Mediaboss Marketing

Event to mark 50 years of European Union membership

Published: Fri 19 May 2023, 6:12 PM

Maynooth University was host to a watershed two-day event marking the fiftieth anniversary of the EU, bringing together politicians, academics, diplomats, policy makers and members of civil society to evaluate the highs and lows of Irelands membership.

On 1st January 2023, Ireland reached a historic milestone - the fiftieth anniversary of its accession to the European Communities. Co-organised by Maynooth University and the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA), this event examined the span of Irish membership of the EU from the perspective of policy, politics and transformation.

The conference focused on the most important themes that helped define 50 years of Ireland's participation in European integration, and share insights into events that continue to shape Irelands role within the EU.

Alex White, IIEA Director General said: Since 1973 a key feature of Irelands EU membership has been public debate about Irelands role in Europe, expressed most intensely during referendum campaigns. It has now been 14 years since the last EU referendum in Ireland which is more than a lifetime in politics. But the EU will have to change the way it works. From how decisions are made, to the areas EU members cooperate on, big questions will need to be answered. Covid 19 showed us that Europe working together to supply vaccines was of great benefit to Ireland. So, should health now become an EU competency? That would require treaty change. The IIEA is delighted to co-host this conference, assessing the past 50 years, and looking ahead to the next chapter of Irelands European engagement.

John OBrennan, Jean Monnet Professor of European Integration at the Centre for European and Eurasian Studies, Maynooth University, said: The fiftieth anniversary of Irish accession to the European Union is an appropriate moment to stop and reflect on what has been achieved over 50 years of increasing cooperation with partner states in Europe. Ireland is often viewed as one of the great success stories of the European project. There is lots of evidence to support this view. But we have also made mistakes which complicated relations with our partner states.

The conference will reflect on the lessons we might learn from our participation in the EU and how we can drive forward further transformation of the country, especially through cooperation on climate change, with our EU partner states.

A range of politicians from across the political spectrum gathered at Maynooth University, including Mairead McGuinness, EU Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services, and the Capital Markets Union; former Taoisigh Bertie Ahern and John Bruton and Alan Dukes, former Minister for Finance.

Speakers also included Barry Andrews, MEP, and former Minister of State for Children; Alex White, a former Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Marian Harkin, TD and former MEP, and Proinsias de Rossa, a former Government minister and former MEP.

Academics from universities across the island include Professor John OBrennan, Maynooth University, Dr Mary C Murphy, UCC, and Dr Lisa Claire Whitten, Queens University Belfast.

President of Maynooth University, Professor Eeva Leinonen, said: Maynooth University is very closely involved with partners across the EU in addressing many of these key societal challenges, collectively and collaboratively. We now have more than 2,000 students taking modules on Europe in any given academic year. Our University has forged excellent collaborations in research and teaching with universities across Europe, most recently through the Arqus European University Alliance, and we continue to expand that cooperation. The EU is justifiably considered an important vehicle that facilitates and supports such endeavours.

Published: Fri 19 May 2023, 6:12 PM

Original post:
EU will have to change the way it works, Maynooth University ... - Meath Chronicle

19 May 2023

Herbert Smith Freehills

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

As we reported last week (27 April 2023), theEuropean Commission has issued proposals for a new SPC regimeacross the EU. Under the new proposal, i) a new centralisedprocedure for the grant of SPCs is introduced for medicinalproducts that have been centrally authorised, and ii) a new unitarySPC to complement the Unitary Patent is introduced. The key pointsto note in this regard are as follows:

This route will only be available to medicinal products thathave been authorised centrally SPC applications on thebasis of decentralised and national authorisations cannot takeadvantage of this route:

Once the Unitary Patent comes into effect from 1 June 2023, itwill also be possible to seek a Unitary SPC on the basis of aUnitary Patent via the same centralised application procedurementioned above:

The changes to the SPC regime attempt to resolve problemsencountered owing to the variation in approach of national patentoffices in their assessment of SPC applications, and are aimed atsimplifying and streamlining the process for applicants. In theCommission's own words:

The cost of seeking additional protection will be greatlyreduced: estimated savings of 137 000 per applicant forreceiving EU27 wide, five-year-long SPC protection, bringing the EUcloser to its main trading partners. The increased transparencyresulting from this centralised procedure will also make it easierfor generics manufacturers to be informed of the protection statusof a given product across the EU, and to make business plansaccordingly.

