scholarly journals The Public Protector as a Mechanism of Political Accountability: The Extent of its Contribution to the Realisation of the Right to Access Adequate Housing in South Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Joel Tchawouo Mbiada
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Political Accountability ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right

This paper is premised on the concept of political accountability which aims to hold accountable government for its action and or omission. Political accountability encompasses a number of mechanisms such as the judiciary and the ombudsman. Courts have been instrumental in enforcing the realisation of the right to access to adequate housing in South Africa. This paper argues, however, that the judiciary is not the only enforcing avenue because other mechanisms of political accountability may also contribute to the realisation of the right to housing. The paper, therefore, explores the extent of the Public Protector's contribution to the realisation of the right to access to adequate housing. The paper then argues that it is through its functions that the Public Protector exercises its accounting role in the realisation of the right to access to adequate housing. The paper, however, cautions that the Public Protector is not an alternative dispute resolution institution parallel to courts. But that the Public Protector complements the role played by courts by offering another medium through which such right may be realised.

scholarly journals Keuringspanele ("Screening Panels") as Gepaste Geskilbeslegtingsmetode ter Oplossing van Mediese Wanpraktyks-geskille.

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
AJ Crous
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
The Public ◽  
Malpractice Claims ◽  
The Right ◽  
Medical Malpractice Claims

A right only has any value if there is a remedy providing for the acknowledgement and enforcement thereof. An increase in medical malpractice claims can be expected in South Africa in view of the fact that the public is becoming more and more aware of its rights in respect of health services and health care. The public opinion calls for development of dispute resolution proceedings. The fact that the law is not accessible to everyone in South Africa is a matter of concern. High litigation costs, coupled with the time consuming protracted, formal and complicated process, call for a transformation towards an alternative, non-judicial process that is suitable for a particular dispute and apposite to the parties involved. Selection panels, the medical ombudsperson and arbitration clauses incorporated in doctor/patient agreements, are ADR mechanisms that have been proved by American law as suitable for resolution of medical malpractice claims. In this particular article attention is paid to screening panels as pre-trial mechanism with the exclusive purpose to select malpractice disputes, discourage unfounded disputes and to encourage an early settlement in case of a prima facie case.Several objections have been raised by critics in this regard, for instance, a screening panel infringes on: the right of equal protection/the right of access to the courts/the right to a jury trial/the right to a due process as well as on the trias politica doctrine. These so-called infringements are attended to and eventually a positive conclusion regarding screening panels is made: medical screening panels (consisting generally of a medical doctor, a lawyer and a member of public), based on the American experience, is indeed an appropriate dispute resolution method.

Part II The Member State Reports on Transposition of the Directive, 16 Spain

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos Francisco
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Full Compensation ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the transposition of the Antitrust Damages Directive in Spain. It begins with a general overview of the transposition process, focusing on the Transposition Decree that inserts new articles in the Defence Competition Act of 2007 and in the Civil Procedure Act. It then describes the material, territorial, and temporal scope of the Transposition Decree before analysing the main issues concerning antitrust damages claims affected by the Transposition Decree or that may be relevant in future actions for damages, such as those relating to the jurisdiction of competent courts to decide damages claims based on infringements of competition law, the right to full compensation, joint and several/parental liability, passing-on of the harm and claims by indirect purchasers/suppliers, the limitation period for bringing damages claims, the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, measures to facilitate claims, and collective claims and consumer redress.

Article 23—Common Provisions

2021 ◽  
pp. 408-408
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Computer Program ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Member States ◽  
Adjustment Mechanism ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

This chapter covers the common provisions in Article 23 of the copyright order in Europe, Directive 2019/790. It refers to Member States that are required to ensure that any contractual provision that prevents compliance with the transparency obligation and contract adjustment mechanism will be unenforceable in relation to authors and performers. It also looks at the legislation that causes non-compliance with the alternative dispute resolution procedure. The chapter points out that the provisions on the right of revocation do not apply to authors of a computer program within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs. It emphasizes that the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration in Article 18 of Directive 2019/790 do not affect individuals involved in computer programs.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Florida's Impasse Resolution Procedures: A Survey of Public Sector Practitioners

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth M. Jennings ◽  
Steven K. Paulson ◽  
Steven A. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Public Employees ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Perceived Effectiveness ◽  
Frequency Distributions ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Impasse Resolution

Public employees in Florida have been permitted by law since 1974 to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. Along with the right to engage in collective bargaining, the law established a dispute resolution process for resolving bargaining impasses in lieu of the strike, which was strictly prohibited. This law also established the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), which was created to oversee the process. The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the present impasse procedure as perceived by the concerned parties. This study was exploratory in nature and designed to provide PERC and thus the Florida Legislature with the documentation required for review of the present law. A total of 1,150 questionnaires were mailed to union representatives and public employers. A 45 percent return rate was achieved. The return was approximately equally divided between the unions and the employers. Frequency distributions of these responses and regression analyses are presented and conclusions are drawn as to the perceived effectiveness of the process.

