Search

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 issue of plagiarism has raised many theoretical and practical discussions. Also, the legal basis was not clear enough and certain misunderstandings have created the premises for losing the title of doctor. Arrived in court, the trials were judged differently. In 2022, the Constitutional Court pronounced Decision no. 364, one of the clearest decision of the court, and the issue was settled in a transparent manner. The current study will analyze the implications of this decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia 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 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.)

What is 'a court of a similar status to the High Court' and does it have the power to declare an Act of Parliament or executive conduct constitutionally invalid in terms of Section 172 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996? In this article I attempt to provide an answer to these questions. First, in defining a court of a similar status to the High Court, I defend the High Court's constitutional significance over courts established by statute. I argue that the power to invalidate Acts of Parliament and executive conduct inheres in the High Court because it is a lowercase-c constitutional court as opposed to a statutory court whose powers are limited to only those vested by a statute. This, I argue, has implications for a statutory court's competence to exercise the Section 172 power, contrary to the Constitutional Court's own jurisprudence. Beyond this, I argue that the phrase 'a court of a similar status to the High Court' merely indicates that that court has powers similar to those of the High Court when exercising its inherent jurisdiction in order to act equitably and reasonably in fulfilling its functions and nothing more. Second, I turn my attention to the jurisprudence of the Special Tribunal which has recently declared itself a court possessed of the Section 172 power and explain why, as a matter of constitutional law, it cannot possess the power of judicial review. Third, I will propose a framework for understanding the constitutional jurisdiction of courts other than, and courts of a similar status to, the High Court by drawing on and critiquing decisions of the Constitutional Court that have often been contradictory and poorly reasoned, and that have caused the confusion now pervasive in specialist court jurisprudence. I will conclude by arguing that the distinction between constitutional courts and statutory courts on the one hand, and between courts and tribunals on the other hand, as well as the allocation of the Section 172 power, recognises constitutional courts as a constitutive part of the state's ultimate political authority which is not subject to revocation by Parliament through legislation, and that our understanding of constitutional jurisdiction should reflect that. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Privado (0123-4366) is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departmento de Derecho Civil 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 de Derecho Privado (0123-4366) is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departmento de Derecho Civil 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 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]

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 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]

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Split / Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu is the property of Split Faculty 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.)

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]

The article focuses on the creation of the Constitutional Court in 1994 in South Africa and its judgments from 1995 to 2012. Topics mentioned include the different reasons the Court rejected some of the cases during that time and invalidated others, its direct access, and the several applications for leave to appeal against judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal and other different courts.

The international protection given to the right to water has increased over the last decades, with two United Nations' resolutions establishing a freestanding right to water in 2010. Several countries have a right to water enshrined in their constitutions, while in other countries, this right has been recognised by the courts. This study aims to assess whether and how Brazilian courts are deciding water-related conflicts using the "right to water" frame, what the content given to this right is, and whose rights are protected. We created a comprehensive database of decisions issued by Brazilian courts at different levels containing the expression "right to water". Our main findings are that the great majority of decisions are from lower courts and were issued on individual cases related to water supply. Further, we have seen that courts are frequently prohibiting the disconnection of water supply services when extreme vulnerability is argued. The same has been seen in other Latin American countries, such as Argentina, Colombia, and Costa Rica, with the one main difference that in these countries, the right to water has been carved out by the Constitutional Courts. The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, which has the last word on the interpretation of the constitution, has not issued any decisions establishing a right to water, but there is legal mobilisation aiming for this and using UN resolutions as a key argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 13 February 2006, the Constitutional Court of Croatia issued a very important judgment in which it resolved a difficult situation created by divergent judgments of the Administrative Court of Croatia in which The Administrative Court ruled on decisions made by the Croatian Competition Agency. The Administrative Court's judgments diverged in the interpretation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the European Community. In the ongoing pre-accession period it is of great importance to instruct the Croatian judiciary how and when the criteria and standards of the comparative law of the European Community should be applied. This is especially important in cases which involve the Croatian Constitutional Court. as its primary function is to preserve the division of powers in Croatia. According to the Administrative Disputes Act, an administrative dispute can be initiated against the decisions of administrative bodies against which appeals are not permitted, in other words before the Administrative Court. Given that the largest part of the European acquis communautaire relates to administrative law. the focus points of the application of European law in Croatia will be administrative legislation, administrative proceedings and administrative law in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article talks about the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The decisions of the court in every case are diverse, compelling, and very significant to the people of the state. The justices and Chief Justice are committed to the work of the court and the quality of justice being delivered in Wisconsin's courtrooms. Moreover, the court's 2004-2005 term was discussed.

The Supreme Court's decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases ushered in a new era of rigorous judicial oversight of regulations aimed at shaping the economic structure of the media industry. The Turner decisions, and especially their application by lower courts, have expanded the range of regulations subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny, consistently granted lower levels of deference to legislative and administrative judgments, and applied a degree of economic scrutiny of regulatory choices unseen since the Lochner era. In this Note, Michael Burstein argues that such scrutiny is inappropriate in light of the quickening pace of technological and economic change that marks the modern information environment. He observes that the technological balkanization of First Amendment jurisprudence has outlived its usefulness and that applying a unitary standard to all activities of a particular type of media fails to focus judicial attention on the entity's core speech activities. Instead, Burstein proposes that courts draw a distinction between regulations that impact content production or editorial choices and those which aim to structure the distribution of information. The former remain deserving of heightened scrutiny, but the latter implicate a long tradition of allowing government regulation to improve the information order. Because government necessarily must make choices among competing instrumental arrangements, none of which implicates a particular normative theory of the First Amendment, such choices are entitled to judicial deference. As technology blurs the lines between different media outlets, this framework should provide the needed flexibility to protect the First Amendment interests of both media entities and the public they serve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the separate opinions issued in divided cases by the justices of the Supreme Court of Delaware from 1997-2003. Attributes of the Delaware court system; Overview of the decisions of Delaware's high court from 1997-2003; Purpose of a prototypical high court study.

Courts have long held that takings are to be valued by the fair market value of the property taken. While this standard is easy to articulate, its application in specific cases is often less straightforward leading courts, on occasion, to adopt new compensation rules to supplement or replace fair market value. The Supreme Court's recent opinion, Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, is just such a case. In Brown, the Court preserved the State of Washington's IOLTA program by holding that takings are to be valued by the property owner's net harm. Applied literally in future cases, the Court's net harm rule threatens to create even greater inconsistency within already convoluted takings law. This Essay argues instead that the Court's net harm rule should be read as a species of fair market value. Properly understood, Brown's holding is consistent with numerous valuation cases, an insight that demonstrates the breadth of the fair market value standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments of the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals. Supreme Court jurisdiction of appeals and writs of error; Provisions of the Judicial Code which grants appellate jurisdiction over the district courts; Determination of the appealability of cases from the District Court.