europeanlawblog.eu Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the europeanlawblog.eu

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host europeanlawblog.eu. Currently, hosted in Netherlands and its service provider is Antagonist B.V. .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- about contact contributors useful links september 27, 2018 pomfr book review: s. vogenauer and s. weatherill (eds.), general principles of law – european and comparative perspectives, hart, 2017, 418 p. by tim corthaut book review: s. vogenauer and s. weatherill (eds.), general principles of law – european and comparative perspectives, hart, 2017, 418 p. the book is a collection of articles that reflect the outcome of a two-day seminar organised by the oxford law faculty’s institute of european and comparative law in 2015 on general principles of law. as often with collective works the result is a mixed bag with articles jumping in various directions, dealing with international law, eu law, private law and comparative law; some take a bird’s eye view on the legal landscape or the history of european integration, others focus on very specific issues, such as discrimination on the grounds of obesity. all authors, however, have clearly something to tell. the book starts off with a brief introduction, as is customary for a collective work, but quickly cuts to the chase. the first two substantive chapters contrast the use of general principles in international law through a pleasant overview by catherine redgewell and in eu law with a most enjoyable essay by one of the editors, stephen weatherill. continue reading → share this: facebook twitter linkedin written by tim corthaut no comments posted in eu constitutional law , pomfr tagged with general principles of law , vogenauer , weatherill september 24, 2018 can the united kingdom unilaterally revoke its article 50 notification to withdraw from the eu? wightman v secretary of state for dexeu [2018] csih 62 by oliver garner introduction on the day that theresa may declared that withdrawal negotiations between the united kingdom and the european union have reached an impasse , the inner house of the court of session in scotland issued a judgment that may pave the road for a third option between no deal and may’s imperilled chequers deal . the scottish court decided to refer the following question in a preliminary reference to the court of justice of the european union: ‘where, in accordance with article 50 of the teu, a member state has notified the european council of its intention to withdraw from the european union, does eu law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying member state; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the member state remaining within the eu’. the purpose of the reference is to clarify for members of parliament whether it would be a legally valid option under section 13 of the european union (withdrawal) act to withhold a resolution approving any negotiated withdrawal agreement, or lack thereof, and instead vote to revoke notification under article 50(2). this post will summarise the reasoning of the court of session judgment. it will then engage with the arguments for and against the proposition that notice under article 50(2) may indeed be revoked unilaterally. the argument will be forwarded that such a unilateral revocation by the united kingdom should be possible, so long as a decision is made to do so in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member state. the post will conclude with consideration of the second limb of the conditions and effects of such a revocation for the member state remaining within the eu. if unilateral revocation is indeed possible, it will be argued that the most desirable method of creating such a statutory power would be to include it within legislation mandating the holding of a second referendum on the question of whether the united kingdom should leave or remain within the european union, and to predicate its operation thereupon. continue reading → share this: facebook twitter linkedin written by oliver garner 5 comments posted in brexit , courts of member states , eu constitutional law tagged with article 50 notification , cilfit , revocation of article 50 notice , wightman v secretary of state for dexeu [2018] csih 62 september 21, 2018 neues aus dem elfenbeinturm: september 2018 conference “intelligence transnational activities in france and in europe: a changing landscape” sciences po paris, 24-26 september 2018. (free) registration necessary. zweite tagung junger europarechtler*innen 2019: autoritäres vs liberales europa university of vienna, 8 march 2019. deadline for (english or german) abstract submissions: 15 october 2018. german law journal: call for special issue proposals deadline for submissions: 31 october 2018. workshop “accountability and control of european multilevel administration: current challenges in eu administrative law” university of amsterdam, 21 january 2019. deadline for abstract submissions: 5 november 2018. share this: facebook twitter linkedin written by benedikt pirker 1 comment posted in call for papers: neues aus dem elfenbeinturm tagged with call for papers eu law september 20, 2018 a fragmentation of eu/echr law on mass surveillance: initial thoughts on the big brother watch judgment by theodore christakis last week, the european court of human rights (ecthr) issued an important, highly anticipated judgment, condemning the united kingdom for its mass surveillance program. following edward snowden’s revelations regarding the united states-united kingdom intelligence surveillance and intelligence sharing programme, 16 organizations and individuals (including the ngo big brother watch) filed an application against the united kingdom before the ecthr. the 212page-long judgment published on september 13, 2018 is rich and deals with a great variety of important issues. several among them are directly linked to some major legal questions examined in the past by the court of justice of the european union (cjeu) or currently pending before it – not to mention the ongoing debate about whether the eu-us data transfer agreement known as privacy shield provides an “adequate level of protection”. the objective of this piece is to provide some first thoughts focusing on the strategic place of this judgment in the european legal landscape. continue reading → share this: facebook twitter linkedin written by theodore christakis 1 comment posted in anti-terrorism law , criminal law , data protection and digital governance , fundamental rights , legal remedies , public international law tagged with 24960/15 , 62322/14 , article 10 echr , article 29 working party , article 7 european charter of fundamental rights , article 8 echr , big brother watch v. uk , bulk interception , centrum för rättvisa v. sweden , cjue , data protection , data retention , digital rights ireland , echr , european data protection board , freedom of expression , gchq , gdpr , intelligence sharing , mass surveillance , nos. 58170/13 , nsa , privacy , privacy shield , proportionality , schrems , serious crime , snowden , surveillance , szabo and vissy v. hungary , terrorism , united kingdom , zakharov v. russia september 19, 2018 some further reflections on pisciotti – questioning the deterrence logic of cartel enforcement by christopher harding thinking about the whole legal saga arising from romano pisciotti’s involvement in the marine hose cartel, discussed recently on this blog by j. przerwa , triggers some thoughts about how much depends on circumstance and happenstance. this is relevant to the claims often made by enforcers and lawyers regarding the deterrent effect of severe sanctions (in particular the ‘inferno’ of prison terms in the us), of dedicated enforcement efforts (in particular on the part of the us department of justice), and of the possibility of extradition to the us (as in pisciotti’s case). ‘from hollywood to hong kong – criminal antitrust enforcement is coming to a city near you,’ warned scott d hammond of the doj in 2002. maybe so. but aficionados of deterrence theory should remember that in this world much depends on circumstance and happenstan

