Sentences with phrase «as general legal principles»

-- The remaining considerations should not be treated as independent factors having more or less equal weight when determining whether there is a real and substantial connection but as general legal principles that bear upon the analysis.

Not exact matches

This follows on specifically from the general legal principles which form the basis of EU law, such as the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations».

Instead, it would apply the EU fundamental rights and the general principle of legal certainty as interpreted by the ECJ.

Like you, I believe that there are strategies the LSUC could pursue which would achieve their substantive goals, strategies which accurately reflect existing (and unambiguous) legal and ethical obligations and which are consistent with constitutional requirements and principles (as I've noted above, if the current requirement around a Statement of Principle merely required acknowledgement of our actual existing obligations under the Rules, rather than a general duty to promote equality, diversity and inclusion which is found nowhere in the Rules, I suspect much opposition would melt away and the LSUC would be on far stronger Charter grounds).

In my view, even if statutes of limitations periods should be considered as forming part of procedural law, this would not mean that they are exempted from the EU general principle of legal certainty and that they can be modified on a case - by - case basis by courts, arbitrarily, without any clear and generally applicable legislative guidance.

The Court reaffirmed the general legal principles applicable to a discovery application as outlined by Mr. Justice Murray in Framus1 as follows:

The Luxembourg Court, in adherence to the great shift in thoughts aimed at protecting «the rule of law at the national and international levels», as the United Nations General Assembly urges (see UN GA Resolution A / RES / 67 / 2012), and intended to repress the crime of serious VAT fraud, with established an effective measure (i.e., the disapplication of national rules incompatible with Article 325 (1) TFEU, Article 2 (1) of the 1995 PIF Convention as well as Directive 2006/112 on the EU's common system of VAT, read in conjunction with Article 4 (3) TEU) which, alongside the guilty, condemns States defaulting and disrespecting EU law and the founding principles of the world legal order.

In the Charter terminology, the notion of «principle» points towards a more open obligation of the public powers, as it would not define an individual legal situation, but general topics and results which condition the actions of all public powers (para 50).

To affirm the practical effectiveness of legal principles, the Advocate General suggests that implementing acts should be understood as those that «substantively and directly» concretise the content of a principle, to avoid regarding whole areas of regulatory action such as the social or environmental law of a Member State as an implementing measure (paras 63 - 64).

The ECJ confirmed once again that the ECHR «does not constitute, as long as the European Union has not acceded to it, a legal instrument which has been formally incorporated into EU law», even though Article 6 (3) TEU confirms that fundamental rights recognised by the ECHR constitute general principles of EU law and Article 52 (3) requires that ECHR - corresponding rights in the Charter are given the same meaning and scope as those laid down by the ECHR (para. 45).

[28] This is not to suggest that a person's general knowledge or understanding of a legal principle, obtained as the result of legal advice received in a different context, will necessarily or even usually be sufficient to result in deemed waiver.

Entering this critical fray, this article examines the debate on both sides of the coin for the inclusion and exclusion of digital devices and the attendant use of social media within the courtroom, based primarily on its accordance with the theoretical and legal underpinnings of the open court principle as they exist at the level of both Canadian law and general jurisprudential theory.

«Having considered the decisions, the writings and the various aspects of the public interest which claim attention, I have come to the conclusion that the court should state the relevant principle as follows: a document which was produced or brought into existence either with the dominant purpose of its author, or of the person or authority under whose direction, whether particular or general, it was produced or brought into existence, of using it or its contents in order to obtain legal advice or to conduct or aid in the conduct of litigation, at the time of its production in reasonable prospect, should be privileged and excluded from inspection.»

The only limits to such interpretation are set by general principles of law, such as the principle of legal certainty and non-retroactivity (Pupino, para. 44).

This takes us to the essence of Justice Stratas» reasoning here which is that in legal proceedings (judicial reviews in particular) under our Westminister system of government, an attorney general enjoys a presumptive right to intervene on the basis that public rights are vested in the Crown and an attorney general enforces those rights and represents the public interest: «Giving Attorneys General a broader right to apply to intervene in order to advance the public interest — as Rule 110 (c) does — is consistent with these foundational principles and constitutional arranggeneral enjoys a presumptive right to intervene on the basis that public rights are vested in the Crown and an attorney general enforces those rights and represents the public interest: «Giving Attorneys General a broader right to apply to intervene in order to advance the public interest — as Rule 110 (c) does — is consistent with these foundational principles and constitutional arranggeneral enforces those rights and represents the public interest: «Giving Attorneys General a broader right to apply to intervene in order to advance the public interest — as Rule 110 (c) does — is consistent with these foundational principles and constitutional arrangGeneral a broader right to apply to intervene in order to advance the public interest — as Rule 110 (c) does — is consistent with these foundational principles and constitutional arrangements.

As the Court clearly stressed in Opinion 2/13 (paras. 37 - 38) and Opinion 2/94 (paras. 34 - 35), has special significance for the EU legal order, due to its linkages with the sources of EU law, be it general principles of EU law or the Charter of Fundamental Rights (e.g. Article 52 (3) CFR).

Biotechnology patent law operates under the same general legal principles as other areas of patent law.

As a general rule a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders: Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.) The law on when a court may disregard this principle by «lifting the corporate veil» and regarding the company as a mere «agent» or «puppet» of its controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent principlAs a general rule a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its shareholders: Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.) The law on when a court may disregard this principle by «lifting the corporate veil» and regarding the company as a mere «agent» or «puppet» of its controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent principlas a mere «agent» or «puppet» of its controlling shareholder or parent corporation follows no consistent principle.

Apart from the general principle that legal processes should be open to the public whenever possible, as a practical...