Directive

About: Directive is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5695 publications have been published within this topic receiving 56084 citations.

EC Securities Regulation

Abstract: In the wake of radical and far-reaching legal, market, and institutional reforms which followed the completion of the Financial Services Action Plan, the EC regime for securities regulation now governs Community financial markets and has almost replaced national law in this area. This long-awaited second edition of EC Securities Regulation considers the extensive new regime in its legal, institutional, political, and market context and assesses the forces which have shaped it. Far-reaching reforms have followed from the coincidence of law-making reform under the Lamfalussy process with the regulatory reforms adopted under the Financial Services Action Plan. The new edition considers key measures, including the 2003 Prospectus Directive, the 2003 Market Abuse Directive, the 2004 Transparency Directive, the reforms to the UCITS regime,the groundbreaking 2004 Markets in Financial Instruments Directive, and the extensive developments in clearing and settlement. A new chapter addresses the treatment of gatekeepers. Detailed attention is given throughout the book to the extensive rules which apply at level 2 and to the level 3 process. New chapters have also been added on law-making and supervision, following the dramatic developments which followed the establishment of the Committee of European Securities Regulators. The influence wielded by the CESR on EC securities regulation is a key undercutting theme of the book.

Giving Effect to European Community Directives

Abstract: Since the foundation of the European Community, the influence of European Community (EC) law on the national legal system has expanded in two ways: first, in the growth in volume and scope of the substantive law emanating from the EC's legislative institutions; and second, in the readiness of the courts of the Member States to enforce and give practical effect to those laws. Differences over substantive lawmaking have largely been played out in the political field, whereas controversy over the application and enforcement of EC law has taken place, as a result of decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), mainly in the national judicial sphere. The ECJ developed the doctrine of direct effect at an early stage in its jurisprudence, to ensure that the body of law provided for in the EC Treaties would have effect in the various Member States without the need for national implementing legislation.l Through a series of cases the Court developed this doctrine and applied it to articles of the EC Treaties,2 to EC Regulations3 and, in a more limited way, to EC Directives. Direct effect means that provisions of EC law may confer rights upon individuals and are required to be directly applied by national courts at the suit of individual litigants, without the need for domestic implementing legislation.4 Article 189 of the EEC Treaty provides that Directives shall be binding as to their aim, but that the choice of form and method of their implementation remains with the Member States. Despite this provision, the ECJ nevertheless decided that Directives could be relied upon directly by litigants before national courts in certain situations.5 The Court has declared that Directives will not have direct effect where their terms are insufficiently precise or where, although clear and precise, those terms are conditional or leave some discretion to the Member States.6 The major limitation on their direct effectiveness, however, is that Directives cannot be directly enforced in a 'horizontal' situation, ie in proceedings against a private party rather than against the State.7 The case for their direct enforcement against the State appears to be based on a concept of estoppel whereby the State may not rely, as against an individual, upon its own failure to implement a Directive properly and on time.8

The cancer specific advance directive.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Advance directives are an important part of end of life care, but current advance directive documents do not address the specific issues facing cancer patients. The authors' purpose was: 1) to develop a cancer specific advance directive, 2) determine whether oncology outpatients find this directive more acceptable than a generic advance directive, and 3) describe oncology outpatient preferences for life-sustaining treatment. METHODS A cancer specific advance directive ("The Cancer Living Will"; the full text of the updated version is available at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics website [URL: www.utoronto.ca/jcb]) was developed in four steps: 1) literature search, 2) key informant interviews, 3) focus groups, and 4) evaluation of face and content validity. Subsequently, 91 volunteer oncology patients were given copies of the cancer specific advance directive and the generic advance directive ("The University of Toronto Centre for Bioethics Living Will") from which it was adapted. Acceptability of the advance directive was measured by determining the participants' preferred directive. Participants recorded their treatment preferences in both the cancer specific and generic advance directives. RESULTS Of 60 patients who returned their questionnaires, 50 expressed a preference for the advance directive. Thirty-two patients (64%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 49-77%) preferred the disease specific Cancer Living Will and 18 patients (36%; 95% CI, 23-51%) preferred the generic Centre for Bioethics Living Will. Most participants who preferred the Cancer Living Will did so because it was more specific and relevant to their situation. CONCLUSIONS The authors have developed and evaluated a cancer specific advance directive that they believe can be recommended for clinical use with cancer patients. Cancer 1998;82:1570-7. © 1998 American Cancer Society.