Search

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]

The article examines the essence of the principle of proportionality in the field of taxation, analyzes the components of the principle and the specifics of their application with regard to protection of rights and legitimate interests of taxpayers. The author establishes that the essence of the principle of proportionality in the field of taxation is that taxes and fees established with the aim of financial support of the State's activities should be consistent with the possibility of taxpayers to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms. According to the principle of proportionality, the actions of the state must be strictly adapted to the legitimate goals and objectives to be achieved, and the measures applied must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the established goals and objectives. It is established that the principle of proportionality in the field of taxation is characterized by several key components: 1. Access to rights and freedoms should not depend on: payment or non-payment of taxes and fees by a person; the amount of taxes and fees paid; 2. The tax burden should not be excessive, and the taxes themselves should not be too burdensome. The application of the principle of proportionality in the field of taxation is one of the key aspects of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms. It requires that the tax burden be distributed fairly, transferred to the taxpayer in an economically justified manner, and reflect their capabilities. Failure to comply with proportionality can lead not only to violations of fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms, but also to the de-shadowing of the economy, thus undermining the economic foundations of the state, leading to economic decline and destabilization of the country, contributing to the growth of crime, etc. 3. Tax restrictions and measures relating to taxpayer rights should not be excessive, and sanctions should not be too burdensome. In this context, it is important to assess not only the immediate consequences of sanctions for achieving the goals of the legal provision and protecting public order, but also possible long-term effects on the offender, including his economic condition, social status and the possibility of correction. Such an approach requires a balance between the need for effective law enforcement and prevention of repeated violations, on the one hand, and the prevention of excessive punishment, which may lead to disproportionate infringement of individual rights and freedoms, on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Angle Health Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd. 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.)

Some years ago, a group of authors described and criticized a way of approaching the interpretation of human rights that conceives it as a task consisting of resolving conflicts between rights. This position was termed "conflictivist." The critique targeted the concept of human rights that lies behind conflictivism and its projections on the absolute and universal nature that is claimed regarding these very special rights. This article aims to account for the current state of that critique and some of the objections it received, and to lay the foundations for an alternative proposal, the "harmonization of rights". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) 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 article is devoted to the research of the principles of organization and activity of the European Prosecutor's Office. The activities of the European Prosecutor's Office are based on principles that ensure the effectiveness and legality of its functioning, as well as guarantee the observance of the rights and freedoms of individuals. It was determined that according to the principle of independence, the European Public Prosecutor's Office acts in the interests of the EU, is free from any influence and does not seek instructions from any subjects. EU institutions, bodies, and agencies must respect the independence of the European Prosecutor's Office and refrain from trying to influence prosecutors in the process of exercising their powers. Each EU prosecutor and authorized prosecutor must be independent in the performance of their powers. Transparent procedures for the selection and appointment of prosecutors, their functional immunity, and a special procedure for removal from office serve as guarantees of independence. It was emphasized that the principle of the rule of law provides that the activities of the European Public Prosecutor's Office are based exclusively on EU law and are carried out in strict accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The principles of rule of law and proportionality are binding for the European Public Prosecutor's Office in all its activities. The principle of proportionality requires that the actions of the European Public Prosecutor's Office do not exceed the limits necessary to achieve its objectives. It was established that according to the principle of subsidiarity, the European Prosecutor's Office exercises its powers only in those cases when the goal cannot be achieved by the means of the member states. This ensures a balance between supranational and national levels of criminal prosecution. The principle of collegiality and internal hierarchy presupposes that decisions in the College and standing committees are made jointly in the established order. Authorized prosecutors are obliged to follow the instructions of the EU prosecutors, who, in turn, report to the Chief Prosecutor. It was found that the work of the European Prosecutor's Office is based on the principles of impartiality, fairness, efficiency and economy of procedural actions. The European Public Prosecutor's Office conducts its investigations in an impartial manner and tries to obtain all relevant evidence, both incriminating and exculpatory. The principles of transparency and accountability determine the obligation of the European Prosecutor's Office to annually publish a report on its activities and to inform the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission about the results of its work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Soochow University Law Edition is the property of Soochow University 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 Digital de Derecho Administrativo 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 Revista Técnica Tributaria is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Asesores Fiscales 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 GeSec: Revista de Gestao e Secretariado is the property of Sindicato das Secretarias e Secretarios do Estado de Sao Paulo (SINSESP) 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 ASBU Law Journal is the property of Social Sciences University of Ankara 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 object of the analysed topic deals with the limits and incidence of the criterion of proportionality in taking, maintaining or terminating insurance measures, offering several procedural remedies. The purpose of the study is to determine some criteria of objectivity and predictability incident to the taking and maintaining of precautionary measures, in order to prevent the abuse of law and the blocking of the use of the patrimony of the person concerned, criteria offered in a set of guarantees of a procedural-criminal nature, the observance of which constitutes a result obligation for the judicial bodies issuing the measure. The author carries out an analysis of the legal content of the protective measures in Romanian criminal procedural law from the perspective of the principles of ensuring the preemption of substantive European law and ensuring European public order, fundamental principles in the European and national normative construction, seeing in this legal order a standard capable of guaranteeing the defense concrete and effective of the rights of the procedural participants, drawing objective boundaries between them, the purpose being to increase the confidence of litigants in the judicial act.

