Whether or Not the Provision for Punishment of Unfair Labor Practice Violates the Principle of Proportionality under the Constitution

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 97-132
Author(s):  
Hee-Sung Kim



Author(s):  
Olga Yavorska

The article deals with violations, which are often grounds for bringing disciplinary liability of judges, as well as the enforcement of them in the form of a petition for the dismissal from position of judge. A special place in the system of legal responsibility of a judge is taken by the institute of disciplinary responsibility, the essence of which lies in the possibility of applying by a specially authorized body to an individual bearer of judicial power - judges of legal sanctions, directly provided by law, for violations in the sphere of professional activity. The institute of disciplinary responsibility is considered, the purpose of which is to solve social problems in the interests of implementing and maintaining the necessary level of efficiency of the system of judicial protection as a necessary guarantee of the protection of rights, interests and freedoms of people. The analysis of grounds for disciplinary liability of a judge and types of disciplinary punishment has been carried out. The obligatory signs of disciplinary violations that are the cause of prosecution are analyzed. It is considered about the application of the principle of proportionality to disciplinary authorities in determining the type of collection. The practice of applying the principle of proportionality of disciplinary organs in case of imposition of penalties and violation of the question of ambiguity of such practice is analyzed. The article states that with qualitatively similar offenses committed by different judges, the disciplinary bodies chose one type of collection, but in different proportions. The method of determining the principle of proportionality in differentiating the choice of terms in this type of collection for actually such mistakes seems unclear. Moreover, the use of the same principle in choosing different types of charges for virtually identical disciplinary offenses is unclear, in particular, when the repeat offense is a feature. Key words: disciplinary responsibility of a judge, principle of proportionality, disciplinary offenses, penalties, dismissal from position of judge.





2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
Maria Inês de Oliveira Martins

Abstract The need of private insurers for information on the candidate’s health risks is recognized by the law, which places pre-contractual duties of disclosure upon the candidates. When the risks are influenced by health factors, e.g. in the case of life- and health insurances, it implies the provision of health information by the candidates, who thus voluntarily limit their right to privacy. This consent, however, often happens in a context of factual coercion to contract. Next to this, from a legal standpoint, the collection of personal information must respond to the principle of proportionality. Against this background, this article assesses the compatibility of questionnaire techniques that rely on open-ended health related questions with the right to privacy, as protected by Portuguese and international law. It then analyses the extent of pre-contractual duties of disclosure as defined by the Portuguese Insurance Act, which requires the candidate to volunteer all the relevant information independently of being asked for it. In doing so, the article also refers to some other European countries. It concludes that the relevant Portuguese legislation is incompatible both with Portuguese constitutional law and with international law.





2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (879) ◽  
pp. 569-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bothe ◽  
Carl Bruch ◽  
Jordan Diamond ◽  
David Jensen

AbstractThere are three key deficiencies in the existing body of international humanitarian law (IHL) relating to protection of the environment during armed conflict. First, the definition of impermissible environmental damage is both too restrictive and unclear; second, there are legal uncertainties regarding the protection of elements of the environment as civilian objects; and third, the application of the principle of proportionality where harm to the environment constitutes ‘collateral damage’ is also problematic. These gaps present specific opportunities for clarifying and developing the existing framework. One approach to addressing some of the inadequacies of IHL could be application of international environmental law during armed conflict. The detailed norms, standards, approaches, and mechanisms found in international environmental law might also help to clarify and extend basic principles of IHL to prevent, address, or assess liability for environmental damage incurred during armed conflict.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document