News

Webinar: Law in Public Interest: Collective Redress, Funding & Climate Regulation

Our Vici team organises an online seminar titled ‘Law in the Public Interest: Collective Redress, and Litigation Funding and Climate Change Regulation’ on 19 November from 15-17 hrs (CET).

The event will explore the intersections between legal frameworks and the public interest in a time of increasing concerns about climate change, corporate responsibility, and the cost barriers to pursuing collective justice. As climate change becomes a global priority, regulatory frameworks and climate litigation are holding governments and corporations accountable for their environmental impact. Collective redress and litigation funding also fulfil this role and are gaining prominence in recent years with the adoption of legislation such as the EU Representative Actions Directive and the Dutch WAMCA and with high-profile cases like the Post Office litigation in the UK.

Esteemed speakers are: Eva van der Zee (University of Hamburg, Germany) on Behavioural Insights on Climate Change Law; Koen Rutten (Finch, Netherlands) on Is Funding Collective Litigation still Affordable? and Flora Page (23ES, United Kingdom) on What the Bates v Post Office Litigation reveals about the Pros and Cons of Litigation Funding. Introduction and moderation by Adrian Cordina and Xandra Kramer


Register before 19 November for free here.

Permalink


EU flag ERC logo

Published: October 13, 2021

On 13 October 2021, Revista Jurisprudencia Argentina has published Carlota Ucin’s paper about the imprisonment conditions in Buenos Aires.

Tutela judicial efectiva en litigios estructurales. A propósito de las condiciones de detención en la Provincia de Buenos Aires (Effective judicial protection in structural claims. About the imprisonment conditions in Buenos Aires Province) in: Revista Jurisprudencia Argentina, JA 2021 - IV, fasc. 3, 13/10/2021, pp 3-10.

Abstract

The Argentinean Supreme Court of Justice has recently issued a new ruling in the Verbitsky case related to the imprisonment conditions. The decision, which I will refer to as Verbitsky II, tackles some relevant issues that I would like to highlight and analyze in this paper. These points are the effectiveness of the judicial protection of persons that are deprived of their liberty, the notion of procedural efficacy and the efficiency of the process in general and of habeas corpus in particular. The richness of the case allows me to rely on it to exemplify some particularities of the litigation that, raised in the Public Interest, seek to introduce structural reform of a collective situation that is considered unconstitutional or detrimental to human rights recognized in the Constitution and international conventions.