Forfeiting proceeds: Civil forfeiture, the right to property and the Constitution

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-368
Author(s):  
Michael Rhimes
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
The Right ◽  
Crime Deterrence ◽  
Fair Balance

Civil forfeiture powers are a useful tool in the fight against crime — particularly the organised kind. They deter such crime by removing the proceeds from wrongdoers, thereby diminishing the incentives for offending. However, as the courts in South Africa have long recognised, the forfeiture powers must be calibrated to ensure a fair balance between the public interest in crime deterrence and private interests such as the right to property. Achieving this balance when forfeiting proceeds is a vexed question which this article seeks to explore. It argues that while the forfeiture of proceeds will usually be justified by the legitimate aim of crime deterrence, forfeiture should nevertheless be subject to a proportionality check. This check is arguably required by the property clause in s 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and is justified by the need to constrain the breadth of the powers under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. It then explores what situations might justify refusing forfeiture of proceeds, and how the proportionality check should be applied.

scholarly journals Governing Knowledge: Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

2015 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 69-88
Author(s):  
Leonardo Burlamaqui
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Intellectual Property Management ◽  
Analytical Perspective ◽  
The Right

The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of intellectual property rights and regulations, the last three decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.Keywords: knowledge management, intellectual property, patent, public, interest, public sector, private sector, socioeconomic developmen

Public Servitudes for the Certain Types of Facilities Placing: Towards a Discussion on Public Interest Presence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P. Ushakova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Private Interest ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
The Right

From the standpoint of the dominant interest criterion the article examines the justification of the legislator`s decision to apply public law methods in order to regulate relations concerning the use of land for infrastructural facilities placing. The author gives the arguments in favor of understanding the public interest as the interest of the whole society as a system, rather than the interest of an indefinite range of persons or the majority of the population. The author concludes that there is the simultaneous presence in the specified legal relations and private interests of the participants of legal relations, and public interests of society as a system. Both types of interests in these legal relations are important, but in terms of different aspects of the legal impact mechanism. Public interest is important because its realization is the purpose of legal regulation of this type of legal relations, from this point of view it acts as a dominant interest. The private interest of the holder of a public servitude is important as an incentive to attract the efforts of private individuals to achieve a publicly significant goal. The private interest of a land plot owner is important from the point of view of securing the right of ownership. It is substantiated that the public servitude is not an arbitrary decision of the legislator, but an example of application of the incentive method in the land law, which provides a favorable legal regime for a socially useful activity.

Un péage à l'orée du bois? (Essai) | A tollbooth at the forest edge? (Essay)

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 244-246
Author(s):  
Olivier Guex
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Forest Edge ◽  
Comparative Assessment ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Public ◽  
Du Bois ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Does the principle of multifunctionality mean that the forest must fulfill every requirement put forward? Does the modern notion of “commodity”, drawn from the laws of supply and demand, give forest owners the right to expect payment for every service provided? In view of the current difficult economic situation and the increase and diversification of these requirements, the questions are justified. This article does not have the pretension to provide all the answers. However, by means of further questions and through the introduction of various examples, the reader is invited to consider the subtly differentiated proportions of the importance of the public interest on the one hand as opposed to that of private interests on the other, and thus to be able to draw conclusions. Thanks to this comparative assessment, possibilities concerning the magnitude and the source of these payments should become clear.

The Right to Be Forgotten: The Balance Between Public and Private Interests in the Practice of Constitutional Control Organs

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-48
Author(s):  
Daria A. Petrova ◽  
Ekaterina A. Galchun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Right To Be Forgotten ◽  
Telecommunications Network ◽  
Internet Information ◽  
The Right

The internet information and telecommunications network, due to its accessibility and easy storage and distribution of huge amounts of data, and its ability to search and find information, plays a key role in the implementation of such fundamental rights as freedom of speech and the press. At the same time, there is an increasing risk that materials on the World Wide Web may harm the rights and legitimate interests of individuals, especially the right to privacy. In these conditions of eternal competition between the public and the private, the right to be forgotten arises as a mechanism that allows one to remove or slow the spread of unwanted information. The authors investigate the problem of implementing this relatively new opportunity in the context of finding a balance between the public interest in obtaining information and the private interest in destroying it. It is argued that this category of cases is difficult due to the lack of a unified standard of proof and criteria for evaluating arguments. Based on an analysis of the most important precedents, the most common legal positions on the issue are identified and critically assessed. An increasing priority afforded to public interest and the decreasing requirements for the deletion of information is revealed. The authors consider the emergence of the right to be forgotten as a new mechanism for settling disputes in a pre-trial manner, by allowing one to not completely destroy, but to suspend the dissemination of undesirable information, thereby protecting private interests without violating the legitimate rights of the public. The conclusion is made about the right to be forgotten as a compromise in the conflict of fundamental rights. An approximate list of arguments for applicants and respondents is provided, suitable for practical application in disputes about the right to be forgotten.

