Podcasts about Cels

Case C-181/23 Commission v Malta (investor citizenship) is one of the most important decisions the Court has handed down on EU citizenship. It is of significant interest not just because of the issues raised, but because of the reasoning of the Court and the Court's view of citizenship in the EU legal order. This seminar provides the opportunity to hear from both those closest to the decision and academic commentators on their assessment of this momentous decision.Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge Discussants: Professor Markus Gehring, University of CambridgeDr Emilija Leinarte, University of CambridgeProfessor Daniel Sarmiento, Universidad Complutense, MadridDr Martin Steinfeld, University of Cambridge Professor Takis Tridimas, Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Case C-181/23 Commission v Malta (investor citizenship) is one of the most important decisions the Court has handed down on EU citizenship. It is of significant interest not just because of the issues raised, but because of the reasoning of the Court and the Court's view of citizenship in the EU legal order. This seminar provides the opportunity to hear from both those closest to the decision and academic commentators on their assessment of this momentous decision.Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard, University of Cambridge Discussants: Professor Markus Gehring, University of CambridgeDr Emilija Leinarte, University of CambridgeProfessor Daniel Sarmiento, Universidad Complutense, MadridDr Martin Steinfeld, University of Cambridge Professor Takis Tridimas, Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Krāpnieku izliktajās lamatās var iekrist ikviens no mums, bet lielāku neizpratni rada tie, kas pēc sāpīgās mācības nemācās neko un atkārtoti iekrīt krāpnieku nagos. Kāpēc tā notiek, raidījumā Kā labāk dzīvot vērtē kiberincidentu novēršanas institūcijas CERT.LV kiberdrošības eksperts Gints Mālkalnietis, programmatūras inženieris Elviss Strazdiņš un Valsts policijas Kibernoziegumu apkarošanas pārvaldes 2. nodaļas priekšnieka vietniece Solvita Sļadze. Ierakstā Rīgas Stradiņa universitātes psihosomatiskās medicīnas un psihoterapijas katedras docents Artūrs Utināns skaidro, ka mums ir divu sistēmu domāšana - ātrā un lēnā un krāpnieki mēģina ietekmēt tieši ātro domāšanas sistēmu, kas ir intuitīva un saistīta ar dažādām emocijām, piemēram, bailēm, šaubām un bažām. "Katru nedēļu tiek izkrāpti 460 līdz 500 tūkstoši eiro tiek izkrāpti. Līdz novembra beigām ir cilvēkiem Latvijā gandrīz 20 miljoni eiro izkrāpti tiešsaistes krāpšanās," norāda Solvita Sļadze. Solvita Sļadze norāda, ka "sarkanais karodziņš" ir, ja atnāk kāda saite īsziņā vai "WhatsApp" ziņā no viltus policista, bankas darbinieka vai kādai cita pakalpojumu sniedzēja un ir jāievada PIN1 un PIN2 vai kaut kas saistīts ar internetbanku, to nedarīt nekādā gadījumā. Kategoriski - nē. "Jāatceras kā noteikums, ja saņem īsziņas linku, kur tālāk ir maksāšana – uzreiz nē. Zaudējumu nebūtu, ja cilvēki to ievērotu," norāda Solvita Sļadze. "Otrs, ja piezvana un saruna aizvirzās, ka interesējas par naudu manā kontā vai par manu nekustamo īpašumu, kas tiek pārreģistrēts un tagad man jāpiedalās ar viltus policistu viltus eksperimentā, vai vispār ir interese par mantiskām lietām, arī nē. Nekādas sarunas nenotiek. Īpaši, ja ir steidzināšana, plus vēl nauda, kas ir jādod kādam, arī nē. Neturpinām sarunu." Viņa iesaka, saņemot šādu zvanu, ieelpot, izelpot, aizskaitīt līdz 10, viens variants – nolikt klausuli, otrs – sākt pārbaudīt saņemto informāciju, pārzvanīt, bet nerisināt šo jautājumu uzreiz. "Ļoti maz ir lietu, kur var pēc tiesiskā regulējuma rasties juridiskas sekas, ja to neatrisina stundas vai divu laikā," norāda Gints Mālkalnietis. "Visām lietām sekas rodas, ja nereaģē uz kādiem brīdinājumiem dienām ilgi. Pasakiet – risināsim to rīt vai parīt. Paņemiet laiku sev, lai saprastu, kas notika, lai sazinātos ar banku, ar radinieku, kura vārdā jūs mēģina uzrunāt, stāstot, cik viņam ir slikti. Neskrieniet nekur." Elviss Strazdiņš piebilst, lai pierādītu savu identitāti, ir jāievada PIN1.  "Ja mistiska CSDD lapa prasa PIN2, tas automātiski ir sarkanais karogs," norāda Elviss Strazdiņš. "ievadot PIN1, ir tikai nedaudz slikti, var uz jūsu vārda paņemt kredītus un veikt zibmaksājumus, kas nebūs daudzi tūkstoši. Ja ievada PIN2, viss ir diezgan slikti." Pirmais –  vajadzētu paskatīties domēnu.  Pēdējā laikā krāpnieki zvana arī no Latvijas numuriem. Telefonkrāpšana ir liela problēma, kas cilvēkiem radījusi lielākos zaudējumus. Gints Mālkalnietis norāda, ka atkal parādījušās piramīdu shēmas, 90. gadu atblāzmas, kas aicina cilvēkus ieguldīt. "Viņi turklāt pārveidot to par kripto valūtu, bet nevis par normālu kripto valūtu, ar kuru var pirkt un pārdot atvērtā tirgū, bet tādu, kas der šajā platformā. Līdzīgi kā bija 90. gados. Šis ir atpakaļ. Ne tik izteikti kā iepriekš, bet ir atpakaļ," stāsta Gints Mālkalnietis. Solvita Sļadze mudina radiniekiem pieskatīt citam citu, runāt par to ģimenē, lai ģimenes locekļi zina, kādi krāpšanas veidi šobrīd ir aktuāli. Jāaiziet ciemos pie vecmāmiņām, krustmātēm… "Ieteiktu piezvanīt biežāk saviem vecākiem, saviem bērniem. Ļoti bieži cilvēkiem trūkst uzmanības. Uzmanība ir tas, ko viņi iegūst no krāpniekiem, jo viņi ļoti laipni zvanīs katru dienu un komentēs, cik labi vai slikti ieguldījāt. Sajūta, ka kāds par jums interesējas," skaidro Gints Mālkalnietis. Kas ir tie iemesli, kāpēc cilvēki, kuri jau reiz piekrāpti, atkal uzķeras uz krāpnieku piedāvājuma? Cilvēks cer naudu atgūt, iesaistās piramīdas shēmās un aicina cilvēkus, no kuriem aizņēmās, iesaistīties jaunajā krāpšanas shēmās. Visvairāk cilvēku atkārtoti nokļūst krāpnieku shēmās, kas saistītas ar investīcijām. Cilvēki cer, ka nākamais brokeris būs labāks, palīdzēs nopelnīt. "Kamēr cilvēks cels klausuli un maksās, tikmēr viņam arī zvanīs," atzīst Solvita Sļadze.

