the proposal contains a number of fundamental architectural flaws that make it unsuitable for implementation in current form. However, if the required corrections are made, the Member States of the European Union will have a blueprint for a restructuring procedure that could very well out-perform its existing English and American counterparts. Where the EC has drawn on proven mechanisms in certain jurisdictions, jurisdictions outside the EU may, conversely, also find useful features to draw on in the EC proposal. In particular, the US may wish to consider the introduction of modern light-touch pre-insolvency proceedings as envisaged by the EC, as an alternative to the more “old school” heavy-handed and very costly court-driven process of Chapter 11.

Study on Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Abstract: In September 2016, the European Commission published a new Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Article 13 of this Proposal would introduce a new set of obligations to take measures for the enforcement of copyright for internet intermediaries that host large amounts of works in a public manner. This study, commissioned by MEP Julia Reda, evaluates Article 13, as well as the Recitals that support it. The study concludes that key elements of these provisions are incompatible with existing EU law. On this basis, it provides a series of recommendations for potential amendments.

EC Regime on Public Procurement

Abstract: This chapter outlines the European Community (EC) system in a way that is intended to be accessible to those without prior knowledge of EC law. It considers the EC Treaty's basic obligations not to discriminate, which are important for all contracts. The chapter introduces the public procurement directives and set out their coverage and main procedural requirements and shows how far contracts outside the directives are also subject to procedural rules under the treaty's regime of positive obligations. It examines how the EC regime deals with some specific issues, namely defense procurement, electronic procurement, collateral policies, and enforcement. The directive applies very broadly to all types of procurement contracts—it applies in principle to works contracts, supply contracts, and services contracts, where these are “in writing” and “for pecuniary interest”. Defense procurement is a sensitive area for member states, both because of the security concerns involved and because for some states defense contracts support many jobs.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 - a bastion of European consumer rights?

Abstract: The Consumer Rights Act 2015 seeks to consolidate in one place key consumer rights covering contracts for goods, services and digital content, and the law relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts. These are areas where there has been considerable activity at both a national and an EU level. In particular, the Consumer Sales Directive 99/44/EC, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 93/13/EEC and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU have all made significant changes to Member State law, promoting the idea of the ‘informed consumer’, able to assert his or her rights in entering consumer contracts. This paper will examine the extent to which the Act promotes the objectives of these Directives and the implications of the result of the June 2016 referendum that the UK should leave the EU. Does the Consumer Rights Act 2015 represent a valuable consolidation of EU and UK consumer policy, or are EU rights being absorbed into a distinctive national framework of consumer rights?

Implementation of the Data Protection Directive in Relation to Medical Research in Europe

Abstract: The Data Protection and Medical Research in Europe: PRIVIREAL series focuses on the 'Privacy in Research Ethics and Law' EC-funded project examining the implementation of Directive 95/46/EC on data protection in relation to medical research and the role of ethics committees in European countries. The series consists of five separate volumes following the complete development of the PRIVIREAL project. This volume relates to the first stage of this project concerning the implementation of the Data Protection Directive, in particular in the area of medical research. It contains reports from 26 European countries on the implementation of the Directive, or the data protection regime, all with a specific focus on issues and questions relating to medical research.

National Parliaments' Third Yellow Card and the Struggle over the Revision of the Posted Workers Directive

Abstract: The Treaty of Lisbon strengthened the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process by creating the Early Warning System. This procedure offers them the possibility to send reasoned opinions to the European Commission if they have subsidiarity concerns about a legislative proposal. Since 2009 the necessary threshold (i.e. one third of the total number of votes) has only been reached three times. The most recent of these 'yellow cards' was triggered by the Commission's proposal to revise the Posted Workers Directive, an event that allows us to shed some light on how national parliaments use this mechanism and how the European Commission has reacted. The subsidiarity concerns were rejected by the Commission and the legislative process continues despite deep divisions between old and new Member States over the controversial policy issue of revising the Posted Workers Directive.