scholarly journals Reviewing judicial precedent No. 74.2.12-597 of general board of Iran’s supreme court

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 4738
Author(s):  
Parviz Dehghan

According to legal regulations, endorsers of a commercial document hold severally liable against its holder; and in this regard the holder too has some duties to perform. Among these duties, after the demand and protest for non-payment in legal time is litigation within a certain legal time. There are different opinions regarding inclusion of the guarantors in article 286 of Iran’s trade law and judicial procedures are also divided and vary, and according to some rulings of some branches of Iran’s Supreme Court, the guarantor is included in the subject of article 286 while some of the branches consider it outside of the article 286 subject. This difference resulted in the issuance of judicial precedent no. 597 on 1995 May 2nd which rules on the exclusion of the guarantor in the subject of article 286 inclusion. In this paper, along with reviewing the ruling, the guarantor inclusion-exclusion cases in the subject and ruling of article 286 of the Iran’s trade law is determined.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-113
Author(s):  
Ernesto A. Hernández-López

For over six years now, the law has been central to policy debates about genetically modified organism (GMO) corn in México, the birthplace of maíz (corn). In the lawsuit Colectividad del Maíz, the domestic courts have shaped the policy on GMO corn. Out of concern for biodiversity, the courts have suspended regulatory approval for commercial GMO corn permits needed by seed companies. This article uses decolonial theory to examine how the law can both encourage and limit the use of GMOs. Decolonial perspectives isolate how economics, legal authorities, and ideologies work in unison to shape relations between the Global South and private interests. This is accomplished by defining the subject of any such legal regulations. Different legal doctrines treat GMOs in different and distinct ways. Under the doctrines of biosecurity, intellectual property, and international trade law, markets and biotechnology benefit as the subject of the law. Such doctrines disenfranchise maíz nativo (non-GMO corn) by making it the law’s object. The article also adopts Bruno Latour’s theory of “down to earth” politics to identify important changes in GMO regulations. Collective action litigation has limited the expansion of GMO corn via the application of precautionary principle measures and motivated new legislation in México.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-162
Author(s):  
Stefan Marek Grochalski

Parliament – an institution of a democratic state – a member of the Union – is not only an authority but also, as in the case of the European Union, the only directly and universally elected representative body of the European Union. The article presents questions related to the essence of parliament and that of a supranational parliament which are vital while dealing with the subject matter. It proves that the growth of the European Parliament’s powers was the direct reason for departing from the system of delegating representatives to the Parliament for the benefit of direct elections. It presents direct and universal elections to the European Parliament in the context of presenting legal regulations applicable in this respect. It describes a new legal category – citizenship of the European Union – primarily in terms of active and passive suffrage to the European Parliament, as a political entitlement of a citizen of the European Union.


1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. H. McIlwain

At the meeting of the Political Science Association last year, in the general discussion, on the subject of the recall, I was surprised and I must admit, a little shocked to hear our recall of judges compared to the English removal of judges on address of the houses of parliament.If we must compare unlike things, rather than place the recall beside the theory or the practice of the joint address, I should even prefer to compare it to a bill of attainder.In history, theory and practice the recall as we have it and the English removal by joint address have hardly anything in common, save the same general object.Though I may not (as I do not) believe in the recall of judges, this paper concerns itself not at all with that opinion, but only with the history and nature of the tenure of English judges, particularly as affected by the possibility of removal on address. I believe a study of that history will show that any attempt to force the address into a close resemblance to the recall, whether for the purpose of furthering or of discrediting the latter, is utterly misleading.In the history of the tenure of English judges the act of 12 and 13 William III, subsequently known as the Act of Settlement, is the greatest landmark. The history of the tenure naturally divides into two parts at the year 1711. In dealing with both parts, for the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself strictly to the judges who compose what since 1873 has been known as the supreme court of judicature.


Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 189
Author(s):  
Paweł Majka

<p>The subject of the study is to outline the boundaries within the legislator may sanction the obligations to provide information to tax authorities using tax sanctions. The author analyzes tax sanctions as instruments guaranteeing the effectiveness of legal norms related to information obligations in the light of the protection of the taxpayer’s rights. In the author’s opinion, there is a clear outline of the possible shape of the sanction, which limits the legislator in excessive interference with the rights of taxpayers. These limits, both in national and international law, are determined primarily by the principle of proportionality, which is decisive for the degree of discomfort associated with the application of sanctions. It should be indicated that the shape limits of these sanctions, characterized in this study, guarantee, in turn, the protection of the rights of these entities. At the same time, it should be emphasized that tax sanctions are, in principle, a complementary element of the system of the guarantees of the law effectiveness and the legislator deciding on their wider use should properly balance the degree of “saturation” of tax law with sanctions taking into account its nature.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 97-114
Author(s):  
Michał Biela

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest prezentacja założeń teoretycznych oraz praktycznej implementacji koncepcji alternatywnych źródeł finansowania społecznościowego w Polsce i Unii Europejskiej ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem aspektów formalno-prawnych crowdfundingu. Artykuł składa się z trzech części: w pierwszej opisano założenia definicyjne i koncepcyjne crowdfundingu, w drugiej przedstawiono propozycję zmiany ram regulacyjnych finansowania społecznościowego, przygotowanych przez instytucje Unii Europejskiej, natomiast trzecia zawiera uregulowania prawne finansowania społecznościowego w Polsce. W artykule jako metodę badawczą zastosowano desk research, której implementacja umożliwiła analizę istniejącej literatury przedmiotu. Theoretical assumptions of crowdfunding and its legal regulations in the European Union and in PolandThe aim of this article is to present the theoretical assumptions and practical implementation of the concept of alternative sources of funding in Poland and in the European Union, with emphasis on the formal and legal aspects of crowdfunding. The article consists of three parts. The first part describes the definition and conceptual assumptions of crowdfunding. The second part presents a proposal to change the crowdfunding regulatory framework at the European Union level. The third part includes legal regulations for crowdfunding in Poland. In the article, desk research was used as a research method, the implementation of which enabled the analysis of the existing literature on the subject.


Author(s):  
Anna Moskal

Does forgiveness nullify the effects of previous disinheritance? The legal nature of forgiveness is the subject of passionate debates among the representatives of civil law doctrine. According to the dominant position in the literature, forgiveness is an act of affection or its manifested expression of forgiveness of the perpetrator of experienced injustice and related to this grudge. This institution has been applied three times in the Civil Code — once with the donation agreement, twice in regulations of inheritance law. Article 1010 § 1 provides that a testator cannot disinherit eligible for legal portion if he forgave him. The wording of the above article indicates that accomplishment of disinheritance in case if testator eligible for legal portion has previously forgiven. The legislator did not, however, determine the effects of forgiveness in relation to previous disinheritance. In the act of 1971, the Supreme Court accepted that such forgiveness would automatically nullify the effects of disinheritance, and could be made in any form. In recent years, lower courts have begun to question the Supreme Court's position, and judges increasingly refer to the critical statements of numerous doctrines. As it was rightly stated, admitting the possibility of invoking the forgiveness made after disinheritance poses a serious threat to the realization of the testator’s will, who, by forgiving, does not necessarily want to revoke the effects of his previous disinheritance. The postulate of de lege ferenda is, according to the author of the article, giving of freedom of judging the effects of forgiveness to the courts and each examination of the forgiving testator’s will on the possible abatement of the consequences of previous disinheritance.]]>


2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Jochelson

In R. v. Labaye, the Supreme Court of Canada finally retired the community standards of tolerance test of obscenity. The test had been the subject of much academic critique, a matter that reached its zenith in the period following Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice), in which a gay and lesbian bookshop contested the procedures and legislative regime of customs officials in detaining its imports. The engagement in the literature on the efficacy of the community standards test that followed was often heated, always interesting, and ultimately unresolved. To date, we have not seen any clarifying applications of the newly proposed harm test by the Supreme Court, nor have we seen a profound articulation in any lower courts. Subsequently, the academic discussion has slowed to a crawl. In this article, the author reviews four accounts of the community standards test that were prominent following Little Sisters, and asks if the newly proposed Labaye standard meets their concerns. The Labaye case provides much fodder for the previous critics and supporters of a community standards of tolerance approach to analyze. After a critical analysis of the new Labaye test, the author concludes that the concerns have not been muted by the retirement of the community standards test, even if the voices have been. The engaged voices heard in the aftermath of Little Sisters should not hold back and they should not abandon the work to be done in obscenity law and freedom of expression discourse generally.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 556
Author(s):  
Vidal Serrano NUNES JUNIOR ◽  
Marcio Ortiz MEINBERG

