Suchergebnisse

In December 2016, Member States need to implement the Antitrust Damages Directive. The Directive adopts the full compensation principle and expressly prohibits overcompensation. I will embark on an enquiry whether such an approach departs from the Slovene general regime of civil liability, in particular liability in damages. At face value, one might argue that the Slovene civil liability regime prohibits non- compensatory rationales for awarding damages. This article challenges this perception. It argues that there is a space for interpreting the rationale for damages in the Slovene private law, when this is justified with dissuasiveness and sufficient reasons are given, as well as embracing non- compensatory considerations, prevention and deterrence in particular. Regrettably, the judiciary does not necessarily keep in step with such an interpretation. However, there are tendencies in the legal scholarship to change the established case law. In this setting, the special liability regime based on the Directive, which prohibits overcompensation, can be seen as an exception to the general regime for damages awards in certain contexts. This approach is contrasted with damages awards regime in the labour law context, which is also based on the EU regulation. In this context, the Slovene legislator expressly embraced prevention and deterrence as rationales for the award of damages. Thus, legislation which is based on or influenced by EU law can lead to different outcomes in practice. It can either reinforce preventive tendencies of the general regime of civil liability or, as it is seen in the competition law context, undermine them. Nevertheless, the (proposed) Slovene implementing legislation opts for a solution that accommodates both the Antitrust Damages Directive and the general regime of civil liability.

Abstract
This article discusses legal migration in the EU, in particular labour migration. It addresses the following question: once migrant workers from non-EU countries have been admitted into the Union, should they be treated like workers from EU countries for purposes of free movement? The EU migration acquis is one of the most politically charged issues covered by the EU Treaties. As EU citizens, nationals of member states enjoy a set of free movement and political rights that can be exercised in other member states in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality affirmed in Article 18 TFEU. This principle is arguably not applicable to third-country nationals. Thus, member states are free to accord unequal treatment to third-country nationals as compared to privileged EU immigrants. The pressing question is whether it is desirable to maintain different levels of rights for third-country nationals who have been legally admitted and whose connection to the host member state does not otherwise differ from that of EU citizens who have exercised their mobility rights. To answer that question, this paper examines arguments for and against treating migrant workers from EU countries and non-EU countries equally for purposes of free movement. It will show how these arguments push in different directions depending on whether they concern the political, human, social, cultural or economic impact of such differential treatment. Our analysis strongly suggests that, on balance, there are convincing reasons for aligning the treatment of long-term resident migrant workers from non-EU countries with that of migrant workers from EU member states.