Die Festhaltenserklärung des Leiharbeitnehmers bei der illegalen und der verdeckten Arbeitnehmerüberlassung

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Kruppa
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Temporary Employment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Temporary Employees ◽  
The Right

As part of the amendment to the German Temporary Employment Act in 2017, the legislator introduced a right to remain with the existing employer. It enables temporary employees to avert a legally ordered change of employer if they are illegally assigned to third parties. This is intended to resolve the conflict with the temporary employee's freedom of occupation. The study is focusing on whether the legislator has succeeded in this regard. Thereby not only the right to remain itself, but also the newly established prohibition of concealed supply of temporary employees is under scrutiny. The regulations are comprehensively analysed on the level of ordinary law as well as constitutional law.

Der Spielraum bei der Vermarktung von Waldleistungen ist eingeschränkt (Essay) | The scope for the commercialization of forest services is limited (essay)

2009 ◽  
Vol 160 (8) ◽  
pp. 228-231
Author(s):  
Hansruedi Walther
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Wood Products ◽  
Forest Owner ◽  
Free Access ◽  
School Class ◽  
Market Niche ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

A forest owner can only commercialize non-wood products and services within a tightly restricted market niche. On account of free access being permitted to the forest it is impossible to deny to third parties the consumption of many non-wood products and services: everybody has the right to be in the forest for recreation. As a result many non-wood services cannot be commercialized by the forest owner, or not exclusively. What would seem unthinkable elsewhere on private property seems to be taken for granted in the forest: third parties may take products from the forest and even sell them without being the forest owners. For certain nonwood services or products, such as the installation of rope parks or for burial in the forest, the organizer must conclude an agreement with the forest owner or draw up a contract for servitude or benefit. In addition, for these activities a permit from the Forestry Department is necessary. On the other hand, for an itinerant school class or for the production of forest honey neither a binding regulation with the forest owner nor a permit from the Forestry service is necessary, provided that no constructions are erected in the forest. The only exclusive right which remains to the forest owner, besides the sale of his property, is the exploitation of his trees within the legal framework.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Accountability in Global Governance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Austerity Policy ◽  
Comprehensive Study

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.

The Israeli Unfinished Constitutional Revolution: Has the Time Come for Protecting Economic and Social Rights?

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 299-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Rabin ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Interpretive Strategies ◽  
The Right

AbstractThis article addresses the constitutional discourse surrounding the status of economic and social rights in Israel. It examines the principal interpretive strategies adopted by the Supreme Court with regard to the 1992 basic laws (in particular, with respect to the right to human dignity) and criticizes the Court's reluctance to apply analogous strategies to incorporate economic and social rights into Israeli constitutional law. Potential explanations for this biased approach are also critically discussed. The ensuing outcome is a constitutional imbalance in Israeli law, which perpetuates the unjustified view that economic and social rights are inherently inferior to their civil and political counterparts, and puts in question Israel's compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, encouraging recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the YATED and Marciano judgments, indicate growing acceptance on the part of the Court of the role of economic and social rights in Israeli constitutional law, and raise hopes for a belated judicial change of heart concerning the need to protect at least a ‘hard core’ of economic and social rights. Still, the article posits that the possibilities of promoting the constitutional status of economic and social rights through case-to-case litigation are limited and calls for the renewal of the legislation procedures of draft Basic Law: Social Rights in the Knesset.

The Case for Repealing the Second Amendment? The Historical Barriers to Constitutional Change

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-607
Author(s):  
David T. Konig
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Popular Constitutionalism

The controversy surrounding the Second Amendment—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”—is, to a large extent, historical in nature, redolent of other matters in this country’s legal and constitutional past. But the historical analogies that might support the Amendment’s repeal do not permit easy conclusions. The issue demands that legal historians venture beyond familiar territory to confront unavoidable problems at the intersection of theory and practice and of constitutional law and popular constitutionalism. An interdisciplinary analysis of Lichtman’s Repeal the Second Amendment illuminates the political, legal, and constitutional dimensions—as well as the perils—of undertaking the arduous amending process permitted by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

scholarly journals The Child's Right to Basic Education in Nigeria: A Commentary on the Decision in SERAP v. Nigeria

