6

Rezultatas(-ai)

Žodis(-iai)
Publikacijos rūšis
Politikos sritis
Autorius
Raktinis žodis
Datą

The 2017 Sakharov Prize

05-12-2017

Established in 1988 by the European Parliament, the Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought is awarded each year in December to individuals or organisations for their outstanding achievements in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms. By awarding the 2017 Prize to the Venezuelan Opposition, the Parliament denounces the situation in Venezuela, re-affirms its support to the democratically elected National Assembly, calls for a peaceful transition to democracy, and pays tribute to the Venezuelan ...

Established in 1988 by the European Parliament, the Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought is awarded each year in December to individuals or organisations for their outstanding achievements in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms. By awarding the 2017 Prize to the Venezuelan Opposition, the Parliament denounces the situation in Venezuela, re-affirms its support to the democratically elected National Assembly, calls for a peaceful transition to democracy, and pays tribute to the Venezuelan people, in particular to those who have been unjustly jailed for expressing their opinions.

Judicial remedies for individuals before the highest jurisdictions, a comparative law perspective - The United Kingdom

09-10-2017

The study presented below forms part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available through the UK courts including the Supreme Court which, though not a constitutional court in the classic Kelsenian model, does sits at the apex of the appellate court ...

The study presented below forms part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available through the UK courts including the Supreme Court which, though not a constitutional court in the classic Kelsenian model, does sits at the apex of the appellate court structure in the UK. The study commences with an historical introduction which stresses the absence in domestic law of a clearly delineated sense of what counts as ‘constitutional’ .In traditional accounts of the UK Constitution there is no hierarchy of higher order ‘constitutional’ and ‘ordinary’ Acts of Parliament. Neither has a separate court structure developed to handle exclusively constitutional claims, although specialised ad hoc tribunals do exist in public law contexts. The underpinning principles remain (i) the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and (ii) the rule of law. After this introduction, a review is provided of the main remedies and procedures used for the redress of grievances against public bodies. In a subsequent section of materials, a table of the main sources of individual rights against the state is provided. The domestic status of constitutional conventions and international law are dealt with in this part. Then, an account of the substantive norms informing the standards of effective protection for the individual is given, including some critical commentary on the operation of key provisions. The concluding section compares the benefits and drawbacks of specialised tribunal adjudication, the ‘politicised’ nature of certain judicial review proceedings against a background of increasing privately-owned provision of services to the public and the continuing relevance of private law tort claims where compensation for mistreatment at the hands of the state is sought.

Išorės autorius

null, EPRS-ComparativeLaw

Legal Proceedings available to Individuals before the Highest Courts: A Comparative Law Perspective - Canada

06-10-2017

This study is part of a wider project seeking to investigate, from a comparative law perspective, judicial proceedings available to individuals before the highest courts of different states, and before certain international courts. The aim of this study is to examine the various judicial proceedings available to individuals in Canadian law, and in particular before the Supreme Court of Canada. To this end, the text is divided into five parts. The introduction provides an overview of Canadian constitutional ...

This study is part of a wider project seeking to investigate, from a comparative law perspective, judicial proceedings available to individuals before the highest courts of different states, and before certain international courts. The aim of this study is to examine the various judicial proceedings available to individuals in Canadian law, and in particular before the Supreme Court of Canada. To this end, the text is divided into five parts. The introduction provides an overview of Canadian constitutional history, which explains the coexistence of rights derived from several legal traditions. It then introduces the federal system, the origins of constitutional review, as well as the court structure (I). As Canada practises a ‘diffuse’ (or ‘decentralized’) constitutional review process, the second part deals with the different types of proceedings available to individuals in matters of constitutional justice before both administrative and judicial courts, while highlighting proceedings available before the Supreme Court of Canada (II). This is followed by an examination of the constitutional and legal sources of individual — and in some cases collective — rights (III), as well as the means developed by the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive branches to ensure the effective judicial protection of rights (IV). The conclusion assesses the effectiveness of proceedings available to individuals in matters of ‘constitutional justice’. Essentially, while Canadian citizens benefit from a wide range of rights and proceedings, access to the country’s Supreme Court is restricted due to the limited number of cases the Court chooses to hear every year. More generally, access to justice continues to pose real challenges in Canada. This is not due to judicial failings or a lack of sources of rights per se, but rather to lengthy judicial delays and the often enormous costs of proceedings.

Išorės autorius

EPRS, Comparative Law; Professor Johanne Poirier of McGill University, Montreal

Judicial remedies for individuals before the highest jurisdictions, a comparative law perspective - United States of America

06-10-2017

This study is part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available to individuals in American law, and in particular before this country’s highest courts. To that end, after a general introduction setting out the historical background, we will consider ...

