Search

Copyright of Intellectual Property / Dusevne Vlastnictvo is the property of Industrial Property Office of the Slovak Republic 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 contribution addresses the intersection of international human rights law and international economic law in situations where investors can bring claims under both protection systems. It discusses why multiple proceedings concerning one set of facts may be problematic and identifies situations in which duplication may occur. It presents instruments that have been developed at the domestic or international level to prevent this phenomenon. The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as well as of investment arbitral tribunals dealing with parallel or subsequent litigations. The conclusions set out whether the mechanisms used by arbitral tribunals and the ECtHR are adequate to deal with the phenomenon of potential multiple proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. Until today, the prevailing opinion is that precedent did not play a significant role in the legal system of Rome. However, a number of sources, in particular the papyrus entries of judgement which record the provincial legal practice in Roman Egypt in the period from the 1st to the 3rd centuries, say otherwise. The significant role of precedent in the legal system of Rome is also evidenced with the texts of M. Tullius Cicero, M. Fabius Quinctilian, Pseudo-Asconius, G. Julius Victor. Theoretical analysis. The study of these texts makes it possible to understand what terms the Romans used to denote an authoritative judicial decision, what semantic content they put into them, and how close this content is to the modern idea of a judicial precedent. To designate a court decision that becomes a model, and which judges will be guided by when considering other cases with similar circumstances, Roman talkers use the terms res iudicata, praeiudicium, and exemplum. The precedent, in its classical sense, contains the fundamental legal provisions formulated by the judge in relation to this case, which are usually denoted by the term ratio dicendi. The question arises whether the decision of the court in Rome could establish these legal principles followed by other judges. Empirical analysis. The answer to this question can be obtained by considering the case of the so-called Fulcinian Estate. Being the representative of Caecina in this case, Cicero warns the recuperators against accepting the arguments of his opponent, Piso, based on the legal consequences of their possible decision. Thus, in this case, the judges could issue a decision containing a new legal principle, formulate a generalized legal position in relation to this case. Results. Court decisions in the legal system of Rome had the power of authority. They possessed it for a reason, due to the generalized legal reasoning or legal principles formulated by the judges in relation to the situation under consideration. That is why they became precedents. There were many such court decisions in Rome, they had sufficient authority and contained certain legal principles that judges applied when considering cases with similar circumstances.

Since the reform of marriage nullity causes came into effect in 2015, the consensus has been that the peremptory nature of the time limits for introducing and pursuing an appeal applies only to pro nullitate judgments, not to pro vinculo judgments that may be subject to later appeal. From an exegetical, historical and dogmatic point of view, there are good reasons to hold that pro vinculo judgments also benefit from the peremptory nature of time limits for appeals. The peremptory status of such pro vinculo judgments is possible de iure condito, and both necessary and desirable de iure condendo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 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.)

Copyright of Süleyman Demirel Law Review / Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 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.)

In the context of international commercial arbitration, the doctrine of res judicata exists in a state of ambiguity. This article aims to transcend the principle's uncertain position by suggesting choice-of-law rules governing preclusive effects. First, an attempt at defining res judicata will demonstrate that while the doctrine is generally acknowledged to apply to arbitral awards, the definition of res judicata varies greatly across jurisdictions. This emphasizes the need for binding rules on the applicable law to prevent the disappointed party from pursuing re-consideration of their dispute. Second, it will be established that there is little common ground regarding the qualification of res judicata. The related controversies call attention to stumbling blocks on the road to enforcement and recognition. Third, contestants for the applicable law are discussed by taking a problem-oriented perspective. The law governing the process of res judicata (lex arbitri of the recognizing forum) and the law governing the interpretation of res judicata (lex arbitri of the issuing forum) will be presented, comprising ad hoc suggestions and approaches that require further explorations on an international level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though plenty of time has passed since the agere per formulas was the preeminent procedural system of classic Roman law, some characteristics of the res iudicata and the exceptio rei iudicatae remain nowadays. The res judicata of our time is regulated almost entirely by procedural codes and is still linked to the effects of judicial decisions, just as it was originally conceived. However, due to the constant evolution of law, the res judicata effect can be brought about not only by different types of judicial adjudications, but also by some contracts. This research article tackles the history and present of the res judicata, focusing on procedural and contractual law issues related to its formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto is the property of Universidad de Deusto 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 Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto is the property of Universidad de Deusto 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 conclusion of the trade agreement with United Kingdom, the post-Covid 19 recovery plans, the vaccination process and the launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe are some of the relevant events that have determined the first months of 2021 in the European Union (EU). In this evolving and changing context in which uncertainty is opening way to hope, the EU continues to face major challenges that are not new and will persist in the post-Covid era, among them climate change, external border management, immigration and threats to international security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La conclusión del acuerdo de comercio con el Reino Unido, los planes de recuperación post-Covid 19, el proceso de vacunación y la puesta en marcha de la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa son algunos de los acontecimientos relevantes que han marcado los primeros meses de 2021 en la Unión Europea (UE). En este contexto evolutivo y cambiante, en el que la incertidumbre va abriendo un hueco a la esperanza, la UE sigue afrontando desafíos de gran calado, que no son nuevos y que persistirán en la fase post Covid, entre ellos, el cambio climático, la gestión de las fronteras, la inmigración o las amenazas a la seguridad internacional.

