The Causal Principle

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Raymond D. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Causal Principle ◽  
Contingent Fact ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right ◽  
False Claim

Philosophical theses are sometimes assailed from so many sides that, even if they have not been refuted, it becomes difficult for them to gain a fair hearing. A case in point seems to be the thesis that the sentence ‘Every event has a cause' (commonly known as the Causal Principle) may on occasion be used to assert something which, as a matter of contingent fact, is either true or false. In the interests of logical chivalry, I want to take up its defence.My aim, it should be noted, is not to defend the truth of the Causal Principle, to claim that our world is one in which every event is causally determined by another event or set of events. So I shall have nothing to say about the arguments of those who—like the quantum physicists, Heisenberg, Bohr, and Born—claim to have shown that the Causal Principle is false; claim, that is, that our world is fundamentally indeterministic. My concern is only to establish the right of determinists and indeterminists alike to take seriously the question whether our world is in fact one in which every event has a cause.

Georgian Administrative Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 707-722
Author(s):  
Tamar Gvaramadze
Keyword(s):  
Personal Data ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
Western Values ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

This chapter discusses the impact of the pan-European principles of good administration on Georgian administrative law. It shows that the legal reforms and modern administrative legislation that started in Georgia in the 1990s were mostly influenced, and directed by, Western values and European principles, including core provisions of the Council of Europe. This influence has manifested itself, among other things, in the Georgian legislator giving constitutional importance to the right to a fair hearing in administrative proceedings and underlining the importance of good administration. Moreover, special parts of administrative law, such as regulation of local self-governance and personal data protection, have also not been immune to this influence, which has been strengthened by the progressive approach undertaken by Georgian courts.

14. The grounds for judicial review

2020 ◽  
pp. 309-353
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

scholarly journals The Comparative of Study Culpable Rights in Preliminary Investigation in Iran and Turkey

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Mina Mehrvand ◽  
Khalil Afandak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Judicial Errors ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hearing System

<p><span lang="EN-US">The preliminary investigation to determine the fate of the victims and the defendants ' judicial rights of the victims and the criminal justice is of special importance. The preliminary investigation of the center of gravity of the interrogation of suspects. Considering the necessity of supporting the principle of presumed innocence and preserve human dignity in the hearing process, the main lines of the meanwhile defensive rights defendants at the stage of preliminary investigation determined. Examples of the rights of the defense and legal formalities and job maker Iran and Turkey in the interrogation system varied. However, what is the condition for this is that a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of this extension should be anticipated and mandated. The legal rights of the accused is guaranteed set in the level of national, regional or international, and with the aim of adopting a decision in a fair and judicial errors than to keep away from people who are offence, in order to be exposed to. Including these rights can be charge with its reasons, the right to have a lawyer, the right to silence, a prohibition of delay and procrastination in charge after arrest or summons, the right note, the right to health in statements against torture questioned. Meanwhile, In the system of criminal procedure if what legislator to some of the aforementioned rights in its rules on match point but the hearing system in Turkey, including in particular anticipating the unconditional right to have a lawyer, the right to prohibit the delay in charges and the right to an annulment of the flawed investigation and classified problems. Obviously fix the defects and its assignment to investigation compliance under the law is just and fair hearing flow will be extremely helpful.</span></p>

scholarly journals Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-338
Author(s):  
Dragoljub Popović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Case

The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.

scholarly journals O princípio do contraditório necessário aos processos administrativos e aos processos nos tribunais de contas

2018 ◽  
Vol 277 (3) ◽  
pp. 169
Author(s):  
Alexandre Aroeira Salles
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
External Control ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

<p>The adversarial system (the principle of the right to a fair hearing) needed for proceedings before administratives and accounting courts in Brazil</p><p> </p><p>A CRFB/88 entregou às atividades de controle interno e de controle externo brasileiros importantes competências, incluindo a função de aplicar sanções a pessoas físicas e jurídicas, podendo-lhes ainda condenar à devolução de valores irregularmente dispendidos. Ao mesmo tempo, a CRFB/88 garantiu, por meio do artigo 5o, a todos os indivíduos que o Estado somente lhes possa privar de seus bens e direitos caso siga fielmente as normas-princípio do devido processo legal, do contraditório e da ampla defesa. Desrespeitando frontalmente tais princípios, a Lei no 8.443/1992 organizou seu aparato de forma a incluir nas atribuições de seus ministros o papel de fiscalizar, acusar, instaurar, instruir, gerir as provas e decidir seus processos acusatórios contra os indivíduos. Além disso, a referida lei estabeleceu um processo em que as partes não conseguem: produzir suas provas; acompanhar as provas produzidas pelos seus acusadores e ao mesmo tempo julgadores; serem ouvidas; e nem recorrerem para instância que não já as tenha fiscalizado e julgado. Portanto, é necessário modernizar tal lei para viabilizar tanto uma organização como um processo justo.</p><p> </p><p>The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 provided the administrative agencies with important competencies for the internal and external control of public activities, including the function of imposing sanctions and order the return of amounts spent improperly against citzens. At the same time, the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, through its Article 5, guarantees to all individuals that the State can only deprive them of their assets and rights if it faithfully follows certain specific principles (“normas-princípio”) of due legal process, adversarial system and full defense. Disrespecting directly such principles, the act Law 8.443/92 structured its bodies in such a way as to give to the officials the role of auditing, accusing, instituting, instructing, administering the evidence and deciding on its accusatory proceedings against individuals. Moreover, these Laws established a process in which the parties cannot: produce their evidence; analyse the evidence presented by their accusers/judges; be heard; or even appeal to a forum that has not already reviewed and decided on their case. Therefore, it is necessary to adapt this act to enable the creation of a structure and process that is fair.</p>

Proceedings before the Office and Procedural Rules

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-112
Author(s):  
Gert Würtenberger ◽  
Paul van der Kooij ◽  
Bart Kiewiet ◽  
Martin Ekvad
Keyword(s):  
Specific Procedure ◽  
Compulsory Licence ◽  
Community System ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Access To Documents

This chapter discusses the Basic Regulation and the Proceedings Regulation that contain a diversity of provisions on procedures, which relate to application procedures, objection procedures, or appeal procedures. It describes the Community plant variety rights system that opens the possibility for breeders to apply for Community plant variety rights. It also explains the specific procedure of framework of the Community system, which complies with fundamental principles on legitimate expectations and the right to a fair hearing. This chapter deals with the ancillary procedures relating to variety denominations, the objection procedure, and the procedure on access to documents. It highlights specific procedures to be followed concerning the application for a compulsory licence and requests for nullity and cancellation.

14. The grounds for judicial review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
The Right

This chapter considers the grounds on which public decisions may be challenged before the courts. It begins with an overview of two cases—Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948) and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985). The importance of these two cases is their distillation of the general principles. The discussion then covers the different grounds for judicial review: illegality, relevant/irrelevant considerations, fiduciary duty, fettering of a discretion, improper purpose, bad faith, irrationality, proportionality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, legitimate expectations, the right to a fair hearing, reasons, and the rule against bias. It is noted that principles often overlap, so that a challenge to a public law decision may be based on different principles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document