Search

This article analyzes the current position of the Supreme Court regarding disputes related to changes in rent payments due to changes in the normative monetary valuation of land. An analysis of the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Land Code of Ukraine, which regulate the general principles of lease agreements, including land lease agreements and the specifics of leasing communal or state-owned land, has been conducted. The features of such agreements, as defined by the Law of Ukraine "On Land Lease," are considered. A conclusion is made about the civil-law, dispositive nature of the contract. Attention is focused on the peculiarities of determining the amount of rent, the procedure for paying rent under agreements for the lease of communal and state-owned land plots. The provisions of the Tax Code of Ukraine regarding land payment in the form of rent for communal or state-owned land plots are examined in detail. The relationship between the normative monetary valuation of a land plot and the amount of rent under the agreement is investigated. The conditions for changing the normative monetary valuation of a land plot are listed. A conclusion is made about the presence of imperative elements when concluding the described category of agreements. The previous practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding disputes that arose between the parties to the lease agreement of communal or state-owned land plots concerning changes in rent payments due to changes in the normative monetary valuation of the land plot is analyzed. The current practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding this category of disputes is also studied. Based on the comparison of the positions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, conclusions are drawn regarding the peculiarities of changes in the legal position and possible preconditions for such changes. The advantages and disadvantages of the new practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the described category of cases are highlighted. Possible scenarios for the development of legal relations between lessors and lessees in light of new court decisions are considered. The prospects for further development of legislation in this area and possible directions for improving the regulatory framework, taking into account modern challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims on decisions in enforcement proceedings. It is determined that the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims on decisions in enforcement proceedings finds its manifestation in a number of provisions of legislation. The article cites these provisions of the legislation on enforcement proceedings and analyzes them. It is pointed out that the essence of the principle of proportionality of measures of compulsory execution of decisions and the volume of claims on decisions is always associated with the need to ensure and respect the rights of the debtor. However, in the author’s opinion, this principle should also reflect another important aspect of enforcement proceedings – sufficiency of enforcement measures for the actual execution of the decision. This side should also be enshrined in the content of the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims under the decisions. It is concluded that the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims under decisions should not be considered narrowly enough. Scientific positions concerning the legal regulation of the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims under decisions are studied. The opinion is supported that in the legislation on enforcement proceedings it is necessary to formulate a separate article devoted to the content of the principle of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims on decisions. Separate aspects of determining the criteria of proportionality of measures of compulsory execution of decisions and the volume of claims under decisions and judicial practice have been studied. On the basis of the analysis it is concluded that an important general criterion of proportionality of measures of forced execution of decisions and the volume of claims on decisions is the criterion of legality of the executor’s actions developed by the judicial practice of the Supreme Court. The criterion of proportionality should be the focus of the executor’s actions to ensure the fulfillment of the final court decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper systematizes and compares, based on the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions, four pairings of concepts that arise from discussions on the operability of the presumption of innocence in the AngloAmerican legal system. The article illustrates that the partial conclusions in each of these comparisons must be reached by arguments consistent with the normative foundation of the presumption of innocence principle in order to find the defining characteristics of said principle. Ultimately, the paper sets forth a definition of the presumption of innocence that encompasses each of the partial conclusions thus reached. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of April 3, 2024 resolves an administrative appeal filed by Mercantil against Royal Decree 35/2023, which approves the revision of the hydrological plans of several hydrographic basins. The appeal challenges provisions related to the use of desalinated water and argues that this water cannot be considered external resources and must be subject to the administrative concession regime. The Supreme Court concludes that desalinated water is part of the public hydraulic domain and its use is subject to concessions and authorizations granted by the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Court dismisses the appeal and establishes that previous agreements are not sufficient for the exclusive use of desalinated water. The judgment reinforces the perspective that desalinated water is a public hydraulic domain asset and must be used rationally. