Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Judicial Review

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bank Resolution ◽  
The Us ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Takings Clause ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The exercise of extensive powers by authorities during the recovery and resolution process may interfere with constitutionally protected fundamental rights of stakeholder in a multitude of ways. Particularly relevant are the right to conduct a business and the right to property under the EU Charter of fundamental rights, as well as the takings clause under the US constitution. A balance needs to be struck between the aims and objectives of bank resolution and the rights of investors and the requirements of due process. This is normally achieved through expedited and limited judicial review. This chapter assesses whether and to what extent the respective procedures are in line with constitutional and fundamental rights requirements.

scholarly journals La cuestión prejudicial europea ante planteamientos más que dudosos

2017 ◽  
pp. 270
Author(s):  
Luis Jimena Quesada
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
State Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Specific Discipline ◽  
The Eu

El presente artículo toma como punto de partida la importancia de la cuestión prejudicial como instrumento fundamental del actual constitucionalismo europeo multinivel, en la medida en que a través de él cabe dotar de fuerza a los principios esenciales del Estado de Derecho y de la UE como comunidad de Derecho (especialmente seguridad jurídica, responsabilidad, tutela judicial efectiva y optimización de los derechos fundamentales). Con tal premisa, se efectúa un análisis crítico de estrategias más que dudosas (no siempre aparentemente guiadas por buena fe procesal) que, por acción o por omisión, vulneran el artículo 267 TFUE poniendo en entredicho la fluida articulación del sistema jurídico europeo (de las normas de producción nacional y supranacional) y el correcto reparto del poder judicial europeo (entre la Justicia nacional y supranacional) y, con ello, la óptima realización del sistema europeo de derechos fundamentales. Finalmente, el trabajo concluye con unas propuestas que pretenden mejorar el diálogo judicial supranacional a través de un verdadero espíritu de colaboración que tenga el respaldo de una sólida formación de la Judicatura en Derecho europeo, de una voluntad jurisdiccional positiva (inspirada en el principio favor libertatis), de una dinamización de la obligación de formulación la cuestión prejudicial en los casos previstos en el artículo 267 TFUE y de una disciplina precisa de la doble prejudicialidad (ante la Jurisdicción Constitucional nacional y ante el Tribunal de Justicia).This article takes as its starting point the importance of the preliminary ruling as a fundamental instrument of the current multi-level European constitutionalism, since it allows for strengthening the basic principles of the rule of law at both the State level and the EU level (especially legal certainty, responsibility, due process of law and optimization of fundamental rights). With such a premise, a critical analysis of more than dubious strategies (not always apparently guided by good procedural faith) is carried out. Indeed, these strategies, by action or omission, breach Article 267 TFEU by challenging the fluid articulation of the European legal system (of national and supranational provisions) as well as the correct distribution of the European judicial power (between national and supranational courts) and, as a result, the optimal realization of the European system of fundamental rights. Finally, the paper concludes with proposals that seek to improve supranational judicial dialogue through a true spirit of collaboration supported by a solid training of judges in European law, a positive jurisdictional will (inspired by the favor libertatis principle), a re-dimension of the obligation to submit the preliminary ruling in the cases referred to in Article 267 TFEU and a specific discipline of a double preliminary ruling (both before the national Constitutional Court and before the Court of Justice).

Of General Principles and Trojan Horses — Procedural Due Process in Immigration Proceedings under EU Law

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1006-1024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Bast
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Legal Position

AbstractThe present paper concerns procedural guarantees in immigration proceedings, thus addressing the broader question of the role of the general principles of EU law in respect of administrative decision-making. The main assertion is that certain requirements of procedural due process are recognized in EU law as fundamental rights. They must therefore be observed by Member State authorities when decisions significantly affecting the legal position of a person are taken, provided that the decision is at least partly determined by EU law. The relevant immigration proceedings involve measures related to the termination of residence as well as decisions related to denial or loss of a particular legal status. In effect, the actual scope of application of the EU's administrative fundamental rights is determined by the actual scope of activity of the European legislator. The author concludes that even a relatively ‘shallow’ harmonization of laws can lead to a ‘deep’ reshaping of the domestic legal order, by becoming a Trojan Horse for fundamental rights heretofore alien to some national immigration regimes.

