The issue is based on two main focuses. It records the conference reports from the “4th Liechtenstein Talks on Economic Criminal Law”, which deal in depth with various topics relating to business and compliance. This meeting was organized by the editor Konstantina Papathanasiou and can be seen as setting the pace for the current discourse on white-collar criminal law. But also other articles also found their way into the edition. An overarching focus is the discussion of artificial intelligence in whistleblowing and copyright law. This is how Markus Endres writes about whistleblowing tools such as AI-Supported Data Analysis. Clemens Danda delves deeper into AI and EU copyright law. Another article is dedicated to the topic of anti-money laundering compliance compliance in context with the trade of Art NFTs. This article complements the edition thematically with the area of criminal art law. To sum up, the issue contains a colorful bouquet of many current and future-oriented compliance aspects, takes a close look at them and provides solutions and answers

No description available.

The text discusses the evolving digital workplace, emphasizing the rise of cybercrime and the need for innovative investigative approaches. It explores the surge in web-based whistleblowing tools in Europe, driven by legislation, and delves into the functionalities and challenges of these tools, including issues of anonymity and data protection. The paper also highlights the role of AI-based forensic tools in government agencies, covering their benefits and potential risks. The use of AI in law enforcement is explored, acknowledging its effectiveness but also cautioning against biases and associated risks. The conclusion stresses the importance of balancing opportunities and risks, particularly in the context of legal and ethical considerations.

No description available.

Salariat et liberté d'expression : la contradiction apparaît irréductible. La subordination inhérente à la relation de travail semble en effet exclure l’exercice de cette liberté. Le salarié, parce qu’il demeure citoyen, doit toutefois en jouir de façon effective. Le représentant élu et désigné, parce que le mécanisme de la représentation collective l’exige, doit également le pouvoir. Accorder au salarié une telle liberté peut s’avérer dangereux pour l’autorité de l’employeur ou la survie de l’entreprise. Des notions floues, complexes à circonscrire, telles que l’obligation de confidentialité ou l’abus, peuvent autoriser l’employeur à restreindre l’exercice par le salarié de la liberté d'expression et à le sanctionner. Face au mutisme du législateur et à l’indécision du juge, l’insécurité règne. S’impose alors de dégager une définition plus précise et une articulation plus cohérente des règles légitimant tant l’exercice par le salarié de cette liberté que sa limitation par l’employeur. Bien que périlleuse, cette quête d’équilibre mérite d’être entreprise afin que le caractère nécessaire de cette liberté au monde du travail se révèle. Salariat et liberté d'expression : la contradiction n’apparaîtra qu’apparente. / The employee status and freedom of expression : the contradiction appears to be irreducible. The subordination, which is inherent to the employment relationship, seems indeed to exclude the exercice of such freedom. The employee, because he remains a citizen, must however enjoy it in an effective way. The elected and designated representative, because the collective representation mecanism commands it, must enjoy it as well. Granting the employee with such freedom may prove dangerous for the authority of the employer and the survival of the company. Vague notions, that are hard to define, such as the duty of confidentiality or the abuse of right, authorize the employer to restrict the exercice of this freedom by his employee and to sanction him. Given the legislative mutism and the judge's indecision, insecurity is prevailing. It therefore becomes essential to draw a more precise definition and a more coherent articulation of the rules legitimating the exercise of this freedom by the employee, as well as its limitation by the employer. Althought it is jeopardous, this search for balance deserves to be attempted, so that it is revealed that such freedom is essential to the world of work. The employee status and freedom of expression : the contradiction will eventually reveal to be only apparent.

De Kheops à Internet, des nanotechnologies à la téléportation, les nouvelles technologies rythment la vie des hommes. Fruits de leur intelligence, outils de grands travaux, moteurs de diffusion des savoirs, elles sont cause et effet des progrès de l’humanité. Innervant les relations de travail subordonnées comme tous les compartiments de la société, elles retiennent l’attention du juriste tant elles sont susceptibles de remodeler l’organisation de l’entreprise, de provoquer l’exclusion de la communauté de travail (au moins autant que de rapprocher ceux qui la composent), de provoquer l’entremêlement des vies personnelle et professionnelle. Nul compartiment du droit des relations de travail n’échappe à la pression des nouvelles technologies : au recrutement des salariés elles peuvent donner un nouveau visage ; à la conclusion du contrat de travail elles peuvent offrir instantanéité et dématérialisation ; au temps de son exécution elles imposent normes de sécurité (pour que, de chacun, le corps soit préservé) et normes de vie (pour que, de chacun, l’âme et l’esprit demeurent hors du champ de lecture de l’employeur). Et que dire du jeu de relations collectives remodelées à coup de communications syndicales dématérialisées, de vote électronique, de réunions virtuelles d’instance de représentation du personnel ? Le paysage se transforme. Le corpus normatif, parfois, peine à suivre. Le temps des diseurs de droit n’est pas celui de la science. Mais la science ne peut aller sans que le législateur et le juge, un jour, s’en saisissent. D’intérêts contradictoires où s’entremêlent impératif d’évolution (de l’entreprise) et de protection (du salarié), il leur appartient d’assurer la conciliation. / Over the centuries, from Cheops to the Internet and from nanotechnology to teleportation, new technologies have constantly been at the centre of individuals’ lives. Produced by human intelligence, they appear to be a key to innovation, a tool for the dissemination of knowledge and they enable the progress and evolution of mankind. These new technologies obviously drew lawyers’ attention as they have a direct impact on society as a whole, but also more specifically on the relationship between employers and employees. Moreover, they tend to reshape the organisation of corporations and lead to the entanglement of professional and private life. As a matter of fact, labour law is under pressure: recruitment procedures can be altered by new technologies, the conclusion of employment contracts is nowadays electronic and instantaneous, and security and privacy rules have been established (not to mention electronic trade union communications, e-voting or e-meetings for staff representative bodies). In short, the whole framework is changing. Unfortunately, lawmakers are usually overtaken by events as science and law evolve at a very different pace. However, sooner or later, legal boundaries are set. Currently, courts’ main challenge is to try to make technological progress and protection of employees compatible.