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Federal Supreme Court Cassation Division reviews cases based on cassation petition against final court decisions when they contain a fundamental error of law. Such decisions of the Cassation Division rendered by five judges are binding on lower courts. This article reviews cassation decisions for content and form under six categories. It also reviews how the Cassation Court sees its role to better contextualise the effectiveness of those decisions. It finds that the Cassation Division sees itself as part of a court, not an independent judiciary based on separation of powers, and its decisions show significant deference to administrative decisions, and heavy-handed interpretation and application of the rules of criminal and administrative laws. In civil cases, it shows strict interpretation of statutes; it does not resort to principle-based interpretation of rules; it rather interprets statutes as any other ordinary court does. Even if continental legal systems do not envisage case laws through their judicial decisions, courts are not expected to merely rely on the literal readings of the law where such readings are silent, absurd, unreasonable, inconsistent, and contrary to legislative intent. With regard to the form the judgments are written, there are decisions that are not befitting a Cassation Division, the highest judicial organ in Ethiopia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of November 2, 2023 resolves the appeals filed by the Government of Catalonia, the Barcelona City Council, and the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona against a previous judgment that upheld the contentious-administrative appeal filed by several transport associations against an ordinance of the Barcelona City Council. The Supreme Court confirms the previous judgment and declares that the appeals filed by the recurring administrations are not admissible. The text presents arguments related to the repeal of an ordinance and its impact on the sanctioning regime. It mentions a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union that condemns Spain for non-compliance with Directive 2008/50/EC on air quality. The importance of environmental protection is highlighted, and principles related to sustainable development are mentioned. A debate is raised about the weighing of fundamental rights, and the need for reliable information to take appropriate measures is mentioned. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia has issued several judgments questioning the Barcelona Atmospheric Environmental Protection Ordinance. The court considers that the territorial delimitation of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) is too broad and that the restrictive measures adopted are not proportionate. In addition, it criticizes the lack of updating of the pollution data used and the lack of motivation and evaluation of alternatives in the drafting of the regulation. The Supreme Court has confirmed the judgments of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia declaring the invalidity of the Barcelona Ordinance that restricted the circulation of polluting vehicles in the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). The Supreme Court argues that the Ordinance has not been adequately justified, nor have the effects of the measures adopted been evaluated in terms of proportionality. Furthermore, it points out that conclusive reports have not been taken into account, nor has the economic and social impact of the imposed restrictions been considered. As a result, the Barcelona City Council has approved a new Ordinance with a more limited territorial scope and includes social improvements. The article highlights the importance of adequately justifying restrictive measures and complying with the corresponding legal requirements. The Supreme Court Judgment STS 4853/2023, issued on November 2, 2023, is mentioned as a reference. No additional information is provided about the content of the judgment. [Extracted from the article]

The ability of a corporation to exercise constitutional protections has been rife with uncertainty and change since the conception of corporate rights came into existence. The history and rapid development of the corporation, combined with the misapplied and misunderstood “corporate personhood” theory, have resulted in an almost unintelligible hodgepodge of corporate constitutional applications. Similarly, the concept of the right to bear arms has equally been muddled and applied very differently at varying times and locations since before the establishment of the Second Amendment. This Article attempts to clarify how an alternative to the “corporate personhood” theory, namely the “purpose” theory is increasingly relied on by the Supreme Court to more consistently and transparently extend or restrict constitutional rights. Purpose analysis provides a sound legal basis to conclude that the Second Amendment should also be applied to corporations. In recent years, the Supreme Court has dramatically increased the rights of corporations. Simultaneously the Court has also significantly augmented the right of Americans to possess and publicly carry a vast array of firearms. However, the Court has never said whether this right is one possessed by corporations. Nevertheless, the reasoning in many cases generally dealing with corporate rights and gun rights, including the Court’s most recent Second Amendment case, point to the answer that corporations are entitled to the right to bear arms. While there is an understandable amount of antipathy on the part of many scholars to expanding Second Amendment rights in the manner that the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen did, a corporate right to bear armsdoes not reflect the same risks discussed in Bruen. Currently, there is a split