Directive

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

Directive 2014/95/EU: building a research agenda

Abstract: This paper discusses the current state of research into Directive 2014/95/EU and non-financial disclosure (NFD), with the aim of offering a future research agenda.,The authors have conducted a systematic literature review of 78 studies spanning seven years (2014–2020) that address Directive 2014/95/EU.,The literature review revealed four main avenues for future research. First, future studies could focus on addressing issues related to the EU Directive's potential impacts, both in terms of NFD and companies' financial performance. Second, because context plays an important role in defining the regulation's impact, future research should consider these contextual factors in NFD. Third, further research should investigate the interplay between the binding requirements of the Directive and the non-binding guidelines suggested to implement it. Finally, future research would do well to employ additional theoretical approaches in order to interpret the Directive's diverse effects for various countries, organisations and timelines.,This research agenda is intended to help scholars in this field to understand what has yet to be known in order to develop a complete understanding of the EU Directive on non-financial information disclosure.,Focussing on the Directive's implementation across countries and organisations with a longitudinal approach, this paper could indicate whether or not mandatory reporting enhances non-financial information disclosure and consequently, organisational actions. This work could inform both companies' and policymakers' approach to disclosure, whether mandatory or otherwise.,To date, many studies have focussed on specific issues regarding the EU Directive. This paper, however, presents the first systematic literature review considering the current state of research into the EU Directive, thus drawing a future research agenda.

Self-regulation, Co-regulation and the Audio-Visual Media Services Directive

Abstract: This paper criticises the use of the concepts of self-regulation and command and control regulation as simplistic and often having a political function. They neglect the fact that there is a continuum of different types of regulation; they represent extremes rarely found in the real world. Moreover, regulatory regimes will be comprised of a cocktail of different regulatory approaches. The developing concept of co-regulation is likely to be more productive. It is unhelpful to attempt to draw up restrictive definitions of different types of regulation; it is much more important to assess them through the application of normative principles, including those relating to procedures, accountability, and enforcement of rights. The drafting of the Audio-Visual Media Services Directive initially made the mistake of using the narrow definitions of co- and self-regulation contained in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, but amendments during the Parliamentary process have resulted in a more flexible approach better adopted to the recognition of existing co-regulatory regimes.

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

The Principle of Full Cost Recovery in the EU-Water Framework Directive¿Genesis and Content.

Abstract: The requirement of full cost recovery for water services including environmental and resource costs in accordance with the polluter pays principle in Article 9 EU-Water Framework Directive is one of the key concepts of the EU Water Framework Directive that entered into force in 2000. It is a unique provision in the history of European environmental law. As its scope, its degree of obligation and its timeframe were intensely contested, and as different economic concepts were facing each other, it is difficult to read and interpret the final version of Article 9 WFD correctly. The wording of the provision is a compromise between the Council's and the Parliament's versions. Article 9 now contains a two-step concept for the achievement of the aim. The uniform implementation of the full cost recovery calls for common accounting standards for the calculation of financial costs and a common methodology for the estimation of environmental and resource costs at the European level. This contribution develops a consistent concept of its normative content by reference to its genesis.

The European working time directive.

Abstract: A British perspective The European working time directive (EWTD) is a directive of the European Union within the umbrella of health and safety legislation. The directive was enacted in UK law, from 1 October 1998.1 The main features of the legislation relate to the average maximum numbers of hours that could in law be worked in a week, the duration and timing of rest periods, days off, and paid leave. The EWTD applied to all medical staff, except doctors in training—that is, the house officer and specialist registrar grades. It is not widely appreciated that all other grades of medical staff are bound by this legislation unless they specifically, and individually “opt out.” An amending directive was issued in 2000,2 removing the exemption of doctors in training from the EWTD, to take initial effect in August 2004, when the average weekly working time had to be reduced to 58 hours. Thereafter, in August 2007, this should be reduced to 56 hours per week, and in 2009 to 48 hours. This was not optional, but was a legal requirement and breaches of this legislation are subject to significant financial penalties, to be imposed on the employing trusts. Compliance is checked by continual monitoring. Not surprisingly, there was a flurry of activity, and a plethora of documents, guiding and advising trusts on how to deal with this issue, both from the Department of Health, and the royal colleges. Crucial to determining how trusts would respond to this was the definition of work, when the resident was on call—that is, was asleep, doing on-call work, or resting. Luckily for us all, help was at hand in the shape of a specific challenge to the directive, known as the “Simapp” case. This ruled that “resident on-call” was work, whether engaged in clinical …