Copyright of Revista Técnica Tributaria is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Asesores Fiscales 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 article considers the principle of proportionality of the severity of punishment to public damage from an offense in terms of law and economics and criminology. It presents an overview of various criminological approaches to assessing social damage from different types of crimes, concluding that it is not possible to measure this damage precisely in each specific case. The methodology proposed by Sellin and Wolfgang (Sellin & Wolfgang 1964), which rates the severity of crimes based on sociological surveys, is highlighted as an effective basis for determining the severity of punishment proportional to public damage, though it has its drawbacks. The conclusion offers proposals for synthesizing all the approaches considered in the article to assess public damage from crime and establish the socially optimal severity of punishment for offenses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An act or a decision that results in restriction of an individual right can be considered proportionate if it pursues a legitimate aim and is logically related to it and uses a coherent tool that entails the lowest cost. Therefore, the proportionality test is based on the cost-benefit analysis. The proportionality principle is a structure and methodological tool as well as an intelligent procedure for reviewing the actions of public authorities. One of the Administrative Court of Justice objectives is to ensure the officials and institutions actions proportionality by directing them toward the legislative goals and preventing organizations, departments and their staffs from violating the law or using disproportionate measures. The principle of proportionality can help to achieve this goal. However, the examination of the aforesaid institution's approach does not reveal any systematic and structured implementation of the above-mentioned principle. In some cases, an implicit respect for the principle of proportionality concept can be observed, although the opinion in accordance with the above principle is not cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the complex interaction between societal factors and the criminalization of manipulations in the energy market. As society evolves, so do the legislative frameworks regulating economic sectors, including energy. Understanding the social determinants underlying the criminalization of manipulations in this critical sphere is crucial for policymakers, lawyers, and practitioners. By exploring these determinants, we gain insight into how societal norms, economic structures, and regulatory mechanisms converge to shape the contours of criminality in the energy market. Through this analysis, we seek to shed light on the multifaceted dynamics informing the legal response to manipulations, ultimately contributing to more informed decision-making and a more effective regulatory framework in the energy sector. The social determinants of criminalization of manipulation in the energy market are reflected in various aspects of societal life. Primarily, it is essential to protect consumer rights and economic interests and to preserve the health and well-being of our societies. Regulation and the establishment of criminal liability in this sphere promote the establishment of fair and transparent market conditions, fostering the development of a competitive energy sector. Additionally, this reduces dependence on unstable energy resources, which can mitigate the risks of geopolitical conflicts and energy crises. Ensuring trust in government and regulatory bodies through effective counteraction to manipulation in the energy market is critically important to uphold democratic values and the rule of law. This enhances the legitimacy of government and improves citizens' perception of the activities of state institutions. Finally, criminalizing manipulation in the energy market contributes to the preservation of natural resources and the reduction of negative environmental impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contemporary administrative law is based on a set of legal principles which permeate all institutes of administrative law, giving them meaning and creating a harmonious whole. The first and most important pillar of the administrative law normative system is the principle of legality, which implies that the administration is subjected to the applicable laws. Administration is a creation of law; it is organized, regulated and acts in compliance with the law. The basic function of the administration is to implement the laws by observing the law in force. It cannot perform its functions beyond the limits set by the law, nor contrary to the law. In all modern states, the principle of legality in general, and the principle of legality of administration in particular, are the cornerstone for the development of the rule of law. The principle of legality rests on the legal activities of the administration. Under the constitution and the law, administration has a dual role: to adopt a specific administrative legislative act, and to adopt of a normative act (by-law). The concept of legality applied to an administrative act implies that it is impermissible to use coercive means without a justifiable legal ground, which stems from the executive character of an authoritative act which unilaterally determines the parties' rights and obligations. In this sense, the legality of an administrative act must include all its essential elements: jurisdiction, form, basic rules of procedure, purpose, and even substantive law issues. When it comes to normative acts, the principle of legality works in two directions: existential and substantive. The paper presents the concept and the content of the principle of legality of the administration, the relationship between the principle of legality and discretionary assessment, as well as the relationship between the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality, as one of the more recent principles in European continental public law. The authors outline the typical violations of the principle of legality and sanctions for those violations.