scholarly journals The Citizens’ Constitutional Rights Regarding Habitable and Wholesome Environment: Towards a Law State that Protects the Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 81
Author(s):  
Nyoman Satyayudha Dananjaya ◽  
Fuchikawa Kazuhiko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This paper aims to examine the protection of the environment in Indonesia which is part of the realization of a law state that guarantees the constitutional rights of its citizens. It is a legal research that reviews Indonesian constitutional and statutory provisions, besides adding a comparative perspective from a Japanese Constitution and legal system. It is found that the concept of a law state in Indonesia does not specifically follow the concept of a law state like what is meant in “rechtsstaat” or “the rule of law”. It has peculiar characteristics which indeed seem to adopt the noble values ??of those two concepts which clearly confesses in the constitution along with the elements and characters stated in it. One of the most prominent characteristics of a law state is the recognition and protection of human rights. In the Indonesian Constitution 1945, human rights as the fundamental rights of human beings have been arranged and compiled which is legally legitimized become constitutional rights. Among human rights, rights related to the environment include essential rights in array of international human rights formulations. Article 28 letter H of the Indonesian Constitution 1945 expressly states the rights to habitable and wholesome environment for citizen. The protection form can be a normative arrangement in the constitution or in a formal juridical through legislation. Protection of citizens' constitutional rights related to the environment is faced with due process of environmental protection that requires consistency in order to achieve the intention and direction of the Indonesian law state itself.

scholarly journals POPULATION CRITERIA AND BUDGETARY DETERRANT: DETERMINING FACTORS IN THE QUALITY OF THE SPANISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 84-108
Author(s):  
Tomás Bastarreche
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Determining Factors ◽  
Assess Quality ◽  
Do So ◽  
Judicial Performance

What is the quality of justice? As Melcarne and Ramello (2019) have recently pointed out, there is no clear interaction between quality and quantity in understanding or measuring judicial performance. However, the lack of human resources is often blamed for delays in the delivery of decisions (quantity) in most judicial systems - and could in fact mean a violation of the principle of due process. However, the study shows how difficult it is to assess quality, since even quantity (in fact calculable) cannot always be a trustful variable to measure it. In Spain, it is possible to assume that penal judges work more or less the same. Yet, not all judgments have the same quality. The problem is in the District Courts (some of insufficient size) with provincial criminal jurisdiction. They constantly run the risk - and do so - of breaching the principle of judicial impartiality. This does not happen in the Spanish Supreme Court or in the large District Courts. It is a problem in the judicial performance of justice and in the Administration of Justice. Yet, there are no budgetary or even regulatory stimuli to resolve this situation. A situation that implies a breach of the principles of due process and therefore of the fundamental rights of the accused.

scholarly journals A Teoria das Dimensões dos Direitos Fundamentais como Pressupostos à Consagração de Garantias Fundamentais: um Ensaio sobre o Acesso Efetivo à Justiça

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Gigante Viana
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Constitutional State ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

