Sentences with phrase «decision of a public authority»

We are also regularly instructed in high - profile challenges to the decisions of public authorities and regulators, including claims which require urgent applications for interim relief, and which involve complex issues of international, EU or human rights law in the commercial sphere.

Since the Human Rights Act 1998 many cases involving freedom of expression have been decided as judicial reviews of decisions of public authorities.

The Court was clear that neither the Court of Protection, the Family Court, nor the Family Division of the High Court has power to regulate or adjudicate upon the decision of a public authority exercising its statutory powers.

Not exact matches

The company's ultimate valuation will depend on decisions that are expected to be made by Saudi authorities in coming months, including the tax rate that Aramco will pay as a public company, and the portion of Aramco's huge and diverse array of assets that is included in the listed entity.

The virtue of socialism, it is argued, is that it does away with such irresponsible authority, and forces those who make economic policy to appeal to the electorate and to justify their decisions in terms of the public good.

Despite the rhetoric of democracy there is a lack of transparency m discussions of officials with the IMF / WB authorities and their decisions regarding conditionalities often imposed on the debtor countries without clear exposure even to Parliament and its select committees, much less to the general public affected by them.

Government is given sufficient authority only to accomplish necessary matters of public concern, leaving a wide range of decisions for the private sphere.

Bork surveys a long and depressing series of decisions - on free speech, pornography, contraception, abortion, sexual equality, etc. - in which the Supreme Court, claiming the authority of the Constitution, has taken public policy out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives.

Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the proper role of religion in public life and the extent of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.

Therefore, they contended that a lower federal court in Little Rock had no constitutional authority to order the desegregation of public schools in Arkansas on the basis of the Brown decision.

But despite his frustrations with the NHS — Marsh pointedly notes that there is no question of competing authority in the private sector, where consultants make the decisions — he is a passionate believer in public service.

Speaking at a conference hosted by the Local Government Network, Mr Denham said: «Local taxpayers should be vigilant if they are asked to accept reduced services because their council won't take tough decisions to introduce shared services, sharing senior staff with other local authorities, PCTs [primary care trusts] or other bidders, or through making the best use of public buildings.

Among the Buffalo Billion related questions were the review of Joe Percoco's disclosure form revealing outside income from Buffalo Billion vendors, details of Cuomo's last conversation with Percoco, the recent disclosure by Solar City of a reduction in the expected number of jobs, why the Public Authorities Control Board delayed a decision of funding certain payments related to Solar City and whether public money funding the Buffalo Billion was treated «as sacred» and if so, why an investigation is occuPublic Authorities Control Board delayed a decision of funding certain payments related to Solar City and whether public money funding the Buffalo Billion was treated «as sacred» and if so, why an investigation is occupublic money funding the Buffalo Billion was treated «as sacred» and if so, why an investigation is occurring.

«There is public interest in public authorities and high - profile individuals being accountable for the quality of their decision making.

Still, the decision to build an extension has not yet been made, said Thomas George, director of public transit for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority.

Without a unanimous decision from the board, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority could not transfer the land, and the state could not contribute its half of the $ 600 million public subsidy.

That law states: «No statewide elected official, state officer or employee, member of the Legislature or legislative employee may participate in any decision to hire, promote, discipline or discharge a relative for any compensated position at, for, or within any state agency, public authority, or the Legislature.»

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dzintra I. Janavs wrote in a 20 - page decision that the mayor's plan violates several provisions of the state constitution by shifting, in part, «management and control of the 708,000 - student Los Angeles Unified School District to entities and authorities... that are not part of the public school system.»

Brian Caldwell: Over the last few decades schools, especially public schools, have been given more authority to make their own decisions on a range of matters.

NSBA with Davenport and the full leadership team will continue its efforts, working with the state school board associations, to ensure that ESSA is implemented as intended, in collaboration with local school boards and other key education stakeholders, and returning the decision - making authority to state and local communities in support of academic success for every public school student across the country.

«[O] ur constitutions, past and present, have limited governmental authority over the public education of Georgia's children to that level of government closest and most responsive to the taxpayers and parents,» Chief Justice Carol W. Hunstein wrote in the decision in Gwinnett County School District v. Cox.

District School Board — These elected officials get recommendations from the public and the superintendent to deliver their range of decision - making authority.

The decisions of public bodies, such as the Secretary of State (and therefore of RSCs where they assume the powers of the Secretary of State), local authorities and schools can be challenged by way of judicial review and other appropriate proceedings in the High Court.

It's a decision deeply rooted in the politics of school choice in Indiana and revolves around the administration of Democratic Mayor Bart Peterson, the first mayor given the authority to oversee the city's charter schools, says Claire Smrekar, a professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University.

It was an outgrowth of the all - important 2007 decision of the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA, which upheld EPA's authority under the Act to address climate change and required action to reduce CO2 emissions unless the agency could conclude that they did not endanger public health and welfare.

Judith has claimed expertise by virtue of appointing herself to make authoritative claims as to who can and can't «responsibly» claim «expertise» that merits involvement in public discussions that have policy implications (as well as, btw, appointing herself as an authority on decision - making in the face of uncertainty), and that her opinions should be stamped with the authority of a «expert» because she has written some blog posts on the subject.

As defined by the FAO, a forest policy is «a set of orientations and principles of actions adopted by public authorities... to guide future decisions in relation to the management, use and conservation of forest and tree resources for the benefit of society.»