The principle of proportionality in criminal law is considered one of the fundamental principles, which entails determining punishments that correspond to the social harm caused by the crime. In the case of drug offenses, the application of this principle during the legislative stage requires careful consideration and subtlety on the part of the Legislature due to the complexity of such offenses. By taking into account the effective factors in the application of the principle of proportionality, unjustness in the determination and implementation of punishments can be minimized, and the expected goals of punishment, such as deterrence, can be better achieved. The behavior of the offender, the nature of the committed crime, the role of the accused, their involvement in the crime, and the severity and gravity of the offense are among the most influential factors in the application of the principle of proportionality in drug offenses. However, the Legislature in the Anti-Drug Law has solely emphasized the proportionality between the quantity of drugs and the level of punishment, disregarding other essential factors.

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 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.)

Copyright of KUL Journal of Legal Studies / Studia Prawnicze KUL is the property of John Paul II Catholic University of Lubin / Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawla II 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 Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci 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 Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd 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 Social and Democratic State of Law enshrines a series of guarantees that confine the State's power to administer justice. However, this coexistence of the state's ius puniendi with the principles of guarantees is not always peaceful, and the latest reforms (some of them not excessively recent) show a clear tendency towards punitive hardening, to the clear detriment of the guarantees that represent the most relevant characteristics of the state. Thus, some types of criminal offences seem to return to the hackneyed idea of the criminal law of the perpetrator, with certain overtones of the most absolutist regimes. Although this could be predicted for different criminal phenomenologies, this analysis focuses on the specific list of crimes against life, in an attempt to adhere to those voices that were raised and continue to be raising in order to demand absolute respect for guarantees that only came with democracy and whose loss must not be allowed under any circumstances, on pain of going back to times marked by the most categorical disregard for human rights and a decided lack of legal certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Directive 2000/78/EC regulates age discrimination within the European Union. The challenge posed by this legislation is to define the "how and why" of the age protection and to balance equality with economic interests. The Gordian knot is here represented by Article 6 of the Directive, which allows Member States to justify age discrimination when a legitimate aim is provided, and the means chosen to achieve that aim are proportionate and necessary. The implementation of Article 6 by Member States led to contrasting interpretations that define age equality both as a social priority and an obstacle to the economic growth. Member States have therefore referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to seek a harmonious interpretation of age protection, but the judgments of the Court eventually reveal how the conflict between equality and economic interests is far from being solved. This article discusses these jurisprudential developments and demonstrates how the principle of proportionality applied by the Court is influenced by market-based tendencies that dissolve that "Aristotelian" idea of equality. Consequently, cases are holistically compared on a cross-case level to contribute to a normative theory able to combine age justifications with the common principles and values that underlie European legislations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Akdeniz 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.)

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been widely recognized as one of the most significant threats to peace and security in Europe since World War II. The large-scale proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles in this conflict reveals how drones and autonomous weapons systems are transforming warfare. At the same time, they are raising concerns about the way conflicts are being fought, and how international peace and security is being secured through international humanitarian law. This article therefore provides a deep empirical analysis of the types of drones being deployed in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and their specific contributions to the conflict. The study provides several charts that indicate the make of the drones being used, their type, and the function of each drone employed by both parties to the conflict. The charts highlight various parameters such as maximum speed, endurance, and altitude capabilities. The empirical part of the article then feeds into the second part of the article which delves into the question of whether the drones being used there meet the requirements of the principles of distinction and proportionality as mandated in international humanitarian law. It argues that there seems to be evidence of indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and investigations need to be carried out to determine whether there should be accountability. The article argues that the artificial intelligence being used in drones make them distinct from ordinary weapons as it is their autonomy to make decisions which ensures that accountability for IHL violations is problematic. The article argues that IHL ought to be reformed to deal with these new warfare capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Crónica Tributaria is the property of Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Ministerio de Hacienda y Funcion Publica 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.)