Intellectual Property as a Public Interest Mechanism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Tushnet
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Intellectual Resource ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
General Welfare ◽  
Private Control ◽  
The Right

This chapter describes the principal arguments about intellectual property rights as mechanisms for promoting the public interest, as opposed to particular private interests. Public interest arguments typically feature in balancing accounts of intellectual property rights that evince concern for the distribution of benefits as well as for the production of new works or inventions. Public interest rationales also often feature in justifications both for the rights themselves and for limitations or exceptions to those rights when private control of an intellectual resource would not promote the general welfare. The chapter considers patents, copyright, trademarks, and related rights, including the right of publicity. It concludes by examining various challenges faced by public interest accounts.

20. Article 1, First Protocol: The right to property

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Harris ◽  
Michael O’Boyle ◽  
Ed Bates ◽  
Carla Buckley
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
General Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fair Balance

Recognition of a pecuniary right in national law or practice will give rise to a ‘possession’ under the Convention. Article 1 imposes upon states positive obligations to protect property, and negative obligations not to interfere with the right to property without justification. It provides for two types of interference: deprivation of property is justified only where it is in the public interest and in accordance with national law and the general principles of international law; control of use of property is justified only where it accords with national law and is in the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions. Where interference doesn’t fall into one of these types it is regulated under the first sentence of Article 1. The standard in all cases requires a ‘fair balance’ be struck between the public interest and the burden of the interference on the person.

Investigating the Need to Introduce Compulsory Interest Arbitration as a Method to Prevent Lengthy Strikes in South Africa

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-199
Author(s):  
Mlungisi Tenza
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Will Force ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

The issue of lengthy strikes in South Africa has been a cause for concern since it destabilises the economy and can result in a loss of employment if it is not managed properly. A strike that takes too long to be resolved causes anger towards strikers, so creating a fertile environment for the eruption of violence between striking and non-striking workers. Damage to property and harm to civilians has been reported where striking workers have become violent during a strike. It appears that the existing remedies fail to curb long strikes and resultant violence, as unions and members continue with their action despite the granting of an order of interdict to stop the conduct. To solve the problem of long and consequently violent strikes, the article advocates the introduction of a compulsory interest arbitration in the labour relations law of South Africa. A compulsory interest arbitration will force the parties into arbitration once it is established that the strike has continued for an unreasonably long period without a solution. The use of compulsory interest arbitration will not be unique to South Africa, as other countries such as Canada and Australia use it in their labour relations systems – which helps them deal with long and possibly harmful or violent strikes. The article argues that lessons can be learned from these countries on how South Africa can deal with its own protracted strikes. The article further proposes that the LRA be amended to include a provision that will enable the Minister to intervene where the parties fail to reach agreement on disputed issues, and where it is in the public interest to do so. Introducing a compulsory interest arbitration in the labour relations system could limit the right to strike. However, the article argues that such a limitation may be justified in terms of s 36 of the Constitution.

scholarly journals Legal and political aspects of avoiding the conflict of interests

2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 97-111
Author(s):  
Slobodan Beljanski
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Conflict Of Interests ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Paper Author

In the paper author analyzes normative, political and social suppositions for the prevention of conflict of interests. The reason is the first Serbian Law for the Prevention of Conflict of Interest passed on April 20th 2004. and the practice of the Republic Committee for Deciding on the Conflict of Interests which acts from 18. January 2005. Author considers that in the same way the conflict between public and private interests is relevant as well as the conflict inside public interest, where the cumulation of functions can endangered the public well-being, founded on the goal that every public function must be performed professionally, conscientiously and responsibly. In that regard permissible exceptions destroy the moral base of reserved prohibitions and discredited the pure idea of prevention of conflicts. Similar effect is created by declarative character of sanctions which can be given to officials, ambivalent relation to the access to information about the property of officials and insufficient resolution that the privacy of officials must be treated very restrictively.

Tanggung Jawab Hukum Penilai Publik terhadap Laporan Penilaian Kegiatan Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum (Studi Atas Kantor Jasa Penilai Publik Toto Suharto)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gagah Yaumiyya Riyoprakoso ◽  
AM Hasan Ali ◽  
Fitriyani Zein
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Government ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Systematic Explanation

This study is based on the legal responsibility of the assessment of public appraisal reports they make in land procurement activities for development in the public interest. Public assessment is obliged to always be accountable for their assessment. The type of research found in this thesis is a type of normative legal research with the right-hand of the statue approach and case approach. Normative legal research is a study that provides systematic explanation of rules governing a certain legal category, analyzing the relationship between regulations explaining areas of difficulty and possibly predicting future development. . After conducting research, researchers found that one of the causes that made the dispute was a lack of communication conducted between the Government and the landlord. In deliberation which should be the place where the parties find the meeting point between the parties on the magnitude of the damages that will be given, in the field is often used only for the delivery of the assessment of the compensation that has been done.

Freedom of Expression versus Privacy and the Right to Reputation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Investigative Journalism ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The One ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document