URL analysis for europeanlawblog.eu

http://europeanlawblog.eu/category/internal-market/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2013/10/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/category/mutual-recognition/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2012/08/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/protection-of-unaccompanied-minors/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/about/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/facebook-fanpage/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/gdpri/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/valsamis-mitsilegas/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/09/19/some-further-reflections-on-pisciotti-questioning-the-deterrence-logic-of-cartel-enforcement/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/cross-border-transfers-of-seat/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/09/27/pomfr-book-review-s-vogenauer-and-s-weatherill-eds-general-principles-of-law-european-and-comparative-perspectives-hart-2017-418-p/?share=twitter
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2012/11/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/same-sex-marriage/
http://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/09/21/neues-aus-dem-elfenbeinturm-september-2018/#comments
blogs.kcl.ac.uk
europaeuslaw.blogspot.co.uk
more.bham.ac.uk
ico.org.uk
independent.co.uk
blogs.ucl.ac.uk
www2.le.ac.uk
sussex.ac.uk
eulawstudent.blogspot.co.uk
inews.co.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

% The WHOIS service offered by EURid and the access to the records
% in the EURid WHOIS database are provided for information purposes
% only. It allows persons to check whether a specific domain name
% is still available or not and to obtain information related to
% the registration records of existing domain names.
%
% EURid cannot, under any circumstances, be held liable in case the
% stored information would prove to be wrong, incomplete or not
% accurate in any sense.
%
% By submitting a query you agree not to use the information made
% available to:
%
% - allow, enable or otherwise support the transmission of unsolicited,
% commercial advertising or other solicitations whether via email or
% otherwise;
% - target advertising in any possible way;
%
% - to cause nuisance in any possible way to the registrants by sending
% (whether by automated, electronic processes capable of enabling
% high volumes or other possible means) messages to them.
%
% Without prejudice to the above, it is explicitly forbidden to extract,
% copy and/or use or re-utilise in any form and by any means
% (electronically or not) the whole or a quantitatively or qualitatively
% substantial part of the contents of the WHOIS database without prior
% and explicit permission by EURid, nor in any attempt hereof, to apply
% automated, electronic processes to EURid (or its systems).
%
% You agree that any reproduction and/or transmission of data for
% commercial purposes will always be considered as the extraction of a
% substantial part of the content of the WHOIS database.
%
% By submitting the query you agree to abide by this policy and accept
% that EURid can take measures to limit the use of its WHOIS services
% in order to protect the privacy of its registrants or the integrity
% of the database.
%
% The EURid WHOIS service on port 43 (textual whois) never
% discloses any information concerning the registrant.
% Registrant and onsite contact information can be obtained through use of the
% webbased WHOIS service available from the EURid website www.eurid.eu
%
% WHOIS europeanlawblog.eu
Domain: europeanlawblog.eu

Registrant:
NOT DISCLOSED!
Visit www.eurid.eu for webbased WHOIS.

Onsite(s):
NOT DISCLOSED!
Visit www.eurid.eu for webbased WHOIS.

Registrar:
Name: Registrar.eu
Website: https://www.openprovider.com

Name servers:
ns3.webhostingserver.nl
ns2.webhostingserver.nl
ns1.webhostingserver.nl

Keys:
flags:KSK protocol:3 algorithm:RSA_SHA256 pubKey:AwEAAYwXHbssdbvN/phAz4OUnjWErttEk2DQWh9ND5YCMrOSlSQ4g1Gz1ROs/Bz8oHT1b5oemiceZ5UetSD6MNb+DQEVkve7VeZjh8FcMsU2PN9K/F9fgBkYEM5Zr7+RWn7OqX72fd8eet53dTu2K1pxQoYrPpaLw6/vQKylEKfmY9/POPgNbvEGQ/GYbWvGVZhAivhDJEItLfHRa7CiRA7bPHDLz6jACGI2myzlGLYK0VNA4o8dndKq0m0cPqUl4b1VW0OPm20M4Jzhe3FHkQf0MfWgd/51ce/Na3nH8EglQIIb0fESZ0vN6qpzz4Qyrp7v/cCPzoKk9Pt1n2xoVhqp5kU=

Please visit www.eurid.eu for more info.

  REFERRER http://www.eurid.eu

  REGISTRAR EURID

SERVERS

  SERVER eu.whois-servers.net

  ARGS europeanlawblog.eu

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME europeanlawblog.eu

REGISTRAR

  NAME Registrar.eu

  URL https://www.openprovider.com

NSERVER

  NS3.WEBHOSTINGSERVER.NL 139.162.172.251

  NS2.WEBHOSTINGSERVER.NL 178.22.60.36

  NS1.WEBHOSTINGSERVER.NL 195.211.75.53

OWNER
NOT DISCLOSED!
Visit www.eurid.eu for webbased WHOIS.
Onsite(s):
NOT DISCLOSED!
Visit www.eurid.eu for webbased WHOIS.

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .