Sentences with phrase «justice under the rule of law»

Thus, ensuring effective access to justice under the rule of law should not be done according to socialist principles but this means serious resource concerns.

Lawyers possess the keys to justice under the rule of law, the keys that open the courtroom door.

Not exact matches

His message was that a country must live under the rule of law, and that this must guarantee safety for everyone: «Justice is the only solid foundation of any state.

Curiously, however, the demand for the term «social justice» did not arise until modern times, in which more complex societies operate by impersonal rules applied with equal force to all under «the rule of law.»

Justice Solebo had in the ruling noted that the offence in which Agbo was charged under Section 64 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos was known to lLaw of Lagos was known to lawlaw.

Irked by the development, a group under the aegis of Coalition of Civil Society Organisations for Justice and Equity, petitioned the National Assembly, urging it to intervene in order «to save our democracy and insist on rule of law.»

«Having concluded that the Commissioner's implementation and usage of Education Law... is not unconstitutional under either Due Process Clause, the Court obviously must conclude that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face,» Acting Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough wrote in his ruling.

The Nigeria Police Force as a law abiding entity will continue to uphold the rule of law in all its ramifications and also ensure that nobody under any guise, no matter how highly placed is allowed to pervert the course of Justice.

The principal mission of the Lawyers» Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting righLaw is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting righlaw, equal justice for all, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, fair housing and community development, economic justice, educational opportunities, and voting rights.

Eight justices ruled that the existing law is too broad and therefore invalid under the First Amendment (freedom of...

It follows that the issue then becomes whether the exemptions under the Court Rules Act can be interpreted so that they are consistent with the common law right of access to civil justice, which is preserved, as the Attorney General submits, by the Court Rules Act.

In OFT v Abbey National plc and others [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm), [2008] All ER (D) 349 (Apr) Mr Justice Andrew Smith ruled that none of the terms considered were void as penalties at common law, but they were susceptible to assessment as to fairness under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) reg 6 (2).

As per the Court's ruling in C - 277 / 11 M.M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, this will also require ensuring that the child's right to be heard is respected in accordance with their age and maturity and the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter.

In Ford v. Quebec, Chief Justice Dickson and a unanimous court ruled that the sign laws contravened s 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights, as well as s. 3 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified as a «reasonable limit» under s. 1 of the Charter and could not likewise be justified as an acceptable restriction on freedom of expression under the Quebec Charter.

The working party commented that it is carefully monitoring a forthcoming ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the validity of the United Kingdom's Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which requires telecommunications providers to collect and store customer communications data and disclose it to law enforcement under certain provisions and the proposed draft investigatory powers bill.

LSUC has an outmoded system of management that is not under sufficient public or political pressure to make perform its duties under s. 4.2 of the Law Society Act, specifically as to: (1) advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law; (2) facilitating access to justice; (3) protecting the public interest; and, (4) acting in a timely, open and efficient mannLaw Society Act, specifically as to: (1) advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law; (2) facilitating access to justice; (3) protecting the public interest; and, (4) acting in a timely, open and efficient mannlaw; (2) facilitating access to justice; (3) protecting the public interest; and, (4) acting in a timely, open and efficient manner.

In its Judgment of 20 December 2017 in Global Starnet, C - 322 / 16, EU: C: 2017:985, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) followed the Opinion of AG Wahl and clarified that a national court of last instance is under an Art 267 TFEU obligation to refer a question for preliminary ruling to the CJEU even if the constitutional court of that Member State has already assessed the constitutionality of national rules in the light of regulatory parameters with content similar to rules under EU law.

-- the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw;

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw;

On the compliance of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 1 and Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of llaw, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lLaw on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of lawlaw.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justiLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justiLaw on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justilaw to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

The principal mission of the Lawyers» Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minoritiLaw is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minoritilaw, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.

As reported in this morning's National Law Journal, the idea was that of departing Justice John Paul Stevens, and Leahy supports it because it would eliminate the very real threat of 4 - 4 decisions, which, under the rules, result in an effective affirmation of the lower court's decision.

Meanwhile Lord Neuberger made his views known on how access to justice forms a crucial component of the rule of law; and commentators discuss why public bodies can't bring claims under the HRA.

Our latest event, Access to Justice Under Attack: Brexit, Charlie Gard and the Rule of Law was held on 12 October 2017 at Bristol Law Society.

The exercise of the discretion is constrained by the duty of fairness and the obligation to act honourably for the public and the administration of justice under Rule 4.01 (4) of The Law Society of Alberta's Code of Conduct.

NAWJ's mission is to promote the judicial role of protecting the rights of individuals under the rule of law through strong, committed, diverse judicial leadership; fairness and equality in the courts; and equal access to justice.

(a) any court or tribunal of that State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment; or

wrongfully impede access to justice (offending the rule of law and impinging on the court's jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867).

They are the World the World Trade Organization's ruling upholding the EU law banning seal products, and the decision of the International Court of Justice that Japan's Antarctic whale hunt is not exempt from the international moratorium on commercial whaling because it does not qualify for the scientific research exemption under international whaling law.

And this is what I understand to be the meaning of our lawyers, when they say that these civil corporations are liable to no visitation; that is, that the law having by immemorial usage appointed them to be visited and inspected by the king their founder, in his majesty's court of king's bench, according to the rules of the common law, they ought not to be visited elsewhere, or by any other authority.53 And this is so strictly true, that though the king by his letters patent had subjected the college of physicians to the visitation of four very respectable persons, the lord chancellor, the two chief justices, and the chief baron; though the college had accepted this carter with all possible marks of acquiescence, and had acted under it for near a century; yet, in 1753, the authority of this provision coming in dispute, on an appeal preferred to these supposed visitors, they directed the legality of their own appointment to be argued: and, as this college was a mere civil, and not an eleemosynary foundation, they at length determined, upon several days solemn debate, that they had no jurisdiction as visitors; and remitted the appellant (if aggrieved) to his regular remedy in his majesty's court of king's bench.

As public positions like these, which are viewed by various groups in society as discriminatory or hateful, are potentially not only contrary to the Statement of Principles that lawyers will be required to adopt, but also a breach of their existing obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Law Society should immediately take steps to investigate and, if necessary, publicly censure the lawyers cited above for their failure to advance the administration of justice by joining other MPs of good will in voting to condemn the hateful acts of certain members of the public.

The ICJ said it was «concerned that the independence and security of lawyers is under increasing threat in Turkey, with potentially serious consequences for the capacity of lawyers to play their proper role in the administration of justice, and the protection of the rule of law and human rights in the justice system.»

All cases relating to dismissal on grounds of retirement arising under reg 30 of the Employment (Equality) Age Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) are being stayed until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the legality of UK retirement law, the president of the Tribunals Service has announced.