Not exact matches
There are still many
conflicting and confusing
opinions on the
matter.
(i) The Committee
on Ethics may, in its discretion, issue public or private advisory
opinions with respect to questions of ethical conduct,
conflicts of interest and other
matters arising under this Article.
«Yet if we continue to think about public
opinion in this narrow way, as policy
conflicts emerge, mistakes will be made and opportunities will be missed to effectively engage the public
on the questions and concerns that
matter to them.»
Leave may be granted under (a) where there is a
conflicting decision by another judge or court in Ontario or elsewhere
on the
matter involved in the proposed appeal and it is, in the
opinion of the judge hearing the motion, desirable that leave to appeal be granted.
1) we agree to disagree:) 2) supremacy of EU law for the EU system is the equivalent of the hard core of constitutional values that some national Courts defend against EU (and ECHR)- it is not a
matter of «legitimacy» or «patriotism» but of using a «lower rank» instrument (accession treaty) to interfere with a treaty rule: the identical issue is for States who have a «rigid» constitution (alike the Treaty binds the CIEU): the accession treaty to ECHR or EU has a «lower rank» than the Constitution itself, so that the national Constitutional Court can not accept it can derogate to a higher ranking rule - usually they will find a way to reconcile the «construction» of the two set of rules, but if they are requested of an
opinion on the point of principle, they will always say that in the very end, if all other paths have been explored to avoid the
conflict, eventually it is the Constitution and neither ECHR nor EUwhich prevails.