Suchergebnisse

1.2.2 Goals of the EU: Judicial Cooperation1.2.3 Existence of National Procedural Law -- 1.2.4 The Existing European Insolvency Regulation -- 1.2.5 Ongoing Case Law -- 1.3 THE EU JUDGECO PRINCIPLES? OBJECTIVES -- 1.4 ORGANISATION OF THE PROJECT -- 1.4.1 Project Team -- 1.4.2 Review & Advisory Group -- 1.4.3 Other Consultants -- 1.4.4 The Methodology Followed -- 1.4.5 The Final Text of the EU JudgeCo Principles -- 1.4.6 Innovative Value -- 1.5 PROJECT FUNDING -- 2. EU CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY COURT-TO-COURT COOPERATION PRINCIPLES (FULL TEXT INCLUDING COMMENTARY)

This paper examines the opinion congruence of voters and representatives in European Parliament elections taking nation as the constituency of interest, an implied model of representation similar to that in a classic Miller and Stokes analysis. Congruence is greater for some countries than others. MEPs are even less representative of their voters than are candidates in general, and all are more pro-integrationist than the electorate. Differences between countries are explained by variations in electoral systems and in national party systems. A genuine European party system and a common and PR electoral system would make MEPs more representative, but almost certainly less integrationist. (European Journal of Political Research / FUB)

In this project deliverable we report on our work on infrastructural and technological barriers to Open Access and preservation of research data as identified by key stakeholder groups. Through a mix of qualitative, quantitative and document review methods, we identified five key barriers to successfully implementing Open Access to research data in Europe: data heterogeneity and issues of standardisation; accessibility and discoverability issues; data preservation and curation; data quality and assessability; and data security. We explore these issues in detail and present existing good practice, and technical and infrastructural solutions used to mitigate such barriers. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. In particular, this work is coordinated by RECODE Work Package 2 (WP2), Infrastructure and technology. It distinguishes between different categories of stakeholders in terms of how the experience and respond to these challenges.

This report is the deliverable for Work Package 1 (WP1), Stakeholder Values and Ecosystems, of the EU FP7 funded project RECODE (Grant Agreement No: 321463), which focused on developing Policy Recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. WP1 focused on understanding stakeholder values and ecosystems in Open Access, dissemination and preservation in the area of scientific and scholarly data (thus not government data). The objectives of this WP were as follows: • Identify and map the diverse range of stakeholder values in Open Access data and data dissemination and preservation. • Map stakeholder values on to research ecosystems using case studies from different disciplinary perspectives. In summary, our research activities clearly found an overall drive for Open Data Access within the policy documents, which is part of a wider drive for open science in general. The values underpinning this move are the view of science as an open enterprise, where knowledge is sought and where discovery rests on scientists working together to solve specific challenges, which increasingly are becoming interdisciplinary in nature. The argument for publicly funded science to be made open to the public is also strong, although it is not often clear how this openness should be operationalised. When discussing Open Data there is a clear tendency to refer to science as a whole sector, thus there is a danger that the differences between disciplines are ignored in further policy making. Each discipline has different methods for gathering and analysing data. Data may be images, numerical, narrative, statistical and presented in small, medium or large datasets which might be discrete or interlinked. Some disciplines deal with sensitive data while others deal with data that may have IPR or legal issues. It is important that these differences be acknowledge in further policy for Open Data as it will inform the debate about whether we require subject specific requirements, or common infrastructure for Open Data Access. ; RECODE ...