Skip to content

UK National Cybersecurity Centre: Guidelines for secure AI system development

The future of the internet in China

Material or financial support to Russian decision-makers responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of Ukraine (German Khan)

FIIA event: The New Washington Consensus: Implications of U.S. Economic De-Risking from China – (Finnish Institute of International Affairs) FIIA event

The State can legitimately restrict freedom of association on grounds of national security, even if it is not directly threatened by terrorist acts, says the ECHR

The strategy for Artificial Intelligence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

a Nat Sec Law blog by

by Antonino Alì @ University of Trento – Italy

  • The New Washington Consensus: Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Renewing American Economic Leadership at the Brookings Institution
  • ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker
  • G7 Leaders’ Statement
  • G7 Leaders’ Statement on Ukraine – Hiroshima – Japan
  • Economic coercion: G7 Leaders’ Statement on Economic Resilience and Economic Security
  • EUROPEAN ECONOMIC SECURITY STRATEGY
  • The strategy for Artificial Intelligence of the Court of Justice of the European Union
  • Iran: Council maintains restrictive measures under the non-proliferation sanctions regime after the JCPoA Transition Day
  • The New Washington Consensus: Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Renewing American Economic Leadership at the Brookings Institution

La responsabilità dei vettori aerei per la perdita dei bagagli è limitata a EUR 1134,71.

6 May 201012 June 2010 Antonino Alì

Corte di giustizia, 6 maggio 2010, Sentenza C-63/09 – Axel Walz / Clickair SA

La Corte conferma che la responsabilità dei vettori aerei per la perdita dei bagagli è limitata a EUR 1134,71. Tale limite è infatti assoluto e comprende tanto il danno morale quanto il danno materiale.

Email, RSS Follow
Email
 EULaw Diritto UE

Post navigation

← Dichiarazione solenne dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea del Presidente e dei Membri della Commissione europea
Google non viola la disciplina sui marchi nel consentire agli inserzionisti l’acquisto di parole chiave corrispondenti ai marchi di impresa dei loro concorrenti →
  • Steve Peers's blog
  • Judicial control over alleged breaches of fundamental rights in the implementation of Eulex Kosovo and Advocate General’s Ćapeta's Opinion in Joined Cases C-29/22 P and C-44/22 P
  • Angesom’s application for judicial review: the Fundamental Rights Charter makes a (shaky) comeback in Northern Ireland
  • Live Facial Recognition for Law Enforcement: The European Union’s Regulatory Approach Should be Informed by UK Police’s Practice
  • Taking Rights Away Seriously: the Council’s position on the long-term residents Directive
  • Rethinking Gender-Based Asylum: A Look at the Advocate General’s Opinion on Women Fleeing the Taliban
  • Amazon v DSA: insights from interim proceedings
  • Europol’s Joint and Several Liability Regime: Revolutionizing EU Fundamental Rights Responsibility?
  • Analyzing the legality of the EU Commission’s proposed withdrawal of preferential tariffs for third countries when cooperation on migrant returns ‘fails’--an unholy alliance of trade and migration?
  • Responsibility in Joint Returns after WS and Others v Frontex: Letting the Active By-Stander Off the Hook
  • The EU General Court’s judgment in the case of WS and Others v Frontex: human rights violations at EU external borders going unpunished
  • The EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum: three key arguments
  • The risk of circumvention of EU sanctions through the immediate family of leading businesspersons and the CJEU’s case law
  • Is the UK data protection authority giving free pass to big tech giants?
  • EU cooperation on migration with third countries: Time to address the genealogy of informal agreements in EU migration law
  • The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office for EU Law
  • The UK's pro-innovation AI regulatory framework is a step in the right direction
  • Advocate General’s Opinion in Grupa Azoty again lays bare a serious gap in EU judicial protection, yet does nothing to plug the hole
  • AG de la Tour’s Opinion in C-621/21: A Welcome Clarification on, or an Introduction of Unnecessary Obstacles to, Entitlement to International Protection for Women at Risk of Gender-based Violence?
  • How should the EU respond to the illegal closure of the Lachin corridor?
  • The ‘sidelining’ of the European Parliament from the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC): TTC(s) as post-Democracy Divas or Disasters?
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: FlyMag by Themeisle.