Speaker: Professor Daniele Gallo, Luiss University, ItalyAbstract: The seminar, building upon Professor Gallo's book, Direct Effect in EU Law (EU Law Library Series, OUP, 2025), will explore the uneasy trajectories of a transformative doctrine such as direct effect. By reassessing both the present and future of this legal and political construct, it will argue that such chameleon-like principle has evolved into a broader legal category than it was at the outset of the European integration process and that this development has been only partially captured by the CJEU. In doing so, Professor Gallo will revisit the no horizontal direct effect rule of contemporary directives and argue for its overcoming in light of the text, scope, and objectives of legal acts that are substantially different from those envisaged by Article 288 TFEU.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Daniele Gallo, Luiss University, ItalyAbstract: The seminar, building upon Professor Gallo's book, Direct Effect in EU Law (EU Law Library Series, OUP, 2025), will explore the uneasy trajectories of a transformative doctrine such as direct effect. By reassessing both the present and future of this legal and political construct, it will argue that such chameleon-like principle has evolved into a broader legal category than it was at the outset of the European integration process and that this development has been only partially captured by the CJEU. In doing so, Professor Gallo will revisit the no horizontal direct effect rule of contemporary directives and argue for its overcoming in light of the text, scope, and objectives of legal acts that are substantially different from those envisaged by Article 288 TFEU.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Raphaële Xenidis, Sciences Po Law School, FranceAbstract: EU anti-discrimination law has been a subject of choice for critiques from various disciplines. One influential motif that has durably structured the critical analysis of EU anti-discrimination law is the distinction between formal and substantive equality. Substantive approaches seek to diagnose and remedy the disjunctions between formal equality frameworks and social realities. Yet, such critiques often remain implicit in their engagement with social theory, leaving the very notion and construction of 'social realities' largely unexamined. This paper thus asks: How does the principle of non-discrimination mediate and produce specific forms of individual subjectivity, interpersonal relationships, institutional arrangements, material and spatial organisation and ultimately social order? How does it authorise the existence of certain subjects and groups while excluding and rendering others invisible? What 'forms of life' does EU anti-discrimination and its jurisprudential construction by the Court enable or preclude?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Raphaële Xenidis, Sciences Po Law School, FranceAbstract: EU anti-discrimination law has been a subject of choice for critiques from various disciplines. One influential motif that has durably structured the critical analysis of EU anti-discrimination law is the distinction between formal and substantive equality. Substantive approaches seek to diagnose and remedy the disjunctions between formal equality frameworks and social realities. Yet, such critiques often remain implicit in their engagement with social theory, leaving the very notion and construction of 'social realities' largely unexamined. This paper thus asks: How does the principle of non-discrimination mediate and produce specific forms of individual subjectivity, interpersonal relationships, institutional arrangements, material and spatial organisation and ultimately social order? How does it authorise the existence of certain subjects and groups while excluding and rendering others invisible? What 'forms of life' does EU anti-discrimination and its jurisprudential construction by the Court enable or preclude?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Julian Ghosh, Cambridge University Abstract: In this seminar Dr Ghosh will address what, post-Lipton are the rules for REUL/AL; examples of UK Court decisions which should but do not apply REUL/AL and will provide a useful template for future litigation.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Julian Ghosh, Cambridge University Abstract: In this seminar Dr Ghosh will address what, post-Lipton are the rules for REUL/AL; examples of UK Court decisions which should but do not apply REUL/AL and will provide a useful template for future litigation.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Craig Bartlett once again takes your questions for the 29th Hey Arnold! Anniversary Show!Topics include include Arnold's relationship with Helga, The Patakis, Craig's time at Nickelodeon, fan theories, family dynamics, Jim Lang's music, future Hey Arnold! projects and MORE!Also, check out https://www.craig-bartlett.com/ for Craig's Collectibles, Cels, and Gear!

