Browse by title
Nima Lorjé and Ariela Stoffer
Commission inspections pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation 1/2003 (i.e. dawn raids) interfere with the privacy rights of companies and individuals. This interference is disproportionate when it is not consistent with the requirements laid down in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights. In its recent judgments in the French Supermarkets cases, the General Court partially annulled four Commission inspection decisions for constituting an arbitrary and unjustified interference with the privacy rights of the inspected companies. The General Court found that the Commission had initiated inspections without having sufficiently serious evidence in its possession. This article examines this finding of the General Court and its practical implications for the protection of companies’ privacy rights in the context of dawn raids. In addition, this article examines possible remedies for challenging the seizure and copying of documents containing personal information of raided companies’ staff during a dawn raid.
2019 has seen loot boxes remain a prime target of concern for regulators, legislators and industry bodies alike, yet despite the work carried out in the Gambling Regulators European Forum in this regard, there have been no substantial efforts to develop a common EU response to date. This article aims to argue that such inaction at a European level is unsatisfactory from both the perspective of the European consumer and games companies alike, while highlighting that any broad regulatory attempts to limit loot boxes to date should be viewed with scepticism.
Having examined the three main approaches that could form the basis of a common EU response (gambling law, self-regulation and consumer law) that could deal with some of the issues that national fragmentation in the field have presented to date, it is submitted that a hybrid system, which draws together principles from these three main approaches, can strike the right level of balance between protecting innovative monetization systems for developers, whilst safeguarding consumers from practices deemed to be ‘predatory’.
Gaetano Dimita, Jon Festinger, Yin Harn Lee, Michaela MacDonald and Marc Mimler
Reem Anwar Ahmed Raslan
The transfer of technology has been mainly subject to the North-South dichotomy where the North is regarded as the principal source of technical knowledge to the South. Nevertheless, as new economic powers emerge in the South, the scene of international technology transfer is changing rapidly. Many South-South endeavors on transfer of technology are on the rise. Thus, a new model of transfer of technology is gaining momentum, in particular the South-South Model of transfer of technology. This paper aims to look at this issue by attempting to answer the following questions: How did South-South cooperation in the field of transfer of technology evolve? How did the rise of the South affect the North-South conflict in the context of transfer of technology? What is the impact of the South-South cooperation in the field of technology transfer on the North?