Sentences with phrase «judicial protection of»

Legislative and Judicial Protection of Criminal Defendants: Is Criminal Procedure Less Countermajoritarian Than We Think?

The practice is especially compelling in cases involving the scope and limits of judicial protection of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

The sentiments behind this code subsection, the judicial protection of sibling -LSB-...]

In the case of the CFSP the national courts replace the CJEU and have to ensure effective judicial protection of individuals also in the absence of the Court's competence to make preliminary rulings and monopoly to annul EU law (AG view, para 102).

«RECALLING the obligations of the Contracting Member States under the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), including the obligation of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 4 (3) TEU and the obligation to ensure through the Unified Patent Court the full application of, and respect for, Union law in their respective territories and the judicial protection of an individual's rights under that law;

The sentiments behind this code subsection, the judicial protection of sibling bonds, is lovely.

Part III relates to the «Judicial Protection of Individuals».

The judicial protection of individuals is greatly enhanced by adopting an expansive view of locus standi.

Accordingly the book opens with a part on EU Constitutional Law, which ends however with a short chapter on judicial review of the constitutionality of EU legislation, that almost naturally launches the series of articles on the EU Judicial Architecture in Part II, which in turn leads to Part III on Judicial Protection of Individuals.

This choice has led to much criticism because many considered the Plaumann formula too strict and liable to compromise the effective judicial protection of individuals affected by EU legal acts.

«does not enable an organisation such as LZ to be ensured effective judicial protection of the various specific rights inherent in the right of public participation, within the meaning of Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention» (para 68).

Not exact matches

Among them are the rights to: bullet joint parenting; bullet joint adoption; bullet joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); bullet status as next - of - kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; bullet joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; bullet dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; bullet immigration and residency for partners from other countries; bullet inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; bullet joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; bullet inheritance of jointly - owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); bullet benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; bullet spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; bullet veterans» discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; bullet joint filing of customs claims when traveling; bullet wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bullet bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; bullet decision - making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; bullet crime victims» recovery benefits; bullet loss of consortium tort benefits; bullet domestic violence protection orders; bullet judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; bullet and more...

One saw evidence of this, for example, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decreed that when religious counseling is informed even in part by secular psychology, it ceases to be religious and is entitled to no free - exercise protection.

The provocative thesis will be deemed heresy by partisans of «the judicial usurpation of politics»,» who inevitably assume that the rights of minorities receive their greatest protection from the courts.

While I find the majority opinion in Brown disappointing and even more so the fact that its author was Scalia, in the end there is something for conservatives to take away from the case: a strong judicial precedent that new categories may not be added to the type of content not afforded full First Amendment protection.

But the animus analysis reaches the same result, for a class is allegedly picked out and bullied in violation of the equal protection clause; whether the class is entitled to special judicial protection doesn't matter if the legislators or voters can be ascertained to have a suspect motive.

Unconscionable conduct (agrees with NFF that they have not provided protection and support reforms «to provide transparency in the supply chain» and recognise that «certain classes of suppliers... are predisposed to suffering from a special disadvantage...»; misuse of market power (legal framework must «level the balance of market power in negotiations...», «ensure transparency in the transmission of market prices» and «not allow for final market risks to be borne by the primary producer» and provide «transparency of contract processes» - specifically, Canegrowers supports effects test and a process giving ACCC greater power to «regulate anti-competitive behaviour and impose penalties», shifting «the decisions framework from the judicial system to a regulatory system» which would make it more accessible to small producers); collective bargaining (notes limits of Sugar Industry Act (Qld); authorisation and notification approval costly and limited and not a viable alternative - peak bodies should be able to «commence and progress collective bargaining with mills on behalf of their members» and current threshold too restrictive)» competitive neutrality (mixed outcomes - perverse outcomes in the case of natural monopolies - suggest remove «application of competitive neutrality provisions to natural monopoly essential services»)

The judicial precedent for equal protection for federal laws is somewhat fuzzy as there is not equal protection clause specifically written as part of the fifth amendment, and the specific clause is only in reference to states in the fourteenth amendment.

Soon after the new IPAct was introduced, Liberty, a British organisation concerned with human rights protection, requested a judicial review to the High Court.Liberty argued that some powers protected by the Act such as the interception of communication, acquisition of communication history and the creation of bulk personal datasets breached the public's rights.

Both sides will benefit, Democrats would get Downstate (which in my humble opinion should be called the Commonwealth of New Amsterdam after the most progressive city in Europe and in reference to the city's history), a guaranteed two seats in the US Senate (+1 because Gillibrand did well Upstate in the last election, so 3 seats for the Democrats), guaranteed control of the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches, and the once in a lifetime opportunity to write a state constitution to their own liking (firearms rights applies only to military and police, right to choose for women, protections for LGBT New Yorkers, etc)

«Its focus is on the protection of the sanctity and integrity of the judicial process,» she added, explaining that «not even [to protect] the individuals who were offended».

In plain English, if unelected members were given a vote on the standards committee, its decisions, such as the suspension of an MP, would lose their protection from judicial challenge.

A year later members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill that would strip federal protections from wolves in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming with language preventing any further judicial review — overruling two court decisions finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service had wrongly removed Endangered Species Act protections for the wolf.