RESUMOTrata-se de artigo cujo objetivo é identificar o entendimento do Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF sobre a Separação dos Poderes no que se refere à natureza do Mandado de Injunção, um remédio constitucional a ser concedido em caso de omissão do Poder Público em editar norma regulamentadora necessária para viabilizar o exercício dos direitos e liberdades constitucionais e das prerrogativas inerentes à nacionalidade, à soberania e à cidadania. O entendimento histórico do STF sobre o tema não é consensual e são percebidas ao menos duas grandes correntes às quais se afiliaram os ministros: Teoria Concretista e Teoria Não-Concretista (além de suas subdivisões). As duas grandes correntes diferenciam-se radicalmente, tanto no que se refere ao relacionamento entre o Judiciário e os demais Poderes, quanto aos efeitos do Mandado de Injunção. Além disso, o entendimento do STF evoluiu historicamente, não apenas quanto ao posicionamento majoritária da Corte em torno de alguma das teorias, mas também quanto ao desenvolvimento de cada uma delas. A partir da análise das principais decisões do STF sobre o tema, sistematizaremos as características centrais de cada uma das correntes (e como se diferenciam), bem como suas fundamentações e evolução. A metodologia adotada é a Dogmática Jurídica (cf. Alexy e Dreier), com foco nas dimensões empírica (pela análise das decisões do STF) e analítica (estabelecendo definições e sistematizando os conceitos utilizados pelos ministros do STF). Como conclusão, apresentaremos as características centrais de cada uma das teorias adotadas pelo STF no que se refere ao tema Separação dos Poderes.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Separação dos Poderes; Mandado de Injunção; Função Normativa. ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to identify how Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF (Brazilian’s Supreme Court) sees the Separation of Powers related to the nature of the Writ of Injunction, a constitutional remedy (relief) to be granted in case of Public Power’s omission in enacting a regulatory norm needed to enable the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms and the prerogatives inherent in nationality, sovereignty and citizenship. The historical opinion of the STF on this subject is not consensual, and there is at least two major currents in which the ministers-judges have joined: Concretist Theory and Non-Concretist Theory (and its subdivisions). The two major currents differ radically, either about the relationship between the Judiciary and the other Powers, as about the effects of the Writ of Injunction. Besides, the STF’s opinion has evolved historically, not only regards the majority position of the Court around one of the theories, but also as to the development of each of them. After analysing the main STF’s decisions on the subject, we systematize the central characteristics of each of the currents (and how they differ from each other), as well as their foundations and evolution. The methodology is the Legal Dogmatic (according Alexy and Dreier), with focus on the empirical dimension (the analysis of STF’s decisions) and analytical dimension (the establishment of definitions and the systematization the concepts used by the STF’s ministers-judges). In conclusion, we present the central characteristics related to Separation of Powers of each one the theories adopted by the STF.KEYWORDS: Separation of Powers; Writ of Injunction; Normative Function.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 499
Author(s):  
Edilton MEIRELES

RESUMONeste trabalho tratamos do direito de manifestação em piquetes e da responsabilidade que possa advir desses atos em face da jurisprudência da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América. A partir da análise das principais decisões da Suprema Corte se pode concluir que, de modo geral, os participantes do piquete não respondem quando agem de forma não ilegal. Está sedimentado, no entanto, o entendimento de que o organizador do piquete responde pelos atos dos participantes. A pesquisa desenvolvida se justifica enquanto estudo comparativo e diante do pouco debate existente no Brasil a respeito do tema. Na pesquisa foi utilizado o método dedutivo, limitada à ciência dogmática do direito, com estudo de casos apreciados pelo judiciário. PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Responsabilidade; Piquete; Estados Unidos; Suprema Corte; Liberdade De Expressão. ABSTRACTIn this work we deal with the right of demonstration in pickets and the responsibility that may arise from these acts in the face of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. From the analysis of the Supreme Court's main decisions it can be concluded that, in general, the picket participants do not respond when they act in a non-illegal way. It is settled, however, the understanding that the picket organizer responds by the acts of the participants. The research developed is justified as a comparative study and in view of the little debate that exists in Brazil regarding the subject. In the research was used the deductive method, limited to the dogmatic science of law, with study of cases appreciated by the judiciary.KEYWORDS: Responsibility; Picket; United States; Supreme Court; Freedom Of Expression.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document