DOCSLIB.ORG

The Israeli Supreme Court Confronts the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Israeli Supreme Court Confronts the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT PROJECT at CARDOZO LAW SCHOOL The Israeli Supreme Court Confronts the Brave New World of Reproductive Technology CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION MATERIALS February 9, 2017 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY Table of Contents Doe v. Ministry of Health (2013) ........................................................................................1 Nahmani v. Nahmani (1996) ...............................................................................................4 Nahmani v. Nahmani (1995) ...............................................................................................7 Moshe v. The Board for Approval of Embryo Carrying Agreements under the Embryo Carrying Agreements Law .........................................................8 Ferguson v. McKiernan (S. Ct. Pa. 2007) .........................................................................10 Barak-Erez, The Delusion of Symmetric Rights ................................................................25 Lifshitz, Neither Nature nor Contract: Toward an Institutional Perspective on Parenthood ..........................................................................................................40 Family of dead Israeli soldier can use his sperm ..............................................................77 Zafran, Dying to be a Father .............................................................................................78 Doe v. Ministry of Health HCJ 4077/12 (February 5, 2013) http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/doe-v-ministry-health ABSTRACT This is a petition against the First and Second Respondents’ decision not to permit the Petitioner (a single woman, born in 1974) to use sperm donations by an anonymous donor (the Third Respondent), which were preserved for her (for a fee). The Petitioner had her first daughter from the Third Respondent’s donation. She is now interested in undergoing an additional insemination process with that same donation in order to ensure a full genetic match between her children. The Respondents’ decision was made in light of the donor’s decision to withdraw his consent and his donation due to changes in his worldview – becoming a “Ba’al Tshuva”, i.e. an observant Jew – so that sperm donations he had made in the past would no longer be used. It should be noted that the consent form sperm donors (currently) sign is silent on a donor’s right to change his mind. The Petitioner argues that the Respondents’ decision to prevent her from using the sperm donations that were preserved for her violates both her constitutional and contractual rights, is unreasonable, and must be overturned. Generally, the Petitioner’s arguments may be divided into two categories – the first, is on the public law level, primarily in terms of violating her right to parent. The second are arguments on the civil law level, including claims stemming from contracts between the parties, property rights and others. The donor claims he has autonomy rights in terms of deciding whether his sperm can be used. The High Court of Justice (in a decision authored by Justice Rubinstein, with Justices Barak- Erez and Amit, concurring) rejected the Petition for the following reasons: Justice Rubinstein: Needless to say that the High Court of Justice – as well as the attorney for the Respondents and even the anonymous donor himself – sympathizes with the Petitioner, who wishes that her children, conceived with the help of sperm donations, will carry the same genetic code. However, the donor’s position and his personal autonomy must prevail. As much as we understand the Petitioner’s arguments in terms of civil law, contract law, even in terms of administrative law, and her reliance interest – as values, these cannot dominate over personal autonomy in these circumstances. The donor formed his position as a “Ba’al Tshuva” and it seems his position has a religious aspect. But even absent the religious aspect, one’s position reached thoughtfully – although it did not occur to him in the past when he decided based on whatever considerations to donate sperm – that he does not wish for there to be any additional children in the world whom he did not choose and whose mother he did not choose, with whom he would have no relationship, and whom he would not raise is understandable. This is even if he owes them no duty under existing law (and incidentally, it is possible that under Jewish law, even if they have no right to his support, they may have a right to his estate). The autonomy aspect eclipses other considerations. The right to parent is seemingly a significant value in and of itself, it is natural and primal and holds a top spot on the human list of priorities. This is joined by the autonomy reflected in the personal choices that come along with the right to parent. The right not to parent, on the other 1 hand, does not include a protected independent value, but is designed to protect one’s personal autonomy in electing it (that is, electing not to parent, or not to co-parent with a particular man or woman). It should be noted that even those who support defining this right as merely an interest apparently still view it as one that must be legally protected. However, limiting the Petitioner’s right to be impregnated by a particular person, or her right to a child with a particular genetic background is not a violation of the right to parent. This limit does not reach the core of the right to parent – the actual ability to enter the class of parents – and to bear a child. At most, and this is highly doubtful, this is a limitation at the periphery protected by the right to autonomy (without addressing, at this point, the issue of the scope of this protection, and whether indeed the