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Individual Workplace Rights: The Evolving Role of Fair Work Australia

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 718-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Therese MacDermott ◽  
Joellen Riley
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Adverse Action ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Workplace Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Resolution Processes

This article examines the dispute resolution practices of Fair Work Australia that are evolving to deal with individual workplace rights, as its traditional role shifts away from conciliating and arbitrating collective industrial disputes. The workplace rights enshrined in the ‘general protections’ provisions in Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 protect employees and prospective employees from any ‘adverse action’ taken against them because they are exercising a workplace right, or because they fall within one of the protected categories, such as the right to be free from discrimination. A broad range of alternative dispute resolution processes is now available to Fair Work Australia in dealing with such disputes. Alternative dispute resolution processes are seen as a way of avoiding costly and time-consuming litigation, and in some circumstances can improve access to justice for individuals. This article explores whether Fair Work Australia is likely to adopt different dispute resolution approaches from its traditional conciliation practices when managing ‘general protections’ applications, and whether the framework for dealing with these disputes will facilitate fair recognition and enforcement of workplace rights.

scholarly journals The Reconstruction of Public Information Dispute Resolution as the Effort in Realizing Substantive Justice in Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-116
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
The Government ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The right to information is a human right as derogable right. Fulfilment of the right to information often leads to information disputes with Information and Documentation Management Officer (IDMO) as administrative officials who are given the task of managing information and documentation. Information dispute resolution becomes important to be resolved immediately because it is related to fulfilling a sense of justice and fulfilling the right to information for the community. The Establishment of the Government Administration Act (GA Act) causes the dualism of information dispute resolution. Article 53 of the GA Act will be the basis for resolving information disputes in the administrative court domain, while the Public Information Officer/PIO Act is the basis for resolving information disputes within the Information Commission domain. This dualism needs to be resolved to ensure legal certainty for the government and society as Justicia Belen. The development of dispute resolution reconstruction of information is conducted by strengthening information dispute resolution in non-litigation. Ideal information dispute resolution should be resolved first through administrative remedies (objections and administrative appeals) and through the Information Commission. The court becomes the ultimum remedium in resolving a dispute. Therefore, strengthening the Information Commission in terms of development, finance and authority is one way to strengthen the resolution of information disputes outside the court.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Perkara Pelanggaran Hak atas Merek

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-71
Author(s):  
I Gede Mahendra Juliana Adiputra ◽  
Ida Ayu Putu Widiati ◽  
Ni Made Puspasutari Ujianti
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Mutual Agreement

The existence of competition causes the original brand owner to feel disadvantaged because the sales result has decreased. It is permissible for someone to use another party's mark as long as they ask permission from the trademark owner first. The owner can give trademark rights to other people as agreed in an agreement. The formulation of the problem in this research is as follows: how is the legal protection of trademark rights and how to resolve violations of trademark rights. The research method used in this research is normative legal research. The results of the discussion in this study are as follows: Legal protection of the right to a trademark has been regulated by Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, in the provisions of the Law it is expressly stated that if it has been registered in the law that the right to a trademark has been protected. The sanction imposed on the perpetrator of the crime of trademark rights is a fine of Rp. 20,000,000, - (twenty million rupiah) on condition that if the fine is not paid, he will be subject to imprisonment for 6 (six) months. Settlement of trademark cases can be carried out through institutions that can be used to resolve trademark disputes, including: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration and Courts. Alternative dispute resolution wants the disputing parties to resolve their own dispute with the aim of obtaining a mutual agreement, if the agreement fails, can take arbitration, namely the disputing parties to be able to resolve the dispute to the arbitration institution based on the agreement, furthermore, if the arbitration is successful the last action is through the court, namely the commercial court which has the authority to adjudicate trademark disputes.

scholarly journals Forms of consumer protection

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-267
Author(s):  
Dragan Vujisić ◽  
Milan Rapajić
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The authors point to the plurality of forms of consumer protection. Private law form of consumer protection is individual protection in civil proceedings. The protection of the collective interests of consumers in most European legal systems is achieved through litigation. The Consumer Protection Act entrusts the protection of the collective interests of consumers to administrative bodies, which is realized in administrative proceedings, whose rules are characterized by considerable differences in relation to the rules provided by the Law on General Administrative Procedure. A significant unit is dedicated to the mechanism of alternative dispute resolution, especially arbitration and mediation. The shortcomings of the Law on Consumer Protection regarding certain contradictory provisions are pointed out. The legislator stimulates alternative dispute resolution, and on the other hand stipulates that contracting one of these methods does not affect the right to judicial protection. The paper also analyses the inspection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document