The conclusion of the trade agreement with United Kingdom, the post-Covid 19 recovery plans, the vaccination process and the launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe are some of the relevant events that have determined the first months of 2021 in the European Union (EU). In this evolving and changing context in which uncertainty is opening way to hope, the EU continues to face major challenges that are not new and will persist in the post-Covid era, among them climate change, external border management, immigration and threats to international security.

El principio de seguridad jurídica tiene, como una de sus manifestaciones características, dentro del Estado de Derecho, la fuerza de cosa juzgada (res iudicata) que se atribuye a las sentencias o resoluciones judiciales equivalentes firmes, y que implica tanto su impugnabilidad como su potencial influencia en litigios posteriores que guarden una conexión con el asunto ya resuelto en firme. Sin embargo, es posible que estas decisiones judiciales firmes de jueces nacionales, por diversas causas (error, omisión, interpretación manifiestamente contraria, etc.) vulneren el Derecho de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, afecten tanto a su primacía como a su efectividad en sus relaciones con los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales. El Tribunal de Justicia ha tenido oportunidad de enfrentarse al dilema de ponderar el principio de fuerza de cosa juzgada con las primacía y efectividad del Derecho de la Unión en diversas sentencias. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo realizar una aproximación y revisar la jurisprudencia más importante al respecto hasta la actualidad. Recibido: 09 noviembre 2020 Aceptado: 17 mayo 2021

Reopening of criminal proceedings is a legal way to examine the factual basis of a final judgment based on an extraordinary legal remedy. The examination of the factual basis of the final judgment is initiated by the submission of a request for reopening the proceedings. This extraordinary remedy was established with the aim of establishing the truth in the criminal procedure, and is contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem. The factual deficiencies of a final judgment are remedied on the basis of new, or newly discovered facts, or evidence that arose after the finality of the judgment. Article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code envisages the reasons for repeating the criminal proceedings. They can be grouped in various ways. One of the groups includes new facts and evidence, as a reason for repeating the proceedings. First of all, there are new facts and evidence that per se or in concert with other evidence may lead to a acquittal, or a repudiation judgment, or condemnation on a more lenient law (Article 473, para. 1, point 3 of the CPC). This group also includes new facts and evidence indicating that the defendant did not commit any of the actions of an extended criminal offense, or other offence, which includes several acts (Article 473, para. 1, point 5 of the CPC). The new facts and evidence, which would lead to a milder criminal sanction, are another reason that we classify in this group (Article 473, para. 1, point 6 of the CPC). Finally, there are also new facts and evidence that the defendant was not properly summoned for the main trial, which was held in his/her absence (Article 473, para. 1, point 7 of the CPC). Compared with the procedural laws of other states, our CPC provides a lot of grounds for reopening the procedure. In this way, an adequate legislative framework was provided for making a more favorable decision on the defendant in the procedure for this extraordinary legal remedy. Although the envisaged grounds for reopening criminal proceedings constitute a satisfactory basis for instituting proceedings under this extraordinary legal remedy, further clarification de lege ferenda is necessary. Our procedural law prohibits reopening criminal procedure to the detriment of the defendant. The prescription of the repetition of the proceedings to the detriment of the defendant, in some future revision of the procedural code, would not be contrary to the Constitution, except that, in the case of the merits of the request, the outcome would have been the adoption of the declaratory judgment. There are also interpretations that the Constitution allows both the conduct of the proceedings and rendering the decision at the detriment of the defendant in the procedure for extraordinary legal remedies. In that case, in the future, a reduced number of grounds for reopening the proceedings should be envisaged at the detriment of the defendant.