right was infringed and whether under proper balancing it is worthy of protection). Still, and if presumably according to existing law the donor owes no financial, social or other duties to the child, it is clear that the harm to the donor in terms of genetically parenting additional children against his will constitutes a violation of his autonomy. In this context, it has been pointed out, among others, that the harm to the donor is not merely in inability to choose not to be a father, but also includes his autonomy to decide about his status as a father. In other words, a man who sees his genetic-biological parenthood, or “blood ties”, as creating his moral obligations as a father, suffers injuries to his autonomy both in terms of lack of choice and in terms of failing to fulfill his duties according to his conscience or religious beliefs. This is not to say that in any event a sperm donor’s request not to use his sperm would prevail. The stage in which the request is made is relevant, even crucial. There may be good and weighty reasons not to permit a donor to change his mind and the Court lists these potential considerations (this is not an exhaustive list). Such was the situation in Nachmani, let alone when a pregnancy has already occurred. But outside of such circumstances, the right to change his mind and the violation of his right are weighty and tip the scale in his favor. Indeed, the donor gave consent and accepted payment, but it is not a regular “transaction”, rather an issue that holds strong emotional aspects. The donor’s conscience and feelings are a matter of values and cannot be quantified in the simple legal sense. Even had we assumed that the issue is a violation of the Petitioner’s autonomy to choose whom to parent with, she cannot prevail. This is a choice that needs the cooperation of two (whether within a marriage or other family unit, including – even if with significantly mitigated force – a same-sex family unit requiring a sperm donation) or some third party as a sperm bank, in order to be realized. Of course, these situations may be distinguished, and may under certain circumstances change the outcome, but in this matter there is no justification for the donor’s interest to yield to that of the Petitioner’s. Protection for the Petitioner’s right to have children of the same genetic code ends where it clearly conflicts with the donor’s rights. In a regime of relative rights, there is no right that affords its holder absolute supremacy in its exercise. Therefore, the obvious interests at the basis of the Petitioner’s claims succumb to the donor’s right to autonomy. 2 Even had we assumed, for argument’s sake, that the Petitioner’s right to autonomy is violated, and Justice Rubinstein does not believe it was – in any event, not to a great extent – as distinguished from Nachmani, the conflict and determination here concerns the Petitioner’s right to autonomy in the face of the donor’s right to autonomy. In the conflict between these two autonomy rights is seems the donor should prevail because, from his perspective, we are dealing with “active” law – a use of his sperm, while for the Petitioner this is “passive” law – preventing the use of the donor’s sperm. Before concluding, Justice Rubinstein briefly adds Jewish law’s perspective on the issue of sperm donation and the status of the donor. This analysis demonstrates that applying the law and principles mentioned above lead to the same outcome under contract law as well. Among others, Justice Rubinstein emphasized that the option of withdrawing a donation does not constitute a donor’s “veto right” at every point in the process. The point of no return, where the balance of rights and interests shifts and the donor loses the legal possibility of terminating the contract and withdraw his donation, may change according to various considerations. In our case, several considerations lead to accepting the donor’s withdrawal of consent, particularly a lack of any physiological link between the donation and the Petitioner at this stage. The primary concern arising from this matter is the harm to the stability of sperm banks in Israel by permitting carte blanche to donors who may wish to pull their donations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gender Self-Determination Troubles
    Gender Self-Determination Troubles by Ido Katri A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Ido Katri 2021 Gender Self-Determination Troubles Ido Katri Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2021 Abstract This dissertation explores the growing legal recognition of what has become known as ‘gender self-determination.’ Examining sex reclassification policies on a global scale, I show a shift within sex reclassification policies from the body to the self, from external to internal truth. A right to self-attested gender identity amends the grave breach of autonomy presented by other legal schemes for sex reclassification. To secure autonomy, laws and policies understand gender identity as an inherent and internal feature of the self. Yet, the sovereignty of a right to gender identity is circumscribed by the system of sex classification and its individuating logics, in which one must be stamped with a sex classification to be an autonomous legal subject. To understand this failure, I turn to the legal roots of the concept self-determination by looking to international law, and to the origin moment of legal differentiation, sex assignment at birth. Looking at the limitations of the collective right for state sovereignty allows me to provide a critical account of the inability of a right to gender identity to address systemic harms. Self- attested gender identity inevitably redraws the public/private divide along the contours of the trans body, suggesting a need to examine the apparatus of assigning sex at birth and its pivotal role in both the systemic exclusions of trans people, and in the broader regulation of gender.