Resumo: O estudo objetiva a demonstração da teoria das dimensões dos direitos fundamentais como pressuposto à consagração de garantias fundamentais processuais. Para atingir tal intento foi utilizado o método da revisão bibliográfica, notadamente da doutrina constitucional, bem como do estudo de casos trazidos a debate por autores que analisam o processo sob a ótica da Constituição. A relevância do assunto deve-se ao momento atual da ciência jurídica em que a efetividade dos direitos fundamentais é um escopo concreto. Constatou-se a necessidade de tornar eficiente e efetiva a prestação jurisdicional no Estado constitucional e de reconhecer as garantias processuais como direitos fundamentais. Em tal contexto, a eficácia irradiante, a filtragem constitucional e a multifuncionalidade dos direitos fundamentais são abordados. E as balizas teóricas do neoconstitucionalismo e do neoprocessualismo ou formalismo-valorativo são analisadas como pano de fundo das noções desenvolvidas. Assim, a verificação da evolução dos direitos fundamentais processuais, mormente do direito de ação (tutela jurisdicional efetiva) e do devido processo legal (processo justo), a partir da aceitação da teoria das dimensões dos direitos fundamentais, conduz à conclusão de que se caminha na direção de um acesso cada vez mais efetivo à justiça. Palavras-chave: Normas Jusfundamentais; Direito à Proteção; Direito Processual; Conformação do Procedimento; Devido Processo Legal.  Abstract: The study aims at demonstrating the theory of dimensions of fundamental rights as an assumption to the recognition of fundamental procedural guarantees. In order to accomplish this intent the method of bibliographic review was used, notably the constitutional doctrine, as well as the study of cases brought into debate by authors who analyze the process under the eyes of the Constitution. The relevance of the subject is at the current moment of the juridical science in which the effectiveness of fundamental rights has turned into a concrete objective. It was verified the necessity to achieve an efficient and effective jurisdiction in the constitutional State and to recognize procedural guarantees as fundamental rights. In this context, the radiant effectiveness, the constitutional filtration and the multifunction of fundamental rights are approached. And the theoretical landmarks of neo-constitutionalism and neo-proceduralims are analyzed as a background for the notions developed. So the verification of the evolution of fundamental procedural rights, especially the right of action and the due process of law (fair trial), since the admission of the theory of dimensions of fundamental rights, conduce to the conclusion that heads toward the direction of a more effective judicial access. Key-words: Jus-Fundamental Norms; Right to Protection; Procedural Law; Procedure Adequacy; Due Process of Law.

scholarly journals Seeking the Source: Criminal Defendants’ Constitutional Right to Source Code

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Bellovin ◽  
Matt Blaze ◽  
Susan Landau ◽  
Brian Owsley
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Computer Code ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Forensic Analysis ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Software Programs ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

The right to a fair trial is fundamental to American jurisprudence. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees “due process,” while the Sixth provides the accused with the right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” But “time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.” So it is with software. From the smartphones we access multiple times a day to more exotic tools—the software “genies” of Amazon Echo and Google Home—software is increasingly embedded in day-to-day life. It does glorious things, such as flying planes and creating CAT scans, but it also has problems: software errors. Software has also found its way into trials. Software’s errors have meant that defendants are often denied their fundamental rights. In this paper, we focus on “evidentiary software”—computer software used for producing evidence—that is routinely introduced in modern courtrooms. Whether from breathalyzers, computer forensic analysis, data taps, or even FitBits, computer code increasingly provides crucial trial evidence. Yet despite the central role software plays in convictions, computer code is often unavailable to examination by the defense. This may be for proprietary reasons—the vendor wishes to protect its confidential software—or it may result from a decision by the government to withhold the code for security reasons. Because computer software is far from infallible—software programs can create incorrect information, erase details, vary data depending on when and how they are accessed—or fail in a myriad of other ways—the only way that the accused can properly and fully defend himself is to have an ability to access the software that produced the evidence. Yet often the defendants are denied such critical access. In this paper, we do an in-depth examination of the problem. Then, providing a variety of examples of software failure and discussing the limitations of technologists’ ability to prove software programs correct, we suggest potential processes for disclosing software that enable fair trials while nonetheless prevent wide release of the code.

scholarly journals Military Courts: Credibility and Capacity Implications for Superior Judiciary of Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol V (Winter 2020) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Muhammad Haroon ◽  
Najib Ullah ◽  
Nazim Rahim
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Standing Problem

Pakistan is going through turmoil of terrorism. The State is doing what it can to eradicate this menace and in so doing established Field General Court Martial commonly known as Military Courts in wake of barbaric attack on Army Public School in December 2014. However, it is not the solution to the long standing problem motivated and nurtured by various factors like political, religious etc. Instead drastic changes are required to amend and update the existing criminal justice system including legal framework, training for judges, prosecutions, protection of witnesses as well as prosecution/defense. This will pave a way for reforms and improve security situation in Pakistan instead of challenging the credibility and capacity of the superior judiciary. In this way, violence can be countered by respecting Fundamental Rights and following due process of law. Also this will enable the state institutes to cooperate in a better way

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document