References of "European Journal of Risk Regulation"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe glyphosate saga, a further but not a final step: the CJEU confirms the validity of the regulation on plant protection products in light of the precautionary principle
Donati, Alessandra UL

in European Journal of Risk Regulation (2020)

Case C-616/17, Blaise and others, [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:800 There are no grounds to question the validity of the regulation (EC) n° 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products (including ... [more ▼]

Case C-616/17, Blaise and others, [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:800 There are no grounds to question the validity of the regulation (EC) n° 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products (including glyphosate) on the market in light of the precautionary principle. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 43 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDiscretionary power, scientific uncertainty and right to life in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic: Lessons learnt from the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe and the French Council of State
Donati, Alessandra UL

in European Journal of Risk Regulation (2020)

Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe 28 March 2020, case n° 2000295 (Judge for interim relief); French Council of State 4 April 2020, cases n° 439904, 439905 (Judge for interim relief) Based on the ... [more ▼]

Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe 28 March 2020, case n° 2000295 (Judge for interim relief); French Council of State 4 April 2020, cases n° 439904, 439905 (Judge for interim relief) Based on the precautionary principle and to protect the right to life under Article L. 521-2 of the French Code of Administrative Justice, the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe (Judge for interim relief) ordered the Regional Health Agency of Guadeloupe and the University Hospital Centre of Guadeloupe to procure 200,000 COVID-19 screening tests corresponding to half of the population of Guadeloupe and to buy the doses necessary for the treatment of the COVID-19 epidemic with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for 20,000 patients. On appeal, the French Council of State, by disregarding the application of the precautionary principle and with controversial reasoning concerning the relationship between discretionary power and scientific uncertainty, annulled the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of Guadeloupe. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailShadow Banking in Europe: Idiosyncrasies and their Implications for Regulation
Nabilou, Hossein UL; Prüm, André UL

in European Journal of Risk Regulation (2019)

This paper studies the specificities of the regulation of shadow banking in Europe. It argues that the idiosyncratic features of the EU shadow banking sector call for a different (or indigenized ... [more ▼]

This paper studies the specificities of the regulation of shadow banking in Europe. It argues that the idiosyncratic features of the EU shadow banking sector call for a different (or indigenized) regulatory approach from that of the US. It highlights striking differences between the EU and the US shadow banking sectors based on both market structure and legal micro-infrastructure of the shadow banking sectors in these two jurisdictions. These different institutional and legal infrastructures of the shadow banking activities, instruments, and entities, as well as the different trajectories in the evolution of the banking and shadow banking sectors in terms of business models, size and composition of actors and transactions can be the driving force behind the differential regulatory treatment of shadow banking in the EU and the US. In highlighting the differences between shadow banking across the Atlantic, this paper focuses on the repo markets, as the main instruments and activities that play a significant role in credit intermediation outside the regulatory perimeter of the traditional or regular banking system. It then discusses one specific segment of the shadow banking entities, i.e., Money Market Funds (MMFs), and highlights the fundamental differences in the structure, functioning, and existing regulatory treatment of the MMFs in the US and the EU. The paper concludes that the market structure, business models, as well as legacy legal and regulatory frameworks of shadow banking (as well as banking) display substantial differences in the US and the EU. The findings in this paper rally against one-size-fits-all approaches to addressing the problems of the shadow banking system worldwide and recommends differentiated and more nuanced regulatory approaches to regulating shadow banking across the Atlantic. By implication, any adoption of the US regulatory framework or recommendations of international fora for the shadow banking sector by the EU regulatory authorities should not overlook these differences. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 185 (6 UL)