Part 2 Specific Issues of Arbitration in Brazil, 9 International versus National Awards

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martins Pedro Batista
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Federal Supreme

This chapter explores the difference between international and national awards. The Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) is, strictly speaking, the last judicial body competent to deal with matters of an infra-constitutional nature. Hence, it is the Court that harmonizes the case law related to arbitration in Brazil. In 2004, the competence to recognize and enforce foreign judicial and arbitral awards was transferred from the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Court) to the STJ. Immediately after being granted such competence, the STJ introduced very contemporaneous rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards by issuing on May 4, 2005 the Resolution Number 9. It is possible to issue provisional relief during the recognition proceeding; it is also possible to issue partial recognition of foreign arbitral awards; and allowed to enforce provisional relief granted abroad through rogatory letter. The chapter then highlights the main arbitration concepts and addresses the STJ's arbitration case law.

scholarly journals Un aspect crucial mais délicat des libertés de conscience et de religion des articles 2 et 3 des Chartes canadienne et québécoise: l'objection de conscience

2005 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-205
Author(s):  
Henri Brun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
Current Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right

The Supreme Court of Canada, obiter, in the Big M Drug Mart Case, has spoken of the "Constitutional Exemption". It is the possibility not to be bound to obey the neutral laws that conflict with one's conscience or religion. It is what we call in French l'objection de conscience. The institution exists in Canadian and Québec Law as a part of the right to freedom of conscience or religion expressed in 2a) and 3 of the Canadian and Québec Charters of Rights. And it goes well beyond the right not to fight within the armed forces. The Supreme Court of Canada has actually delivered six judgments touching on the subject in 1985 and 1986. The conditions under which l'objection de conscience come into play are not so well known however. Does it cover matters of worship or only rules of morals ? Secular or only religious principles ? Personal or only group beliefs ? Do the existence of the rule, the sincerity of the objector and the reasonableness of the exemption have to be proved? Above all, what is the difference between a creed and an opinion ? The following article tries to formulate answers to these questions, with the help of current case-law.

CJEU Citations in the Case Law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
pp. 81-114
Author(s):  
Francesco Maiani
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Cultural Factors ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Background Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Book ◽  
Swiss Law ◽  
Federal Supreme

This chapter addresses the issue of when, why, and to what effect the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (FSC) refers to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). After providing background information on the Swiss legal system and the relations between Switzerland and the EU, it presents the doctrines of ‘euro-compatible’ interpretation developed by the FSC. Based on a comprehensive analysis of published FSC decisions, it then examines the frequency of references to the CJEU, their legal rationale, and their impact. The article finds that citations of the CJEU in Swiss case law are much more frequent and cogent than in the other third states covered by the present book. This, it is argued, is due to the far-reaching Europeanization of Swiss law. Indeed, while cultural factors may influence the decision to cite CJEU precedents in individual cases, the degree and type of Europeanization in each legal field predict the frequency and cogency of such citations. Thus, in the Swiss case, it may be misleading to speak of the ‘influence of the CJEU’. More than inter-judicial dynamics, it is Swiss judges’ everyday office of applying the law that leads them to consider CJEU precedent.

Germany

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bobek
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
National Origin ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Domestic Case

The chapter deals with Germany. Although the German legal tradition is relatively open to non-mandatory legal inspiration, the sources of such inspiration are nonetheless generally limited to sources of national origin. The practice of three of the supreme federal jurisdictions, the Federal Constitutional Court, the Federal Supreme Court, and the Federal Administrative Court, discloses only sporadic passing references to foreign inspiration, typically within a larger block of citations of domestic case law or scholarship. References to foreign solutions serve as an additional supportive argument. In the German context, however, the limited quantity of direct uses of foreign law by courts should be weighed against the relatively rich comparative law scholarship.

scholarly journals La irrecurribilidad de autos dictados por la Audiencia Provincial: comentario al auto del Tribunal Supremo, de fecha 30 de mayo de 2018 = The non-appeal of a judicial decree dictated by the Provincial Hearing: comment to the Judicial decree of the Supreme Court, dated may 30, 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 856
Author(s):  
Antonio Merchán Murillo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement

Resumen: En el presente estudio se pone de manifiesto la irrecurribilidad de un Auto recaído en un procedimiento sobre reconocimiento y ejecución de sentencia extranjera, tal y como se venía propugnando por la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo. Esta cuestión se viene a solventar con la LCJIMC.Palabras clave: auto, recurso de casación; procedimiento de exequátur; Tribunal Supremo.Abstract: The present study highlights the non-appeal of a judicial decree in a procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, as defended by the Supreme Court’s case law. Thisquestion comes to be resolved withthe LCJIMC.Keywords: judicial decree; cassation appeal; exequatur procedure; High Court.

scholarly journals (Un)Conditional Welfare? Tensions Between Welfare Rights and Migration Control in Swiss Case Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-114
Author(s):  
Lisa Marie Borrelli ◽  
Stefanie Kurt ◽  
Christin Achermann ◽  
Luca Pfirter
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Social Assistance ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Welfare Rights ◽  
Migration Control ◽  
Economic Participation ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Federal Supreme

Abstract This analysis of Swiss Federal Supreme Court judgements shows the coupling of welfare and migration control. Foreign nationals depending on social assistance might face the withdrawal of their residence permits. We show how the conveyed legal logics create conditionality of rights and a differentiation of (non-)citizens. The judgements individualise social assistance dependence and follow a neoliberal logic of economic participation. They establish rationalities which reinforce politics of belonging and welfare chauvinism.

Der Wald im Lichte der neueren bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung | Forest legislation in the recent jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (9) ◽  
pp. 263-274
Author(s):  
Alois Keel ◽  
Willi Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Large Scope ◽  
Forest Law ◽  
Federal Jurisdiction ◽  
Forest Legislation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Forest Status ◽  
Area Planning ◽  
Federal Supreme

With the entry into force of the new Swiss Federal Law on Forests on the 1st of January 1993, the basis of decision-making for the Federal Supreme Court concerning forestry issues has, at least formally, fundamentally changed. This article depicts the development of the Federal Supreme Court's jurisdiction during 2000–2008 concerning the legislation on forests. The analysis of about 100 decisions reveals that the federal jurisdiction has, with regard to contents, barely changed in comparison to that of the federal law on supervision of the forest police of 1902. The most frequent causes of dispute are assessments of forest status, authorizations for deforestation, and forest distance regulations. The Federal Supreme Court merely refined the jurisdiction; it did not, or did not need to disclose fundamentally new lines [benchmarks]. It rather adheres to the restrictive definition of forest and the strict conservation of forests, while the cantons do not dispose of a large scope for the deforestation jurisdiction or the definition of the term “forest”. The Federal Supreme Court grants the cantons more freedom to regulate and implement the forest distance. Obvious changes can be observed concerning the number of forest law cases that have been dealt with by the Federal Supreme Court. Compared to the 1980ies and early 1990ies, they have decreased by more than half. Among others, reasons for this decrease are the cantons' obligation to appoint courts only as last cantonal resort, the improvement of the formal and material coordination of the proceedings, and the introduction of the “static forest term” with respect to building zones in the sense of the federal law on area planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document