An essential element of
any case under the Convention is that, «pursuant to the laws or regulations of the state of habitual residence, said removal or retention breaches the rights of custody with respect to the child attributed to the petitioner.»
Such
cases under the Convention are referred to as «foreign cases» following terminology of Lord Bingham in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323.
Not exact matches
Under the proposed changes fewer
cases would come before the court, as those «identical in substance to a claim that has been considered by a national court» would no longer be eligible - unless the national court had failed to interpret the
convention correctly.
His
case to establish the right to a doctor - assisted death will be joined to that of Jane Nicklinson, who is pursuing a claim in her own right
under Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European
Convention.
«The national
convention of the PDP, in the exercise of its powers
under section 12.88 of the PDP constitution, dissolved the National Working Committee and appointed some of its members as caretakers Committee for the next ninety (90) days, to enable it pursue true reconciliation of its disputant members towards peaceful, amicable and political settlement of the disputes leading to the
cases in court.
The IMO process differs from the international climate talks conducted
under the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change in that a simple majority can forge an agreement — as was the
case last week.
Furthermore, as more populations are declared protected, and more and more species are listed
under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the demand for forensic testing in wildlife
cases is sure to increase.
Legally,
under the terms of the Climate Change
Convention, they have a
case.
Lawyers representing parents will argue that
under the European
convention on human rights and corresponding
case law, the state is obliged to treat different religions and beliefs on an equal footing and that religions should not be elevated above non-religious world views in the school curriculum.
(i) The extent of our liability will in all
cases be limited as if we were carriers
under the appropriate Conventions, which include The Warsaw / Montreal
Convention (international travel by air); The Berne / Cotif
Convention (with respect to rail travel) and The Paris
Convention (with respect to hotel arrangements).
Any liability in respect of death and personal injury and loss of and damage to luggage which we may incur to you shall always be subject to the limits of liability contained in the Athens
Convention or EU Regulation 392/2009 for death / personal injury of 46,666 Special Drawing Rights (SDR) or 300,000 SDR
under Athens
Convention or 400,000 SDRs
under EU Regulation 392/2009 except in the
case of liability for war or terrorism 250,000 SDRs.
The extent of our liability will in all
cases be limited as if we were the Contracting Carriers
under the Athens
Convention and / or EU Regulation 392/2009.
Leckey, on the other hand, puts the 400 - year - old
convention under erasure; the cabinet, in his
case, is search engine Google.
In the MBH98
convention, the «Hockey Stick» pattern corresponds to PC # 1, and the variance carried by that pattern (blue circle at x = 1: y = 0.38) is more than 5 times what would be expected from chance alone
under the null hypothesis of red noise (blue curve at x = 1: y = 0.07), significant well above the 99 % confidence level (the first 2 PCs are statistically significant at the 95 % level in this
case).
For example, a persuasive
case could be made that BECCS» potentially negative impact on food security and prices could violate the right to food, as recognized, inter alia,
under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
IMO administers REMPEC, based in Malta,
under the Protocol to the Barcelona
Convention Concerning Co-operation in Preventing Pollution from Ships and, in
Cases of Emergency, Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea, 2002.
This was not a
case of discrimination
under the terms of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
These
cases provide an important reminder that the exclusion provisions
under the
Convention must be narrowly construed and that its provisions have an autonomous meaning, notwithstanding what seem at times to be determined efforts by the Home Office to cast the exclusion net as wide as possible.
In the
case, the Court is only incidentally protecting Regulation 1049/2001 from review
under the Aarhus
Convention's Article 4 (4)(c).
After reciting the
case law on the conditions for challenging the validity of EU acts
under EU international agreements, the Court applied the conditions to the
case, and article 4 (4)(c) of the Aarhus
Convention in particular.
In the
case Belvedere Construzioni Srl (Case C - 500 / 10) this was under discussion vis - à - vis the principle of resolving judicial proceedings in tax matters within reasonable time under Article 6 (1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freed
case Belvedere Construzioni Srl (
Case C - 500 / 10) this was under discussion vis - à - vis the principle of resolving judicial proceedings in tax matters within reasonable time under Article 6 (1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freed
Case C - 500 / 10) this was
under discussion vis - à - vis the principle of resolving judicial proceedings in tax matters within reasonable time
under Article 6 (1) of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Since both the Hague
Convention on the service of documents 1965 and the EU Service Regulation are inapplicable in the
case of a defendant with unknown address, the German judge resorted to public notice of the document
under German procedural law.
Similarly, a United States District Court found that a party's argument that the arbitral tribunal had impermissibly acted as amiable compositeur was «a not especially elegant masque that [sought] to conceal the fatal weakness» of that party's
case on the merits, noting that the court was «forbidden
under the
Convention to reconsider factual findings of the arbitral panel.»
In a
case concerning an application for enforcement that was subject to both the New York
Convention and the European
Convention, the Italian Court of Cassation decided that enforcement should be denied where the presumption
under Article VIII had not been rebutted because one party seeking enforcement had expressly requested during the arbitral proceeding that reasons be given for the award.