Digitalizācija mūs uzlabos! Cels mūsu konkurētspēju! Kļūsim zaļāki! Tā mūs atbrīvos… Būsim labāki cilvēki? Mākslīgais intelekts mūs aizsūtīs atvaļinājumā, bet algas vai bezalgas? Kāda ir digitālās Latvijas parole? Meklēsim kopā diskusijā no sarunu festivāla “LAMPA”! Desmit tehnoloģiju ekspertu prognozes par valsts digitalizāciju tuvākajā piecgadē komiķu mērcē. Būs vai nebūs? Tāds ir jautājums! Atbildes meklējam kopā ar improvizatoriem Aneti Bendiku un Mārtiņu Kozlovski, Viedās administrācijas un reģionālās attīstības ministrijas valsts sekretāra vietnieku digitālās transformācijas jautājumos Gati Ozolu, kā arī LU asociēto profesoru, Pēteri Paikenu. Plašāk par tehnoloģiju jaunumiem lasi arī LSM portālā.

Esto es Crisis en el aire , el resumen de la semana. En el primer bloque de crisis en el aire, hacemos zoom en el triunfo electoral de Ciudad Futura y el peronismo en Rosario. Una conversación a fondo con Juan Monteverde. En la segunda parte, nos metemos con la criminalización y la persecución judicial a la militancia: la posdemocracia a full. Con el análisis de Manuel Tufró (CELS).La tangente es una línea de fuga para escapar de una época que apabulla con su inmediatez. Esta semana, Melisa Cabrapán Duarte, antropóloga e integrante de la Confederación Mapuche de Neuquén, piensa desde el corazón de la Vaca Muerta una nueva celebración del Wiñoy Xipantu. Con la edición sonora del peñi Unawtufe Wenxu.Todos los sábados, el colectivo editorial de crisis analiza los sucesos más importantes de la realidad nacional. Hoy la conducción fue de Natalia Gelós, Juan Pablo Hudson y Mario Santucho. Facundo Iglesia aportó en la producción, mientras Ale Demasi editó y Florencia Badaracco puso la voz.Ilustración del episodio: Brenda Greco

La doctora Luciana Galoppo, del CELS habló de los cambios migratorios introducidos por decreto por Milei en Argentina. En Argentina el Gobierno modificó la ley de Migraciones: por decreto habilita cobro en salud y universidades, restringe ciudadanía y endurece deportaciones. Esto va en línea con EEUU, donde la Corte Suprema permitirá a Trump revocar el estatus legal temporal de más de medio millón de inmigrantes. Se trata del programa de "parole" y su revocación impactaría para migrantes de Cuba, Haití, Nicaragua y Venezuela. había sido impulsado en 2022 y ampliado en 2023 por Biden.

An online debate considering the recent Supreme Court case of 'For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers' which was handed down on 16 April featuring Aidan O'Neill KC (Scot.), KC (E&W), BL (Ireland) who appeared for For Women Scotland. In the discussion Aidan reflected on his experiences of the case, the judgment and participate in a debate of the issues it raises going forward. This was followed by a response from Dr Lena Holzer, and then a question and answer session.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

An online debate considering the recent Supreme Court case of 'For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers' which was handed down on 16 April featuring Aidan O'Neill KC (Scot.), KC (E&W), BL (Ireland) who appeared for For Women Scotland. In the discussion Aidan reflected on his experiences of the case, the judgment and participate in a debate of the issues it raises going forward. This was followed by a response from Dr Lena Holzer, and then a question and answer session.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/activities-archive

Esto es Crisis en el aire, el resumen de la semana. Hoy, el primer tema de crisis en el aire es la huelga nacional organizada por la Cegeté, justo cuando el gobierno llega a un acuerdo con el FMI. Con la participación del periodista Jorge Duarte, el sindicalista aceitero Leandro Monzón y Clarisa Gambera, secretaria de género de ATE Nacional.En la segunda parte analizamos el resonante fracaso judicial del gobierno de Milei, luego de que el Congreso rechazara a los dos cortesanos que propuso. Aporta su lectura la directora ejecutiva del CELS, Paula Litvachky.La tangente es una línea de fuga para escapar de la obviedad de una época que apabulla con su inmediatez. Hoy estará a cargo de Natalia Gelós, quien viajó a la patagonia y nos cuenta cómo los mapuche resisten al fracking.Todos los sábados, el colectivo editorial de crisis analiza los sucesos más importantes de la realidad nacional. Hoy la conducción fue de Natalia Gelós, Mario Santucho y Facundo Iglesia. Juan Pablo Hudson aportó en la producción, editó Ale Demasi y la voz es de Flor Badaracco.Ilustración del episodio: Brenda Greco

