The Supreme Court Practice 1976. Vols. 1 and 2 with First Supplement. General Editor: I. H. Jacob, ll.b., Senior Master of the Supreme Court and Queen's Remembrancer; Fellow and Visiting Professor of English Law, University College London. [London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.; Stevens & Sons Ltd.; Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.1975. Vol. 1: ccxvii, 1528 and (Index) 339 pp.; Vol. 2: xx and 1454 pp. £47.50 net (incl. 1976 service).]

1976 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 192-192
Author(s):  
J. W. A. Thornely
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.


2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-205
Author(s):  
Melanie Guénon

This article examines the 2005 Algerian family law regulations concerning paternity and the use of DNA tests in Algerian paternity disputes. Specifically, it analyzes the relation between the methods of establishing and negating paternity recognized in Islamic law and the available genetic technology.
On the basis of three judgments of the Supreme Court, the present legislation as well as legal practice in Algeria is scrutinized. The article concludes that the Algerian legislator hesitates to dissolve the conflict between genetic technology and the recognized types of evidence of Islamic law. For now, court practice remains ‘traditional’ since judges might feel too much responsibility facing unclear regulations regarding paternity. Nevertheless, the Algerian family code reform offers the opportunity to use DNA-tests to establish nasab for both legitimate and illegitimate children. Due to unclear regulations it also paved the way to use DNA-analysis for paternity negation.*



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document