The shortcomings identified in German bribery law—such as the limited criminalization of bribery of parliamentarians and other members of domestic assemblies, coupled with the absence of trading in influence offenses, and furthermore, certain limits in the criminalization of bribery of foreign and international officials and of private sector bribery—represent significant lacunae in the law.

This article explores the most recent practice, as exemplified by the case of Kosovo, concerning succession to treaties in international law. In doing so, it examines the precise meaning and legal effects under international law of relevant provisions of the Declaration of Independence (DoI) of Kosovo with respect to international treaties concluded by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) or, as applicable, any other predecessor entity. More specifically, the aim is to identify and comprehend the fundamental principles underlying the existing or developing practice of treaty succession, and to situate it within a broader framework of succession in international law. Kosovo's absence from key multilateral regimes, in particular the United Nations, dictates a focus on succession to bilateral treaties. Kosovo is in the process of establishing with its partners the status of its bilateral treaties undertaken by way of succession.

The purpose of this article is to explore the avenues for legal accountability vis-à-vis the European Council after the Treaty of Lisbon. This will be achieved through an assessment of the jurisdictional realms of, on the one hand, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and on the other hand, the European Ombudsman, always in relation to the European Council. Legal accountability may be understood in this respect as the supervision of the observance of the European Union (EU) rule of law. The European Ombudsman is an EU body established by the Treaty of Maastricht; by virtue of Art. 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), he or she has the power to investigate complaints of maladministration “in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.”

Although the temporal effects of judicial decisions have not completely escaped the attention of academic reviewers, the research on this topic is far from thorough. Most research focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby ignoring the temporal effects of judicial decisions of national or constitutional courts. This lack of interest is remarkable given the interaction between the national and European level.

Universal service has a pivotal role in market liberalization and competition on both sides of the Atlantic. It is central to the European thinking on markets and public service and is an inevitable element of market liberalization and sectoral competition rules. The universal service aims at preserving the public service in a competitive environment. The paper analyzes this cornerstone of the European thinking from a comparative and trans-sectoral perspective, demonstrating that the concept of universal services should be fundamentally re-conceptualized in EU electronic communications and energy regulation.

Although it guarantees individual religious freedom and the inviolability of “human dignity,” the German Basic Law also infers the principle of state neutrality regarding the exercise of religious freedom in public life and civil service domains. The Länder (states), however, enjoy substantial discretion in matters of religion and education, which has led to major divisions as to whether Muslimas (Muslim women) can wear headscarves as public employees. In 2006 Berlin adopted its own Neutrality Law (Berliner Neutralitätsgesetz) prohibiting religious attire among teachers, judges, and police. Within weeks, the city-state's first anti-discrimination officer was overwhelmed with new discrimination cases involving private sector employers as well. This essay examines the tensions and paradoxes inherent in Berlin's efforts to uphold religious “neutrality” among civil servants while also meeting the requirements of Germany's General Equal Treatment Act and three recent EU Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, and 2002/73/EG), addressing race, religion and equal treatment in employment, respectively. This article argues that the Neutrality Law not only violates national and supranational anti-discrimination regulations but that local officials are actually drawing upon the latter to undermine the enforcement of their own statute, in the hope that it will be repealed.

Under the Nazi regime, tens of thousands of Jews lived in ghettos, working more or less normal jobs. Some of these ghettos had their own employment centers, and some employers even paid into retirements funds. Legislation known as “German Pensions for Work in Ghettos,” or by its German acronym, ZRBG (Gesetz zur Zahlbarmachung von Renten aus Beschäftigungen in einem Ghetto) was passed in 2002 to grant pensions to some of these former laborers. But more than ten years after its passage, its implementation is still subject to considerable conflict. For many years, former laborers in Nazi ghettos have been fighting to get the pension that this law ostensibly guarantees them, but the vast majority of their applications have been rejected. Since 2002, around 70,000 survivors have invoked the ZRBG. However, over ninety percent of these applications were initially rejected by German authorities for various legal and practical reasons. This essay is an attempt to summarize the major steps in the implementation of the law. It begins with an overview of the historical background, and then will shift focus to the judicial, diplomatic, political, and practical problems with the implementation of the ZRBG.

On 3 February 2012, in a case brought by the Federal Republic of Germany against Italy, the ICJ decided that state immunity protects the state against compensation claims even in cases of extreme violations of human rights. With this ruling, the court established a provisional conclusion to the question of possible exceptions to state immunity in respect of jurisdictional immunity of the state and constraint measures in civil claims. This question has repeatedly arisen in recent years not only in international and European cases, but also in other national cases.

The right to an effective legal remedy is a generally accepted principle of modern legal systems and is enshrined in national constitutions as well as international treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On the European Union (hereinafter EU) level, the right to an effective remedy is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This paper examines the role and importance of the freedom to conduct a business enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR). With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the CFR became legally binding, gaining the same legal value as the Treaties. It will be argued here that Article 16 CFR, which recognizes the right to economic initiative, can be an important force for European integration by acting as a new engine of European social, economic, and political integration. That said, Article 16 should be read bearing its limitations in mind.

Historically, victims of crimes were key participants in the prosecution of crimes around the globe. Over the centuries, however, as public police and prosecution service took over the prosecution of criminal acts, the importance of victims in criminal justice systems decreased in common law and civil law countries alike. The victim was sidelined and the victim's role was reduced to that of a witness for the prosecution. As one of the first scholars to comment on the absence of victims from the criminal justice system, William Frank McDonald referred to the victim as “the forgotten man” in criminal procedure.