Víctor Basterra estaba en su casa con su esposa y la bebé de ambos. Era 1979 y el gobierno militar que de facto se había hecho cargo del Poder Ejecutivo argentino cometía aberrantes crímenes en la clandestinidad con la excusa de la lucha contra la subversión. Basterra es separado de su familia y brutalmente golpeado. En la Escuela de Mecánica de la Armada (ESMA) fue torturado y permaneció secuestrado hasta el final del régimen, en 1983, aunque continuó vigilado y amenazado hasta casi un año después. Obligado a trabajar para el régimen por sus conocimientos como obrero gráfico, Basterra estiró los límites de su seguridad (ya de por sí en peligro) en pos de registrar y archivar documentos, fotos y escritos que ayudaron a reconocer tanto a victimarios como a víctimas al regreso de la democracia. Su valioso testimonio ante el Juzgado de Instrucción N° 30 (que incluyó la documentación retirada de la ahora ex ESMA) se transformó en una publicación del CELS que, a 49 años del golpe, quisimos compartir en formato de audiolibro. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pre producción y voz: CECILIA BONA Editó este episodio: DANY FERNÁNDEZ (@danyrap.f) para @activandoproducciones.proyecto ¡Ayudanos a crecer! Patrociná POR QUÉ LEER: https://porqueleer.com/patrocina Nuestras redes sociales: ⚡https://instagram.com/porqueleerok ⚡https://twitter.com/porqueleerok ⚡https://www.facebook.com/porqueleerok/

Speaker: Dr Bernadette Zelger, University of InnsbruckAbstract: The debate about the future of the European Union has long left academic circles, arrived in the midst of society and been awarded political attention. Meanwhile, there has been an increase of Euroscepticism accompanied by more nationalist political developments echoed in the swings to the right all across the EU. These developments may, arguably at least in parts, be explained by social resentments of the peoples of Europe. While acknowledging that law constructs and contributes to a social reality of its own it is thus, arguably also about the lack of a genuine socio-economic equilibrium within the law and political system of the EU. This imbalance is not only found within the EU legal constitutional framework, but also within the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, possible solutions to solve this socio-economic imbalance are limited: It is either (i) Treaty reform or, alternatively, (ii) a change in the approach of the Court in its jurisprudence. While these alternatives are both valid and, to some extent, mutually exclusive, they unveil and epitomise different visions as regards the future of the European Union. However, while acknowledging the differences in the approach, they are arguably different means to serve the very same end: Warrant the European Union's future success. For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Bernadette Zelger, University of InnsbruckAbstract: The debate about the future of the European Union has long left academic circles, arrived in the midst of society and been awarded political attention. Meanwhile, there has been an increase of Euroscepticism accompanied by more nationalist political developments echoed in the swings to the right all across the EU. These developments may, arguably at least in parts, be explained by social resentments of the peoples of Europe. While acknowledging that law constructs and contributes to a social reality of its own it is thus, arguably also about the lack of a genuine socio-economic equilibrium within the law and political system of the EU. This imbalance is not only found within the EU legal constitutional framework, but also within the case-law of the European Court of Justice. However, possible solutions to solve this socio-economic imbalance are limited: It is either (i) Treaty reform or, alternatively, (ii) a change in the approach of the Court in its jurisprudence. While these alternatives are both valid and, to some extent, mutually exclusive, they unveil and epitomise different visions as regards the future of the European Union. However, while acknowledging the differences in the approach, they are arguably different means to serve the very same end: Warrant the European Union's future success. For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Orla Lynskey, University College London Abstract: The EU ‘digital empire' seeks to align technological development to its rights and values by adopting and promoting a rights-driven model of technological regulation. Bradford's influential characterisation of EU digital strategy is credible when one maps the array of legal ‘Acts' applicable to data, digital markets, digital services and AI adopted by the EU in recent years, all of which are without prejudice to the EU data protection law. Yet, when one delves deeper, the EU's commitment to rights-based regulation of the digital sphere is not iron-clad. Rather, as we demonstrate through an empirical analysis of the European Commission's adequacy decisions over a quarter of a century (1999-2024), there are clear divergences amongst EU institutions about the balance to be struck between fundamental rights and economic interests. Such divergence suggest the EU might more accurately be characterised as an amalgamation of fiefdoms rather than an empire. This inter-institutional dynamic is relevant to the legitimacy of EU actions in the digital sphere and may foreshadow the future direction of EU data law.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Orla Lynskey, University College London Abstract: The EU ‘digital empire' seeks to align technological development to its rights and values by adopting and promoting a rights-driven model of technological regulation. Bradford's influential characterisation of EU digital strategy is credible when one maps the array of legal ‘Acts' applicable to data, digital markets, digital services and AI adopted by the EU in recent years, all of which are without prejudice to the EU data protection law. Yet, when one delves deeper, the EU's commitment to rights-based regulation of the digital sphere is not iron-clad. Rather, as we demonstrate through an empirical analysis of the European Commission's adequacy decisions over a quarter of a century (1999-2024), there are clear divergences amongst EU institutions about the balance to be struck between fundamental rights and economic interests. Such divergence suggest the EU might more accurately be characterised as an amalgamation of fiefdoms rather than an empire. This inter-institutional dynamic is relevant to the legitimacy of EU actions in the digital sphere and may foreshadow the future direction of EU data law.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Connexions amb entitats d'àltres mòns amb unes gravacions d'interferencies i sorolls extranys i tot seguit els fenomens anòmals que sobre volen els cels dels Estats Units i part del món actualment aquesta mena d'extranya procedencia dels Drons amb els investigadors Jorge R. Valle i Artur Homs. Revista digital La tortuga Avui. www.latortugaavui.com ​Xarxès: Facebook grup Secrets del Pirineu, Instagram: area-hermetica-radio. Telegram: [https://t.me/.../FSW-COI...//t.me/joinchat/FSW-COI-ZiUtQ0Aj) Ràdio Caldes 107.8 fm, per TDT per les comarques del Vallès canal 515, Instagram com Àrea Hermètica ràdio i per internet: www.radiocaldes.cat areahermeticaradio@gmail.com