in whether lower courts have held in favor of corporations (or other collectives) having Second Amendment rights, and this disagreement could and should eventually come before the Supreme Court. Whether one agrees with the outcome of Bruen or not, purpose analysis, which entails judicial examination of the purpose behind particular constitutional provisions to determine their boundaries, dictates that corporations should have Second Amendment rights. Indeed, corporations’ interests in these rights are rooted in and further the key purposes of the Second Amendment: self-defense, protection of third parties, and defense of property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental is the property of Universitat Rovira I Virgili and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Supreme Court Judgment of October 18, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Júcar River Basin Authority against a judgment of the Higher Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. The case refers to the responsibility of a City Council for the discharge of wastewater from an urbanization. The Supreme Court determines that the reception of the urbanization works is necessary for the City Council to be considered responsible for the discharges, and dismisses the appeal of the City Council of Pego against the sanction imposed by the Júcar River Basin Authority. The article highlights the importance of completing the urbanization before authorizing the occupation of the buildings and points out that the omission of administrative powers by the City Councils can generate illegal situations. The Judgment STS 4344/2023 of the Supreme Court establishes that municipalities are responsible for illegal discharges into public watercourses from urbanizations with unreceived urbanization works. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Journal of Language & Law / Revista de Llengua i Dret is the property of Revista de Llengua i Dret and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The judgment of the Supreme Court commented on here was devoted to the limitation of claims. One of the members of the partnership (the general partner) violated the non-competition clause and caused damage to the partnership. Another member (the limited partner) sued him for compensation for this damage. The Supreme Court adopted a resolution specifying the beginning of the limitation period for a claim to redress the damage caused. The legal assessment of the Supreme Court is correct. If the violation of the prohibition of competition consists in repeated behaviour, the claims of a partner provided for shall expire after six months from the date when all other partners became aware of the violation, but not later than after three years, counted separately for each behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution transformed the Constitutional Court from a specialist in constitutional matters to a generalist appellate court. Following this amendment, the Court has demonstrated ample willingness to accept its newfound role as the super appellate court in all areas of South Africa's law, and the limits supposedly imposed on the Court's jurisdiction by Section 167(3)(b) of the Constitution have developed and evolved through a jurisprudence riddled with inconsistencies. This article briefly illustrates these inconsistencies in support of its main claim, which is that it is problematic that the Court acts as a generalist court of appeal over decisions of specialised courts, especially when those decisions require engagement with complex factual assessments that fall outside the realm of the Court's expertise. To demonstrate this, the Court's jurisprudence and experience is compared in the specialised areas of labour law and competition law. This exercise indicates that in areas where the Court possesses expertise similar to what is statutorily envisaged for the relevant specialist courts, such as labour law, it has contributed positive developments that have given content to constitutional rights. On the other hand, the Court's jurisprudence in competition law is a disturbing indication of the shortcomings of the present system in terms of which the Court, without acknowledging its limited competition expertise, has overturned expert factual and economic findings of the competition courts. In the process, this has created uncertainty and undermined the legislative intent of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. This conundrum needs to be remedied through deliberate interventions to enhance the Court's competition expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court ruling of July 17, 2023 resolves an administrative appeal filed by the City Council of Orihuela against Royal Decree 638/2021, which modifies Royal Decree 773/2014 regarding the transfer through the Tajo-Segura aqueduct. The Supreme Court denies the active legitimacy of the City Council and declares the appeal inadmissible, as it considers that the Royal Decree does not affect the autonomy or the assets or rights of the Corporation. The court argues that the contested regulation mainly affects supralocal interests and does not justify the need for substitute representation by the City Council. Therefore, the appeal filed by the City Council of Orihuela is declared inadmissible. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of September 4, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Valencian Government against a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community. The Supreme Court must address three issues related to strategic environmental assessment, gender impact reports, and the requirement for alternative studies. The Supreme Court accepts the arguments of the Valencian Government and annuls the contested judgment. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of June 30, 2023 resolves the appeals filed by the Extremadura Regional Government, the City Council of Cáceres, and the entity Soluciones Extremeñas de Recuperación, SL, against a previous judgment that had declared the nullity of a specific amendment to the Municipal General Plan of Cáceres. The Supreme Court determines that the approval of a specific amendment to an urban planning instrument that modifies uses in non-urbanizable protected land, while maintaining the classification, may violate the principle of non-regression in environmental protection. Therefore, it rejects the appeals filed. [Extracted from the article]