    [Show full text]
  • Is So Different?
    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals Scholarship & Research 2011 Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Cohabitation, and Same-Sex Families Around the World: Why ‘Same’ is so Different? Macarena Saez Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Family Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons GENERAL REPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SAME-SEX COHABITATION, AND SAME-SEX FAMILIES AROUND THE WORLD: WHY "SAME" IS SO DIFFERENT* MACARENA SAEZ** I. There are marriages and there are same sex marriages. .............. 2 II. From marriage-like treatment to full invisibility. .................. 14 A. Separate but equal ............................ ....... 15 B. The meaning of the word "almost": I can treat you as a spouse but not as a parent. ............. ............... 17 C. Separate and unequal: Partial recognition of same sex couples..........................................25 D. The absolute divide between law and practice: The invisibility of same sex couples.........................31 III. The most recurrent arguments for and against same sex marriage........36 A. The essentialist arguments .......... ................... 37 B. The teleological arguments .......... .................. 41 C. Marriage as symbol, but of what? ...... .. ...... ...... 43 IV. Conclusions ....................................... ...... 47 * General Report prepared for the 18th Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, Washington D.C., July 2010. The following countries sent reports in preparation of this work: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannes2005 Medialions Shortl
    TITLE ADVERTISER PRODUCT ENTRANT COMPANY COUNTRY A01 Best use of TV DELIVERING TO BEER SIBIRSKY BEREG BEERKA BEER SNACKS KRYN/STARCOM BELARUS EXPEDITION AUSTRIA ONE MOBILE NETWORK MEDIACOM VIENNA AUSTRIA WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CLOROX DE COLOMBIA CLOROX FOR COLOURS OMD COLOMBIA COLOMBIA COLOUR? THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW 20TH CENTURY FOX THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW MOVIE OPTIMEDIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA THE SCENT OF LOVE CLOROX POETT ROMANTIC AIR FRESHENER OMD CHILE CHILE AMERICAN DREAMS CAMPBELL'S SOUP COMPANY TOMATO SOUP MEDIAEDGE:CIA NEW YORK USA NEW STUFF PUMA PUMA SPORTSWEAR ZENITHOPTIMEDIA UNITED KINGDOM VIRTUAL HISTORY HEWLETT-PACKARD DIGITAL IMAGING ZENITHOPTIMEDIA UNITED KINGDOM HEYAH LAUNCH CAMPAIGN POLSKA TELEFONIA CYFROWA HEYAH MOBILE NETWORK OMD POLAND POLAND OPRAH GIVEAWAY GENERAL MOTORS PONTIAC G6 GM PLANWORKS USA CHANNEL HOPPER RENAULT NISSAN DEUTSCHLAND RENAULT MODUS NORDPOL HAMBURG AGENTUR FUR GERMANY KOMMUNIKATION LIVE TV COMMERCIALS THE FINNISH NATIONAL LOTTERY LIVE BETTING TBWA\PHS HELSINKI FINLAND SUMMER PROMOTION VODAFONE MOBILE NETWORK OMD SPAIN SPAIN SOS FROZEN PRESENTERS 20TH CENTURY FOX THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW DVD OMD SPAIN SPAIN SONG AND DANCE PROCTER & GAMBLE REJOICE REVIVING SHAMPOO STARCOM WOLDWIDE PHILIPPINES THE PHILIPPINES DEAF AWARENESS WEEK 2004 DEAF FEDERATION OF SOUTH AFRICA DEAF AWARENESS WEEK TBWA\HUNT\LASCARIS SOUTH AFRICA WHAT I LIKE ABOUT YOU P&G HERBAL ESSENCES HAIRCARE MEDIAVEST USA USA ESPN SHORTS MILLER BREWING CO. MILLER TRADEMARK BRANDS STARCOM WORLDWIDE USA CHICKEN FIGHT BURGER KING CHICKEN SANDWICH CRISPIN
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016
    Cooperating with the Enemy: Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016 by Daniel Nerenberg B.A. in and Middle East Studies, May 2004, McGill University M.A. in Political Science, May 2006, McGill University A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 31, 2016 Dissertation directed by Nathan Brown Professor of Political Science and International Affairs The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Daniel Nerenberg has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of July 22, 2016. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Cooperating with the Enemy: Purpose-Driven Boundary Maintenance in Palestine, 1967-2016 Daniel Nerenberg Dissertation Research Committee: Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Dissertation Director Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Committee Member Henry Hale, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Committee Member ii © Copyright 2016 by Daniel Nerenberg All rights reserved iii Acknowledgements After seven years of researching and writing, and a dozen prior to that getting to know the case, the list of good people who have influenced the process and outcome of this dissertation is too long to fit this small space. But some cannot go unmentioned. Ronit Avni, for starting me on this path, sparking my interest with her compassionate but incisive voice on movement building and the struggle for rights in Palestine and Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Bds-Manual.Pdf