The proposal requires the repeal and recast of the twoRegulations that currently deal with SPCs for medicinal productsand plant protection products, as well as the introduction of twonew Regulations creating a new unitary SPC, one each of medicinaland plant products. The proposed Regulations will still need to bediscussed and agreed by the European Parliament and the Council ofthe European Union in view of their adoption and entry intoforce.

What is an SPC? An SPC provides an extensionterm for a patent of up to five years, for a human or veterinarymedicinal product, or a plant protection product, that has beenauthorised by regulatory authorities. It provides a compensatoryextension of the monopoly to allow for the time it takes to getproducts to market via the regulatory system. SPCs are currentlyawarded at a national level individually for eachterritory. This has led to some variation in application of thecriteria for awarding SPCs, creating legal uncertainty, proceduralinefficiencies, and many referrals to the CJEU. It had also been asource of concern for stakeholders that in respect of the newEuropean patent with unitary effect (the unitary patent (UP) whichwill become available as an option at grant for European patentsfrom 1 June 2023 when the UPC comes into effect) as no SPC righthad been proposed to accompany the new unitary patent right.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from European Union

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Love it or hate it, artificial intelligence, and particularly ChatGPT, has flooded the news in recent months. Whether you are a lover or a hater of artificial intelligence, the frenzy around ChatGPT...

Here is the original post:
European Commission Announces New Centralised Application ... - Mondaq News Alerts

Jack Greiner| Cincinnati Enquirer

I need to start this article with some caveats. First, I have been a Xavier University basketball fan since 1985. Second, I detest Bob Huggins' coaching style. Third, I think the University of Cincinnati did the right thing when it fired him back in the day. So, having said that, I assume some readers will accuse me of bias. Fair enough.

But this article isn't so much about whether West Virginia University should fire Huggins forhis homophobic comments on the Bill Cunningham radio show earlier this month. It's more about whether Huggins could hide behind the First Amendment to avoid any discipline imposed by West Virginia University.

WVU is a public institution. This means Huggins has First Amendment rights. He is in a different position than Thom Brennaman. As some readers may recall, Brennaman was removed from his post as a Cincinnati Reds announcer within minutes of using the same slur as Huggins. But Brennaman wasn't employed by a public entity. So, the Reds didn't have to worry about any First Amendment concerns when they cut him loose.

Huggins isn't free to say whatever he wants. Public employees are in a unique First Amendment space. On the one hand, as citizens, they don't lose their rights by accepting a job with a public employer. On the other hand, as employees, they can be subject to discipline for their speech.

To gain First Amendment protection, a public employee must speak out as a citizen, and not in his official capacity as an employee. Second, the speech must pertain to a matter of public concern. If those two elements are satisfied, a court then balances the interests of the employee as a citizen, "in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

In weighing the employer's interests, the court considers (1) whether the speech or conduct impaired discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, (2) whether the speech or conduct had a detrimental relationship on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, and (3) whether the speech or conduct impeded the performance of the speaker's job duties or interfered with the regular operation of the enterprise. Here's ahelpful pieceon the subject.

One example of a public employee being protected by the First Amendment would beDean Smith. Smith routinely spoke out in support of the civil rights movement while coaching at the University of North Carolina. Had North Carolina sought to discipline him for his vocal support of the movement, it would have been a problem.

