scholarly journals Principles of IP-Court Activity in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
S. V. Volovyk
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Document ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The principles of IP-court activity in Ukraine have been studied. It has been emphasized that the urgent issues currently are to review the existing approaches to reforming the judicial system of Ukraine, based on the gained experience of establishing specialized courts, defining principles as guidelines for the functioning of IP-court in Ukraine as the Higher Specialized Judicial System of Ukraine. The concept of “principles” and their classification have been defined. The author has noted the importance of international principles of court activity in Ukraine. The regulatory base of courts activity has been characterized, where the principles of functioning of courts and judges in Ukraine have been defined. The author has singled out such an international legal document as the Basic Principles of Judicial Agencies’ Independence, which enshrines the following principles of IP-court activity in Ukraine: the principle of judicial agencies’ independence; the principle of freedom of speech and associations; the principle of qualification, selection and training; the principle of professional secrecy and immunity. The category of “principles of IP-court activity in Ukraine” has been offered to understand as a set of guiding (fundamental) ideas, grounds, principles of operation and functioning of IP-court in Ukraine that ensure the proper administration of justice, respect for rights and fundamental freedoms during the trial and ensuring the right to a fair trial. The principles of the IP-court activity in Ukraine are as follows: 1) general and legal: the rule of law principle; the principle of observance of human rights and fundamental human and civil freedoms; the principle of legality; the principle of openness and transparency of court proceedings; the principle of political or other impartiality; the principle of reasonable terms; 2) special principles of IP-court activity in Ukraine: the principle of independence of judicial agencies; the principle of freedom of speech and associations; principle of qualification; the principle of professional secrecy. It has been concluded that enshrining the principles of operation and functioning of the Supreme Court on Intellectual Property Issues in the Law of Ukraine “On the Supreme Court on Intellectual Property Issues” will increase the efficiency of the judicial system of Ukraine and significantly affect the authority and prestige of IP-court in Ukraine.

scholarly journals Role and Place of Higher Specialized Courts in the Judicial System of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-257
Author(s):  
V. V. Chumak
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Specialized Courts ◽  
Definition Of

The role and place of higher specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine have been studied and determined. The author has studied such main categories as “judicial system of Ukraine”, “judiciary”, “judicial system” and “judicial power”. The judicial system of Ukraine has been established. The normative and legal base of functioning of highest specialized courts of Ukraine has been characterized. The author has provided own definition of the categories “judicial system of Ukraine” and “judicial power of Ukraine”. The author has offered to understand the category of “judicial system of Ukraine” as the totality of all hierarchically structured elements of the system (courts), which are endowed with exclusive competence to administer justice, built on the principles of territoriality and specialization, are defined by law and united by general principles of their organization and activity. In turn, the concept of “judicial power of Ukraine” is defined as the activity of courts (judicial system) to administer justice and to perform their professional duties within the limits and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine in accordance with international and legal documents. It has been determined that highest specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine are the Supreme Court on Intellectual Property Issues and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. It has been concluded that highest specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine play an important role in the holistic mechanism of the entire judicial system, since they are endowed with exclusive competence to consider and decide cases on the merits of certain categories, and their activities are determined at the level of a separate regulatory act, which determines their legal status, and hence their place in the judicial system of Ukraine.

scholarly journals Implementation of the competitiveness of the parties during the trial in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
N. Syza ◽  
I. Syzyi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right

The article reveals the essence of the principle of adversarial proceedings of the parties and the peculiarities of its implementation during the trial in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine. The theoretical views of scientists, which determine the essence of adversarial proceedings and the role of the court in criminal proceedings, are considered. Through the prism of the parties' adversarial proceedings, the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CPC) are analyzed, which determine the general procedure of court proceedings, as well as the procedural form of individual court actions. Amendments to the CPC to provide introductory speeches at the beginning of the trial to both the prosecution and the defense, which are aimed at ensuring equal rights of the parties and expanding the adversarial nature of the parties at this stage. The problems of ensuring the adversarial nature of the parties have been clarified, taking into account the case law of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The analysis of the case law of the ECtHR concluded that ensuring the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings presupposes that the trial, including procedural elements, must be adversarial and in this process the principle of equality of arms and defense must be ensured. Attention is paid to the peculiarities of the parties' adversarial proceedings in special court proceedings, jury trials and criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution. It is established that in the case law of the Supreme Court the participation of the prosecutor in the trial of criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution is recognized as a guarantee of equality and adversarial proceedings, as well as protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the victim. Such participation is obligatory, except in the case when the prosecutor refused to support the state prosecution, and the victim agreed to support the prosecution in court

scholarly journals Appeal Against Acquittal By The Prosecutor: Critical Comments on The Indonesian Constitutional Court Decision

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Aristo Pangaribuan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