    Written, compiled and prepared by Sonja Karkar for Australians for Palestine Published October 2010 by Australians for Palestine Box 2099, Hawthorn 3122 Melbourne – Australia Copies of this manual can be obtained by contacting Tel: +61 3 9818 5080 [email protected] This manual is also available online www.australiansforpalestine.com C o n t e n t s Letter from Archbishop Tutu - 5 Ways to boycott - 27 • Consumer boycotts – 27 Jewish National Fund (JNF) - 6 • Partial boycotts – 27 The Root of the Problem - 7 • Cultural boycotts – 28 • Sporting boycotts – 28 Apartheid - 8 • Academic boycotts – 29 Divestment – 30 The Occupation of Palestine - 9 • • Sanctions - 31 Palestinian Refugees – 10 BDS: Churches – 32 West Bank Palestinians – 11 BDS: Trade Unions – 33 Palestinians in East Jerusalem – 12 BDS: Universities - 34 Palestinians in Gaza – 13 BDS: Local and regional governments – 35 Israel’s Unequal Citizens – 14 BDS: Political Parties - 36 Palestinian Political Entities – 15 Arguments against BDS answered – 37 Palestinian Political entities: Hamas - 16 Consumer/corporate boycott successes – 41 Cultural/academic boycott successes – 43 Illegal settlements/colonies – 17 Divestment successes – 45 Industrial sites/parks – 18 Sanctions successes – 46 Maps - 19 ”When the people lead, the leaders follow” – 47 The Apartheid Wall – 20 What you can do - 48 Can Israel be called an Apartheid state? – 21 Products to boycott – 49 Origins of the BDS movement - 22 Campaign to stop the Jewish National Fund - 53 What is BDS? – 23 APPENDICES –
    [Show full text]
  • Excutivesummary20004fulle.Pdf
    Table of Contents Preface 1 Main Points 2 Strategic Trends and Shifts 10 Global Trends 10 “The Second Nuclear Age” 11 Regional Trends 14 The Threat of a Nuclear Iran 15 Terrorist Threats 18 Israeli Strategies in the International Sphere 19 Upgrading the Partnership with the United States 20 Enhancing Ties with the European Union 21 Upgrading Relations with NATO 22 Enhancing Israel’s Capability in the Political-Ideological Front 24 Peace Plans 25 Main Characteristics 25 The Road Map and Disengagement 26 Bilateral Permanent Peace Settlements 31 Jordanian Options 32 Multilateral Exchanges of Territory 33 Government, Economy, and Society 37 The Indices of National Strength 37 Improving Government and Governance 39 Changing the Israeli System of Government 39 Improving the National Security Apparatus and National Intelligence 40 Innovative Methodologies for Detecting Threats and Opportunities 43 Media, Governance and Society 43 The Israeli Economy in Light of Internal Processes and Global Change 44 Sources of Israel’s Future Economic Power 44 Lifting Barriers to Financial Markets Outside of the Banking System 49 The Future of the Defense Industries 50 The Structure of the Fuel and Refining Market 51 Israel as a Two-Way Strategic Bridge for Oil Movement 52 The Future of Human Resource Capital 53 Social Security in the Age of Globalization and Economic Reforms 53 The Division of Responsibility for Welfare between the State and Civil Society 53 The Role of the Business Sector in Welfare 56 A New Approach to Social Welfare 56 Israeli Arabs: Promoting
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Child and Family Law: International Predictions Edited by Elaine E
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00680-5 - The Future of Child and Family Law: International Predictions Edited by Elaine E. Sutherland Frontmatter More information THE FUTUR E OF CHILD AND FAMILY LAW Child and family law tells us much about how a society operates, since it touches the lives of everyone living in that society. In this volume, national experts examine child and family law in thirteen countries – Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, Malaysia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Scotland, South Africa and the United States. Each chapter identifies the imperatives and influences that have prevailed to date, and offers informed predictions of how the law will