• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.577-596
• /
• 2018

ASEAN countries consist of vast coastal areas and thousands of islands that are vulnerable to the effects of climate change on sea level rise. It is believed that this will play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally in order to minimize the damage suffered by ASEAN countries. To overcome this issue, biofuels have been used to minimize the impact on the environment by replacing fossil fuels and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In those cases of United States, Brazil and Europe, where biofuels are highly utilized, research, development and investment in this field have been actively conducted in the past. In ASEAN countries, however, it has not been a long time since the biofuel policies were established. To overcome this problem, we investigated the renewable fuel policy in the United States, Brazil and the European Union. Based on this, we suggested the utilization plan and prospect of biofuel policy in ASEAN countries.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.226-236
• /
• 2021

Objectives: Concerns have been raised about the possible health effects of radon on both workers and consumers with the spread of social attention to the impact of radon exposure. Thus, an entire raw material handling workshop was investigated, and standards for radon levels in the workplace were newly established at 600 Bq/m³. However, regulations on the management of workers exposed to radon are still insufficiently developed. Therefore, by comparative analysis of overseas and domestic radon-related regulations for workplaces, this study aims to suggest improvement plans of protection regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) for the prevention of health disorders of radon-exposed workers. Methods: For overseas case studies, we consulted radon-related laws and reports officially published on the websites of the European Union (EU), the United States (U.S.) and the United Kingdom (UK) government agencies. Domestic law studies were conducted mainly on the Act on Protective Action Guidelines against Radiation in the Natural Environment and the OSH Act. Results: In Europe, the basic safety standards for protection against risks arising from radon (Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013) was established by the EU. They recommend that the Member States manage radon level in workplaces based on this criterion. In the U.S., the standards for workplaces are controlled by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Action on radon in the UK is specified in "Radon in the workplace" published by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Conclusions: The Act on Protective Action Guidelines against Radiation in the Natural Environment mainly refers to the management of workplaces that use or handle raw materials but does not have any provisions in terms of protecting naturally exposed workers. In the OSH Act, it is necessary to define whether radon is included in radiation for that reason that its current regulations have limitations in ensuring the safety workers who may be exposed to naturally occurring radon. The management standards are needed for workplaces that do not directly deal with radon but are likely to be exposed to radon. We propose that this could be specified in the regulations for the prevention of health damage caused by radiation, not in Article 125 of the OSH Act.