scholarly journals Nusikaltimai virtualioje erdvėje – šiuolaikiniai Iššūkiai ir prevencijos galimybės

2020 ◽  
pp. 274-294
Author(s):  
Ugnė Grigaitytė ◽  
Miglė Mackevičiūtė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Virtual Space ◽  
International Level ◽  
Illegal Acts

The article presents an analysis of the virtual crimes, its problematic aspects, inter alia, prevention opportunities. Discussing types of virtual crimes, content aspects in the context of nowadays challenges, illegal acts’ measures. Regulatory reviews at national, European Union and international level, considered by the competent intitutions, as well as case law. Convention on cybercrime, adopted in 2001, extensively covering and legally regulating crimes, commited through virtual space, a comparison with Lithuanian legislation, including criminal code. The work emphasizes latency of cybercrimes likewise the damages comparing with ordinary crimes.

scholarly journals A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW ON THE RIGHT “TO BE FORGOTTEN”

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1377-1383
Author(s):  
Liuba Tzakova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Virtual Space ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Modern society is evolving at a faster pace than before and this process is driven by the technological progress and the access to virtual space and Internet. Physical exchange of information is being replaced by its virtual double which offers faster speeds in quite different dimensions compared to traditional ones. Virtual space reduces distances between different parts of the world, there are no state borders, the individual has the ability to provide and create electronic content from anywhere in the world.In this space of “limitless” freedom, however, there is an inevitable collision between the different interests of individuals which has its reflection in the material world. It is here that the increasing necessity to create rules and regulations for resolving future and already arisen conflicts becomes visible.This report addresses issues related to the deletion/erasure of information on the Internet relating to a particular person, or the so-called right “to be forgotten”. A person may refer to this right when he considers published and publicly available information about him on the network irrelevant, as well as when the information is not correct, is no longer up to date, or the ground for its processing has been dropped. The right “to be forgotten” is a conflict issue that shows both advantages and disadvantages. It offers opportunity for a new beginning and for protection of privacy7, but it is often necessary to restrict it in order to protect the right of the public to be informed and the freedom of speech.The European Union plays an active role in order to place this issue in a legal framework. It established legal regulation in the field with Directive 95/46 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data which is interpreted in connection with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The General Data Protection Regulation entered into force in 2018 and replaced Directive 95/46 /EC. Of particular importance for understanding and enforcing of the right “to be forgotten” is the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The role of the courts of the different countries should also not be underestimated.Despite the clarity that this regulation introduces, there are new issues that need to be addressed, such as the criteria for deleting personal information from the virtual space and in which cases the public interest is justified to take precedence over that of the individual and where it is not.

MAIN SPECIFICATIONS OF ASSESSING ACTIVITIES OF MINOR IMPORTANCE OF IN MODERN CRIMINAL LAW

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Minor Importance ◽  
Detailed Review

The research includes the full and the detailed overview of assessing activities of minor importance in Georgian Criminal Law. The Article 7 of the Criminal Code of Georgia states the following: a crime shall not be an action that, although formally containing the signs of a crime, has not produced, for minor importance, the prejudice that would require criminal liability of its perpetrator, or has not created the risk of such harm. The research includes the main criteria of defining activities as activities of minor importance. The detailed review of Georgian case law is also introduced, as well as, legislation, judicial literature and experience of the other European countries.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Legal Maxims: Summaries and Extracts from Selected Case Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Brisard ◽  
Guglielmo Cantillo ◽  
Ramona Grimberger ◽  
Victoria Hanley-Emilsson ◽  
Rebeka Hevesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Grand Chamber

Council of the European Union v. European Commission, Case C-409/13, Grand Chamber, Judgment, 14 April 2015European Commission v. Vanbreda Risk & Benefits, Case C‑35/15 P(R), Order of the Vice-President of the Court, 23 April 2015Geoffrey Léger v. Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang...

scholarly journals Characteristics of Precedent: The Case Law of the European Court of Justice in Three Dimensions

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
The One

AbstractThe case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is one of the most important sources of European Union law. However, case law's role in EU law is not uniform. By empirically studying how the Court uses its own case law as a source of law, we explore the correlation between, on the one hand, the characteristics of a CJEU case—type of action, actors involved, and area of law—and, on the other hand, the judgment's “embeddedness” in previous case law and value as a precedent in subsequent cases. Using this approach, we test, confirm, and debunk existing scholarship concerning the role of CJEU case law as a source of EU law. We offer the following conclusions: that CJEU case law cannot be treated as a single entity; that only a limited number of factors reliably affect a judgment's persuasive or precedential power; that the Court's use of its own case law as a source of law is particularly limited in successful infringement proceedings; that case law is particularly important in preliminary references—especially those concerning fundamental freedoms and competition law; and that initiating Member State and the number of observations affects the behavior of the Court.

Case Law of the European Union Courts

ERA Forum ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-117
Author(s):  
Sofía Mairal Montero De Espinosa ◽  
Laviero Buono ◽  
Balázs Rozsnyai
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union

If in Doubt, Leave it Out? EU Precaution in WTO Regulatory Space

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Flett
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Level ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
Available Information

This article reviews the way in which the concept of precaution, as commonly referenced in EU law, is received in the WTO. It argues that precaution is not a principle, but one facet of a principle of making rational judgments based on available information, the other facet of which is “that risk is worth taking”. Systematically pursuing high cost measures in response to low risks is not a balanced approach, and has probably contributed to the scepticism with which the concept is viewed in the WTO. However, this article goes on to argue that, without needing to be a principle, precaution is the determining legal feature in the SPS Agreement, because, unlike in the European Union, there is no legislative harmonisation of SPS measures at international level, WTO Members being free to set their own appropriate level of protection. In fact, the concept of precaution is relevant in the context of many other WTO provisions and is in some respects quite close to the concept of subsidiarity. Notwithstanding this, the first WTO SPS cases, driven by regulatory exporters and an interventionist WTO, have excessively emphasised scientific issues, masking policy judgments that the WTO has neither the legal nor the political authority to sustain. The article concludes that the proper way forward necessitates closer political, legal and administrative links between the WTO and other relevant international organisations, and a move away from consensus in the latter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document