develop in the years to come. A common chapter structure facilitates comparison of the jurisdictions, and in the Introduction the editor highlights common trends and salient differences.The Future of Child and Family Law there- fore provides practitioners, academics and policymakers with access not just to an overview of child and family law in a range of countries around the world, but also to insights into what has shaped it and options for reform. elaine e. sutherland is Professor of Child and Family Law at the School of Law, University of Stirling, Scotland, and Professor at Lewis and Clark Law School, Portland, Oregon, USA. © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00680-5 - The Future of Child and Family Law: International Predictions Edited by Elaine E. Sutherland Frontmatter More information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00680-5 - The Future of Child and Family Law: International Predictions Edited by Elaine E.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justice Danziger Joins Faculty
    Passover 5778, March 2018 The Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law Magazine Buchmann Bulletin A round-up of the latest news from the Buchmann Beyond Faculty of Law Championing Animal Rights the Myth The Environmental Justice Legal Clinic has expanded Interview with Dr. Hila Shamir its scope this year to the about her groundbreaking ERC protection of animal rights research on labor approaches All Rise! to human trafficking Preparing our students for real-life court proceedings through moot courts and international competitions New Faces at the Faculty Introducing two new faculty members: Prof. Yoram Danziger and Dr. Kobi Kastiel Page 2 / De iure / March 2018 Note from the Dean On the occasion of the publication of the Faculty's Passover magazine Welcome to the Buchmann Faculty of Law magazine, brought to you twice Into the bargain, I would like to wish staff members all the best for their a year, at Rosh Hashanah and Passover, in two languages, Hebrew and retirements. Rhoda Davidian is retiring after over 40 years of service to English. Out of the rich and varied activities of the Faculty, the current education as Director of the Faculty’s David J. Light Law Library. Rhoda issue reviews some of our news and latest developments. has mentored scores of students and library professionals, creating a compelling platform to share knowledge and an enduring legacy that A great source of strength and pride is the continued success of our will not be forgotten. We also bid farewell to Lea Linder, an exceptional alumni through the generations. We are delighted by the appointment of student secretary who has supported generations of students during her Justice Ofer Grosskopf to the Supreme Court of Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Law and Policy
    Journal of Law and Policy Volume 25 | Issue 2 Article 12 12-2-2017 Cutting Off the mbiU lical Cord–Reflections on the Possibility to Sever the Parental Bond Tali Marcus Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp Part of the Family Law Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Tali Marcus, Cutting Off ht e Umbilical Cord–Reflections on the Possibility to Sever the Parental Bond, 25 J. L. & Pol'y 585 (2017). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol25/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Policy by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. CUTTING OFF THE UMBILICAL CORD – REFLECTIONS ON THE POSSIBILITY TO SEVER THE PARENTAL BOND Tali Marcus( Parenthood is a status comprising exclusivity relating to the rights and responsibilities concerning the child. The rights and obligations imbued in the parental status are evident first and foremost during the child’s minority. #onetheless, the status has legal meaning and implications that e(tend beyond the child’s minority and carry on throughout adulthood. By defining parenthood and assigning parental status, the law establishes legal as well as social responsibility towards the child and a bond for life. This article questions the eternal aspect of parenthood and aspires to initiate discussion pertaining to the social and legal conventions that pose parenthood as a binding legal relation and responsibility for life. Today, the law permits the elimination of the parental legal bond in cases of adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Ruth! Sept 22 at 2PM at the Garde the Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut Presents International Personality Dr
    Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Norwich, CT 06360 Permit #329 Serving The Jewish Communities of Eastern Connecticut & Western R.I. CHANGE SERVICE RETURN TO: 28 Channing St., New London, CT 06320 REQUESTED VOL. XLV NO. 14 PUBLISHED BI-WEEKLY JULY 12, 2019/9 TAMUZ 5779 NEXT DEADLINE July 31, 2019 16 PAGES HOW TO REACH US - PHONE 860-442-8062 • FAX 860-443-4175 • EMAIL: [email protected] • BY MAIL: 28 CHANNING STREET, NEW LONDON, CT 06320 SAVE THE DATE! A Conversation with Dr. Ruth! Sept 22 at 2PM at The Garde The Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut presents international personality Dr. Ruth Westheimer Dr. Ruth Westheimer is a Holocaust survivor who became America’s most famous sex therapist. With her diminutive frame, thick German accent, and uninhibited approach to sex therapy and education, Dr. Ruth transformed the conversation around sexuality. Now 91, she shows no signs of slowing down. Event sponsorships are available. Contact Carin Savel at [email protected] or Scott F. Wolfe at [email protected] to learn about sponsorship opportunities. Retirement dinner invitation See the best musical revival of the season FIDDLER ON THE ROOF - in Yiddish in the mail The Jewish Federation of East- 15-minute intermission. The goal is to be on the road by 7 PM. With a ern CT is getting an early start to Sunday night commute from the City estimated time of arrival back in After 35 years of dedicated ser- its 2019-20 programming season New London is 9:40 PM. vice to the Jewish Federation and Cost for this outing is $118 per person and includes the deluxe mo- community at large, Jerry Fischer building events on Sunday, Au- tor coach and theater tickets.
    [Show full text]
  • Case No COMP/M.5632 - PEPSICO/ PEPSI AMERICAS
    EN Case No COMP/M.5632 - PEPSICO/ PEPSI AMERICAS Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 26/10/2009 In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5632 Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985 Luxembourg COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 26.10.2009 SG-Greffe(2009) D/7769 In the published version of this decision, some C(2009) 8439 information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets PUBLIC VERSION and other confidential information. The omissions are shown thus […]. Where possible MERGER PROCEDURE the information omitted has been replaced by ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION ranges of figures or a general description. To the notifying party: Dear Sir/Madam, Subject: Case No COMP/M.5632 – PEPSICO/ PEPSI AMERICAS Notification of 21.9.2009 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation No 139/20041 1. On 21/9/2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking PepsiCo, Inc. ("PepsiCo", USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the whole of the undertaking PepsiAmericas, Inc. ("PAS", USA), jointly referred as "the Parties", by way of purchase of shares. I. THE PARTIES 2. PepsiCo is a global beverage, snack and food company. PepsiCo is a brand owner and producer of concentrates and syrups and beverages (such as fruit juices and sports drinks), which it sells in Europe and around the world (its main beverage brands are Pepsi-Cola, 7Up2, Gatorade and Tropicana).
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Data and Privacy Online
    Children’s data and privacy online Growing up in a digital age An evidence review Sonia Livingstone ▪ Mariya Stoilova ▪ Rishita Nandagiri December 2018 1 Table of contents 1. Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 5 3. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1. Context .................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2. Aims of the project and the evidence review ......................................................................... 8 4. Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 8 5. Children’s privacy online: key issues and findings from the systematic evidence mapping ..... 10 5.1. Conceptualising privacy in the digital age............................................................................. 10 5.2. Dimensions of children’s online privacy ............................................................................... 12 Interpersonal privacy .................................................................................................................... 13 Institutional privacy .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]