In the next Supreme Court term beginning in October 2023, the Justices will hear argument on whether the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), passed as part of the Trump administration's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), violates the Sixteenth Amendment. Even if the Moores win on their individual MRT refund suit, the MRT on corporate shareholders could survive-and that tax on mega-companies that have retained billions in overseas affiliates forms the most significant part of the expected MRT tax. Even if the Court agrees that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes accrual-based taxation, making an annual mark-to-market accrual income tax such as that under section 475 constitutional, the Court could possibly conclude that the MRT look-back period is an unreasonably long period for taxation under the accrual method. [Extracted from the article]

We examine the effect of a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding abortion laws on Americans' preferences for political candidates. The decision was leaked in advance of the official announcement, and we track the evolution of political preferences from before to after the leak and, eventually, to after the formal announcement. The abortion issue was already very important to voters before the leak, but the Court's decision did not simply make it more important for everyone. We find that the decision decreased the importance weight of abortion for Republicans, while increasing it for independents/nonvoters. Further, the decision increased Republican support for candidates who want to ban abortions although this effect is diminished for candidates that oppose exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health. Nonaffiliated voters move sharply away from candidates who want to ban abortions without exceptions. The decision also resulted in a lasting polarization along gender lines whereby men became more likely to vote for a candidate that supports a ban on abortion, while women are less likely to support candidates that ban abortions. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, marketing. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4802. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The commentary contains a criticism of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court, in which the problem of the constitutionality of limitations on the openness of administrative court proceedings in proceedings before the Provincial Administrative Court has been reduced to linking the statutory limitation with the constitutional value enabling such a limitation. The Supreme Administrative Court did not conduct a proportionality test. Carrying it out and taking into account the normative and factual context, would imply a statement that the restrictions at the time of issuing the challenged judgement of the Provincial Administrative Court were not even useful for a specific purpose. They also did not meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality in the strict sense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

School administrators have often been admonished that it is illegal for teachers and other employees to pray in front of students. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, also known as "the praying football coach" decision, appears to have changed that, but many questions remain as to the extent and implications of this unprecedented U.S. Supreme Court decision. This article describes why this court case was so significant. It summarizes the relevant facts of the case and the Court's majority and dissenting opinions. The article also provides school leaders with guidance about how to respond to this seminal case by concluding with five implications of the Court's decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) is the property of Sakarya University Journal of Law Faculty (SHD) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nuevo Foro Penal is the property of Universidad EAFIT and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law is the property of Espaco Juridico: Journal of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos is the property of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Supreme Court Judgment of February 8, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by Naturgy Generación S.L. against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia. The appeal refers to the taxable base in the Special Coal Tax and whether the "higher calorific value" or gross (HCV) or the "lower calorific value" or net (LCV) should be taken into account. The Supreme Court considers that the taxable base of the tax is constituted by the energy power of coal, expressed in gigajoules (GJ), taking into consideration the higher calorific value of coal. This decision is based on the environmental purpose of the tax. [Extracted from the article]

