Centre de recherche droit Dauphine
UniversityParis, Île-de-France, France
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from Centre de recherche droit Dauphine (France). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from Centre de recherche droit Dauphine
Abstract This introductory chapter discusses the current challenges to comparative law and domestic courts’ unprecedented use of comparative law. It explains the use of comparative law in the following cases: to provide support for a rule or an outcome; for normative models in comparative law where national law is undetermined; to review factual assumptions about the consequences of legal rules; to review assumptions about the universal applicability of a particular rule; to overturn authority in domestic law; to develop principles of domestic law; and to resolve problems of the application of European and international law, including European Human Rights law.
Whether, and in what circumstances, public authorities should be held liable for negligence in the performance of their public functions is a highly complex area of the law. Written by Cherie Blair and Dan Squires QC, the first edition of The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities provided a much needed guide to these complexities and offered a detailed account of the law for practitioners and academics.This second edition builds on the reputation of the first, including full coverage of the many important cases which have been decided since 2006. Divided into two parts, Part I focuses on the extent to which the public nature of a defendant affects civil liability and the principles that govern and limit that liability. Part II considers the law as it impacts upon specific areas of public authorities' activities. It examines cases in a range of key areas, including the police, social services, highways, education, and the emergency services and aims to set out in a comprehensive way the different legal issues that have arisen in each area. By examining cases in a variety of jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and the USA, the authors further broaden the scope of this authoritative text. The book also identifies the underlying principles and policy arguments which have shaped the law more generally, making it an extremely useful resource for a wide variety of practitioners.
In <it>Intel</it>, the General Court confirms the jurisprudence considering as inherently illegal the provision of financial advantages by dominant firms in exchange for exclusivity commitments, as part of a fidelity-enhancing mechanism or in exchange for a commitment to restrict the sale of competing products. This ruling casts doubt on the viability of the idea, central in the Guidance Paper on Article 102 TFEU, that in order to bring an action against dominant companies, it is necessary to establish with the assistance of specific economic models the existence of a concrete, negative harm caused to consumers.
The paper offers a contribution to the interdisciplinary constructs of analyzing fairness issues in automatic algorithmic decisions. Section 1 shows that technical choices in supervised learning have social implications that need to be considered. Section 2 proposes a contextual approach to the issue of unintended group discrimination, i.e. decision rules that are facially neutral but generate disproportionate impacts across social groups (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity). The contextualization will focus on the legal systems of the United States on the one hand and Europe on the other. In particular, legislation and case law tend to promote different standards of fairness on both sides of the Atlantic. Section 3 is devoted to the explainability of algorithmic decisions; it will confront and attempt to cross-reference legal concepts (in European and French law) with technical concepts and will highlight the plurality, even polysemy, of European and French legal texts relating to the explicability of algorithmic decisions. The conclusion proposes directions for further research.
International audience
International audience
This book deals with judicial jurisdiction of state courts in international disputes, \nin particular those arising out of transnational commercial contracts entered into \nbetween private entities, individuals, and corporations.1 The present study examines \nwhether any common grounds in jurisdiction rules exist and, as the case may \nbe, whether a uniform global jurisdictional system for international contractual \ndisputes is achievable. The question of jurisdiction of state courts to adjudicate \ntransnational commercial disputes becomes relevant when a contract or dispute has \nan international dimension, for example because the parties are located in different \ncountries, such as a sales contract with an Australian seller and a Dutch buyer, or \nbecause the contract calls for performance outside the states of the parties’ seats. \nFor a proper understanding of the relevance of jurisdiction in international court \nlitigation, the following introductory remarks will put this study into the context of \ninternational commercial litigation.
National audience
International audience
<titre>L’évolution du partenariat UE-ACP de Lomé à Cotonou : de l’exception a la normalisation </titre> Catherine HAGUENAU-MOIZARD et Thierry MONTALIEU L’Accord de Cotonou marque un tournant dans les relations entre l’Union européenne et les pays ACP. Ces relations étaient caractérisées par la volonté des États européens d’aider les États ACP, aussi bien par le moyen classique de l’aide au développement qu’en utilisant l’outil de la politique commerciale. Le débat sur l’aide au développement de l’UE s’inscrit dans la perspective d’une réforme de la conditionnalité de l’aide internationale dans son contenu comme dans sa mise en oeuvre. L’UE pourrait perdre son originalité et devenir un simple acteur du nouveau consensus orchestré par les institutions internationales.
International audience
International audience
Approche renouvelée de la notion et du régime juridique des service publics, à la lumière du droit européen.
International audience
International audience
National audience
International audience
L’article L. 712-2 alinéa 10 du code de l’éducation, modifié par la loi Fioraso du 22 juillet 2013, dispose que le président de l’université « installe, sur proposition conjointe du conseil d’administration et du conseil académique, une mission ‘égalité entre les hommes et les femmes’ ». Demeurée un temps à la discrétion des établissements publics d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche, la présence d’une « mission » égalité femmes-hommes est désormais obligatoire pour toutes les universités et un nombre croissant d’établissements d’enseignement supérieur. Cette institutionnalisation progressive de la cause des femmes dans le monde académique favorise-t-elle la lutte contre les inégalités entre les sexes ou s’agit-il d’une avancée en trompe l’œil ? La présente analyse des missions égalité femmes-hommes dans les universités se propose d’apporter des éléments d’explication susceptibles d’éclairer les raisons de la réussite ou, le cas échéant, de l’échec de ce dispositif en revenant, notamment, sur la genèse des missions égalité femmes-hommes à l’université, leurs fondements juridiques, l’évolution de leur nature et de leurs fonctions depuis les années 2000, avant qu’elles ne deviennent obligatoires, et en identifiant leurs forces et faiblesses.
The Court of Justice of the EU stated in its Opinion 1/15 that the envisaged PNR agreement between Canada and the EU cannot be concluded in its current form. Several of its dispositions are incompatible with European Fundamental Rights. The bulk transfer of PNR data including for the preventing and fighting against terrorism are prohibited. PNR Data collection need to be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to achieve security purposes. This Opinion confirms the crucial role of the Court both in negotiating international agreements and in developing the European model of personal data protection and respect for private life.
Abstract The recent Representative Actions Directive 2020/1828/EC is a welcome advance in developing collective redress in Europe. However, this article contends that whilst the Directive is a positive development, shortfalls in its design restrict its potentially transformative impact for consumers. Critical examination is made of the Directive's rules on scope, standing, remedies, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), cross-border claims, funding, awareness and the provision of information. The article further considers whether the Directive will serve to improve co-ordination in civil procedure in this area which has traditionally been very diverse at a Member State level.