En el último episodio de Crisis en el aire 2024 compartimos un balance en tres tiempos de este año que fue muy cuesta arriba pero que también tuvo destellos interesantes. En el primer bloque, hacemos zoom a qué economía nos deja el primer año de gobierno ultralibertario y cómo se prepara para enfrentar un 2025 electoral. Con el análisis de la diputada y directora de CEPA Julia Estrada, la periodista Giselle Leclercq y la diputada de La Libertad Avanza Lourdes Arrieta. En la segunda parte, nos metemos con la violencia, estatal y paraestatal y la gran pregunta ¿qué hacemos para enfrentarla? Con aportes de Paula Litvachky, directora ejecutiva del CELS, y Magda Chirom, de Argentina Humana. Por último, bajamos un cambio y nos sumergimos en el tiempo de la resistencia para pensar qué está surgiendo. Con la participación de la investigadora Maristella Svampa y el periodista y militante Pablo Solana. Todos los sábados, el colectivo editorial de crisis analiza los sucesos más importantes de la realidad nacional. Hoy conducen Ximena Tordini, Mario Santucho y Natalia Gelós.

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Dr Andriani Kalintiri, King's College LondonAbstract: Is EU antitrust law resilient in the face of change? This question has acquired prominence amidst the many crises and disruptions of recent times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and digitalisation. Attempts to answer it though have been rather narrow in scope and tend to employ the language of resilience casually. This article contributes to knowledge (a) by developing a conceptual framework for understanding and assessing legal resilience in administrative enforcement systems and (b) by applying it to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU with a view to investigating its ability to respond to change in a systematic manner. The analysis reveals that the current regime exhibits several design features that enable decisionmakers to make resilience choices as needed, and the resilience choices that have been made on various occasions are prima facie justifiable given the nature of the problem the European Commission and/or the EU Courts were faced with. However, certain aspects of the existing legal framework may weaken or limit EU antitrust law's ability to deal with certain problems, in particular (very) complex ones, whereas some of the resilience choices that have been made have had implications for legal certainty, coherence and legitimacy that may not have been sufficiently appreciated so far. The article highlights the added value of a legal resilience perspective for effectively using EU antitrust law as a tool for tackling problems in an ever-changing world and demonstrates that, albeit not a panacea, such a perspective may reinforce the quality of enforcement and public's trust in it.3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activitiesFor more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham UniversityAbstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham UniversityAbstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

En el primer bloque, nos sumergimos en el culebrón de la interna kirchnerista que copó la semana: ¿qué expresa el enfrentamiento entre CFK y Kicillof? En la segunda parte, escudriñamos qué está en juego en la transformación de la AFIP y en la inminente ola de privatizaciones. Con aportes de Rodolfo Aguiar, Secretario General de ATE Nacional, y Verónica Pérez, investigadora del Conicet y de la UNSAM. En el tercer bloque, analizamos la reforma de la ley de refugiados y qué pasará con los bolsonaristas prófugos. Opina Diego Morales, del CELS.  Todos los sábados, el colectivo editorial de crisis analiza los sucesos más importantes de la realidad nacional. Hoy conducen Ximena Tordini, Natalia Gelós y Juan Pablo Hudson. Desde los estudios de FM La Tribu. Crisis en el aire cuenta con el apoyo de la Fundación Rosa Luxemburgo.

Entretien mené par Christian Casaubon & Julie Gresh Tandis qu'au volant de sa voiture de location, il fait le tour de la France par les bords, Philippe Jaenada ne peut s'ôter de la tête l'image de cette jeune femme qui, à l'aube du 28 novembre 1953, s'est écrasée sur le trottoir de la rue Cels, derrière le cimetière du Montparnasse. Elle s'appelait Jacqueline Harispe, elle avait vingt ans, on la surnommait Kaki. Elle passait son existence Chez Moineau, un café de la rue du Four où quelques très jeunes gens, serrés les uns contre les autres, jouissaient de l'instant sans l'ombre d'un projet d'avenir. Sans le vouloir ni le savoir, ils inventaient une façon d'être sous le regard glacé du jeune Guy Debord qui, plus tard, fera son miel de leur désinvolture suicidaire. Dans ce livre magnifique, Philippe Jaenada a cherché à savoir, à comprendre pourquoi une si jolie jeune femme, intelligente et libre, entourée d'amis, une fille que la vie semblait amuser, amoureuse d'un beau soldat américain, s'est jetée, un matin d'automne, par la fenêtre d'une chambre d'hôtel. En préambule, l'équipe de la Femelle du requin nous proposera un petit retour sur l'oeuvre de Philippe Jaenada (à qui un dossier est consacré dans le dernier numéro) mettant ainsi en perspective ce nouveau livre. À lire – Philippe Jaenada, La désinvolture est une bien belle chose, Mialet-Barrault, 2024. Revue La Femelle du Requin, n°59