The research investigates the reasons behind the surge in the number of expulsion cases awaiting resolution by the Constitutional Court of Hungary during the initial year of the pandemic by conducting an analysis. Identity between the cases examined can be discovered along issues related to factual and legal merits, which in several cases is the cause of the problem and the effect of which draws attention to the right to an effective remedy. The study focuses on the factual and legal issues of decisions on expulsion and entry and residence bans from the point of view of legally established third-country nationals residing in Hungary. The study explores Constitutional Court and high court decisions of the period compared to the relevant case law of the Supreme Court in a comprehensible manner and digs up the roots of the identified common problems. Exploring the legal basis in the light of basic international and EU law obligations, both access to classified documents and a system of appeal against decisions constitute a set of complex, completely independent and unrelated procedures, that ultimately means that the facts on which the expulsion is based, which are also particularly difficult to ascertain, cannot be effectively disputed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Tega Esabunor v Faweya & Ors (2019) LPELR 46961 (SC) dismissed an appeal seeking to quash the order of a magistrate court for the transfusion of blood to a baby. The appellants contended that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order. The crux of the case was whether the parents' right to consent to the child's treatment based on religious beliefs supersedes the child's right to live, thus reflecting the tension between a parent's right to give consent to the choice of treatment for their child, and the court's power to override such rights through the inherent parens patriae jurisdiction of the state. The case also reflects the tension between the freedom of a parent to practise their religion and the right of a child to live, in the medical context. This article examines the findings of the Supreme Court in Tega Esabunor's case, considering whether the court's decision is in line with the generally accepted practice on when the state can intervene if persons with parental responsibility refuse medical treatment for an incompetent child because of religious beliefs. Cases from other jurisdictions are analysed to ascertain the position of foreign courts. It is submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment reflects accepted international practice regarding parental refusal of consent for medical treatment of a child. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution takes a look at the recent Google Android judgement of the General Court as a case study of antitrust informed by behavioural economics - the study of not fully rational economic agents. It contrasts the General Court's pragmatic approach to economic evidence to the U.S. Supreme Court's willingness to delve into economic theory, where the latter can prove more of an obstacle to the development of behavioural antitrust. It further concedes that cases relying on behavioural theories of harm can prove to be less predictable from a legal standpoint. This, nevertheless, does not obviate older legal tests, which might just need to be reformulated as requiring an analysis of effects, in line with the General Court's rhetoric on the necessity to avoid false convictions in such cases. Lastly, the contribution argues that the relevance of behavioural antitrust will not fade in its entirety with new regulatory tools addressing similar issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 9, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by the Central Union of Irrigators against the lack of execution of the administrative act regarding the request for environmental information from the Segura Hydrographic Confederation. The Supreme Court determined that the silence produced should be considered negative, applying the Transparency Law 19/2013. The judgment establishes that the Administration's silence in response to a request for environmental information should be interpreted in a negative sense and highlights the need to review Law 27/2006 to establish a legal framework specific to the right of access to environmental information. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of January 30, 2023 resolves an appeal filed by a commercial company against a judgment issued by the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León. The appeal refers to the exemption of taxes on hydrocarbons for the production of electricity from biogas. The Supreme Court determines that the production of electricity from biogas falls within the framework of promoting renewable energies and, therefore, enjoys direct exemption, while the production of energy from fossil sources may establish exceptions for environmental reasons. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Land and land rights remain a contested issue in South Africa. Grobler v Phillips centered on the eviction of an 86-year-old woman, Mrs Phillips, and her disabled son from property she had lived on since she was 11 years old. After a fourteen-year court battle the Constitutional Court granted an eviction order against Mrs Phillips. This case note consists of a discussion of the judgments of the Magistrate's Court, High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court. It is found that the Constitutional Court erred in its decision as it applied a formalistic approach, disregarded the narrative of the occupier and did not sufficiently challenge the current neo-liberal regime in which property rights operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presented paper is devoted to the Czech Supreme Administrative Court's approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine from the perspective of deciding asylum issues. Specifically, the author focuses on the principle of non-refoulement and breaking the standard rules of administrative court proceedings and Ukraine as a safe country of origin. Finally, the author describes a relatively recent Czech Supreme Administrative Court's ruling in which it addressed the issue of including temporary protection within the international protection system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The highlight assigned to the Brazilian Supreme Court in trials of political