European
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21 April 1961, Article VIII: «The parties shall be presumed to have agreed that reasons shall be given for the award unless they (a) either expressly declare that reasons shall not be given; or (b) have assented to an arbitral procedure
under which it is not customary to give reasons for awards, provided that in this
case neither party requests before the end of the hearing, or if there has not been a hearing then before the making of the award, that reasons be given.»
Cases that have been referred since the program commenced have included: cases arising under Section 1983, Title VII, Hague Convention and the Social Security Act as well as cases presenting constitutional is
Cases that have been referred since the program commenced have included:
cases arising under Section 1983, Title VII, Hague Convention and the Social Security Act as well as cases presenting constitutional is
cases arising
under Section 1983, Title VII, Hague
Convention and the Social Security Act as well as
cases presenting constitutional is
cases presenting constitutional issues.
cases invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, whether in relation to children (wardship) or incapacitated or vulnerable adults; and international
cases involving applications for relief
under either the Hague
Convention or Brussels II bis.
Retention justification The issue in the instant
case was whether or not the retention of the fingerprint and DNA data of the applicants, as persons, who had been suspected, but not convicted, of certain criminal off ences, had been justified
under Art 8, para 2 of the
Convention.
In this
case (which concerned a prisoner's right to vote) the ECtHR said that «prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed
under the
Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Art 5».
Her primary
case was that in order to avoid breach of the above
Convention rights, the relevant provisions of HA 1985 could be construed
under s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)(so far as possible legislation to be read and effected compatibly with
Convention rights), to give her a right to succeed to the tenancy.
This issue also implicates the Hague
Convention on child abduction.111 The students then need to find the
Convention, determine the processes it provides for return of children, determine whether Guatemala is subject to the
Convention, and research
case law
under the
Convention to see how courts have handled claims of abduction.
On July 1, 2014, in a final judgment that can not be appealed, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the
case of S.A.S v. France (application no. 43835 / 11), validated French Law no. 2010 - 1192, which prohibits concealment of one's face in all places open to the public in France and found that the law does not violate the applicant's rights
under the European
Convention on Human Rights.
The Hague
Convention also permits a Court to refuse to enforce a judgment for a broader range of reasons than is the
case under the Recast Regulation.
The House of Lords in Begum, R (on the application of) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 Appeal
Cases 100, dealt with Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol 1
under the European
Convention in the
case of a schoolgirl who was prevented from a more extensive garb that had longer sleeves than the school uniform.
He also applied for the return of the child
under the Hague
Convention and instituted a Hague
Convention case in Ontario.
Canada acceded to the United Nations
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1986 (the «UNCITRAL Model Law») declaring that it would apply the
Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial
under the laws of Canada, except in the
case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation.
Another significant impact of LASPO has been in excluding funding for
cases brought
under Art 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning an individual's right to private and family life.
BIIR has no equivalent of the applicable law provisions but there are also differences in respect of provisional measures based on presence, on defences to recognition and on enforcement of protective measures made in 1980 Hague Abduction
cases which are recognised
under the 1996
Convention but not
under BIIR: Purrucker - v - Perez: C - 256 / 09 [CJEU].
As far as the claims
under EU law were concerned, it was common ground before the Court of Appeal that, so far as relevant to the instant
case, Article 47 of the Charter had the same substantive content as Article 6 of the
Convention.
On the other hand, it could be better in some
cases to bring suit
under the Hague
Convention, instead of
under the UCCJEA, for a variety of reasons:
In this
case, the award was enforced
under the Inter-American
Convention on International Commercial Arbitration 1975, however the grounds relied on for enforcement are analogous to those contained in the NYC.
She has expertise in acting for both Applicants and Respondents in
cases concerning the Hague
Convention, and regularly represents parties in applications made
under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court / Wardship and child abduction
cases involving Non Hague
Convention countries.
Inter alia he has appeared as counsel in six
cases brought
under the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Under the
Convention each participating country must designate a CA to handle Hague
Convention child abduction
cases.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has released some limited information about the number of applications that it has received
under the Hague Abduction
Convention and the number of
cases in which children have been returned.
The categories that are exempt from the automatic deportation scheme are: (i) those who are presently exempt from deportation altogether; (ii)
cases in which deportation would breach an individual's rights
under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Refugee
Convention, or the Community treaties; (iii) those individuals the secretary of state believes were
under the age of 18 on the date on which they were convicted; (iv) those subject to extradition proceedings; and (v) those subject to mental health legislation.
This
case concerned the question of whether non-derogating control orders imposed on six individuals
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA 2005) breached Art 5 (right to liberty) of the European
Convention on Human Rights (the
Convention).
In two of the new
cases (the Bangladesh / Myanmar and the Panama / Guinea Bissau
cases), the parties have agreed to refer to ITLOS, disputes which ordinarily were within the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals
under the dispute settlement system of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
In this
case, where a father seeks the return of his son to his country of habitual residence (Bulgaria), the main issues for determination
under Article 13 of the
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 are whether a return of the child (L) to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation and whether L objects to returning to Bulgaria, and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which his views should be taken into account.
In each
case the employer was pursuing a policy of nondiscrimination against service - users, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation was also protected
under the
Convention.