The question then, is whether Huggins' speech on the radio is in any way comparable to Dean Smith's speech. Most likely the answer is no. It's questionable whether Huggins was acting outside of the scope of his employment while being interviewed by Cunningham. The subject, after all, was hoops. It's also questionable whether Huggins' recollection of a particular crosstown shootout (which ultimately resulted in his slur) is a matter of public concern.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Huggins satisfied both of the first two elements. It's clear that the University's interests justify discipline. WVU is already dealing with the fallout, which has no doubt interfered with its "regular operation." The First Amendment won't allow Huggins to escape accountability. Nor should it.

And this whole sordid episode should be a reminder for all of us, but maybe those of us of a certain age, to do our best to purge our inventory of hateful words. It's upsetting that Huggins used the word. It's more upsetting that he was able to so easily pull it out from his closet of insults. Maybe now he'll purge it for good. Let's hope.

Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

Read more:
Will the First Amendment protect Huggins against any discipline WVU might impose? - The Cincinnati Enquirer

Harvard Law-educated DeSantis knows full well he will lose the courtroom fights. He knows the First Amendment prohibits the very kind of viewpoint discrimination, content-based regulation, and speech-based retaliation DeSantis and GOP lawmakers in Tallahassee are engaged in. These cases wouldnt even make for tough law school exam questions.

Get Today in Opinion

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday-Friday.

So why is he doing it? Its because he and like-minded state officials enacting similar laws across the country believe the political payoff will far outweigh the harm they are causing the American people and the very pillars of the Constitution.

DeSantis, who is expected to announce a presidential bid any day now, needs bogeymen to rally against. Hes chosen them: drag performers, kids who want to play sports with their peers, students who wish to learn history that reflects their stories and cultures, educators who dare speak about our nations true history, and even the company that created the Magic Kingdom when its executives speak truth to power. In a party that is becoming more extreme and shrinks in size, like a toxic reduction sauce, the pain is increasingly the point.

Its problematic because it sends a very clear, strong message to marginalized groups that their history and their views and their stories really arent worth learning, said Charles McLaurin, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, one of the groups that filed the legal challenge against Floridas Stop WOKE Act.

Even if the laws are ultimately halted by courts, McLaurin said, for Black and brown and LGBTQ people who have been impacted by systemic discrimination and continue to experience it every day, there is potential for a lot of damage to be done.

And McLaurin noted that the approach has gone viral, with GOP-controlled state legislatures filing a wave of bills limiting the way race, gender, and sexual orientation and identity are taught in schools.

And they didnt even have to work that hard. Many bills, including Floridas law, were largely cut and pasted from a 2020 executive order signed by then-president Donald Trump that outlawed the use of divisive concepts and race or sex stereotyping. The MAGA crowds marching orders came straight from the top.

And the pain isnt limited to marginalized Americans. I spoke to two professors at state universities in Florida who were so concerned about the impact of the new laws, including one enacted just this week that bars diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, they didnt want to speak on the record. The silencing has begun.

For faculty, and particularly faculty of color there is this fear out there, McLaurin told me. What is the line? The law is drafted in a way that it is not clear what is prohibited and what is not prohibited. A lot of faculty members have chosen to self-censor. They dont even want to go near it.

In defense of the policy, DeSantis said those who want to attend a college with such diversity programs are free to go to Berkeley. What a way to encourage higher-ed brain drain and discourage out-of-state tuition money in your own state.

But his state isnt on his mind. Trying to claim the GOPs MAGA throne is. And he needs to wage a culture war to do it, no matter the collateral damage.

Yes, he will lose in court. DeSantis is not bigger than the First Amendment. But that doesnt mean our nation and the principles upon which it stands wont take a beating.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at kimberly.atkinsstohr@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @KimberlyEAtkins.

See the rest here:
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's anti-wokeness crusade to trample on the First Amendment - The Boston Globe

Petitions of the week ByKalvis Golde on May 19, 2023 at 6:40 pm

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions were watching is available here.

Laws governing elections and the right to participate in the political process receive varying degrees of scrutiny when challenged in court. The Supreme Court has held that election laws restricting core political speech trigger a high degree of suspicion under the First Amendment. By comparison, laws that simply regulate the machinery of elections are subjected to a more flexible balancing test. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, what level of First Amendment scrutiny applies to a state law governing slogans that appear alongside candidates names on the ballot.

