After decades of rejection of direct applicability of Article 11 ICESCR, recognizing among other things the human right to food including water, a District Court in the Netherlands ruled in June 2008 that the provision can be invoked in a court of law. The decision was inspired by a presumed change of tides in politics, when the former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that the Netherlands joined the group of countries who recognize the right to water as a human right. In appeal, the decision did not hold, but no judgment was given on the question whether Article 11 ICESCR can indeed be invoked in the courts. There are however no indications that case aw is to be expected that supports the ruling of the District Court in favour of direct applicability of Article 11 ICESCR.
Copyright enforcement by private third parties – does it work uniformly across the EU? Since the inception of Napster, home copying of digital files has taken a flight. The first providers of software or infrastructure for the illegal exchange of files were held contributory or vicariously liable for copyright infringement. In response, they quickly diluted the chain of liability to such an extent that neither the software producers, nor the service providers could be held liable. Moving further down the communication chain, the rights holders are now requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that provide access to end customers to help them with the enforcement of their rights. This article discusses case-law regarding the enforcement of copyright by Internet Access Providers throughout Europe. At first glance, copyright enforcement has been harmonised by means of a number of directives, and article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) regulates that EU Member States must ensure the position of rights holders with regard to injunctions against ISPs. Problem solved? Case law from Denmark, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, England, The Netherlands, Austria and the Court of Justice of the EU was studied. In addition, the legal practice in Germany was examined. The period of time covered by case law is from 2003 to 2013, the case law gives insight into the differences that still exist after the implementation of the directive.
Objectives: Current study explores the potential of the safety rating scale in order to determine the surplus value for evidence based practise. This study wants to contribute to this knowledge gape by exploring the safety scale by analysing the change between two safety ratings. First, the absolute change in safety is investigated. Secondly the study explores to what extent family background characteristics and case management characteristics determine the extent of change in perceived safety. Materials and Methods: The study analysed 105 Dutch child protection cases who had registration files with filled out LIRIK checklist, Action Plan and additional baseline safety and end safety measure as perceived by case managers. Results: On average perceived safety increased from an insufficient level to sufficient level. Significant regression coefficients with larger changes for primary school children (6 - 12 years) and lower changes for children within the ‘socio economic problems cluster’. The results reveal significant vulnerability for preschool children and families attending the socio-economic cluster due to limited improvement. Conclusion: According to this study the safety measure can be of value to outcome monitoring. The safety measure is a practical measure that reflects on the current state of safety within a family according to professionals and can be used on several occasions during case management. In addition, on aggregated level pre and post measures can be analysed for quality management purpose. Further exploration of this measure is needed. Publishers article: https://www.ecronicon.com/ecpe/ECPE-10-00873.php
