Sentences with phrase «supremacy of»

The exhibition celebrated the supremacy of British manufacturing and was attended by Her Majesty Queen Victoria, along with her aunt, the Duchess of Gloucester.

Find out more about what we believe and value here.Spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.

Did they represent the supremacy of hate?

The supremacy of the biological relationship has also led to attempts to reformulate the best interest test in gender - free terminology.

About Blog Our mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things so that the next generation may know and cherish Jesus Christ as the only One who saves and satisfies the desires of the heart.

Find out more about what we believe and value here.Spreading a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.

Well, hundreds and hundreds of giant, humanoid, robot suits battling it out for supremacy of course.

The Bitcoin community appears to have little doubt as to the continued supremacy of Bitcoin's original chain post-fork

While it doesn't reach the gaming supremacy of the Razer Phone, the Honor 7X is still a strong gaming device for those not wanting to spend $ 700.

Apple is internally expanding tests of its new Apple Pay Cash feature, thus further intensifying the battle for the supremacy of the mobile payment ecosystem.

I'm right there with you on the excellence of Google's own Android software, the importance of a solid battery, and the unequaled supremacy of Google's Pixel cameras.

Philips has managed to cram the overhead surround sound supremacy of Dolby Atmos into a wire - mess - free soundbar.

Philips has managed to cram the overhead surround sound supremacy of Dolby Atmos into a wire - mess - free soundbar.The Philips Fidelio Soundbar was announced at CES 2016.

Fitbit Blaze did average performance, but Ionic is all set to challenge the supremacy of Apple Watch.

And the legal action does not as such question the supremacy of EU law; rather it's about the method of ending it.

Neither are really a concern or relevant from conflicts of law perspective domestically, because Shari'ah itself largely recognizes the legal supremacy of other systems for minority populations.

The supremacy of the Charter (which supersedes the AIAOD) means that the employer is subject to the duty to accommodate under the Charter when dealing with a workplace injury and the CSST must check whether the employer has completed this exercise.

In my next Slaw column, presently only in draft, I suggest that especially in an era of global political gloom, one needs to be grateful for the cleverness of the best lawyers and the published information and guidance that underpins them, to encourage the supremacy of law.

It is also the basis for the supremacy of European law over English law, where the two are incompatible (as held by the House of Lords in the Factortame case).

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.

It simply says that the supremacy of EU law (its own creation, not accepted as such by many national courts and legislatures) would be threatened.

Since retained EU law is domestic law, it makes no sense to think that the principle of the supremacy of EU law can attach to it.

Canada has always had an entrenched constitution, and Canadian courts have always invalidated Canadian laws inconsistent with it, although the legal rationale for this practice did indeed change in 1982, from the supremacy of Imperial law to the supremacy of the (Canadian) constitution.

In the Committee's view, the very notion of the supremacy of retained EU law is «conceptually flawed, sits uncomfortably with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is a potential source of legal confusion».

While the ICC is seeking cooperation and «a step back» from the ECJ, in fact, the opinion of the Advocate General reflects probably the most conservative and radical view on the supremacy of the EU legal order.

The Committee notes that what the Bill calls «the principle of the supremacy of EU law» only applies in the UK «because, and to the extent that, Parliament has so provided» in the European Communities Act 1972: a fact recognised in domestic jurisprudence and in the European Union Act 2011, s 18.

With its surprising subsequent history taught as part of the case, Cooper works better as a demonstration of how complex the constitutional system can be, rather than as a demonstration of the supremacy of judicial interpretation.

For one thing, the constitution does not «recognize the «supremacy of Parliament»» — those words appear nowhere in the Constitution Acts, and while Parliamentary sovereignty is arguably one of the constitution's underlying principles, it is subject to the limits imposed by constitutional text and other such principles.

But I am also convinced that further conversation between these wings of Anglo - American public law is important, for we are all struggling with the tension between the supremacy of law and the need for sound, politically responsive policy in a complex world.

Litigators rarely win swaps mis - selling claims in court against banks because of the «supremacy of contract in English law», according to Simon Duncan, solicitor at Moon Beever, in this week's NLJ.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

...» Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law.»

In his judgment, Lord Neuberger says: «In declaring subordinate legislation to be invalid in such a case, the court is upholding the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive.»

Either way, however, Anisminic stands as evidence that circumstances can and do arise in which the courts» commitment to an absolutist conception of the supremacy of Parliament is tested.

Rather, I suggested that there may exist a category of statutory provisions — including provisions permitting the executive branch to override judicial decisions — that are «so constitutionally egregious as to test the courts» commitment to the absolute supremacy of Parliament».

If the Supreme Court were to act thus it would be asserting an authority over Parliament that is flatly ruled out by our constitutional tradition: an assertion of judicial supremacy of this kind would be a coup not a judgment.

To avoid such a result, the court analysed in some detail how the doctrine of the supremacy of EU law and the requirement to «disapply» incompatible national legislation has been interpreted and applied by national courts.

However, it occurs to me that if, as has been hinted today by the Prime Minister, section 53 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act were redrafted so as to attempt to confer wide powers of Ministerial override of judicial decisions, such a provision might plausibly be considered to fall into that category — if it exists at all — of legislation so constitutionally egregious as to test the courts» commitment to the absolute supremacy of Parliament.

It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision - making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.»

Chester does not disturb the supremacy of the UK Parliament.

First, the approach taken by the German Constitutional Court years ago in respect of the supremacy of EU law over German constitutional fundamental rights, often described as the solange approach, seems to me to be well merited when it comes to addressing the relationship between national law and international law.

The Committee says this makes no sense: «We find it impossible to see in what sense «the principle of the supremacy of EU law», set out in clause 5, could meaningfully apply in the UK once it has left the EU.

As a result, there is no meaningful sense in which «the principle of supremacy of EU law» can apply to retained EU law, given that the latter is not EU law... The «supremacy principle» is the creation of the CJEU and a principle of EU law.

«The supremacy of the contractual agreement conferring the Code rights is preserved in the new legislation and means that telecoms operators will need to be more careful to ensure its contractual obligations are complied with, like any other commercial entity.

Thirdly, the doctrine of supremacy of EU law demands that in a case of conflict with national law, EU law should prevail.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee's proposal aimed to remove this confusion and achieve the effect of the supremacy of EU law indirectly.

The Government's amendments leave clause 5 in place, preserving the supremacy of EU law both in terms of disapplication and interpretation.

Supremacy of Law is an extended attempt to resolve, or at least cope with, the tension between those two positions.

In this context, it should be mentioned that, as it has been held by the Constitutional Court, the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution implies also a duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise legal acts which were passed before the entry into effect of the Constitution, while taking account of norms and principles of the Constitution, and to ensure a harmonious hierarchical system of legal acts which regulate the same relations (the Constitutional Court's rulings of 3 December 1997, 6 May 1998, 29 October 2003, and 5 March 2004).

The Constitutional Court has also held that the duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise all legal acts adopted by them before the entry into effect of the Constitution and which still remain in force, also the legal acts adopted by no longer existing institutions after the entry into effect of the Constitution and still remaining in force, which regulate the relations which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of a corresponding law - making subject, as well as legal acts, which had been adopted before the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and remained in force after restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and, after the entry into effect of the Constitution, regulate the relationships, which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, and assess their conformity with the Constitution within a reasonably short period, stems from the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court's ruling of 29 October 2003).