Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Foreword -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- Abbreviations -- 1. The Greek Contributions to the Development of the International Law of the Sea -- 2. Equity, Equidistance, Proportionality at Sea: The Status of Island Coastal Fronts and a Coda for the Aegean -- Maritime Delimitations Today - Equidistance with or against Proportionality and the Status of Islands -- A Summary of the Rejections: The Negative Clearance -- A Summary of the Preservations and Refinements -- Special Issue: The Status of Island Coastal Fronts -- Adjusting Equidistance to Coastal-Length Proportionality -- Reflections on the Aegean -- Conclusion -- 3. The Greek Continental Shelf -- Introduction -- The Geography of the Area -- The International Legal Rules Applicable to the Determination and Delimitation of the Greek Continental Shelf -- The Existing Situation -- Some Final Remarks -- 4. The Greek Territorial Sea -- Introduction -- The Territorial Sea in International Law -- The Domestic Law Of Greece Concerning the Breadth of the Territorial Sea -- The Territorial Sea of Turkey -- Some Concluding Remarks -- Post Scriptum: The Imia Incident -- 5. The Greek-Turkish Dispute over the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf: Attempts of Resolution -- Introduction -- The Legal Nature of the Dispute -- Methods for Peaceful Settlement -- Conclusions -- 6. Greek Fisheries and the Role of the Exclusive Economic Zone -- A Historical Retrospect -- Aquaculture -- The Role of Fisheries in the European Union -- The Concept of the EEZ -- The Mediterranean Sea -- The Role of the European Union -- A Greek Exclusive Economic Zone -- The Future of a Greek EEZ -- 7. The Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution -- General -- Basic Rules -- Enforcement -- Contingency Planning -- Other Rules on Marine Pollution -- Conclusion -- Annex A -- Annex B -- Annex C.

Human rights — Treaties — Reservations — European Convention on Human Rights, Article 64 — Prohibition on reservations of a general character — Requirement that reservations contain brief statement of the law concerned — Interpretation of reservationsHuman rights — Freedom of expression — Interference with exercise of right must be prescribed by law and pursue a legitimate aim — States' margin of appreciation in determining whether interference is necessary in a democratic society and whether there is reasonable proportionality between means of interference employed and legitimate aim pursued — European Convention on Human Rights

Although few companies are currently applying genetic tests or using genetic data, further developments in genetics will likely increase the role of genetics in the workplace. This article discusses the complex ethical issues raised by the variety of genetic tests that could become available and proposes guidelines for dealing with genetics in the workplace. It discusses how the results of genetic testing could be used for employment purposes, and argues that the existence of unequal bargaining power in the workplace limits the validity of consent as a basis for policymaking. Instead, two specific justifications for genetic testing in the workplace are proposed: the protection of health and the avoidance of harm to others. The author suggests that genetic testing should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances and that every genetic test should be evaluated on its scientific validity and submitted to rigorous review. Existing antidiscrimination law proves to be a useful model for examining the rationality and proportionality of genetic testing in the workplace.

The different treatment of victims, in relation to limitation of civil actions for damages, depending on whether the fault causing the damage constitutes a criminal offence or not (Art 26 Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal procedure), has the effect that a party who has suffered damage is in a fundamentally less favourable situation when the damage is caused by a fault constituting a criminal offence as compared to the case where the fault does not constitute a criminal offence.
In those cases where the damage only becomes apparent after a long period of time, this
leads to a serious limitation of the rights of the victim, out of all proportion with the interests which the legislator of 1878 and 1961 sought to protect, namely the right of the tortfeasor to put his past behind him, legal certainty and the public interest in avoiding a new disturbance of social peace and order where it has been restored in the meantime. These preoccupations justify specific periods of limitation for penal actions, according to the gravity of the offence. They do not, however, justify the position where the limitation period for a civil action for damages caused by these facts is five years — even taking into account the amendments which have been effected by legislation and case law — when compensation for damage caused by fault, which does not constitute a criminal offence, can be claimed for a period of thirty years. There is thus no reasonable proportionality between the measure and its effects on the victims of criminal offences.