Search

Section 30P of the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 (hereafter PFA) is an important procedural tool that allows those dissatisfied with the Pension Funds Adjudicator's determinations to apply to the High Court for such determinations to be set aside. This article discusses this section and demonstrates that neither the legislature nor the courts have provided clarity on whether what is intended by this section is an appeal, a review or a reconsideration of determinations of the Pension Funds Adjudicator. It also illustrates the confusion that has been created by the courts with the High Court referring to this procedure as sui generis and the Supreme Court of Appeal, without referring to previous High Court decisions, referring to this procedure as an appeal in the wide sense. In this article a reflection on whether these two formulations are synonymous or if there is a need to settle for only one of them will be made. Furthermore, a call for judicial reconsideration of the applicability of the Plascon-Evan Rule in section 30P applications will be made in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 6th legal basis of Constitutional Court Decision 140/2018 analyzes the effects and scope of art. 96 of the Spanish Constitution. The unconstitutionality of Organic Law 1/2014 is dismissed in this decision, but this law is not in accordance with the international treaties signed by Spain related to universal jurisdiction. This decision has opened a doctrinal debate in Spain, in which it is mentioned for the first time the term «conventionality control». Whether art. 96.1 of the Spanish Constitution allows a control of conventionality, of a diffuse nature, prompts the analysis of the notion of such control in countries such as France or Italy, to immediately focus on the Spanish case. It could be convenient, also in this case, to reaffirm the concentrated nature of the Spanish constitutionality control system or, if preferred, not to erode the supremacy of the Constitutional Court over the ordinary courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of November 29, 2022 resolves an appeal filed by the Andalusian Regional Government against a judgment of the Andalusian High Court of Justice. The challenged judgment annulled the Management Plan of the Acebuchales ZEC (Special Conservation Area) in the southern countryside of Cádiz, arguing that the lands of the commercial entity Complejo Agrícola Las Lomas do not meet the requirements to be declared as a Special Conservation Zone. The Supreme Court determines that the exclusion of the estate from the scope of the Management Plan is in accordance with the law, despite a previous conviction that obliged the Autonomous Community to propose the modification of the SCI (Site of Community Importance). The court criticizes the negligent and disrespectful actions of the regional administration and considers that the owners should have sought judicial protection to assert their rights. The Court also mentions the possibility of resorting to the action of patrimonial responsibility for the functioning of the services. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of December 2, 2021 resolves an appeal in cassation filed by a sole proprietorship against a dismissive judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid. The case refers to a penalty imposed on the company for a serious offense in the hydrocarbon sector. The Supreme Court, aligning itself with the Community of Madrid and the High Court of Justice of Madrid, dismisses the appeal in cassation. The article analyzes the interpretation of Article 110 of Law 34/1998, which establishes serious offenses in the hydrocarbon sector. It is argued that this article typifies not only cases where there is a manifest danger to people, property, or the environment, but also those where there is no danger at all. It is maintained that this interpretation is necessary to guarantee control and safety in gas installations. A Supreme Court judgment supporting this interpretation is mentioned. [Extracted from the article]

Stemming from the analysis of court decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires, this article studies the behavior of the formulaic connective expression para mayor satisfacción, by means of which Justices introduce arguments which, though not used to found the decision, do in fact increase their decision's persuasive strength. It is through this device that Courts show that further reasons will be introduced to provide more and better responses to the issues requested and the defenses provided. We argue that para mayor satisfacción creates multiple interpretative links as this expression fulfills a triple connective function: contrast + addition + closing. We also show that this phrase is, in turn, usually part of complex connective constructions which are highly productive, as they not only mark a boundary between essential arguments and those which introduce further information, but they also collect and synthesize essential arguments as well as the conclusion or the decision these suppor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entry into force of the new Criminal Code brought back to the attention and discussion of legal practitioners and theoreticians the criteria that distinguish the continued offense from the concurrence of offenses. Although, subsequent to the Romanian Constitutional Court Decision no. 368/2017, it has practically returned to the existing regulation in the matter of the continued offense under the rule of the old Criminal Code, the concrete situations submitted to the attention of the courts continue to provoke theoretical controversies. This article aims to critically analyse the recent case law regarding the criteria considered by the courts when they delimit the existence of a concurrence of offenses or a single offense, in a continuous form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Press releases disseminate selected information and promote particular issues. Although several courts regularly publish press releases on decisions, it is unclear which policy issues are more likely to be promoted by courts. This study argues that courts publish press releases to increase transparency and promote politically contested issues strategically. Using original data on the German Federal Constitutional Court, it assesses the role of press releases for judicial agenda-setting. Policy issues in 7114 court decisions between 1998 and 2019 were coded through supervised text classification. The results show that the press releases cover a greater range of policy issues than the Court's decisions. They are more likely to be published for decisions that deal with politically contested issues. This study contributes to the policy agenda literature by adding a new case, the German Federal Constitutional Court, and court press releases as a new perspective. • The publication of press releases help constitutional courts to promote open justice. • Constitutional courts are more likely to publish press releases if decisions deal with politically contested policy issues. • Supervised classification methods can help systematically analyze large amount of legal text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]