A casi 30 años del atentado contra la Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos condenó este viernes a la Argentina por faltas en la prevención e investigación del ataque perpetrado en Buenos Aires, que en 1994 dejó 85 muertos y más de 300 heridos. Una sentencia celebrada por los familiares de las víctimas y el Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, quienes impulsaron la demanda internacional hace ya 25 años. Por Marianela Mayer Tras décadas de impunidad, la justicia dio este viernes la razón a los familiares de las víctimas del atentado contra la Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, más conocida como AMIA.La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos consideró al estado argentino como responsable de violar los derechos humanos de las víctimas y sus familiares, así como el derecho colectivo a la verdad. En consecuencia, Argentina deberá comprometerse con las investigaciones y las medidas de reparación.La decisión se conoce a un mes de que se cumplan 30 años del ataque y 25 años después de que los familiares de las víctimas, reunidos en la asociación Memoria Activa, presentaran la demanda internacional junto al Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, CELS.Diana Wassner, quien perdió a su marido en el atentado e integra la agrupación, celebró la noticia: “Es un hito histórico, no solamente en la causa AMIA, creo que es un hito también en nuestro país porque es una sentencia muy fuerte, muy contundente de una condena absoluta al estado argentino, en donde se le dice que el Estado incumplió todo lo que veníamos denunciando. En primer lugar, el Estado tenía la responsabilidad de cuidar a los ciudadanos y, de hecho, lo incumplió aún a sabiendas de que podía ocurrir un atentado; y después todos los diferentes estamentos del Estado que estuvieron involucrados en el encubrimiento. Es horrible que esto pase, también tiene que ser de alguna manera un hito en que esto no puede volver a pasar”.También la directora del CELS, Paula Litvachky, destacó la relevancia del fallo, que fija estándares jurídicos para la región: “Es un impacto político, obviamente, y un impacto en términos reparatorios y tiene un impacto jurídico también. El estado argentino, (le) es obligatorio cumplir las decisiones de la Corte Interamericana. Ya tiene un impacto muy claro vinculado al establecimiento de una verdad, sobre cómo fueron estos 30 años y tiene que ver con parte lo que dijo la Corte, que el Estado argentino, sus acciones concretas fueron las responsables de que hoy no haya una respuesta adecuada, no solo a las víctimas, sino a la sociedad argentina.”Ahora comienza otra etapa, la de controlar que el estado argentino cumpla con lo dispuesto.“Cuando me refiero al estado argentino, no se refiere únicamente al poder ejecutivo, también al poder judicial y al poder legislativo. El poder judicial tiene mucha responsabilidad y tiene cosas para revertir esta situación. No es mera retórica. También, vinculado a la reconstrucción de la verdad, no únicamente con el atentado, sino con todo lo que fueron las maniobras de desvío y de encubrimiento de la investigación, y hay todo un capítulo vinculado a la desclasificación de información. Estamos pasando por un momento político también medio complicado y hay que ver qué posición toma el poder ejecutivo, pero no se trata de que solo el poder ejecutivo cumpla, sino los tres poderes”.Aunque el daño fue muy importante, tienen expectativas en lograr una mayor transparencia del Estado. Sobre todo, en la “connivencia” de los servicios de inteligencia y el poder judicial, un tema que para la abogada sigue siendo de actualidad.

A casi 30 años del atentado contra la Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos condenó este viernes a la Argentina por faltas en la prevención e investigación del ataque perpetrado en Buenos Aires, que en 1994 dejó 85 muertos y más de 300 heridos. Una sentencia celebrada por los familiares de las víctimas y el Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, quienes impulsaron la demanda internacional hace ya 25 años. Por Marianela Mayer Tras décadas de impunidad, la justicia dio este viernes la razón a los familiares de las víctimas del atentado contra la Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, más conocida como AMIA.La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos consideró al estado argentino como responsable de violar los derechos humanos de las víctimas y sus familiares, así como el derecho colectivo a la verdad. En consecuencia, Argentina deberá comprometerse con las investigaciones y las medidas de reparación.La decisión se conoce a un mes de que se cumplan 30 años del ataque y 25 años después de que los familiares de las víctimas, reunidos en la asociación Memoria Activa, presentaran la demanda internacional junto al Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales, CELS.Diana Wassner, quien perdió a su marido en el atentado e integra la agrupación, celebró la noticia: “Es un hito histórico, no solamente en la causa AMIA, creo que es un hito también en nuestro país porque es una sentencia muy fuerte, muy contundente de una condena absoluta al estado argentino, en donde se le dice que el Estado incumplió todo lo que veníamos denunciando. En primer lugar, el Estado tenía la responsabilidad de cuidar a los ciudadanos y, de hecho, lo incumplió aún a sabiendas de que podía ocurrir un atentado; y después todos los diferentes estamentos del Estado que estuvieron involucrados en el encubrimiento. Es horrible que esto pase, también tiene que ser de alguna manera un hito en que esto no puede volver a pasar”.También la directora del CELS, Paula Litvachky, destacó la relevancia del fallo, que fija estándares jurídicos para la región: “Es un impacto político, obviamente, y un impacto en términos reparatorios y tiene un impacto jurídico también. El estado argentino, (le) es obligatorio cumplir las decisiones de la Corte Interamericana. Ya tiene un impacto muy claro vinculado al establecimiento de una verdad, sobre cómo fueron estos 30 años y tiene que ver con parte lo que dijo la Corte, que el Estado argentino, sus acciones concretas fueron las responsables de que hoy no haya una respuesta adecuada, no solo a las víctimas, sino a la sociedad argentina.”Ahora comienza otra etapa, la de controlar que el estado argentino cumpla con lo dispuesto.“Cuando me refiero al estado argentino, no se refiere únicamente al poder ejecutivo, también al poder judicial y al poder legislativo. El poder judicial tiene mucha responsabilidad y tiene cosas para revertir esta situación. No es mera retórica. También, vinculado a la reconstrucción de la verdad, no únicamente con el atentado, sino con todo lo que fueron las maniobras de desvío y de encubrimiento de la investigación, y hay todo un capítulo vinculado a la desclasificación de información. Estamos pasando por un momento político también medio complicado y hay que ver qué posición toma el poder ejecutivo, pero no se trata de que solo el poder ejecutivo cumpla, sino los tres poderes”.Aunque el daño fue muy importante, tienen expectativas en lograr una mayor transparencia del Estado. Sobre todo, en la “connivencia” de los servicios de inteligencia y el poder judicial, un tema que para la abogada sigue siendo de actualidad.

