Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (85) (remove)
Document Type
- Jugend-Check (35)
- Public lecture (11)
- Article (10)
- Part of a Book (5)
- Contribution to a Periodical (4)
- Part of Periodical (4)
- Working Paper (4)
- Book (3)
- Report (3)
- Contribution to online periodical (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (85) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (85) (remove)
Keywords
- Arbeit (24)
- Bildung (24)
- Digitales (18)
- Familie (16)
- Freizeit (11)
- Politik (9)
- Gesundheit (8)
- Umwelt (8)
- European Convention on Human Rights (3)
- Evaluation (3)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (13)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (3)
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (3)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (1)
Sommersemester 2021
(2021)
Wintersemester 2020/2021
(2021)
The landmark judgment in the case of Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France, which concerned the execution of a European arrest warrant, provides a good illustration of the effects of the Con-vention liability of EU Member States for their implementation of EU law. These effects touch on such notions as cooperation, trust, complementarity, autonomy and responsibility. The two European courts have been cooperating towards some convergence of the standards applicable to the handling of EAWs. The Bosphorus presumption and its application in Bivo-laru and Moldovan show the amount of trust placed by the Strasbourg Court in the EU pro-tection of fundamental rights in this area. To the extent that their standards of protection coincide, the Luxembourg and Strasbourg jurisdictions are complementary. However, the two protection systems remain autonomous, notably as regards the methodology applied to fundamental rights. Ultimately, the EU Member States engage their Convention responsibility for the execution by their domestic courts of any EAWs.
On the way to the customer
(2021)
The notices of Deutsche Rentenversicherung are changing their face. In order to ensure that everybody insured as well as pensioners can better understand the decisions of Deutsche Rentenversicherung, the notices are becoming more comprehensible, clearer and more personal. The poster presentation describes the journey of an interdisciplinary team of Deutsche Rentenversicherung and the most important milestones along the way.
Jahresbericht 2021
(2021)
This conference speech argues that the judgement of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal K 3/21 can be understood only in the context of the current conflict between the Polish government and the European Union. Moreover, some other details, including how the unconstitutionality of the EU Treaty provisions was formulated, are important. The development of the judicial independence doctrine in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may cause discussion. Nonetheless, the judgement K 3/21 is not an example of constructive debate about the division of the competences in the European legal sphere. It constitutes an example of the abuse of the constitutional identity and it resolves a false problem, as in reality there is no conflict between the norms of the Polish Constitution and the EU law as far as the guarantees of the judicial independence are concerned. Moreover, the judgement K 3/21 was delivered by the Constitutional Tribunal which itself lacks the guarantees of independence, what was confirmed by the European Court of Human
Rights (7.05.2021 Xero Flor, 4907/18).
Was kosten Gesetze?
(2021)
For centuries, export control regulations have accompanied the development of new weapon technologies. The revelations of the ‘Pegasus Project’ have put the question of whether and how to regulate the export of the new technology ‘cyberweapons’ in the limelight: Is the current international export control law up to the challenge of sufficiently regulating the proliferation of ‘cyberweapons’ or does it need an update? To answer this question, the blog post will, first, turn to the definition and relevance of ‘cyberweapons’. Secondly, international export control law is introduced as a possible measure to mitigate the risks posed by ‘cyberweapons’ against the backdrop of regulating the use of ‘cyberweapons’ or establishing a moratorium on its trade. Third, the blog post will assess the export of ‘cyberweapons’ in general and the export of Pegasus in particular within the current international export control framework. The current framework seems to touch upon partial aspects of the trade with ‘cyberweapons’. However, it stands to fear that it is not up to the task of sufficiently curtailing the proliferation of ‘cyberweapons’ and the associated risks, as it especially leaves the underlying problem of the trade with zero-day vulnerabilities untouched.