scholarly journals Habeas corpus w Polsce oraz w niektórych państwach kręgu common law. Analiza prawnoporównawcza

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Przemysław Krawczyk ◽  
Bartosz Łukowiak
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Legal Code ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
European Court

In their article, Przemysław Krawczyk and Bartosz Łukowiak discuss the issue of the habeas corpus procedure. On the basis of a comparative legal analysis, they present a model of the functioning of this institution in Poland and in selected countries whose legal code is based on common law. Krawczyk and Łukowiak discuss in detail, among other things, the scope and the subject matter of this mode and the catalogue of guarantees associated with it. Their research has made it possible to compare the most important similarities and differences in the functioning of the habeas corpus privilege in the Polish legal code and in common law. This, in turn, has allowed them to assess the accuracy of some of the solutions known to the Polish criminal procedural law. This article contains extensive references to the views expressed on this mode both in the Polish and the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of the procedural criminal law and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Peek-A-Boo, It's a Case Law System! Comparing the European Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court from a Network Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Derlén ◽  
Johan Lindholm
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law System ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Moment

From the moment of its inception the European Union (EU) has included a court that was entrusted to give coherence and integrity to the interpretation and application of the Union's primary and secondary law. That the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was to play an important role in settling disputes was clear. But few anticipated how instrumental the Court would become in the development of EU law.

scholarly journals The concept and essence of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights in administrative judiciary

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 135-141
Author(s):  
Yan Bernazyuk
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Legitimacy ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article is devoted to the definition of the peculiarities of observance in administrative proceedings of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights. The concept and essence of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings are clarified, the meaning of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is established. The legal basis of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings is investigated. Based on the analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights established the content of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights. The opinion that the abuse of procedural rights is opposed to the conscientious abuse of procedural rights by the parties is substantiated. The author argues that the abuse of procedural rights may be recognized as actions or omissions of a party to the case, which are characterized by a sign of apparent legal legitimacy, but are used for the opposite or inconsistent with the pursuit of the relevant procedural right or obligation. Based on the analysis of the Constitution of Ukraine, international acts, laws of Ukraine and case law, it is proved that the main purpose of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is to guarantee the fair use of their procedural rights. The author discloses the content of the fair use of the parties' procedural rights, which includes the use of the relevant rights for the purpose for which these rights are granted, and in the manner prescribed by procedural law, as well as conscientious performance of duties specified by law or court. The study made it possible to state that the introduction of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is important for improving the effectiveness of administrative courts to protect the rights and interests of individuals, public interests and the interests of the state.

The role of the principle of integrity in copyright protection

2021 ◽  
pp. 12-25
Author(s):  
Olena Shtefan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Principle Of Justice

Shtefan O. The role of the principle of integrity in copyright protection.The article is devoted to the disclosure of the essence of the principle of good faith as the quintessence of all principles of law, universal principle, which applies both in procedural and material law. Directly in the article, the principle of good faith is revealed through the prism of the analysis of controversial legal relations arising in copyright relations.The application of the principle of fair use of works is aimed at establishing a balance between the interests of authors of works and the interests of society regarding their use, while sometimes it is used to expand the monopoly of copyright.Analysis of the legislation and case law of Canada, Australia and other countries allows us to define the principle of «fair dealing» as a way to protect («affirmative defense ») from copyright infringement and restrictions, rather than as a statutory right to use someone else’s work. Otherwise, the defendant would be burdened with proving that: 1) the use corresponds to one of those listed in Art. 29 goals (for example, research, criticism or news); 2) the use was «fair» and 3) there were references to the original source.According to the results of the study in the scientific article it was concluded that the existence in the Anglo-Saxon legal family of two conceptually different in the application of doctrines of fair use «fair use» and «fair dealing» and understanding the free use of works in Ukraine, as in other countries in continental Europe, closer to the doctrine of «fair dealing», which implies a statutory list of actions that are classified as fair use, than to the doctrine of «fair use», which operates in the United States. Although it is possible to trace some similarities between the understanding of free use in the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» and the doctrine of «fair dealing» (given the statutory list of restrictions on copyright), it is necessary to take into account case law and, accordingly, a more «free» interpretationof the applicable law when the courts decide whether the use is a violation of exclusive rights or is an activity within the framework of free (fair) use. Keywords: copyright, illegal use of copyright objects, the principle of justice, thedoctrine of «fair use», the doctrine of «fair dealing».

