Sentences with phrase «on judicial protection»

The last chapter on more general matters is written by Theodore Konstadinides and Noreen O'Meara who examine whether the Lisbon Treaty and the Stockholm Programme strengthened or weakened the protection of fundamental rights, while placing special focus on judicial protection in criminal matters.

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.

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...

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»)

Finally, the costs protection currently on offer will be withdrawn in most cases, exposing anyone bringing judicial review proceedings to swingeing costs if they lose.

«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.

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.

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.

Koch Media may also disclose personal data to law enforcement, or the appropriate civil authorities to enforce legal rights and comply with the law, or to comply with an order from a government entity or other competent authority, or when we have reason to believe that a disclosure is necessary to address potential or actual injury or interference with our rights, property, reputation, operations, users or others who may be harmed or may suffer loss or damage, or when we believe that disclosure is necessary to protect our rights, fraud protection and / or comply with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process served on Koch Media.

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.

By filling a Supreme Court vacancy and other judicial appointments, Trump will put his mark on the courts, where environmentalists have successfully fought previous efforts to roll back protections.

Similarly, actions undertaken by Environmental Protection Agency that survive judicial review are very hard to change on a whim.»

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.

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 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.

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.

[56] Thus, «On judicial review, the question becomes whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter protections at play.»

«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;

In its judgment the court said the existence of the right of appeal given by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 20 and the right to receive interest on arrears in prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSA.

In the following paragraphs, the Court then examined the penalty system in the light of EU fundamental rights, but found it — essentially based on its features as already set out previously under Article 12 of the Directive — to be compatible with the principles of effective judicial protection and respect for the rights of the defence.

In the Supreme Judicial Court case of Darviris v. Petros, 442 Mass. 274 (2004), limitations on consumer protection claims under G.L. c. 93A in medical malpractice cases were limited by the court.

There would be sufficient procedural protection if the limitation on those rights had been sufficiently safeguarded by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities: Jasper v United Kingdom (Application no 27052 / 95)[2000] ECHR 27052 / 95.

Its other recommendations include: greater judicial case management, with specialist judges and early intervention; agreement on circumstances in which parties might lose costs protection; drawing up realistic budgets; and allowing the courts to continue to exercise cost - capping powers.

His PhD research focuses on the complementarity of judicial and extra-judicial EU mechanisms for the legal protection of private parties and legal accountability of EU institutions, in the context of concerns about the limited access of private applicants to the EU Courts.

The procedural provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act apply to the Commissioner, not the courts which are bound rather by the legislation governing their procedures on judicial review.

Judicial instincts on the whole rightly seem to be that the mediation process is deserving of protection from undue scrutiny.

Three academic researchers tackle open justice issues in the final section: Professor Ian Cram looks at the effect of Twitter on juries; Dr Lawrence McNamara considers how the judiciary contributes to legal reform through «extra - judicial» statements; andLucy Series examines secrecy in the Court of Protection.

Of more interest to data protection specialists, the Judge ruled that if he had found a breach of the DPA 1998, he would not have refused relief on the grounds that the C could have brought an ordinary Part 7 claim for breach of the Act, rather than an application for judicial review.

It should not be forgotten that the European data protection reform package contained two pieces of legislation, the GDPR and the Data Protection Directive for Police and Judicial Co-operation on Criminal Matters (the Dprotection reform package contained two pieces of legislation, the GDPR and the Data Protection Directive for Police and Judicial Co-operation on Criminal Matters (the DProtection Directive for Police and Judicial Co-operation on Criminal Matters (the Directive).

At present, a distinction is often drawn between restrictions imposed by European legislation, for example on habitat protection, and that offered by domestic law; European requirements are often shown greater deference by decision makers, and by the courts when discretion to quash (in judicial and statutory review cases) is considered.

Judicial authorisation is an important safeguard to ensure effective protection of the rights of an incapacitated person to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and to respect for their physical and moral integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 3 and Art 8.

In a document titled The Case for Reforming the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act the Commissioner recommended that the law be amended to require private sector organizations «to publicly report on the number of disclosures they make to law enforcement under paragraph 7 (3)(c. 1), without knowledge or consent, and without judicial warrant, in order to shed light on the frequency and use of this extraordinary exception.»

By hitching the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause to these transitory considerations, we would be holding, as a constitutional principle, that judicial scrutiny of classifications touching on racial and ethnic background may vary with the ebb and flow of political forces.

For instance, as everyone knows, the Supreme Court has swung back and forth a few times on whether states need some kind of judicial protection to preserve their policy autonomy, or whether instead the political process is good enough.

This approach provides the individual with protections and places the burden on the parties to resolve their differences about the appropriateness and scope of disclosure as part of the judicial or administrative procedure itself before the order is issued, rather than requiring the covered entity to get involved in evaluating the merits of the dispute in order to determine whether or not the particular request is appropriate or too broad.

[57] On judicial review, the question becomes whether, in assessing the impact of the relevant Charter protection and given the nature of the decision and the statutory and factual contexts, the decision reflects a proportionate balancing of the Charter protections at play.

In a lovely bit of shareholder advocacy, Morrison writes, «The risks from poor legal advice also loom for companies, and also affect the same constituents, yet to my knowledge no third party assesses companies comparatively on the quality of their legal staff, the adequacy of their in - house legal resources, the legal surefootedness of their outside counsel, the protections provided their intellectual property, the liabilities faced by them through regulatory and judicial proceedings, and the adroitness of management practices.»

They include a policy Communication setting out the Commission's objectives and two legislative proposals: a Regulation setting out a general EU framework for data protection and a Directive on protecting personal data processed for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences and related judicial activities.

This requires the Government to take positive measures of protection against the acts of other parties (including legislative, judicial and administrative acts, and also acts of non-government parties within Australia) where those acts constitute a breach of the obligations in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.