Article 4(24). Relevant and reasoned objection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supervisory Authority

Article 60 (Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board).

Article 66 Urgency procedure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludmila Georgieva
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Joint Operations

Article 4(21)–(22) (Definitions, supervisory authority and supervisory authority concerned); Article 60 (Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned); Article 61 (Mutual assistance) (see too recital 133); Article 62 (Joint operations of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 134); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recital 135); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board), Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recital 136); Article 70 (Tasks of the Board) (see too recital 136).

Article 60 Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Joint Operations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 50

Article 4(16) (Definition of ‘main establishment’) (see too recital 36); Article 4(22) (Definition of ‘supervisory authority concerned’) (see also recital 36); Article 4(23) (Definition of ‘cross-border processing’); Article 4(24) (Definition of ‘relevant and reasoned objection’) (see too recital 124); Article 50 (International cooperation for the protection of personal data) (see too recitals 102 and 116); Article 55 (Competence of the supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 128); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority) (see also recitals 124–128); Article 57(1)(g) (Supervisory authorities’ task to cooperate with other supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 58 (Powers of supervisory authorities) (see too recitals 122 and 129); Article 61 (Mutual assistance) (see too recitals 123 and 133); Article 62 (Joint operations of supervisory authorities) (see too recital 134); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recitals 13, 136 and 138); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board) (see also recitals 135–136); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board) (see too recitals 136 and 143); and Article 66 (Urgency procedure) (see too recitals 137–138).

Article 4(16). Main establishment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Definition Of

Article 4(7) (Definition of ‘controller’); Article 4(8) (Definition of ‘processor’); Article 4(19) (Definition of ‘group of undertakings’); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority) (see too recitals 124–128); Article 60 (Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned) (see too recitals 130–131); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board).

Article 4(22). Supervisory authority concerned

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Tosoni
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Supervisory Authority ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Definition Of

Article 4(2) (Definition of ‘processing’); Article 4(21) (Definition of ‘supervisory authority’); Article 4(23) (Definition of ‘cross-border processing’); Article 52 (Independence); Article 56 (Competence of the lead supervisory authority); Article 60 (Cooperation between the lead supervisory authority and the other supervisory authorities concerned); Article 63 (Consistency mechanism) (see too recitals 135 and 138); Article 64 (Opinion of the Board); Article 65 (Dispute resolution by the Board); Article 66 (Urgency procedure); Article 74 (Tasks of the Chair); Article 77 (Right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority).

Timber

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Forestry Sector ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One ◽  
Timber Market

During the civil war, Liberia’s forestry sector rose to prominence as Charles Taylor traded timber for arms. When the war ended, the UN’s timber sanctions remained in effect, reinforced by the Forestry Development Authority’s (FDA) domestic ban on logging. As Liberians waited for UN timber sanctions to be lifted, a burgeoning domestic timber market developed. This demand was met by artisanal loggers, more commonly referred to as pit sawyers. Out of this illicit economy emerged the Nezoun Group to provide local dispute resolution between the FDA’s tax collectors and ex-combatant pit sawyers. The Nezoun Group posed a dilemma for the government. On the one hand, the regulatory efforts of the Nezoun Group helped the FDA to tax an activity that it had banned. On the other hand, the state’s inability to contain the operations of the Nezoun Group—in open contravention of Liberian laws—highlighted the government’s capacity problems.

International Trade and Protection of the Environment: The Continuing Search for Reconciliation

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Schoenbaum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Environmental Measures ◽  
Different Cultures ◽  
The Relationship

Before 1991, the relationship between the protection of the environment and international trade was an arcane specialty that attracted little attention. In 1971 the GATT Council established a Working Group on Environmental Measures and International Trade. This group did not even meet for over twenty years.Everything changed with the decision in the Tuna/Dolphin I case, in which a GATT dispute resolution panel declared a United States embargo on tuna caught by fishing methods causing high dolphin mortality to be illegal. The Tuna/Dolphin I decision produced an explosion of rhetoric in both learned journals and the popular press. It was also a very interesting clash of very different “cultures,” trade specialists versus environmentalists. At die outset, neither group knew much about the other. Now, however, the legal and political issues have been identified and ventilated, mutual understanding has increased, and the process has begun to reconcile two values that are absolutely essential to the well-being of mankind: protection of the environment and international free trade.

scholarly journals Złożenie skargi przez konsumenta za pośrednictwem ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – internetowego systemu rozstrzygania sporów

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Online Dispute Resolution ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Resolution System ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Technical Innovations ◽  
Modern Form ◽  
Dispute Resolution System

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.

Part III The Major Cases and Controversies: A Survey of State Practice, 6 The Major Cases

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
McCaffrey Stephen C
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
International Profile

This chapter explores cases bearing on the field of international watercourses that have been decided by the International Court of Justice or its predecessor. States have submitted only a few disputes concerning international watercourses to the International Court of Justice or its predecessor, though the pace is clearly picking up. There are doubtless many factors that explain this phenomenon, including reluctance to give a dispute a high international profile, reluctance to trust dispute resolution to a third party over whom states have no control, hesitancy about submitting a dispute to a tribunal composed of judges, the expense of litigating before the World Court, and the like. On the other hand, states are bringing an increasing number of cases of all kinds, including those concerning international watercourses, to the Court, indicating that it is becoming a more popular forum for the resolution of disputes.

Separation of Powers and Alternative Dispute Resolution before the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-271
Author(s):  
Cedric Jenart ◽  
Mathieu Leloup
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Level ◽  
European Court

Alternative dispute resolution procedures before the European Court of Human Rights – The state agent, a member of the executive branch, tasked with representing the respondent state – Judicial and legislative branches of the respondent state limited or bound by concessions by the state agent – Convention framework effectively increases the power of the executive branch to the detriment of the other branches of government in the respondent state – Tension with national separation of powers – Possible solutions on a national and international level

scholarly journals Recepcija rimskog prava na glagoljici

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 469-482
Author(s):  
Ivan Milotić
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Canon Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Ius Commune ◽  
Roman Model ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Made In

The protocol of Petar Lazarić, who was simultaneously a domestic priest, prebendary and a notary of Mošćenice, dates back to 1621. It originated in Mošćenice and records in glagolithic script a resolution of a private dispute concerning the property division which was achieved in arbitration. Although the wording of the documents reveals the glagolithic script and is fully made in the Croatian language, if we go beyond that and explore the origins of the essential terms and expressions, we may reach a conclusion that the document substantially records Latin (or Italian) legal technical language which was slightly Croatised in the process of its adoption into the legal system of the commune of Mošćenice. Moreover, the content of the document puts forth legal principles, concepts and institutes of the extrajudicial dispute resolution which were consistently applied in Mošćenice following the model of arbitration in Roman law. All the essentials of the document at hand reflect the strong influences of the Roman legal tradition and the ius commune. The author provides an analysis in this paper which addresses all the relevant institutes that were applied in the arbitration dispute at hand referring to the procedural and substantive law at the same time. The author searches for the Roman model of these institutes, evaluates them from perspective of Roman and canon law of the Middle and New Ages and, finally, he brings this particular legal source in relation to the other two which originated in Mošćenice in the first half of the 17th century that both record significant influences of the Roman legal tradition of the time: The Statute of Mošćenice of 1637 and the boundary dispute between Lovran and Mošćenice of 1646.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document