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 639-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisosa Jennifer Isokpan ◽  
Ebenezer Durojaye
Keyword(s):  
Basic Education ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

This case note focuses on the justiciability as well as the impact of corruption on the realisation of the right to basic education. Through an assessment of the decision of the ECOWAS Court in SERAP v. Nigeria, it emphasises the role of states in ensuring that corrupt activities of government officials or third parties do not affect the enjoyment of the right. It equally emphasises the role of the Nigerian courts in ensuring a justiciable right to education.

scholarly journals On Issue of Civil and Legal Liability of the Insolvency Officer for Actions (Inaction) of Third Parties in a Bankruptcy Case

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Staritsyn
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Liability ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Bankruptcy Law ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Illegal Behavior ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

Considering the right of the insolvency officer to involve other persons, including employees of the debtor, to ensure his powers, the article examines the possibility of bringing the officer to civil and legal liability in the form of recovering damages for actions (inaction) of such persons. It summarizes and analyzes the judicial practice at the level of the Arbitration District Courts and the Judicial Panel on Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. A conclusion is made of admissibility in certain cases of bringing the insolvency officer to civil and legal liability for the actions of the persons involved by him. The illegal behavior and the fault of the insolvency officer can be expressed in improper control over the actions (inactions) of third parties, in selecting an incompetent person. The article offers to regulate at the legislative level the issue of the possibility of bringing the insolvency officer to liability for actions of other persons, by including such rules in the Bankruptcy Law.

scholarly journals Copyright and Copyright Protection

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Safet Emruli ◽  
Agim Nuhiu ◽  
Besa Kadriu
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Key Agreement ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Financial Reward ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Bern Convention ◽  
Artistic Works ◽  
The Right

One of the legal intellectual property disciplines are copyrights which concerns artistic and literary works. Copyright is: bundle of exclusive legal rights that has to do with protection of literary and artistic works. It is granted to authors and artists to protect expressive works against unauthorized reproduction or distribution by third parties. Copyright protect “works”, expression of thoughts and ideas. Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works must be original, it means not to be a copy. Copyright covers two other types of right: economic rights, the right of the owner to benefit financial reward from use of his work by others and moral rights which always have to do with original holder no matter if economic rights are transferred or not. Economic rights can be transferred. Bern Convention for the Protection of the Literary and Artistic Works is international key agreement and the oldest multilateral agreement in the field of copyright. Copyright subsists automatically on the creation of a work, no application needed, nor do any formalities apply. Nature of copyright is territorial and the minimum term of protection is life of the author plus 50 years after his/her death. In European Union and in certain number of countries, terms of protections of are extended to life of the author plus 70 years after his/her death.

scholarly journals The Right to Refuse Treatment for Infectious Disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-182
Author(s):  
Carl H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Extreme Position ◽  
Refusal Of Treatment ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

Abstract One of the central tenets of contemporary bioethics is that mentally competent persons have a right to refuse medical treatment, even if the refusal might lead to the individual’s death. Despite this principle, laws in some jurisdictions authorize the nonconsensual treatment of persons with tuberculosis (TB) or other serious infectious diseases, on the grounds that doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others. This chapter argues that, in the vast majority of situations, overriding a refusal of treatment for infectious disease is not justifiable, as the risk to third parties can be avoided by the less restrictive alternative of isolating the patient. At the same time, it rejects the extreme position that the nonconsensual treatment of infectious disease is never appropriate. Instead, it concludes that compelling an individual to undergo treatment for infectious diseases may be ethically justifiable in exceptional situations if a refusal of treatment poses a grave risk to third parties, the treatment is not overly burdensome and has been established to be safe and effective, and less restrictive alternatives, including humanely isolating the patient, are not feasible under the circumstances. The burden should be on those seeking to compel unwanted treatment to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document