No description available.

Zugl.: Augsburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2005.

La commission européenne définit la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises comme « l'intégration volontaire des préoccupations sociales et écologiques des entreprises à leurs activités commerciales et leurs relations avec leurs parties prenantes » . la rse se subdivise en trois partie : l'écologie, le social et la gouvernance.jusqu'à présent, la rse était cantonnée à des guides de bonne conduite et un discours marketing bien rodé. le seul risque encouru par l'entreprise ne respectant pas ses engagement était une atteinte à son image (plus ou moins importante selon le degré de médiatisation de l'entreprise, allant de la simple condamnation par la presse spécialisée jusqu'au boycott).le terme responsabilité était alors restreint à l'acception commune, une sorte d'exigence morale. mais, la rse tend à investir le droit, et le risque de contentieux juridique apparaît. elle peut alors se comprendre comme la tentative de sanctionner par le droit un comportement autrefois seulement fustigé par l'éthique. elle correspond à un rapprochement de la morale et du droit, dans un mouvement inverse à celui qu'avait connu jusqu'alors la responsabilité.cette responsabilité émerge dans l'actualité. c'est l'affaire de l'erika. le tribunal correctionnel de paris a récemment condamné l'affréteur total à 192 millions d'euros de dommages et intérêts pour « préjudice écologique » en reconnaissant notamment l'atteinte au « vivant non commercial ». on assiste à une extension de la chaîne des responsabilités. de l'affréteur aux oiseaux et au littoral en passant par un armateur, des sociétés de notation, des gestionnaires du navire, des personnes publiques et des associations des défense de l'environnement. l'écran juridique de la société est écarté au profit de la notion plus large d'entreprise. / Social responsibility standards voluntarily set by a company create obligations both in respect of their issuers and their receptors. Law operates a double movement of legalization (they shall become binding for employees) and control (this binding nature is to exist only if it satisfies the justification and proportionality criteria) to standards that create new constraints for employees. The employer may, espacially by means of a code of conduct, restrict the exercise of freedom of its employees provided that such limitation is justified by the interest of the company and proportionate to the aim pursued. In addition, under the influence of a renovated corporate governance, social interest is now open to the interests of stakeholders. This changes the responsibilities of executives and forces them to set up and report on their corporate social responsibility policies. Once acquired the idea that a company has to integrate social responsibility into its business, the question of the legal nature of the measures implemented comes into play. One may distinguish on the one hand unilateral initiatives of the company, usually by means of a code of conduct and, on the other hand, concerted initiatives taking the form of international framework agreements. Both of these CSR instruments are relatively foreign to lawyers. After comparing codes of conduct and unilateral commitments, I attempted to legally qualify international framework agreements through a contractual perspective. From these analyzes, it appears that commitments entered into by a company, whether unilaterally or adopted after consultation, generate binding obligations. Standards of corporate social responsibility are subject to a process of legalization and individuals can now usefully use them as part of a trial to assert their claims.

L’obiettivo della ricerca è quello di studiare le contaminazioni tra diversi livelli di governance nel settore dell’anticorruzione. Anzitutto, ci si soffermerà sugli effetti che le convenzioni internazionali e più in generale gli strumenti prodotti nella sfera sovranazionale hanno determinato sul diritto anticorruzione italiano. A ben vedere, questa contaminazione tra diversi livelli di regolazione si realizza non solo attraverso strumenti cogenti ma anche, e soprattutto, attraverso strumenti flessibili come raccomandazioni e linee guida. Il diritto anticorruzione rappresenta un laboratorio di contaminazioni non solo a livello verticale tra sfera sovranazionale e nazionale, ma anche a livello orizzontale. Alla delimitazione del campo della ricerca alle interazioni tra pubblico e privato corrisponde il capitolo II: in esso si dà conto del fatto che, in materia di prevenzione del rischio di corruzione, i confini tra sfera pubblica e sfera privata sono sempre più sfumati. Infine, nel capitolo III, si cerca di trovare un filo conduttore tra le varie forme di contaminazioni regolatorie analizzate, inserendole entro un più ampio ciclo in cui si susseguono regulation e enforcement. Ci si chiede se e in che misura questo ciclo sia effettivamente virtuoso: in particolare, se un processo di law-making improntato ai criteri della flessibilità, della partecipazione dei soggetti interessati e della continua valutazione della sua efficacia, sia effettivamente idoneo a prevenire fenomeni corruttivi. / The aim of the research is to study interaction between different levels of governance in the anti-corruption sector. Firstly, the domestic law, especially in the anti-corruption field is strongly influenced by international instruments. The Italian system, for example, starts out from the Anti-Corruption Law, Law No. 190 (the so called "Severino Law", approved by Parliament on 6 November 2012, entering into force on 28 November 2012, and implemented by several regulations). This Law was adopted to implement the UN Convention against Corruption. Secondly, the research aims to study interaction between public and private sector: fundamental concepts for corruption prevention, such as risk management, have been borrowed from one sector to another. Finally, there many players in the anti-corruption sector who are able to create rules (lawmakers, stakeholders, Authorities): the question is if they are part of a virtuous circle in which regulation and enforcement are closely linked. In order to prevent corruption, the law-making process must be based on specific criteria such as flexibility, stakeholder participation and ongoing evaluation of its effectiveness.