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌In the field of judicial proceedings, the pivotal role of "proof" in determining the fate of a case cannot be understated. A claim or assertion must be proven in a legal forum, otherwise its origins will remain inconsequential. Consequently, legal practitioners and judges dedicate a significant portion of their attention to the issue of proof, leading to the assertion that litigation revolves around the evidence. The process of proving a claim or defense relies on documents referred to as "evidence." While legal literature commonly distinguishes between "evidence supporting a claim" and "proving the evidence itself as admissible," this distinction is often overlooked. This paper examines the legal and jurisprudential aspects of the more familiar "evidence supporting a claim," examining how parties present and defend their cases with reference to these means. Moreover, it explores the less-explored dimension of "proving the evidence itself," where the evidence is presented as a separate entity in court.‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The fundamental question that arises in this context is the rationale behind proving evidence and the justification for such a process. Legal claimants are obligated to present their evidence to the court to prove, raising the dichotomy of whether they possess the evidence or are hindered by its absence. In the former scenario, the claim is proven; in the latter, the claim faces the risk of dismissal for failure to provide proof. Thus, the inquiry emerges: why and on what grounds must one undertake the arduous process of proving evidence, and what prompts this multiplicity in the judicial proceedings?‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌In order to address this question, a hypothesis is put forward that it is necessary to prove the reason in a civil lawsuit, on the basis of justice, the obligation to preserve rights, and to adhere to the principle of contradiction. Each of these elements, independently or collectively, justifies the necessity of verifying the existence or realization of proof means. This hypothesis indicates that the legal and judicial system seeks to guarantee the fair and just resolution of disputes by observing the principles of proportionality in demanding proof. Furthermore, it is argued that this complex process acts as a safeguard, prevents the assertion of unfounded claims and promotes the efficient administration of justice. To address this question, a hypothesis is posited that the requirement to prove evidence in civil litigation is predicated on the basis of justice, the necessity to preserve rights, and to adhere to the principle of contradiction [Asl-e-Tanazor]. Each of these elements, independently or collectively, justifies the need for establishing the existence or realization of evidentiary means. The hypothesis suggests that the legal and judicial system, in demanding the proof of evidence, seeks to ensure a fair and just resolution of disputes, aligning with the principles of proportionality. Furthermore, it is asserted that this intricate process serves as a safeguard, preventing the assertion of unfounded claims and promoting the efficient administration of justice.‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This research adopts a doctrinal approach, relying on an extensive review of Iranian legal scholars' works and the existing legal framework in the country. The methodology encompasses an exploration of relevant jurisprudential literature, analysis of applicable laws, and an examination of precedents to derive a comprehensive understanding of the necessity to prove evidence in civil litigation. The study aims to elucidate the impact of various factors, such as the unavailability of evidence due to justifiable reasons or the claimant's assertion that evidence once existed but is no longer accessible. By considering the specific conditions under which evidence may be challenging to present, the research seeks to provide insights into how the legal system accommodates such circumstances. In summary, this paper endeavors to shed light on the intricacies surrounding the requirement to prove evidence in the Iranian civil litigation system, offering a nuanced understanding for the benefit of a non-Iranian audience unfamiliar with the nuances of the country's legal landscape.‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌Typically, evidence supporting a legal claim is within the reach of the litigant, readily available for citation and presentation in court. However, scenarios arise where the evidence substantiating the subject matter of a claim is unavailable, making its presentation to the court unfeasible. Consequently, it becomes imperative for the evidence itself to be proven as a separate entity. In circumstances where accessing and presenting the primary evidence pose challenges, proving the evidence becomes an unavoidable precursor to substantiating the claim. The pivotal issue casting serious doubt on the path of proving evidence is that the establishment of a claim is contingent upon presenting evidence. Should the claimant prove incapable of providing evidence, the claim is perceived as groundless, hovering on the brink of nullity or dismissal. The meticulous process of proving evidence necessitates thorough foundations to justify this intricate and duplicative procedure in legal proceedings. One of the most significant underpinnings for this process is the concept of "Impossibility of Performance" [Ta'azzor] and [Ta'assor]. Rooted in Islamic jurisprudential principles such as the "Negation of Hardship" [Nafy-e-Osr va Haraj] and "Impossible Duty" [Taklif-e Ma'la'yotagh], it finds parallels in foreign legal doctrines like force majeure and the impossibility doctrine. Additionally, fundamental principles such as justice and upholding rights can be introduced to rationalize the proof of evidence. In certain cases, presenting the original evidence may be impractical due to potential obstacles. In such a scenario, if the evidence is abandoned, not only does justice remain unattained during the trial, but the judge encounters an impasse in establishing the truth. Recognizing the imperative nature of proving evidence for preserving the rights of litigants, accepting the burden of proof appears essential for fairness and justice to prevail. Thus, beyond merely avoiding obstruction and hindrance in proving legal claims, the concept of impossibility of performance becomes one of the compelling reasons for mandating the proof of evidence in civil procedural law. This is particularly evident when the testimony of a witness is contested, conflicts arise between primary and subsequent witness statements, or the need for local investigation arises. Moreover, instances of perjury and false testimony by a witness can significantly impact the proceedings, necessitating the judicial authority to independently seek and establish the proof of these circumstances. This proof, however, should be situated in a manner where the demonstrated evidence, though seemingly partial, significantly influences the outcome of the lawsuit.‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌In conclusion, the intricate process of proving evidence in civil litigation within the Iranian legal system serves as a fundamental safeguard against baseless claims, ensuring the administration of justice in a fair and equitable manner. The concept of "impossibility of performance" [Ta'azzor] and [Ta'assor] emerges as a critical factor justifying the proof of evidence, aligning with principles of justice, upholding rights, and maintaining a proportionate approach in legal proceedings. Beyond its function as a deterrent against false testimony, the necessity of proving evidence stands as a cornerstone for the effective adjudication of disputes, allowing the judicial system to navigate challenges and uphold the truth in the pursuit of justice. The acceptance of the burden of proof, even in the face of obstacles, is deemed indispensable for the preservation of justice and the rights of all parties involved.

