Assemble a list of best practices for inter-professional teams working in virtual spaces including collaborative writing spaces (Wikis, Dropbox), video conferencing (Skype or Google Hangouts), and digital to-do-lists (To-Doist or Wunderlist). Also develop a policy to address the above practices. (K, S, CA)
Develop a policy that address Confidentially explaining how the client’s privacy and confidentially will be maintained. This must be concentration specifics. (Community Mental Health or Family and Child Welfare).
Articulate what they have learned from the above activities and articulate in a Narrative
Sample Solution
Client confidentiality is the code that an organization or a person is bound by, which hinders him/her from revealing information about their clients to a third party without the approval of the client or a clear legal reason. This concept is commonly provided for in law in most countries and can also be referred to as social systems of confidentiality.[1]The access to a client’s data as provided by the institution in question is usually limited to law enforcement agencies and requires some legal procedures to be accomplished prior to such action (e.g.: court order issued, etc.). This applies to bank account information or medical record. In some cases the data is by definition inaccessible to third parties and should never be revealed
ue to harmonisation of the VAT system in the EU, there has been a significant increase in cross-border trade. The harmonisation included the creation of cross-border trade which would ensure a significant level of trade in goods and services, thereby lessening the possibility of VAT fraud and abuse of law. The Commission has constantly highlighted the vulnerability of the VAT system and due to the complexity of the 28 jurisdictions engaged in cross-border trade, the EU legislator is faced with a constant challenge of preventing VAT as an environment for abuse or VAT fraud.
4.1.2 Vulnerability 2:
4.2 The fundamental distinction between abuse of law and abuse of rights
In the context of taxation, the CJEU has defined “abuse” as a form of tax minimisation, which through misuse of legal forms achieves a result which is not in compliance with system principles. This means that though tax abuse and tax avoidance are related, they do not coincide.
At this juncture, it is important to note that both abuse of rights and abuse of law are not necessarily the same. Generally speaking, abuse of law indicates abuse in Union law, whereas abuse of rights indicates abuse of Union law. The former may be defined as a situation where a person relies on a European legal right to circumvent or displace national law, while taking advantage of a right in European law, but in a manner running contrary to its spirit constitutes the latter.
In 2006, the CJEU extended the abuse of law principle in the Halifax to apply to the field of VAT. The abstract distinction between both abuse of law and abuse of rights is based on a dictum from Centros, where it was provided that abuse of law involves avoiding national provisions through claiming fundamental freedoms, whereas abuse of rights involves abusing rights directly provided by EU law. According to this dictum, a Member State:
“is entitled to take measures to prevent certain of its nationals from attempting, under cover of the rights created by the Treaty, improperly to circumvent their national legislation or to preve