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

5. Case law

Legal Skills ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 85-103
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact

Case law can be broken down into common law, equity, and custom. This chapter begins with a discussion of common law and equity, including a brief history on how these sources came into being. It then turns to custom as a further source of law. It also provides an overview of the court system to illustrate how the various courts in the system link together in a hierarchy. It concludes with a discussion of the European Court of Human Rights and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on case law.

4. Case law

Legal Skills ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Finch ◽  
Stefan Fafinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact

Case law can be broken down into common law, equity, and custom. This chapter begins with a discussion of common law and equity, including a brief history on how these sources came into being. It then turns to custom as a further source of law. It also provides an overview of the court system to illustrate how the various courts in the system link together in a hierarchy. It concludes with a discussion of the European Court of Human Rights and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on case law.

scholarly journals Informed consent to clinical research in India: A private law remedy

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-283
Author(s):  
Himani Bhakuni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Treatment Context

There is a well-established common law doctrine for ascertaining information disclosure in informed consent claims within the treatment context that governs the doctor–patient relationship. But there is no such doctrine in clinical research governing the researcher–participant relationship in India. India, however, is not exceptional in this regard. Common law countries like the United States and Canada at most have sparse, non-systematised, criteria for such cases; arguably, a doctrine for research is at its nascent stage. But the adequacy of the existing criteria for settling informed consent claims in research has hardly ever been discussed. Furthermore, a specific discussion on the applicability of this ‘nascent doctrine’ to India is non-existent. This article discusses both. The article examines case law from India and other common law jurisdictions that hint at developments in this area. It suggests that Indian courts need to move abreast with other jurisdictions to better protect India’s patients and research participants.

Principles of Internet contracting: Illuminating the shadows

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 208-232
Author(s):  
Caterina Gardiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

The common law that applies to Internet contract formation could be said to exist in a penumbra—a grey area of partial illumination between darkness and light—where it may be possible to lose sight of established contract law principles. Internet contracts raise difficult issues relating to their formation that challenge traditional contract doctrine. Analysis of case law from the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland illustrates that the courts have not applied contract formation doctrine in a principled or consistent way. There is a tendency for decisions to be reached for policy reasons, for example, to facilitate the development of e-commerce, or to achieve a result that is considered fair, rather than on sound principles of contract law. There may also be some uncertainty arising from the relationship between statutory consumer protection rules and common law contract formation doctrine. The enforceability of Internet contracts in the common law courts remains unpredictable. This article argues that although Internet contracting may raise distinctive contract formation issues, it is possible for the judiciary to invoke the inherent flexibility of the common law, to take into account the specific characteristics of Internet contracts, while still adhering to established contract law doctrine and maintaining a principled approach.

National Procedural Autonomy and General EU Law Limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Rob Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent approach of the European Court of Justice of the EU towards the applicability of procedural national law in cases falling within the scope of Union law. It argues that the Court increasingly assesses such rules within the framework of the principle of effective judicial protection, as bindingly codified in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU since December 2009. This test is gradually replacing the rather deferential test on the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness and implies a further limitation of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The reason for the shift seems to be the necessity to coordinate the Court's case law on Article 47 CFR with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR, because this coordination requires the application of a similar standard by both European Courts. As a result, the importance of, in particular, the Rewe principle of effectiveness, has already decreased to a considerable extent and might decrease further in future. Nevertheless, it is not to be expected that this standard will be abolished completely. First, because it may provide an adequate standard for assessing procedural issues that are not related to effective judicial protection or Article 47 CFR. Secondly, because incidentally it may be used by the Court for modifying national procedural law with a view to the effective application of substantive EU rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document