The principle of proportionality in criminal law is considered one of the fundamental principles, which entails determining punishments that correspond to the social harm caused by the crime. In the case of drug offenses, the application of this principle during the legislative stage requires careful consideration and subtlety on the part of the Legislature due to the complexity of such offenses. By taking into account the effective factors in the application of the principle of proportionality, unjustness in the determination and implementation of punishments can be minimized, and the expected goals of punishment, such as deterrence, can be better achieved. The behavior of the offender, the nature of the committed crime, the role of the accused, their involvement in the crime, and the severity and gravity of the offense are among the most influential factors in the application of the principle of proportionality in drug offenses. However, the Legislature in the Anti-Drug Law has solely emphasized the proportionality between the quantity of drugs and the level of punishment, disregarding other essential factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU affects the understanding and protection of human rights in the European Union, including the right to property. Human rights in the European Union are regulated by the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, and the standards established by the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are also taken into account. This paper provides an overview of how the right to property is defined and how it was applied in certain cases before the Court of Justice of the EU, concretely, in relation to the fact whether a certain limitation of this human right is unlawful. In this way, an analysis of the procedure in which the proportionality test is applied in practice was carried out – that is, the balancing between general and individual interest, when it comes to the unrestricted enjoyment of the right to property. Some of the presented cases are atypical in terms of their facts and the legal context in which the selected decisions were given. It is precisely for this reason that the paper presents the evolving dimension of the Union law, that is, the legally creative and interpretive role of the Court of Justice of the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept European 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.)

