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

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.

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.

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.

Implications of Genetically Modified Crops and Intellectual Property Rights on Agriculture in Developing Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-271
Author(s):  
Olaitan Oluwaseyi Olusegun ◽  
Ifeoluwa Ayokunle Olubiyi
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Genetically Modified Crops ◽  
The Body ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

AbstractFood is essential for human survival. When the right quantity and quality is taken, it ensures growth and an adequate supply of nutrition to the body, which results in basic effectiveness in all spheres of life. Genetically modified crops have the potential to alleviate hunger and provide more food, especially in developing countries that have high levels of hunger, malnutrition and poverty. Although the debates on genetically modified crops generally focus on intellectual property, other issues include health and environmental concerns. This article examines these issues with the aim of providing holistic knowledge of the subject matter, which is important for stakeholders, particularly in developing countries, in deciding to protect plant variety rights. The article concludes that it is essential for developing countries to consider food security issues in fulfilling their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

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 Pushing the Boundaries: A Tentative Taxonomy of Money in New Zealand Private Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 607-622
Author(s):  
Matteo Solinas
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Technological Changes ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Legal Tender ◽  
Banking Institutions ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Bank Money

This article seeks to define the boundaries of money in the context of proprietary taxonomy in New Zealand. It suggests that the traditional legal concept of money exclusively based on state issued (fiat) currency is dated, as does not accommodate the near-universal use of bank money in commercial transactions, nor the recent technological changes introduced by virtual currencies. As long as something functions as a means of payment and the holder has the right to exchange it for legal tender, the divide between mutually agreed payment obligations into those made on the base of fiat currencies and those not, becomes artificial. In providing responses to similar commercial arrangements and parties' legitimate expectations, not only coins and banknotes, but also balances held by customers in banking institutions, foreign money, and digital currencies, should qualify as money for private law purposes.

scholarly journals Mejoramiento vegetal moderno, inteligencia artificial y derechos de propiedad intelectual

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 839-866
Author(s):  
Miguel A. Rapela
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Plant Breeding ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Human Person ◽  
Living Matter ◽  
Plant Variety ◽  
The Face ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Biotechnological Inventions

The modern plant breeding to obtain new plant varieties is based on genomic and phenomic selection generated through big data with millions of information points. In the face of such a quantity of data, it is necessary to use artificial intelligence to combine a complete vision and analysis of the problem through a human-computer interaction never addressed.The use of artificial intelligence has already created interpretive challenges in patents and copyrights. To a greater extent, modern plant breeding with the assistance of artificial inte-lligence is exposing major disarticulations and anachronisms in the Plant Breeder’s Rights and patent systems for biotechnological inventions. The challenges may even extend to the question of who would be entitled to the right in the case of products obtained without human intervention.The analysis of the situation indicates, on the one hand, that it would be necessary a review of the international framework of intellectual property rights in plant living matter which is based on independent treaties and conventions that apply to an indivisible organism as is a new plant variety. A more logical proposal would be to have a single, modern, and up-to-date compre-hensive sui generis protection system for all types of plant germplasm. On the other hand, it is proposed that, even in the case of products obtained through complete artificial intelligence processes, there must always be a human person legally responsible of the consequences of their actions, whether positive or negative

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document