‘Within or outside Canada’: The Charter’s application to the extraterritorial activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take ‘reasonable and proportionate’ measures to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so long as they are judicially authorized by the Federal Court. As new threats proliferate around the world, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out this mandate overseas. Yet review bodies tasked with monitoring CSIS’s use of threat reduction measures (TRMs) report that CSIS has never sought judicial authorization to conduct a TRM. Why? One answer may be that CSIS has concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out abroad, and, as such, their extraterritorial conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court. Whether the Charter applies to CSIS’s overseas conduct ostensibly lies in the Supreme Court of Canada’s leading case on the extraterritorial application of the Charter, R. v Hape. This article canvasses domestic and international law, as well as intelligence law theory, to explain why that presumption is wrong. Wrong, not least because the majority opinion in Hape is deeply flawed in its analysis and application of international law. But also, because intelligence operations are so distinguishable from the transnational criminal investigations at issue in Hape, the Court’s findings are inapplicable in the former context. In short, this article demonstrates that applying Hape to the actions of CSIS officers not only leaves their actions beyond the scrutiny of Canadian courts but also creates a significant human rights gap.

Die Prüfung der Zahlungsunfähigkeit mittels Algorithmen

Even after various decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice on the concept of illiquidity under insolvency law, the methodology of the test remains unclear. This also applies to the justiciability of business forecasts. The thesis examines whether and within what limits testing for illiquidity can be performed by digital analysis of accounting data. It also describes the extent to which short- and medium-term liquidity planning can be supported by quantitative forecasts. Statistical methods as well as approaches from the field of artificial intelligence are described.

Use of Big Data Analytics by Tax Authorities

This chapter provides a thematic analysis for the Australian context of the legality and challenges to the use of big data analytics to identify risk, conduct compliance action, and make decisions within the tax administration space. Recent federal court jurisprudence and research is discussed to identify common themes (i.e., privacy/opacity, inaccuracy/bias, and fairness/due process) currently influencing the legal treatment of big data analytics within the tax administration and compliance environment in Australia.

ELECTRONIC DATABASES AS A SOURCE OF OBTAINING DATA FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE PROVEN IN A CRIMINAL CASE

The article provides an analysis of the sources of obtaining evidentiary and other information necessaryfor the investigation body, the prosecutor (state prosecutor) and the court to implement the provisions on theconfiscation of property under Art. 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. With examples fromthe judicial practice of the federal court and the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation,set out in the Resolution of the Plenum, the issue of obtaining information from electronic databases aboutthe property status of a participant in criminal proceedings is considered. The possibilities of GAS “Justice” ofPI “Judicial record-keeping” on the issues under consideration are revealed. The conclusion is substantiatedthat the conclusion that electronic databases can and should be used as a source of obtaining data for thecircumstances to be proved in a criminal case. Taking into account the provisions of Articles 73 and 74 of theCriminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the place and type of information received, using theseelectronic databases, in the evidence system in a criminal case, is determined. The conclusion is substantiatedthat the list of compositions (articles) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which itis possible to apply confiscation by a conviction of a court, is practically unlimited, and, to be more precise,is limited only to the list of articles of the Special Part of the said code.

RECURSO EXTRAORDINÁRIO 878.694/MG: O PRECEDENTE JUDICIAL NA SUCESSÃO LEGÍTIMA DO COMPANHEIRO

The presente article consists on a study developed with the objective of analyzing the succession of the partner and verifying if that Extraordinary Appeal 878.694 / MG fully equated the regime of succession of marriage and stable union. The Supreme Federal Court in the judgment of the referred appeal determined, not unanimously, the unconstitutionality of article 1790 of the Civil Code that regulates the right of succession of the partner and established the application of article 1829 of the Civil Code in its place, that originally only regulated marriage. This work defined the succession of the partner in the legitimate succession by law and in the Extraordinary Appeal, analyzing legitimate, testamentary succession, litigious and friendly sharing, the similarities and differences of articles 1790 and 1829 of the Civil Code. It will be demonstrated that the Supreme Court's decision did not pacify all issues related to the partner's right of succession.

