This paper discusses the role that EU competition law can play in regulating the “new self-employed”—precarious workers formally considered to be micro-enterprises. Specific attention is paid to the newest type of “new self-employed,” namely those engaged via matchmaking platforms arranging for work to be contracted on demand. Despite their unequal bargaining position, self-employed individuals are barred from collective bargaining due to the EU competition rules. This Article argues that the problem will not be solved by modifying the respective tests for “worker” and “undertaking” in EU law, or by introducing exceptions under Article 101 TFEU. This Article then adopts a regulatory approach to canvass the different legal instruments available to address exploitation concerns in the context of the Uber economy, and discusses the role that EU competition law can play in such a regime.

The present Article aims to shed light on the question whether crowdinvesting regulation should favor a specific legal form or contract type for crowdinvesting. To this end, it analyzes the conditions which legal forms and contract types must fulfill to be used in crowdinvesting. As crowdinvesting in Germany benefits from a high degree of contractual freedom, the Article gives an overview not only of the types but also of the contents of crowdinvesting contracts that are in use in Germany and traces how they have evolved. Based on a sample of 81% of all crowd financing in the German market, it evaluates 255 crowdinvesting campaigns held on 18 different platforms in the period from August 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015.

Focused on comparative law and technology, the Article demonstrates the importance of recent advances of comparative law on interdisciplinary research and argues that comparative law becomes essential to broaden this approach, when facing modern techno-scientific issues. Technological convergence has consequences not only for human rights and the way they can be exercised, but also for the fundamental concept of what characterizes a human being. Social perceptions of risks and geopolitical contexts deeply affect the legal approach to uncertainty. Converging technologies thus challenge us to develop a new, wider perspective on the concept of safety. Comparative law research is functional to deal with technological issues characterized by a cross-national and cross border nature. Additionally, it helps to integrate non-legal knowledge into legal culture. It thus becomes an essential pre-condition to answer complex and innovative questions. Even when research questions focus on the sole legal consequences of technology innovation, this cannot be done without a broader vision of the multidisciplinary problem technology offers. In fact, such a problem appears like an elephant: a unique perspective will not faithfully represent the real image. The Article focuses on a case-study: robotics. An emerging techno-scientific arena where neuro-sciences, informatics, and other disciplines, however, will deeply orientate the analysis of all the legal issues.

The Russian government is accused of hacking emails circulating among senior members of Hilary Clinton's campaign team to support President Trump's election in 2016. This was not the first time the United States was the target of massive cyber espionage: The Chinese government is believed to have gained sensitive information on 22.1 million US government employees through “cyber intrusions” in 2014. This Article will examine whether cyber espionage of this kind is unlawful under public international law and will conclude that it is. Specifically, such espionage can result in a violation of territorial sovereignty and will likely violate the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. Yet, based on the controversial “clean-hands-doctrine,” past US actions in the realms of cyber espionage and intervention may well invalidate any claims it asserts against Russia or China.

This Case Note discusses the recent judgment of the German Constitutional Court (1 BvR 2019/16) requiring either the legal recognition of sex categories beyond male or female, or the aboltion of sex registration requirements. The Note considers the Court's decision within the broader constitutional case law on gender identity, and explores both the progressive potential, and the future—perhaps unforeseen—consequences, of the ruling. The Case Note proceeds in three sections. Section A introduces the facts of the constitutional challenge, and sets out both the submissions of the complainant, as well as the reasoning of the Constitutional Court. In Section B, the Case Note explores the domestic law novelty of the decision, placing particular emphasis on the application of a constitutional equality framework to persons who experience intersex variance. Finally, in Section C, the Case Note contextualizes the judgment, situating the reasoning of the Constitutional Court within wider movements for transgender—otherwise known as trans—and intersex rights.

This Article argues that distributional concerns constitute the heart of environmental regulation; they are not restricted to pre-policy values or post-policy effects that need to dealt with. On the contrary, they characterize the selection of environmental policies, and their properties. Different interests, preferences, and values with respect to a policy instrument can be made commensurable using the language of distribution. The centrality of distribution as an organizing principle may be elusive on account of it being too vaguely construed or too narrowly defined. This necessitates the articulation of a typology of distributional concerns. To this end, it is suggested that the distribution of benefits and burdens, distribution of responsibility, distribution of membership and distribution of capabilities could be useful categories to develop and assess environmental regulation. This framework is then applied to an unsuspecting candidate, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).