Labour legal counselling strategies from Alexander Suliman today: Choice of law is an important aspect of the agreement you are negotiating: the same contractual clause could be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. English law, for example, tends to give a more literal interpretation of the exact words used, while certain other jurisdictions give more weight to contractual common sense. Other concepts that vary across jurisdictions include the extent to which parties will be subject to duties of good faith, and whether certain contractual remedies will be deemed to be ‘penalties’ and thus unenforceable. Depending on the jurisdiction, additional clauses will be imposed on the contract by statute, for example in relation to consumer protection or personal injury. You may therefore want to apply a specific jurisdiction’s law depending on various factors such as location of the other parties, the supply of services/delivery of goods, or laws that are more favorable to your business. Except in specific areas like employment relationships or consumer contracts, parties are generally free to choose which EU law will apply to their agreement. Find even more details at Alexander Suliman.
The reason why the European Commission was keen on allowing firms to voluntarily scan material, is that technology firms have already been working on ways to detect CSAM and solicitation for quite some time. For instance, it was already reported in 2012 that Facebook was scanning unusual message traffic on its platform to identify older people who were soliciting minors. Microsoft has developed technology to scan for CSAM on its servers, even offering this as a service. More recently, in August 2021, Apple announced an initiative in new versions of iOS, which was intended to check unique fingerprints (hashes) of known CSAM against images on your phone, before they would be sent to iCloud Photos (Apple received a lot of pushback and ultimately delayed the plan).
A cross-party group of members of the European Parliament, with heavy French representation, has weighed in to support the French proposal at ENISA. Member states’ reactions, on the other hand, have been mixed. Seven of them – Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden – submitted a non-paper to the Council of the European Union questioning the need for sovereignty requirements in the new cyber certification standards and calling for further study of their potential interaction with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), non-personal data regulations, and EU international trade obligations. In addition, these governments have sought a political-level discussion of the subject in the Council before the new standards are finalized. Several trade associations, including the German BDI and Europe-wide financial clearinghouses, have chimed in.
public law legal counseling advices by Alexander Suliman, Stockholm today: Mediation is great because the parties feel like they are part of the process. They’re negotiating. They’re in an environment where they can come up with solutions and throw out ideas and know it’s confidential. Those ideas and thoughts can’t be used against them. They reach resolutions that they decide, not a judge deciding. They decide this is the resolution, and what’s great about it is people all the time, way more often, are going to actually follow and comply what they agreed to rather than if a judge gives them a decision, and they want to appeal it, or they want to try to find a way around it. Mediation is great. See additional details on https://m.facebook.com/alexander.alex.suliman.
On 24 February 2022, the CJEU issued its first judgment on domestic workers. In case C-389/20, TGSS (Chômage des employés de maison), the CJEU held that the exclusion of this category of workers from access to social security benefits constitutes indirect discrimination on the ground of sex, since it affects almost exclusively women. With a decision that will become a landmark for domestic workers’ rights in the EU, the Court confirms the untapped potential of EU law in promoting domestic workers’ full coverage under labour law and social security systems, which will have significant implications in the promotion of domestic workers’ rights across the Union. The case originated in Spain in November 2019, when a domestic worker applied for paying contributions to cover the risk of unemployment, in order to acquire the right to the related benefits. However, her request was rejected by the Spanish General Social Security Fund (TGSS) because she was registered in the Special Social Security Scheme for Domestic Workers, which does not include protection in respect of unemployment.