Suchergebnisse

At present EU institutions and agencies as well as national legislators have ambitious agendas on law enforcement authorities' access to interoperable information systems, which have become a defining feature of the AFSJ. They are the most advanced form of information exchange, conferring direct information access to competent authorities. Interoperable information systems are meant for the exchange of raw material for investigation purposes, which at a later stage could become evidence at trial. Interoperable information systems challenge existing cooperation dynamics and redefine the role of the actors involved. In fact, it is questionable whether mutual recognition and harmonisation, which have been considered the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters for many years, can describe alone integration dynamics in law enforcement cooperation, particularly with reference to information sharing. This paper appraises whether, and to what extent, law enforcement access to and use of interoperable information systems constitute new modes of law enforcement cooperation in the EU AFSJ. It closely considers actors and/or factors which either hinder or foster such developments to assess what would be the implications of such a paradigm change in information management.

Directive 2006/24/EC sets out data retention rules and is a useful tool for the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crimes. The implementation process has been complex mainly due to concerns about data privacy rights, and led to 'patchwork' approximation of data retention provisions within the EU. The CJEU's ruling in Digital Rights Ireland eventually invalidated the Directive so that EU policy makers must urgently reinvent the entire framework. In this context, this article argues that approximation is the most desirable policy option to ensure a balance between enhancing security and safeguarding data privacy rights, and assesses what form the new instrument could take. It explores selected factors that are likely to influence the policy design: unresolved issues at the time the Directive was negotiated; interplay between national/EU data retention frameworks; CJEU's stringent requirements set out in Digital Rights Ireland and Schrems; current progress of the Data Protection Package.

info:eu-repo/semantics/published ; Le fichier attaché à cette référence, version publiée de l'œuvre, est librement accessible, sans embargo, en accord avec les Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles

