Search

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales 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.)

1. This letter is in response to Xiao Mao's thought-provoking article titled "Public-Interest Litigation before the International Court of Justice: Comment on The Gambia v. Myanmar Case". A central tenet of the article is that without being materially injured, The Gambia has been able to invoke the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court). [Extracted from the article]

The recent Judgment of the International Court of Justice on the Preliminary Objections in The Gambia v. Myanmar case infers the standing of The Gambia to bring claims before the Court from its "common interest" as a State party to the Genocide Convention. This sweeping approach entails risks of subjectivity and over-breadth. A more nuanced approach, taking into account other features of the treaty in question, should be adopted to determine what obligation would warrant the standing of a State to bring a claim before the Court in respect of its breach. In addition, the adversarial structure of the contentious proceedings of the Court and the procedural rules applicable to it are ill-suited to public-interest litigation, and significant reform of the procedural rules of the Court should be made in order to make public-interest litigation more effective before it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on voluntary payment of a sales tax prepayment of the previous year before maturity within the short time. It mentions determination of profit by means of an income surplus calculation only to be taken into account as an operating expense. It also mentions period specified for Section 11 (2) Clause 2 of Einkommensteuer (EStG) Income Tax Act and limited professional liability partnership.

More and more frequently, states resort to the ICJ, claiming the violation of international treaties and attempting to ground the jurisdiction of the Court on compromissory clauses contained therein. Despite the growing number of such cases, an analysis of recently rendered judgments on preliminary objections demonstrates that until now the Court has been unable or unwilling to identify and apply a coherent jurisdictional test to assess its jurisdiction ratione materiae. Some suggestions are formulated as for the test that the Court should apply to determine whether the claims presented by the applicant genuinely fall within the provisions of the international treaty containing the compromissory clause vel non. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House 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 Law & Justice Review is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey 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.)

As it is well known, the insolvency procedure involves the collaboration of the insolvent company, of the syndic judge, of the creditors and, of course, of the judicial administrator. Once the state of insolvency is established by the court, one of the first steps is to assess the debts of the insolvent company, and this action can be done only by communicating the state of insolvency to the creditors, in order to allow them to record their claims to the company. At this stage, an important role is that of the judicial administrator, who must work with all those involved in the procedure in order to determine the amounts owed to the creditors. The judicial administrator is not limited to receiving the creditors' requests. He must analyze each claim, must establish the amount claimed and ascertain whether that claim is based on a valid title. The prescription period affects the claim of any creditor, however, in the field of insolvency, the judicial administrator and not the debtor is the one who, researching the claim, will be able to reject it on the grounds of completion of the prescription period. According to the Law No 85/2006, currently repealed, sometimes, in practice, the judicial administrator did not investigate the basis of the creditor's right, considering that he was affected by the prescription period. This practice has been and is questionable, because, after a possible contrary decision of the court, it is not clear whether the foundation of the claim has been investigated, because, in the absence of observations, it can be considered that the judicial administrator did not formulate objections. The last insolvency regulation in Romania, namely the Law No 85/2014, has offered to the judicial administrator the right to stop the investigation if he considers that the respective claim is prescribed. In this study we will analyze whether the current regulation has improved the insolvency procedure, clearly giving this right to the judicial administrator. By studying the motivation of a case settled by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, we have concluded that there is no logical basis for recognizing the right to terminate the investigation of the claim if he considers that it is prescribed. On the contrary, this approach will, in our opinion, lead to the extension of the procedure to the detriment of the creditors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House 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 Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House 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.)

This article examines the concepts of retrospective and retroactive—both forms of ex post facto—law. It shows that although the distinction between retrospective and prospective law is difficult to draw (given that laws generally alter rights), the classification of particular laws as retrospective is not arbitrary, since the proposition that only some legal rules interfere with “vested” rights is, while vague, not meaningless. Retroactive legislation is recognized to attract a long list of objections. The article seeks to identify and assess those objections, and to provide a comprehensive account of the various possible (if invariably limited) justifications for retroactivity. The conclusion offers some brief reflections on why the complaint that a law operates ex post facto is less likely to be directed at a judicial decision than at a statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several litigation-related developments in New Zealand as of December 2012, focusing on an analysis of the rule of finality in relation to judgments which have been procured through fraud (fraud exception), as well assessments of several legal matters such as the New Zealand Supreme Court case Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd. Section 49 of the High Court Rules, which deals with objections to jurisdiction, is also examined.

The article discusses the decisions on the respondent's objection under rule 41(5) of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration rules. It presents information on two ICSID cases Trans-Global Petroleum, Inc. v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Brandes Investment Partners, LP v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela which have survived challenges under the rule 41 (5). Information on the review standards, applications and scope of rule 41 (5) is presented.

Two experiments produced evidence indicating that (1) simulated jurors instructed by a judge to disregard sensational inadmissible testimony do not appear to do so when rendering their verdicts; (2) an attorney's objection or judge's ruling on inadmissible testimony tends to "amplify" the influence of such information on jury verdicts and sentence recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a recent commentary in "The New England Journal of Medicine," in which George Annas reviews a Texas Supreme court opinion. The court became the first to authorize a physician to resuscitate an extremely premature infant over parental objections. The case raises anew an issue that the EPICure study describes as among the most difficult and trying clinical problems for obstetricians and pediatricians--the care of the fetus considered to be at the threshold of viability. The only issue raised in the case and addressed by the Texas Supreme Court was whose decision is it to determine whether or not to omit resuscitation for an extremely premature infant.

The article outlines the facts of a court case, in which the defendants were convicted of larceny of three cows. Upon appeal defendants assigned as error the charge given by the trial court, to which only general exception had been taken below. It was held that objection cannot be considered by the Supreme Court unless the subject matter of the objection has been properly excepted to at the trial. And the rule applies even when the error, as here, consists of an obviously incorrect charge as to the law of the case. It is worth noting that the erroneous charge, which the trial court gave of its own motion, was as follows: "The law is that where one is found in the possession of such property, it is prima fade evidence of his guilt of the larceny of that property." The statement is obviously incorrect: it denies the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, the affirmation of the judgment was based upon a well established rule, that objection will not be heard unless the ruling of the trial court has been the ground of a specific exception, advising the trial court of the objection so that it had an opportunity to modify or revise if such action should be deemed necessary.