The commission makes 100 recommendations featuring six overarching ones: the National Advice and Legal Support Fund mentioned before; prioritising public legal education in schools, alongside financial literacy, and in «education for life»; calling on government to clampdown down «preventable demand» by getting decisions right the first time including a «polluter pays» scheme for the DWP to pay costs on upheld appeals (on average 35 % of appeals against welfare benefits decisions are upheld); an overhaul of the courts to make them better suited for the needs of litigants in person; a national strategy for 2015 — 20, including a «minister for advice and legal support»; and for local authorities to commission local advice and legal support plans.

While in Dennekamp the data subjects were officials of the EU fully invested in the decision - making process of the public authority, in the PAN case the scientific experts were external to EFSA.

In this respect, the AG rightly recalls that, if this were true, the imputability to the State would not inevitably follow as Stardust Marine teaches us that, in case of decisions taken by public undertakings, the imputability to the State must be demonstrated by establishing «the actual exercise by the State of the supervisory powers which its status as majority shareholder confers upon it» or «the actual involvement of the public authorities» (para 99) in the adoption of the decision.

Stephany Torres, a competition lawyer, believes such a decision is indicative of the Competition Authorities» tendency to give public interest considerations a prominent role in merger review.

77 Second, it is important to point out that provisions on conferring powers of public authority on border guards — such as the powers conferred in the contested decision, which include stopping persons apprehended, seizing vessels and conducting persons apprehended to a specific location — mean that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned may be interfered with to such an extent that the involvement of the European Union legislature is required.

The Court found that the (unique) solution imagined by the Commission to compensate for the lack of safeguards established by US law does not conform to such requirements as the «Principles» only bind US companies that have self - certify and not US public authorities (Article 1 of the Safe Harbour Decision).

He noted (among other things) the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Carson v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 338, (2010) 51 EHRR 13 where (referring to its 2006 decision in Stec and others v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017, [2006] All ER (D) 215 (Apr)-RRB-, the court said: «Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is «manifestly without reasonable foundation».

Where the national law of the child to be adopted requires as a condition for establishing the adoption the agreement or consent of the child or a third party, or the approval or any other decision by a public authority, this requirement must also be satisfied.

The public authority does not need to exercise actual control over the water companies; it is enough if the very existence of the public authority's powers has an actual impact on the water companies» decision making.

HRA 1998 allows domestic courts to «take into account» decisions of the ECtHR (s 2); to strain construction of legislation so that it complies with the Convention «so far as it is possible to do so» (s 3); to override secondary legislation (s 3 (2)-RRB- and requires all public authorities to act in a way that is compatible with the Convention (s 6).

To put this language in public law terms, the lack of procedural fairness in the termination decision meant that the decision could not reasonably be relied upon by other public authorities as evidence of unfitness to carry out public contracts.

While most employers will not be subject to a Charter analysis regarding the search of company issued equipment (the Charter only applies to governmental authorities, public sector employees and the police), this is an important result for employers as this decision can be expected to have broader implications on the evolving issue of privacy in the modern workplace and the growing recognition of employee privacy.

The case raised raising important issues about the decision - making processes of public authorities, and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

«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.»

While lauding the «significant improvements» of the Privacy Shield compared to the Safe Harbor decision (including mechanisms to ensure oversight of the Privacy Shield and mandatory compliance reviews), the working party nonetheless expressed «strong concerns» about both the commercial aspects and the access by public authorities to data transferred under the Privacy Shield.

In formulating the obligation in that way, the court took the view that, although it may in principle be open to the decision - maker to accept confidential information and then decide to disclose the information in breach of the confidentiality obligations to which it was subject, in reality that was not an option available to a responsible public authority, both because it would be ethically repugnant to such a body, and because it was highly likely that such conduct would have a material adverse effect on its ability to obtain confidential information in the future: [59].

It was open in principle to the claimant to bring a challenge by way of judicial review, on the ground of breach of legitimate expectation, to the defendant's decision to terminate her tenancy, just as it was open to her in principle to bring a challenge on Convention grounds against the defendant as a public authority.

The management and allocation of housing stock by a housing trust which is a registered social landlord under the Housing Act 1996, including decisions concerning the termination of a tenancy, is a function of a public nature, with the effect that the registered social landlord is to regarded as a public authority for the purposes of s 6 (3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and so is amenable to judicial review on conventional public law grounds in respect of its performance of that function.

In his decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the Claimants, in the above named conjoined matters, Mr Justice Eder leaves no room for doubt that judges in England take pre trial conduct very seriously indeed and will regard a «snub» by foreign parties, even public authorities, as a direct offence to the authority of the English court.

Moreover, an Italian public authority seeking to shield itself behind the authority of the Italian courts to shut out the jurisdiction of the English courts may indeed be very unpleasantly surprised as was the case here where the Italian Regional Administrative Court of Piedmont refused jurisdiction in the above named cases in favour of the English courts, a fact taken into account in the judgement of the English court in the application for summary judgement as further justification for its decision..

The national legislature may thus possess discretion to determine criteria to be satisfied by organisations to be able to challenge an infringement of environmental law; however, the very obligation to guarantee access to justice was, for the Advocate General, sufficiently clear to preclude a rule with the effect of excluding certain categories of non-legislative decisions taken by public authorities from the possible scope of review (para 94).

The panel comprises senior business lawyers from major corporations, banks and the public sector and includes Carol Hui, GC of Heathrow Airport Holdings; BAE Systems GC Philip Bramwell; Funke Abimbola, UK and Ireland GC of healthcare company Roche Products; and Tim Parkes, a former HSF partner who now chairs the Regulatory Decisions Committee at the Financial Conduct Authority.

The appellant contended, however, that «aspects» of the claim were in time as s 6 (6) of the Act provides that an «act» includes a failure to «act», and this implies that, where an initial decision is taken to act in a way that violates a person's human rights, the «act» for the purposes of the Act continues until the public authority decides to cease violating that person's rights.