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century'. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU's capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe's Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Below The Belt Show (www.belowthebeltshow.com) presents another epic show! This week we welcome two accomplished actors from the feature film Float in Andrew Bachelor and Michelle Krusiec! The film "Float", based on a book by Kate Marchant is a romantic drama that is the perfect date movie as we approach Valentine's Day. First we talk to Andrew about production on the film, his comic relief character, how he joined the project and his friendship with actor Robbie Amell and more! In addition Andrew talks about his work on the recent Walking Dead The Ones Who Live where he reprises his character from the main Walking Dead Show in Season 10! We talk to Michelle Krusiec about how she got involved with the film "Float" shooting is the scenic British Columbia and more! In addition we talk to Michelle about her TV work including portraying Ana Mae Wong in Neflix Hollywood, CW's Supergirl and working with BTB's host with the most Al Sotto brings to you another entertaining program! In addition we welcome "Sith Lord" Darth Paul Wallis and first time BTB guest co-host, Joe Pietracatella entrepreneur from CELS! Again, a BTB episode that you will not want to miss! Song Credits Classic Cut - Tracey Chapman "Fast Car"

Speaker: José Barroso, former President of the European CommissionBiography: José Manuel Durão Barroso served twelve years in the Government of Portugal including as Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister. He was President of the European Commission during two mandates (2004/2014).His academic appointments include visiting professor at Georgetown University and visiting professor at Princeton University. He is currently a visiting professor at the Catholic University of Portugal and at the European University Institute, School of Transnational Governance, Florence. José Manuel Barroso studied Law (University of Lisbon) Political Science and International Affairs (University of Geneva).He is currently Chair of the Board of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and Chairman of International Advisors, Goldman Sachs.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

What did George Orwell and the CIA have in common? Perhaps more than the great socialist writer would have cared to admit. The groundbreaking visual artists Daniel Arsham and host Alice Loxton bring us inside the CIA-sponsored production of Animal Farm. From SPYSCAPE, the home of secrets. A Cup And Nuzzle production. Series produced by Alex Burnard, Morgan Childs, Claire Crofton, Joe Foley, Frank Palmer, Kellie Redmond and Isabel Sutton. Music by Nick Ryan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues' with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve' (and, if so, in what direction).For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner?For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you're reading really mean.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this episode I am joined by my husband Celcius and we play a fun game to see how Booksmart I really am. Cels reads the summaries to ten random books I have read throughout the year to see if I can name either the author or the title of the book. How well do you think I did? Currently Reading: Butcher & Blackbird by Brynne Weaver Follow me on Instagram: @thebooksmartpodcast @sierramatagi

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

On this ID The Future, host Casey Luskin talks with Eric Anderson on location at this year's Conference on Engineering and Living Systems (CELS). The two discuss an intriguing new engineering-based model of bounded adaptation that could dramatically change how we view small-scale evolutionary changes within populations of organisms. In presenting his argument for natural selection, Charles Darwin pointed to small changes like finch beak size and peppered moth color as visible evidence of an unguided evolutionary process at work. Many have adopted this perspective, quick to grant the Darwinian mechanism credit for micro, if not macro, evolution. But Anderson and other attendees of the CELS conference are starting to promote a different view. "We need to stop saying organisms are partly designed," says Anderson. "We need to view them as deeply designed and purposeful, active and engaged in their environments, and capable of adapting within their operating parameters." Tune in to get a fascinating glimpse of this novel approach to biology. Source

Beat the Kayfabe Effect at our Patreon: https://patreon.com/cartoonistkayfabe Ed's Links (Order RED ROOM!, Patreon, etc): https://linktr.ee/edpiskor Jim's Links (Patreon, Store, social media): https://linktr.ee/jimrugg ------------------------- E-NEWSLETTER: Keep up with all things Cartoonist Kayfabe through our newsletter! News, appearances, special offers, and more - signup here for free: https://cartoonistkayfabe.substack.com/ --------------------- SNAIL MAIL! Cartoonist Kayfabe, PO Box 3071, Munhall, Pa 15120 --------------------- T-SHIRTS and MERCH: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/cartoonist-kayfabe --------------------- Connect with us: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cartoonist.kayfabe/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CartoonKayfabe Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Cartoonist.Kayfabe Ed's Contact info: https://Patreon.com/edpiskor https://www.instagram.com/ed_piskor https://www.twitter.com/edpiskor https://www.amazon.com/Ed-Piskor/e/B00LDURW7A/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Jim's contact info: https://www.patreon.com/jimrugg https://www.jimrugg.com/shop https://www.instagram.com/jimruggart https://www.twitter.com/jimruggart https://www.amazon.com/Jim-Rugg/e/B0034Q8PH2/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1543440388&sr=1-2-ent