Dottorato di ricerca in Economia e territorio ; Geographical Indications of origin (GIs) are increasingly being adopted as public policy in the European Union for the identification of typical food products in the form of Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs). In recent years substantial interest has emerged in improving this policy in order to encourage the adoption of PDO/PGI schemes as well as to enhance their effectiveness. The increasing number of PDO/PGI recognitions (over one thousand at the beginning of 2011) and the ongoing overhaul of these policy schemes at the European level, make the assessment of the actual performance of the PDO/PGI policy a critical task for the revision and improvement of the policy itself. However, due to the dearth of official information, the deeply different production and marketing conditions among PDO/PGI products, and the variety of stakeholders involved, a comprehensive approach for the assessment of the impacts of PDO/PGI schemes in terms of achievement of their objectives is missing. We contribute to the assessment of PDO/PGI schemes by building an approach to measuring the actual performance of the PDO/PGI products in relation to the objectives of the European Regulation 510/2006. We do this through a multi-criteria ex-post analysis that compares the performance of different PDO/PGI products with respect to multiple criteria. The present work develops a comparative evaluation of the performance of 31 Italian PDOs in the cheese sector and 30 Italian PDO/PGIs in the e-v olive oil sector: i) relative to the different objectives of the schemes, ii) by using a set of suitable indicators that inform on the effectiveness of a wide number of PDOs/PGIs with respect to the regulation's objectives, and iii) by considering the priorities of the different actors involved in PDO/PGI schemes, with regard to the importance of different objectives. Results obtained in the two cases analyzed are consistent. We evidenced a trade off among the performance on the objectives which suggests a possible underlying contradiction of the policy itself: a success on the marketplace is not iii necessarily contributing to higher returns to producers placed upstream in the supply chain of the sector and vice versa, a stronger market power to producers, also in terms of relevance on the territory, is not in line with a good performance on the market. Although there are exceptions to this trend, the trade off at issue is indicative of a general ambiguity in the PDO/PGI policy and it reflects two opposite feasible strategies, practicable within the different PDO/PGIs. Moreover, the policy maker scenario simulated in the two cases showed an overall higher performance of smaller PDOs, well rooted on the territory of origin, targeted to niche market segments, for both the cheese and the olive oil sectors. On the opposite, lower ranked PDOs tend to be larger (in terms of turnover, quantity and area of production covered), well established in the wider markets through large distribution systems. The evidence that smaller PDOs are performing, on the overall, better than the bigger ones, is somehow surprising and not trivial: nevertheless a better performance of small PDOs, especially in the baseline scenario, seems to be coherent with the Policy makers perspective. Multi Criteria analysis is a promising approach to evaluating the performance of PDOs/PGIs. A "well aware" use of a Multi Criteria technique can be useful for the assessment of the performance of PDO and PGI schemes, to allow to gain insights on the cases of success (i.e. the best practices) and the conditions of the most effective realizations of the schemes, providing a support to the policy maker for the future revision of the policy. ; Negli ultimi anni è emerso un interesse sostanziale al miglioramento dell'efficacia della politica per la qualità dell'Unione Europea, di cui le Denominazioni d'Origine e le Indicazioni Geografiche Protette (DOP e IGP) rappresentano importanti strumenti. Il crescente numero di riconoscimenti (oltre un migliaio all'inizio del 2011) in tutta Europa, la previsione di un sostegno finanziario per la conformazione ai sistemi di qualità da parte degli agricoltori e la revisione in atto della politica europea per la qualità, rendono la valutazione della performance dei prodotti DOP/IGP un aspetto cruciale per il proseguimento ed il miglioramento della politica stessa. Un approccio complessivo di valutazione sistematica e trasparente attualmente è mancante a causa della scarsità di dati disponibili, delle profonde diversità nelle modalità di produzione, nelle condizioni di commercializzazione e negli interessi dei soggetti interessati, e si rende quanto mai necessario. Il presente lavoro ha l'obiettivo di contribuire alla valutazione della performance dell'attuale sistema di DOP e IGP in relazione agli obiettivi del Regolamento Europeo 510/2006. Ciò viene fatto attraverso un' analisi multicriteri che confronta, in un'ottica ex-post, le prestazioni di diverse DOP/IGP rispetto a criteri multipli. La valutazione comparativa è svolta su un campione di 31 DOP nel settore dei formaggi e 30 DOP/IGP nel settore degli oli extra vergine d'oliva italiani: i) relativamente ai diversi obiettivi del regolatore europeo, ii) utilizzando un insieme indicatori di efficacia relativi ad un ampio numero di DOP/IGP rispetto agli obiettivi del regolamento, e iii) considerando le diverse priorità dei portatori di interesse coinvolti nei sistemi DOP/IGP, relativamente ai diversi obiettivi. I risultati ottenuti, coerenti nei due casi analizzati, evidenziano l'esistenza di un parziale trade off tra i diversi obiettivi della politica. In particolare, un successo sul mercato non necessariamente è in linea con un rafforzamento del potere contrattuale dei produttori a monte della filiera e viceversa, il potere contrattuale dei produttori, non si accompagna a buone prestazioni sul mercato. Pur con alcune eccezioni a questa generale tendenza della maggior parte delle DOP esaminate, il trade off in questione è indicativo di un' ambiguità di fondo dei v sistemi DOP/IGP e riflette due strategie di sviluppo percorribili dalle DOP/IGP divergenti ed in parte inconciliabili. Inoltre, nella prospettiva degli obiettivi indicati dal Regolamento, sono le DOP più piccole, più radicate sul territorio di origine, prevalentemente mirate a segmenti di mercato di nicchia, ad ottenere i risultati migliori sia nel comparto caseario che in quello degli oli d'oliva. All'opposto, le DOP in basso nella classifica tendono ad essere realtà più grandi (in termini di fatturato, quantità e areale di produzione), ben consolidate sul mercato attraverso sistemi di distribuzione di massa. L'evidenza che le piccole DOP si mostrano, nel complesso, migliori di quelle più grandi, è in qualche modo sorprendente e non banale: tuttavia, e soprattutto nello scenario di base, sembra essere coerente con la prospettiva del decisore pubblico. L'analisi Multi Criteri è un approccio promettente per la valutazione della performance di DOP/IGP. Un utilizzo "consapevole" di questo strumento può essere utile per la valutazione delle prestazioni dei sistemi di DOP e IGP, per consentire di acquisire conoscenze sui casi di successo (le best practices) e sulle condizioni che li rendono possibili, fornendo un supporto al decisore pubblico per la futura revisione della politica.