New Jerseys so-called slogan statutes permit candidates in primary elections to have a short phrase containing no more than six words listed next to their names on the ballot. These slogans allow candidates to affirm their commitment to a platform goal or align themselves with a faction of their political party. The slogans cannot include the name of any person or a corporation located in New Jersey without their written consent.

Eugene Mazo and Lisa McCormick ran in the Democratic primary for seats in the House of Representatives in New Jerseys 2020 primary elections. Mazo wanted to name several local wings of the New Jersey Democratic political machine in his ballot slogan, which would have allowed him to be listed together with other machine-backed candidates higher on the ballot, but he never obtained consent to do so. McCormick was was not permitted to use her own campaigns slogan, which implicitly criticized Bernie Sanders, because a rival had established a New Jersey corporation in that slogans name and refused to give consent; she was also barred from using a slogan explicitly criticizing Sanders because she lacked his consent.

Both Mazo and McCormick eventually lost their races. But before the primary elections took place, they went to court to challenge the constitutionality of the slogan statutes. A federal district court dismissed their lawsuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld that dismissal. It held that the slogan statutes more closely resemble rules about election mechanics than restrictions on political speech because they regulate ballots, a core component of election machinery. Accordingly, the 3rd Circuit applied the so-called Anderson-Burdick doctrine, under which courts weigh the benefits of a rule governing election procedures on a sliding scale against the rules burden on the First Amendment right to participate in the political process. Because the statutes apply to all candidates, the court of appeals reasoned, modest First Amendment scrutiny was appropriate. The 3rd Circuit upheld the statutes, concluding that New Jerseys interest in preventing voter confusion and protecting named third parties outweighed the burden on speech because Mazo and McCormick had other slogans available to them.

In Mazo v. Way, the former candidates ask the justices to grant review and reverse the 3rd Circuits ruling. New Jersey did not have to permit ballot slogans, they argue, but once it did, their regulation should trigger the highest degree of suspicion under the First Amendment because slogans are core political speech. Mazo and McCormick also urge the justices to clarify the Anderson-Burdick doctrine. They argue that lower courts are deeply confused about how to determine whether an election law is a classic restriction on speech, or merely a regulation of election procedures subject to the doctrines sliding-scale of First Amendment scrutiny.

Emily v. Welters22-1005Issue: Whether the Minnesota Supreme Court departed from this courts decisions inCity of Tahlequah v. Bond,Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, and many other qualified immunity cases by defining the relevant law at a high level of generality and holding that less particularity is required to clearly establish what the constitution requires when engaging in routine conduct.

Prime Insurance Company v. Wright22-1006Issue: Whether a trip of an empty truck between two locations in the same state qualifies as transportation of property between a place in a State and a place in another State for purposes of49 U.S.C. 31139(b)(1).

Moeser v. Wisconsin22-1018Issue: Whether a sheriff (1) who indisputably did not make an oral or written oath or affirmation to anyone and (2) who falsely signed a pre-printed affidavit stating that he had been first duly sworn on oath, (3) which was in turn notarized by a fellow law enforcement officer who also falsely asserted in the jurat that the affidavit had been sworn to, nevertheless supported [the warrant application] by Oath or affirmation for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because the [original] officer was impressed with th[e] obligation to tell the truth.

CoreCivic, Inc. v. Owino22-1019Issues: (1) Whether courts of appeals reviewing class-certification decisions underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23must, as a matter of law, give district court decisions granting class certification noticeably more deference than rulings denying class certification; and (2) whether Rule 23(a)s commonality requirement is satisfied through the assertion of a purportedly class-wide policy without significant proof that such policy is uniformly applied class-wide.

Mazo v. Way22-1033Issue: Whether a state that permits political candidates to engage in core political speech on the ballot may restrict that speech on the basis of content and viewpoint without satisfying strict scrutiny.

Visit link:
Former candidates say New Jerseys slogan statutes violate the ... - SCOTUSblog