On 12 May 2023 the Cambridge University Centre for European Legal Studies and (CELS) and the Ukrainian Catholic University School of Law held a webinar on the topic 'The Impact on Russia’s War against Ukraine and the EU Legal Order'. Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) will discussed his book ‘Russia’s 2022 War Against Ukraine and the Foreign Policy Reaction of the EU: Context, Diplomacy, and Law’ which focuses on the pre-war EU-Ukraine relations and the effects of Russia’s 2022 war against Ukraine on the EU, and the EU’s reaction to the war. There were five speakers at the event: Speaker: Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) Chair: Dr Markus Gehring (University of Cambridge) Introduction: Nataliya Haletska Respondent: Professor Taras Leshkovych (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School) Respondent: Dr Maxim Kolyba (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School) This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On 12 May 2023 the Cambridge University Centre for European Legal Studies and (CELS) and the Ukrainian Catholic University School of Law held a webinar on the topic 'The Impact on Russia’s War against Ukraine and the EU Legal Order'. Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) will discussed his book ‘Russia’s 2022 War Against Ukraine and the Foreign Policy Reaction of the EU: Context, Diplomacy, and Law’ which focuses on the pre-war EU-Ukraine relations and the effects of Russia’s 2022 war against Ukraine on the EU, and the EU’s reaction to the war. There were five speakers at the event: Speaker: Dr Luigi Lonardo (University College Cork) Chair: Dr Markus Gehring (University of Cambridge) Introduction: Nataliya Haletska Respondent: Professor Taras Leshkovych (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School) Respondent: Dr Maxim Kolyba (Ukrainian Catholic University Law School)

In today's episode, Tim and I discuss the secret tips for copywriters to be successful and how it's helped him earn 6-figures. The post 317 – 6-Figure Copywriter Success Secrets With Tim Cels appeared first on Early To Rise.

Speaker: Professor Wolfgang Wurmnest Biography: Wolfgang Wurmnest is a full professor of law at the University of Hamburg since 2021. Previously he served as a full professor at the Universities of Augsburg (2013–2021) and Hanover (2009–2013), and as a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute of Private International and Comparative Law, Hamburg (2004–2008). He was a visiting scholar in Foggia, Lyon, Hanoi and (from September 2022 onwards) Cambridge. His main fields of research are comparative and international tort and competition law. 3CL runs the 3CL Travers Smith Lunchtime Seminar Series, featuring leading academics from the Faculty, and high-profile practitioners. The Cambridge Private Law Centre acknowledges with gratitude the generous financial support of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and of South Square: https://www.3cl.law.cam.ac.uk/centre-activities For more information about CELS see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Ed's Links (Order RED ROOM!, Patreon, etc): https://linktr.ee/edpiskor Jim's Links (Patreon, Store, social media): https://linktr.ee/jimrugg ------------------------- E-NEWSLETTER: Keep up with all things Cartoonist Kayfabe through our newsletter! News, appearances, special offers, and more - signup here for free: https://cartoonistkayfabe.substack.com/ --------------------- SNAIL MAIL! Cartoonist Kayfabe, PO Box 3071, Munhall, Pa 15120 --------------------- T-SHIRTS and MERCH: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/cartoonist-kayfabe --------------------- Connect with us: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cartoonist.kayfabe/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CartoonKayfabe Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Cartoonist.Kayfabe Ed's Contact info: https://Patreon.com/edpiskor https://www.instagram.com/ed_piskor https://www.twitter.com/edpiskor https://www.amazon.com/Ed-Piskor/e/B00LDURW7A/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 Jim's contact info: https://www.patreon.com/jimrugg https://www.jimrugg.com/shop https://www.instagram.com/jimruggart https://www.twitter.com/jimruggart https://www.amazon.com/Jim-Rugg/e/B0034Q8PH2/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1543440388&sr=1-2-ent

We really tackle the big issues this week. Namely, concord grape news and behavioral & anatomical inaccuracies concerning CGI animals in film. What a cool and good podcast we have!  Intro Music: Unsane- Scrape Submit music to demolistenpodcast@gmail.com. Become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/demolistenpodcast. Leave us a message at (260)222-8341 Queue: Forced Torment, Sodomite, Groin, Paint Job, Bleed, Crime Light, Zoo, Necessary Death, Full Stride, Mortality Rate https://forcedtorment253.bandcamp.com/album/demo-mmxxii https://sodomite.bandcamp.com/album/demo-22 https://groinaz.bandcamp.com/ https://paintjobhc.bandcamp.com/album/da-return https://listen.20buckspin.com/album/killing-time https://crimelighthc.bandcamp.com/album/crime-shame-illumination  

CELS COACH OUT HERE SLINGING ROOT. WWYD WITH JUDGE 60TH HOMERUN BALL? COLLEGE MASCOT TRIVIA. WOULD YOU RATHER. RFJ SAYS YELLOWSTONE SUCKS. WINNERS OF WEEK. WHOE SHIT THE BED.LOCKS OF WEEK. ROBBIE WINS LAST MONTHS LOCKS!!