The criminal trial is constrained within the bounds set by the indictment filed by the prosecutor. However, as it quite frequently happens, the initial description of the crime in the indictment requires further modifications in the course of the trial. Some of these modifications are rather trivial (date or other quantitative features, venue, etc.) but other, leading to a complete overhaul of the indictment, are quite problematic. As according to the judiciary neither legal qualification nor the description of the indicted crime is binding for the court, only the "historic event" provides bounds for such modifications. Unfortunately, recent Supreme Court rulings seem to be contradictory - some extend the boundaries of modifications to extreme (factual event regardless of its vagueness), while other limit that by claiming that the concept of "historic event" may not be so general to enable a de facto alternative indictment. Has „historic event" as criterion become a pure fiction? Are there any procedural mechanisms to secure the right to defense in case of modifications?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pandectele Române is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania 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.)

Artykuł dotyczy procesowych skutków prawomocnych decyzji prokuratora o zakończeniu postępowania karnego w konfrontacji z stosowaniem zakazu ne bis in idem. Analiza problemu przeprowadzona została w obrębie dwóch płaszczyzn tematycznych wyznaczonych zakresem obowiązywania zakazu ne bis in idem, tzn. w warunkach krajowych i w ramach współpracy z państwami członkowskimi Unii Europejskiej. W rozważaniach przyjęto, że prawomocne decyzje prokuratorskie o zakończeniu postępowania karnego stwarzają warunki do stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, gdy pojawia się próba ponownego wszczęcia postępowania karnego wobec tej samej osoby o ten sam czyn. Tendencja ta nie jest charakterystyczna wyłącznie dla systemu polskiego, ale widoczna jest także w ustawodawstwie karnoprocesowym innych państw członkowskich UE, budzi aprobatę w orzecznictwie Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej, ale ostrożną. W ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE dla wykładni art. 54 Konwencji wykonawczej do układu z Schengen pierwszoplanowe znaczenie ma orzecznictwo TSUE, w którym przede wszystkim wykorzystywana jest zasada wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych. Związek stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem z zasadą wzajemnego uznawania wyroków i orzeczeń sądowych w ramach współpracy karnej państw członkowskich UE wynika z fundamentalnej roli, jaką zasada ta pełni wobec regulacji przyjętych w Traktacie o funkcjonowaniu UE (Dział: Przestrzeń wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości). W artykule wykazano, że w przyjęta w polskim systemie karnoprocesowym koncepcja klasyfikowania zakazu ne bis in idem jako ujemnej przesłanki procesowej określonej w art. 17 § 1 pkt 7 Kodeksu postępowania karnego jest rozwiązaniem optymalnym przy założeniu, że skutek res iuducata systemowo zastrzeżony jest wyłącznie dla oceny orzeczeń sądowych. Zwrócono też w odpowiednim zakresie uwagę na znaczenie kwestii tożsamości czynu jako jednego z kryteriów stosowania zakazu ne bis in idem, aprobując powielaną, zwłaszcza w orzecznictwie TSUE, tezę, że w zaistniałej sytuacji niezbędne jest ustalenie, czy czyn, którego dotyczy prawomocne orzeczenie, jest tożsamy z podstawą faktyczną śledztwa lub dochodzenia, w którym postanowienie o umorzeniu postępowania ma zostać wydane z pominięciem oceny przyjętej kwalifikacji prawnej czynu lub interesu prawnego państwa.

Copyright of Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Nisu is the property of Law Faculty in Nis 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 Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat 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 Zagreb Law Review is the property of University of Zagreb Law School / Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu 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 Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & 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 Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho 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 is the first of a series of studies about estoppel in arbitration. Since estoppel is a common law doctrine, we consider the continental law system is not familiar with it, but given the globalization of law and the increasing use of arbitration to solve national and international disputes, a study about it must be made, not only for its theoretical interest but also to be used for the lawyers and arbitrators than might face the doctrine in a case or once they know it, they could eventually apply it. This first research, is the product of the project Interpretation and Application of Private Law that has been carried out by the Study Group on private law in Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. The purpose of the article is to show how in some cases it is possible to allow a third party in a subsequent lawsuit to assert collateral estoppel against one of the arbitral parties, through a new interpretation of that doctrine's elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Baurechtliche Blatter is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH 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.)