Sybe de Vries

European stem cell research in legal shackles

Advances in stem cell biology have raised legal challenges to the patentability of stem cells and any derived technologies and processes. In 1999, Oliver Brüstle was granted a patent for the generation and therapeutic use of neural cells derived from human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). The patent was challenged and put before the European Court of Justice, which ruled that inventions involving the prior destruction of human embryos cannot be patented. The legal maneuvering around this case demonstrates that the future of stem cell‐based patents in Europe remains unsettled. Furthermore, owing to the European Courts broad definition of hESC as ‘any cell that is capable of commencing development into a human being,’ novel technologies that could eliminate the need for hESCs, such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), are at risk of being included under the same ruling. Advances in the in vitro development of germ cells from pluripotent stem cells may one day provide a direct developmental path from iPSC to oocyte and sperm, and, according to the European Courts reasoning, legally equate iPSCs with human embryos. In this review, we will briefly discuss the Brüstle v Greenpeace case and the implications of the European Court of Justices ruling. We will identify potential risks for stem cell research and future therapeutics resulting from the broad legal definition of the human embryo. Finally, we will broach the current legal landscape, as this broad definition has also created great uncertainty about the status of human iPSCs.

BUPA; A Healthy Case, in the Light of a Changing Constitutional Setting in Europe?

The much-debated and intensely explored BUPA case does not only shed light on the application of the Altmark conditions in the field of state aid law, but may also have reinforced the merely ancillary and supportive role of the EU in the field of health care. It fits well in the ‘sovereignty debate’ in Europe and appears to meet Member States’ or even citizens’ demands to increasingly decide for themselves how social issues, like health care, must be handled by their government.

Regulating Pensions: Why the European Union Matters

This discussion paper explores how EU law affects national pensions systems, be it directly (by regulating pensions explicitly) or indirectly (by providing a regulatory framework that must be respected in the field of pensions as well as in other fields). Moreover, the focus will be on some fundamental questions: what should be the scope of the IORP directive? Which pension funds and schemes should be subject to it? How do we overcome the political dilemmas when regulating pensions? (Part of the paper appeared in book form in 2012.)

Implementation of EU Enforcement Provisions: Between European Control and National Practice

For effective enforcement of its law the EU is to a large extent dependent on the enforcement efforts of the member states. The member states are responsible for the correct and timely application of EU treaties and secondary EU legislation. This dependence is an important reason for the European legislator and European courts to increasingly guide national enforcement. Interesting questions result from this guidance. What exactly is the relationship between EU legislation in the area of law enforcement and national policy and legislation in this respect? How is that legislation implemented, and can patterns be recognized in this? What problems are the national legislator and the national enforcement practice and organisation faced with in this respect? These questions have been dealt with in respect to the Netherlands in a research project carried out in 2006 and 2007 by researchers of Leiden University and Utrecht University. The project was commissioned by the Dutch Justice Ministry’s Research and Documentation Centre. This article presents the main results of this research into the implementation of EU enforcement provisions in the Netherlands.

The Implementation of the Services Directive in the Netherlands

Dr. Alexandra (Sacha) Prechal—Professor of European Law at the Europe Institute of the School of Law at Utrecht University, since 10 June 2010 she is Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Dr. S.A. (Sybe) de Vries—Associate Professor in European Law at the Europe Institute of the School of Law at Utrecht University. Frederik van Doorn, MSc, LL.M.—Policy adviser at the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. Every opinion expressed in this research is strictly personal. The authors would like to thank Sophie Hiensch and Maartje Mohring for their valuable research assistance. Latest update April 2010.