This study is part of a larger project whose aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the rights of individuals in law proceedings before the highest courts of different States and before certain international courts. The objective is to describe the various remedies developed under domestic law that are available to individuals in American law, and in particular before this country’s highest courts. To that end, after a general introduction setting out the historical background, we will consider the various remedies available to individuals at both administrative and judicial level. The next step will be to look at the rules used as reference standards for the protection of individuals, and the case law of the highest courts regarding effective legal protection. Finally, we will draw some conclusions on the situation as a whole, with some suggestions for improvements. The immediate study describes the American model of judicial review, a decentralized model in which all courts have the authority to adjudicate constitutional matters alongside other types of litigation. Judicial review has been a part of major controversies throughout American history. The study describes how federal courts may hear constitutional claims of plaintiffs meeting the jurisdictional requirement for a concrete "case or controversy." It further describes the need for a plaintiff to demonstrate a cause of action in order to enforce his or her constitutional right. Remedies for constitutional violations include injunctive relief, declaratory judgments, damages, suppression of evidence, and post-conviction relief. The study also describes the absence in American law of a right to an effective remedy.

Išorės autorius

EPRS-ComparativeLaw

Appointment of US Supreme Court Justices

23-05-2016

In February 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, vacating a position on America’s highest court. That quickly focused American political discussion, in the midst of a heated Presidential campaigning season, on his possible replacement. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is broadly depicted in Article II of the US Constitution as a process in which the President chooses a candidate but the Senate provides its 'advice and consent' on the nominee. The Republican-controlled ...

In February 2016, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, vacating a position on America’s highest court. That quickly focused American political discussion, in the midst of a heated Presidential campaigning season, on his possible replacement. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices is broadly depicted in Article II of the US Constitution as a process in which the President chooses a candidate but the Senate provides its 'advice and consent' on the nominee. The Republican-controlled Senate argued that President Obama should leave the nomination process to the next US President. Obama, meanwhile, affirmed his intention to fulfil his constitutional duty, and indeed on 16 March he put forward a nominee. The debate reflects an appointment process that is to a certain extent a bargain between the executive and legislative branches, framed by Constitutional norms and political considerations. From a procedural point of view, the process can be divided into two stages, the initial nomination phase, for the executive, and the subsequent confirmation phase, dominated by the legislative. Although the President maintains considerable discretion in choosing a candidate, many issues are taken into consideration before he or she submits the formal nomination. Some factors include the nominee’s professional competence and political affiliation, and the overall balance of the nine-member court in terms of the geographic, socio-ethnic, or religious backgrounds of the justices. Once the nominee is formally submitted to the Senate, the Judiciary Committee vets the nominee and organises public hearings. The Committee scrutinises the nominee's background closely, asking them to provide extensive professional and personal records which may support or cast doubt on his or her ultimate confirmation. After recommendation by the Judiciary Committee, the full Senate debates and ultimately votes on the nominee's confirmation.

Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States

15-11-2012

This study examines the advantages and disadvantages of the practice of separate opinions. After an analysis of its diffusion in the Member States' Supreme and Constitutional Courts, it presents the practice of international tribunals. Finally, the reasons why the publication of separate opinions may, or may not, be suited for the CJEU are also taken into consideration.

This study examines the advantages and disadvantages of the practice of separate opinions. After an analysis of its diffusion in the Member States' Supreme and Constitutional Courts, it presents the practice of international tribunals. Finally, the reasons why the publication of separate opinions may, or may not, be suited for the CJEU are also taken into consideration.

Partneriai

Likite prisijungę

email update imageElektroninio pašto pranešimų apie naujienas sistema

Pranešimų e. paštu sistema, pagal kurią į jūsų e. pašto dėžutę tiesiogiai siunčiama naujausia informacija, jums suteikia galimybę gauti informaciją apie visus su Parlamentu susijusius asmenis ir įvykius. Ši informacija taip pat apima paskutines naujienas apie EP narius, informacinės tarnybos ir ekspertų grupės Think Tank pranešimus.

Šia sistema galima naudotis iš bet kurio Parlamento interneto svetainės puslapio. Kad užsisakytumėte ir gautumėte ekspertų grupės Think Tank pranešimus, jums tereikia nurodyti savo e. pašto adresą, pasirinkti dominančią temą, nurodyti dažnumą (kasdien, kas savaitę ar kas mėnesį) ir patvirtinti registraciją paspaudžiant ant e. paštu gautos nuorodos.

RSS imageSklaidos kanalai

Nepraleskite jokios Europos Parlamento svetainės informacijos ar naujienų naudodamiesi sklaidos kanalu.

Norėdami pakeisti savo sklaidos kanalo nustatymus, spauskite ant šios nuorodos.