In 2013, the Indonesian Constitutional Court ended the debate concerning the constitutional validity of the right to appeal against acquittal by the prosecutor. Such a question has a long history not only in the Indonesian judicial system. In their decision, the court concluded that the government should have the power to appeal against acquittal to the Supreme Court because of its supervisory function over the lower courts. However, the decision was not unanimous, and there was one dissenting opinion from justice Harjono, who is in favor of protecting the rights of the acquitted defendant. This article is trying to examine the decision and underlined the issue of two competing values, namely finality, and accuracy that was debated in the decision, even though the court did not explicitly mention it. In the end, this article finds that the court gives more importance to the accuracy of the conviction and less to their finality.

scholarly journals Abortion and Compelled Physician Speech

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-21
Author(s):  
David Orentlicher
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Required Disclosures

As states increasingly impose informed consent mandates on abortion providers, the required disclosures bring two well-established legal doctrines into conflict — the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the physician’s duty to obtain informed consent.On one hand, the First Amendment provides for a broad freedom of speech, under which government may neither prevent people from voicing their own views, nor compel individuals to voice the government’s views. As the Supreme Court observed in Wooley v. Maynard, the First Amendment protects “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” When legislatures tell physicians what they must disclose to their patients, the physicians lose their right not to speak.

ASAS TERBUKA UNTUK UMUM DAN KEHADIRAN FISIK PARA PIHAK DALAM SIDANG DI PENGADILAN NEGERI PASCA PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-250
Author(s):  
Bernadette M Waluyo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Court Proceedings

The Indonesian Supreme Court, in response to the information era, modernizes the civil procedural rules at the district court level.  This is done by issuing Supreme Court Regulation no. 1 of 2019 re. Administration of Justice at Civil Law Courts and Electronic-Court Proceedings. Undoubtedly, modernization of existing rules on the administration of justice is much needed.  On the other hand, these changes may violate a number of procedural civil law principles.  The author argues, from a civil procedural law perspective, that the above Supreme Court regulation violates the basic principle of transparency of court proceedings and physical attendance at court proceedings. 

The Right to Housing: Challenges Associated with the ‘Waiting List System’ Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality V Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 3 SA 23 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-121
Author(s):  
Shamier Ebrahim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Waiting Lists ◽  
The State ◽  
Waiting List ◽  
Allocation Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The right to adequate housing is a constitutional imperative which is contained in section 26 of the Constitution. The state is tasked with the progressive realisation of this right. The allocation of housing has been plagued with challenges which impact negatively on the allocation process. This note analyses Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 51 which dealt with a situation where one of the main reasons provided by the Supreme Court of Appeal for refusing the eviction order was because the appellants subjected the unlawful occupiers to defective waiting lists and failed to engage with the community regarding the compilation of the lists and the criteria used to identify beneficiaries. This case brings to the fore the importance of a coherent (reasonable) waiting list in eviction proceedings. This note further analyses the impact of the waiting list system in eviction proceedings and makes recommendations regarding what would constitute a coherent (reasonable) waiting list for the purpose of section 26(2) of the Constitution.

Summary of Results

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Networked Economy

The persuasive force of the accepted account’s property logic has driven antitrust and intellectual property law jurisprudence for at least the past three decades. It has been through the theory of trademark ownership and the commercial strategy of branding that these laws led the courts to comprehend markets as fundamentally bifurcated—as operating according to discrete types of interbrand and intrabrand competition—a division that had an effect far beyond the confines of trademark law and resonates today in the way government agencies and courts evaluate the emerging challenges of the networked economy along the previously introduced distinction between intertype and intratype competition. While the government in its appeal to the Supreme Court in ...

Roe v. Wade and the History of Abortion Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Benjamin Linton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that “[the] right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” Nevertheless, the Court held that a “right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” However, “only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ … are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

Constitutional Law in 1942–1943: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1942

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 266-288
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
West Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right

On February 15, 1943, Wiley B. Rutledge, Jr., a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, took the seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the resignation in October, 1942, of Mr. Justice Byrnes. There were no other changes in the Court's personnel. Disagreement among the justices abated somewhat. In only a dozen cases of importance did either four or three justices dissent, as against some thirty cases in the last term. The Court overruled two earlier decisions, both recent; and the reversal in each case was made possible by the vote of Mr. Justice Rutledge.A. QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL POWER1. WAR POWER-CIVIL VERSUS MILITARY AUTHORITYWest Coast Curfew Applied to Japanese-American Citizens. In February, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066, which authorized the creation of military areas from which any or all persons might be excluded and with respect to which the right of persons to enter, remain in, or leave should be subject to such regulations as the military authorities might prescribe. On March 2, the entire West Coast to an average depth of forty miles was set up as Military Area No. 1 by the Commanding General in that area, and the intention was announced to evacuate from it persons of suspected loyalty, alien enemies, and all persons, aliens and citizens alike, of Japanese ancestry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document