This report proposes a conceptual framework and carries out an assessment of the existing policy infrastructure with the purpose of suggesting points of entry for policy-led transition towards food sustainability in Europe. The system perspective adopted allows us to apply one of the key principles of sustainable development as well as sustainable consumption and implies that policies aiming at sustainability should address consumption issues as well as production patterns. The challenge for a new policy approach is to put in place coordinated policy tools that can affect directly or indirectly this process of alignment, linking together self-responsibility with freedom to act. ; This research has been carried out by Francesca Galli, Elena Favilli, Simona D'Amico, Gianluca Brunori in collaboration with Laboratorio di Studi Rurali Sismondi and University of Pisa. The research was commissioned by European Public Health Alliance, Friends of the Earth Europe, IFOAM EU, Slow Food.

Health and sustainability concerns related to food production and consumption involve a multiplicity of actors and responsibilities. New models of interaction and decision making are increasingly experimented to fine tune context based solutions. These new forms of food governance develop along three types of relationships: civil society and the food chain; the public sector and the food chain; policy makers and civil society. The 7thFP Foodlinks project aimed at exploring new modalities of science policycivil society interaction in the domain of sustainable food production and consumption. Looking at the experience across twelve European countries, the project deepened the specific innovative pathways undertaken along each of the three governance axes, by experimenting with Communities of Practice (CoP) as a dedicated space for interaction. Here we summarize the challenges emerging from the interface between civil society and the food chain (the "Short Supply Chain CoP"). What changes do the new societal demands require to producers and production systems? What contribution from public policies and what institutional innovation could be useful to meet the new claims? Based on the case studies within the project, we discuss implications emerging about specific issues.

This Working Paper is based on two research reports that were the outcome of the research carried out by the team of the Université Libre de Bruxelles within the FP7 project SURVEILLE.1 Such research focused on the use of surveillance technologies for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of serious crime. Taken together, the two reports developed a comparative analysis of a number of surveillance technologies and techniques used at different stages of the criminal procedure within selected national jurisdictions. The first project deliverable, finalised in October 2012 and entitled "The use of surveillance technologies for the prevention and investigation of serious crime" (D4.1)2, addressed the use of the interception of telecommunications and video-surveillance in three countries, namely France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The second deliverable, finalised in April 2013 and entitled "Comparative law paper on data retention regulation on a sample of EU Member States" (D4.3), examined the rules governing the retention of data by telecommunications companies and internet service providers for criminal justice purposes in nine countries (i.e. Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom). The two reports test the existence of what the authors call a double shift: the means at the disposal of competent national authorities (intelligence services and law enforcement agencies) in the fight against serious crime are evolving in such a way that the share of tasks and competences is now increasingly blurred. The fundamental rights dimension was the normative background of the legal dimensions of the SURVEILLE project as a whole, and thus also of the present work. The impact of evolving trends in the use of surveillance upon the right to privacy and the right to the protection of personal data are at the core of this research undertaking. The authors wish to highlight that legislation is changing very quickly in this domain both at the national level and at the EU level. In particular, the January 2015 attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo, the February 2015 attacks in Copenhagen and the increasing threat resulting from the foreign fighters phenomenon are significantly challenging the effectiveness of means used by States to prevent, investigate, detect and prosecute terrorist offences. Recent legislative developments deepen the blur between the tasks and functions of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies as well as the blur between administrative and criminal law measures. Furthermore, with the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 8 April 2014 in the Digital Rights Ireland case3 - partially reaffirmed in Schrems4, EU Member States together with EU institutions have to rethink the legal framework concerning the use of surveillance technologies and techniques in order to ensure a coherent relationship between on the one hand safeguarding the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and on the other hand developing effective means to prevent, investigate, detect and prosecute serious crime. Despite the fact that the two papers were written at least two years ago, the information remains largely up to date. These papers analyse a trend that has been occurring for some years and that is not over yet: a massive use of surveillance technologies and techniques by an increasing number of competent authorities leading to an exponential gathering of information by EU Member States aiming to fight more effectively against serious crime - often at the expense of fundamental rights.