Judges who embrace this understanding of Brown and equal protection feel compelled to listen to the «experts» on educational inequality and to use their judicial authority to remedy injustices.

Judith Baer maintains, however, that in fact American judicial decisions have consistently denied individuals the form of equality to which they are legally entitled — that the courts have interpreted constitutional guarantees of equal protection in ways that undermine the original intent of Congress.

CLARKSVILLE, Ark. — The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal protection organization, applauds 5th Judicial District Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Bruce Wilson and Johnson County Sheriff Jim Dorney for their success at gaining an appropriate sentence in the convictions of Christine Yarrington and Lynn E. Burkett, owners of a Lamar, Ark. puppy mill, on animal cruelty charges.

This D.C. law provides that if, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds that there is good cause to believe the respondent has committed or threatened to commit a criminal offense against the petitioner or against petitioner's animal or an animal in petitioner's household, the judicial officer may issue a protection order that directs the care, custody, or control of a domestic animal that belongs to petitioner or respondent or lives in his or her household.

Nintendo also tried to introduce legislation to congress via lobbying in the form of the «Computer Software Protection Act» (H.R. 5297) which never made it through the House Judicial review.

We look forward to the administration's response in addressing the protection of the Judicial process and the problems caused by failure to adhere to these provisions.

A further drawback is that focusing on the State Department and White House ignores the Interior Department, Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and many other federal and state regulatory and judicial agencies and processes that will still stand in the way of final project approval, and will likely take years to navigate.

Indeed, such judicial resolution would trample Congress's carefully calibrated process of cooperative federalism where states work in tandem with [the Environmental Protection Agency] to administer the federal Clean Air Act.»

The Government of Catalonia has announced that it will challenge the constitutionality of the Ley, on the basis that it is contrary to Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees effective judicial protection.

The Court was called to examine the compatibility of this system with the Directive, with the freedom of establishment and with the principle of effective judicial protection and the rights of defence as enshrined in Articles 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Now it is clear that it may be difficult in the future to define with sufficient precision the two groups of implementing acts; still, the Advocate General is arguably correct in trying to give normative content to Article 52 (5) of the Charter which maintains its effet utile of providing some sort of judicial protection for Charter principles.

This right is one of the aspects of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.

The CJEU separately analyzed three different elements of the principle of effective judicial protection: right of access to a tribunal and principles of nemo iudex in sua causa (no one can be a judge in his own cause) and equality of arms.

The main controversy in the case was whether the principle of effective judicial protection was adequately safeguarded.

The optimal outcome for investors is if they have the possibility to bring a claim based on an EU FTIA before an investor ‑ state tribunal and before domestic courts, while the optimal outcome for civil society is if investors can not bring an FTIA claim before any of the two judicial avenues; (ii) problems facing the domestic enforcement of ISDS awards; (iii) the need to keep the investment protection standards in the agreements or not.

The Court's contention that EU law provides for a complete system of remedies, or at least remedies «sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law» (Case C - 64 / 16, para. 34) has to be understood as a formalistic conception in the sense that BITs clearly provide more complete and effective remedies to investors than EU law or domestic law — and this understanding has been at the heart of the reasoning of arbitral tribunals in cases where they have rejected the argument that intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law.

This abstract idea is complemented by the more practical concern about the «full effectiveness of EU law» (para. 56), a central part of which is the availability of «remedies sufficient to ensure effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law».

Professors Deakin and Morris make a similar point that «there remains a strong case for reviewing the band of reasonableness given that it is essentially a judicial addition to the statutory formula and arguably one which has done much to limit the effectiveness of the statutory protection provided to employees, no matter how hallowed it has become with the passage of time».

The case concerns the principle of effective judicial protection (laid down in Article 47 of EUCFR) and the private enforcement of competition law.

The obligation imposed on an individual to stand criminal trial regardless of previously established statutes of limitations periods interferes undoubtedly with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, safeguarded by Article 47 of the Charter.

Hence, national courts must balance between the obligation to protect the financial interests of the EU and the fundamental right to effective judicial protection.

During the annulment proceedings Germany argued that the EU lacked competence in the matter and acted in violation of the principle of conferral, the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sincere cooperation, together with the principle of effective judicial protection.

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 Freedoms.

The point would be to milden the firm obligation to enforce Article 325 TFEU and disapply the statutes of limitations periods, imposed upon national courts in Taricco I, to the extent that the ICC could decide that the considerations of effective judicial protection and legal certainty preclude in general the disapplication of statutes of limitations periods.

First, with regard to the judicial avenues foreign investors have against host - states, three come to mind: (a) bringing a claim before an investor - state tribunal; (b) bringing a claim before a domestic court, based on domestic and / or international standards of protection; and (c) private commercial arbitration based on a contract between the investor and the host ‑ State.

Nevertheless, it remains the case that judicial opinions, especially trial judgments, differ from the kind of writings that traditionally attract copyright protection, with the concomitant demands of originality and attribution of sources.

the measures did not involve any breach of the Council's obligation to state reasons, nor of Rosneft's right of access to the file, rights of defence or right to effective judicial protection, nor any misuse of power, or breach of the principle of proportionality;