Copyright of Revista Técnica Tributaria is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Asesores Fiscales 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 Técnica Tributaria is the property of Asociacion Espanola de Asesores Fiscales 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 digital world occupying large swathes of individuals' lives in a trend that shows no signs of abating any time soon, the perennial question in human rights protection has been brought once again, forcefully, to the fore: do we need new human rights to deal with new societal and technological developments? Or are the ones already in place enough, complemented by recourse to the general principles of human rights, specifically to that of proportionality? Making use of the GDPR as a case-study in this regard, this paper elaborates upon the two, foreseeable, answers to this question. The first, within a digital constitutionalism context, suggests the introduction of new rights that will be suitable to protect individuals within the digital world. The second suggests that no new rights are necessary and that recourse should be made to the principle of proportionality instead. The choice by policy-makers between these two options will decide the future for the protection of individual rights in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd 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 Dilemas Contemporáneos: Educación, Política y Valores is the property of Dilemas Contemporaneos: Educacion, Politica y Valores 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 zone expropriation is a unique type of land expropriation in Taiwan's land expropriation system, in that the owner of the expropriated land can apply for compensation land as compensation for the expropriation. However, the regulations and implementation of the zone expropriation actually contain many problems, which lead to frequent controversies and criticisms. Recently, the Taipei High Administrative Court's Judgment No. 83 of 109th year, concerning the dispute over the distribution of compensation land in zone expropriation, is worth noting for its legal insights. Therefore, this article selects this judgment to explain the key points and problems of the distribution of compensation land in zone expropriation for reference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to company documents is critical for European Commission ('Commission') investigations, but complying with document requests can be a daunting task for a company. The Commission's powers are expansive but not unlimited. Understanding the limits of mandatory document productions can help manage enforcement risk. This article discusses the Commission's powers to collect and use company documents in the context of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), taking into account recent EU case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving farness in the internal activities of business corporation requires a combination of both organizational and contractual mechanisms, which is due to the dualistic (statutory and contractual) nature of the business corporation. Effectively applied for asset allocation the principle of proportionality cannot fully guarantee fairness in the implementation of management activities, since consolidation of corporate power is required for managerial decision-making. The exercise of power functions by majority shareholders may lead to infringement of the investment interests of minority ones. The solution to the problem is the redemption of the share by the business corporation at the request of the stockholder upon the occurrence (non-occurrence) of certain circumstances, which can be considered as the redemption of an unspecified rent in advance. Despite the existence of special rules in corporate legislation governing the repurchase of shares at the request of a shareholder in order to achieve fairness it is advisable to fix the general rule on the right of a shareholder of a business corporation, taking into account the conditions provided for by law and the charter, to demand the repurchase by a business corporation of his shares in case of violation by the corporation of his reasonable investment expectations.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the General Court of the European Union (EU) recently rendered judgments which are relevant to public disclosure of personal data. The context of these judgments relates to both tax law and law enforcement. The case of L. B. v. Hungary before the ECHR is particularly noteworthy and controversial since it led to two different judgments of the ECHR. In addition, the Chamber judgment and the Grand Chamber judgment made opposite findings about the violation of the fundamental right to the protection of private life in this case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cyber Security & Data Governance is the property of Editorial Office of Information Technology & Network Security 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 Iuris Tantum is the property of Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores, AC 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 E-mercatoria is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departamento de Derecho Comercial 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 jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU affects the understanding and protection of human rights in the European Union, including the right to property. Human rights in the European Union are regulated by the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, and the standards established by the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights are also taken into account. This paper provides an overview of how the right to property is defined and how it was applied in certain cases before the Court of Justice of the EU, concretely, in relation to the fact whether a certain limitation of this human right is unlawful. In this way, an analysis of the procedure in which the proportionality test is applied in practice was carried out - that is, the balancing between general and individual interest, when it comes to the unrestricted enjoyment of the right to property. Some of the presented cases are atypical in terms of their facts and the legal context in which the selected decisions were given. It is precisely for this reason that the paper presents the evolving dimension of the Union law, that is, the legally creative and interpretive role of the Court of Justice of the EU.

The compliance function, in accordance with the provisions of the Solvency II Directive, is one of the key functions in the insurance company. Bearing in mind that compliance function is relatively young function in these companies, organizing this function as a separate organizational unit can be challenging. For these reasons, it is important to determine whether this function can be organized as a part of the legal department of the insurance company. However, unlike the compliance function, the Directive does not mention the legal department of insurance undertaking. Certainly, the most adequate is to organize compliance function as an independent organizational unit. On the other hand, in order not to overburden small and medium-sized companies, the Directive introduces the principle of proportionality. By introducing this principle Directive gives the opportunity to companies to adjust the organization of key functions to the nature, scale and complexity of the risks that exist in the insurance undertaking. In the paper, the author analyzes the relationship between the compliance function and the legal department, first by analyzing their competences, and then their characteristics. The goal is to determine whether there are obstacles to organizing these two functions within the same organizational unit.