Suchergebnisse

This open access book is about the perception of the independence of the judiciary in Europe. Do citizens and judges see its independence in the same way? Do judges feel that their independence is respected by the users of the courts, by the leadership of the courts and by politicians? Does the population trust the judiciary more than other public institutions, or less? How does independence of the judiciary work at the national level and at the level of the European Union? These interrelated questions are particularly relevant in times when the independence of the judiciary is under political pressure in several countries in the European Union, giving way to illiberal democracy. Revealing surveys among judges, lay judges and lawyers - in addition to regular surveys of the European Commission - provide a wealth of information to answer these questions. While the answers will not please everyone, they are of interest to a wide audience, in particular court leaders, judges, lawyers, politicians and civil servants.

Internationally, the debate on aims for occupational health policy is expanding its horizons. Included among the issues are not only concerns about safety for workers, but also for their progeny. Equality among the sexes is also assuming a prominent position. In several countries, existing and proposed legislation already considers these matters. In the course of this article it is argued that this legislation and its implementation are inadequate. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, what constitutes health risks for workers exposed to chemical substances is subject to different interpretations. This is further complicated when one includes risks to reproductive function and to the progeny: the reproductive risks of toxicity. The different interpretations of the concepts of safety and equality are also discussed. There are differences in regulations and in standards about whether or not safety factors should be used when knowledge is uncertain. The operation of reasonable measures with a generic or sex specific policy also differs. Secondly, the current occupational exposure limits are set too high. These aspects are considered and it is probable that the policy aims should be made more specific. An elaborated approach that includes the "precautionary principle" in safety standards is proposed. To advise employers in their role as managers of reproductive risks of toxicity, a recently developed system for occupational health and safety services is described. This system is based on two criteria: effectiveness and reasonableness of proposed measures. The effectiveness criterion includes the precautionary principle; the reasonableness criterion includes equal rights and opportunities for men and women. Finally, a supportive governmental policy that is consistent with the most recent international development is recommended.

In 2019, the survey among the lawyers of Europe about the independence of the judiciary took place for the second time. The survey was organised in co-operation with the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). The survey has achieved moderate success, as it proved difficult to get lawyers to participate, despite the efforts of the ENCJ, CCBE and national bar and law societies. Despite a low threshold, 21 jurisdictions remained of the 29 participating jurisdictions. Relatively high participation was achieved in Hungary, Poland, Sweden and Norway. Consequently, outcomes cannot be presented for all countries that participated, and the outcomes that are presented need to be interpreted with caution. Still, the results are informative about the state of the indepence and accountability of the judiciary in Europe. The perspective of lawyers is an important addition to that of judges. One of the main conclusions is that on a 10-point scale lawyers rate the independence of the judges in their country on average between 5.2 and 9.0. Most countries get a positive score, but several score just above 6.

OBJECTIVES: To achieve a coherent programme of topics for research in occupational health and safety, with well founded priorities and to relate them to perceived gaps and needs in The Netherlands. METHODS: In the first phase of the study 33 key informants were interviewed. In the second phase questionnaires were sent to 150 Dutch experts (including the key informants). Four groups were recruited, originating from: occupational health and safety services; scientific research institutes; governmental and other administrative bodies; and companies. Using the Delphi technique, the experts were asked to prioritize several topics, which were placed under different headings. In the third phase five workshops were organised to elaborate on the highly prioritized topics. RESULTS: The response rates were 86% for the first and 81% for the second questionnaire. In the second round consistency was reached and consensus proved to be satisfactory; so that the Delphi process was stopped. There were surprisingly few differences in opinion between the four groups. The most important heading was "design/implementation/evaluation of measures", in which the topic cost-benefit analysis of measures had the highest score. "Assessment of relations between exposure and effect" was the second most important heading. Under this heading, topics on work stress were generally judged to be more important than topics on safety and biological, chemical, and physical hazards. The headings "occupational rehabilitation/sociomedical guidance" and "occupational health care/occupational health services" had about the sam priority, closely following the heading "assessment of relations between exposure and effect". CONCLUSIONS: The general agreement on priorities should provide a sufficiently broad basis for decision makers to initiate a long term programme for occupational health research and development in The Netherlands.

This is the final version of the article. Available from Springer Nature via the DOI in this record. ; Raw data were submitted to the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) under accession EGAS00001001077. ; X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), i.e., the inactivation of one of the female X chromosomes, restores equal expression of X-chromosomal genes between females and males. However, ~10% of genes show variable degrees of escape from XCI between females, although little is known about the causes of variable XCI. Using a discovery data-set of 1867 females and 1398 males and a replication sample of 3351 females, we show that genetic variation at three autosomal loci is associated with female-specific changes in X-chromosome methylation. Through cis-eQTL expression analysis, we map these loci to the genes SMCHD1/METTL4, TRIM6/HBG2, and ZSCAN9. Low-expression alleles of the loci are predominantly associated with mild hypomethylation of CpG islands near genes known to variably escape XCI, implicating the autosomal genes in variable XCI. Together, these results suggest a genetic basis for variable escape from XCI and highlight the potential of a population genomics approach to identify genes involved in XCI. ; This research was financially supported by several institutions: BBMRI-NL, a Research Infrastructure financed by the Dutch government (NWO, numbers 184.021.007 and 184.033.111); the UK Medical Research Council; Wellcome (www.wellcome.ac.uk; [grant number 102215/2/13/2 to ALSPAC]); the University of Bristol to ALSPAC; the UK Economic and Social Research Council (www.esrc.ac.uk; [ES/N000498/1] to CR); the UK Medical Research Council (www.mrc.ac.uk; grant numbers [MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/2 to JLM, CR]); the Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the State of Bavaria; the Munich Center of Health Sciences (MC-Health), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, as part of LMUinnovativ; the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, European Union (EU), and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)- funded BioResource, Clinical Research Facility, and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London.