A Judicialização da Saúde no Ordenamento Jurídico Brasileiro no Contexto da Pandemia COVID-19

Health belongs to one of the most fundamental rights that one has, being elementary and necessary for one’s own life and dignity. The Federal Constitution of 1988 defines health as a right for everyone, which represents the reason why all people should benefit from Brazil’s national health system (SUS). As long as the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic is concerned, it is certainly clear that efforts to save lives all over the world have been made. Because of the precariousness of the public health system, combined with the insufficiency of providing free medication, medical treatment, surgical procedures, patient transport system, as well as access to the intensive care unit, the phenomenon “judicialization of health” has emerged. This article aims to discuss aspects involving health care in Brazil. It will focus on the most current decisions made by the federal court of justice in the context of the pandemic and examine the results and consequences of such decisions, as well as their contribution to a new point of view towards our social welfare. Policies to prevent diseases are needed in order to achieve the right to health. For this, the exploratory type methodology is used, of qualitative nature, with jurisprudential analysis combined with bibliographic review.

MATERIALS TO STUDYING THE LEGAL NATURE OF LEASING: SWITZERLAND

Materials include commented translation of four important judgments of Swiss Federal Court capturing the essential details of contemporary Swiss understanding of leasing with regard to insolvency, form of contract, property law statuses and security title retention, sham character and other issues.

NSU CASE COVERED UP AND LEGALLY CLOSED: IS IT POSSIBLE TO AVOID SOCIAL AND POLITICAL REPERCUSSIONS?

The neo-Nazi Nationalist Socialist Underground (NSU) terrorist group killed ten people in Germany between 2000-2007. Eight of the victims were members of the Turkish community of more than three million people living in Germany. Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Mundlos, and Uwe Böhnhardt were the nucleus of the National Socialist Underground NSU . Two of them, Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, had killed themselves in the operations. Beate Zschäpe was the only core member of the NSU stayed alive when NSU trial began. Along with Beate Zschäpe, the four suspected accomplices deemed to be in the close periphery of the NSU trio, including Ralf Wohlleben and André Eminger were tried and received varying degrees of imprisonment. Germany’s highest court of appeals, which is Federal Court of Justice, had rejected appeals by Beate Zschäpe and other two convicted accomplices on 19 August 2021. The Federal Court has recently upheld the exceptionally light prison sentence of two and a half years that Andre Eminger received in 2018. Thus, the Munich court's verdict has become fully legally binding through this decision. It is reported that the high court did not find any legal errors or gaps in the arguments of the Munich court for the verdict and rejected appeals. Ten years after the NSU Neo-Nazi terror cell was exposed, with this decision of the German Federal Court of Justice, the NSU case was legally concluded and closed in its entirety. We have already explained in our previous analyses that racism and xenophobia, Islamophobia is on the rise in Germany and that we, as AVİM, consider this fact a worrying development. We should underline that the totality of court decisions regarding the NSU murders reinforced the perception that racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia did not receive the punishment they deserved in Germany and that the true dimensions of the NSU organization wilfully be left unclarified.

Perry and Windsor

A 2010 federal trial in California, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and showed that the expert witnesses brought in to testify against marriage equality were either unconvincing or entirely lacking in credibility. Perry was a triumph for the social science consensus supporting gay rights. Moving up the federal court system at the same time was Edith Windsor’s challenge to DOMA, which prevented the federal government from recognizing Windsor’s marriage to Thea Spyer, and therefore prevented Windsor from enjoying the estate tax benefits that married heterosexual couples enjoy. The 2013 U.S. v. Windsor decision overturned a key provision of DOMA, the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages and opened the door to legal challenges to every state ban on same-sex marriage.