Foreign Proprietary Security Rights Failing to Comply with National Publicity Standards to Be Accepted? On Case No. 3 OB 249/18S of the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice

2020 ◽  
pp. 509-522
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Justice

scholarly journals Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-901
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Geoffrey R. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Mara'Abe v. Prime Minister of Israel. Case No. HCJ 7957/04. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html> (English translation).Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, September 15, 2005.In Mara ‘abe v. Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court held that the routing of a portion of Israel's “security fence” in the northern West Bank violated international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ordered the Israeli government to consider alternative paths for the barrier. The Mara'abe decision expanded on the Court's earlier ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel, in which the Court ordered the rerouting of another segment of the obstacle. Mara ’abe also revealed some of the Israeli Court's views on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory— the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that construction of the barrier anywhere in occupied territory violates international law.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Keren Michaeli
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

Judges and Policy Making Authority in the United States and the European Union

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Kouroutakis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reason­ing.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activ­ism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it ex­presses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would even­tually react and would limit such activism.

scholarly journals En torno al alcance de las prestaciones de salud que brindan las obras sociales a personas con discapacidad dentro del marco de la legislación nacional e internacional / On the scope of health benefits provided by social works to people with disabilities

2019 ◽  
pp. 214-224
Author(s):  
Valentina Ruiz de los Llanos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Coverage

El presente trabajo, tiene por finalidad el análisis de un nuevo fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, referido a los alcances de las prestaciones en materia de salud que las Obras Sociales deben brindar a las personas con discapacidad y qué debe entenderse por cobertura integral.   The purpose of this work is to analyze a new ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, referring to the scope of health benefits that Social Works must provide to people with disabilities and to analyze what should be understood by comprehensive coverage.

scholarly journals Las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación a la luz del derecho de ejecución de sentencias. /

2021 ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Cynthia Belén Contreras
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Complex Cases ◽  
Sobre Todo ◽  
The Way

Las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación son un instituto jurídico de reciente y novedosa aparición en nuestro sistema argentino de derecho. Entre los años 2005 a 2012, la Corte Argentina, llegó el punto más álgido en lo que respecta a la producción y dictado de este tipo de sentencias atípicas, sobre todo en casos complejos y de transcendencia pública e institucional que involucraban a su vez derechos fundamentales. Nuestro país, está dando los primeros pasos en lo que respecta al dictado de sentencias exhortativas y en el camino se ha topado con algunos obstáculos al momento de la ejecución de sentencia. Este trabajo propone la identiicación y descripción de dichas dificultades con las que deben lidiar los operadores jurídicos, víctimas y actores a los fines de hacer realidad los derechos declarados en las sentencias exhortativas de la Corte.Abstract The exhortative sentences of the Supreme Court of Justice are a legal institute of recent and novel appearance in our Argentine system of law. From 2005 to 2012, the Argentine Supreme Court reached to the highest point with regard to the production and delivery of this type of atypical sentences, especially in complex cases of public and institutional transcendence which involved fundamental rights. Our country is taking the irst steps regarding the issuance of exhortative sentences and along the way it appears some obstacles at the time of the execution of the sentences. his work proposes the identiication and description of the diiculties with which legal operators, victims and actors must deal with in order to make the rights declared in the Court's exhortative judgments a reality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document