opponents is observed in the Vargas State. In the intersection of the Vargas government, the historical judgment of Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936 in favor of Maria Prestes - codename of Olga Benário. Is evident the singularities of the case and its intertwining with the political and historical context enhance the object. This study aims to analyze the political reflexes in the Brazilian Supreme Court during the interstitium between 1930 and 1936 and how they impacted the induction and outcome of Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936. Under the epistem of qualitative research, historical research in Law and the case study are associated, examining the political scenario in which Habeas Corpus n. ° 26.155/1936 was inserted; it enunciates actions of the Executive Power that had repercussions in the Supreme Court; the founding elements of Olga Benário's defense thesis and the outcome of the trial are presented; it is maked an analysis of the state of the art of the correlation between Justice and Politics from the perspective of the use of law for political ends. Finally, it is understood, from the conceptual framework of Political Justice, its applicability in the context of Habeas Corpus 26.155/1936. [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]

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A widely held view for why the Suprerne Court would be right to revive the nondelegation doctrine is that Congress has pei-uerse incentives to abdicate its legislative role and euade accountability through the use of delegations (either expressly delineated or implied through statutory imprecision), and that enforcement of the nondelegation doctrine would correct for those incentives. We call this the Field Of Dreams Theory-(f we build the nondelegation doctrine, Congress will legislate. Unlike originalist arguments for the revival Of the nondelegation doctrine, this theory has widespread appeal and Ls instrumental to the Court's project of gaining popular acceptance of a greater judicial role in policing congressional decisions regarding delegation. But Ls it true? In this Article, we comprehensively test the theory at the state level, using two original datasets: one comprising all laws passed by state legislatures and the other comprising all nondelegation decisions tri the state supreme courts. Using a variety of measures and methods, and in contrast with the one existing study on the subject, we do obserue at least some statistically measurable decrease in delegation, if only by cert tain measures. However, when put in context, these findings are underwhelming compared to the predictions of the Field of Dreams Theory. For instance, we observe that, even ii, here it exists. this effect is substantively small and on par with a number Qf other factors that influence delegation-our best estimate is that nondelegation cases explain about 1.5% of the variation in delegation. Moreouer, we also.jind some evidence that is directly contrary to the Field of Dreams Theory-that is, we Jind evidence that enforcement Of the nondelegation doctrine actually leads to more implied delegation in the jbrrn of vague and precatory statutory language. These findings haue direct relevance to contemporary debate and cases entertaining a reuitalization of the nondelegation doctrine in the federal courts. First, the findings that enforcement of the doctrine can prospectively decrease legislative delegation suggest that there maw be something to the Field of Dreams Theory, although that in turn raises the stakes of debates over whetherless delegation would actually be good for public welfare. Second, euen though there is an effect, the weakness of that effect, both in an absolute sense and relative to otherfactors, undermines the overblown clairns that the nondelegation doctrine could fundamentallu transform how government works. And finally, our finding that judicial decisions enforcing the nondelegation doctrine can sometimes lead to more implied delegation through imprecise statutory language suggests that there may be unintended consequences from giving the nondelegation doctrine a new lease on lue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opponents of the administrative state have chosen doctrine, not legislation, as their preferred tool to restructure administrative governance in the United States. As a result, courts may soon decide that the nondelegation doctrine is insufficiently robust. While the justification for giving teeth to the nondelegation doctrine typically rests on trying to democratize the administrative state or to encourage Congress to speak more precisely, creating a robust nondelegation doctrine would, however, only empower the courts at Congress's expense. This Article argues that making a robust nondelegation doctrine would be an example of judicial self-aggrandizement. To explain why the Supreme Court would only be empowering itself, this Article describes judicial aggrandizement and argues that it is best understood as a type of institutional change motivated by ideas. Drawing on original research on William Howard Taft and his decision in J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, this Article demonstrates that ideas about judicial empowerment structured the initial shifts from a separation-of-powers system into a separation-of-powers doctrine that courts must enforce. Taft successfully used Supreme Court decisions to aggrandize the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole. The same ideas continue to structure the courts' role in the constitutional system. Creating a robust nondelegation doctrine requires endorsing the same ideas and further entrenching the Supreme Court as the final arbiter over core questions of constitutional self-governance. A robust nondelegation doctrine would be yet another example of judicial self-aggrandizement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]