7

resultado(s)

Palabra(s)
Tipo de publicación
Ámbito político
Autor
Palabra clave
Fecha

The role of constitutional courts, a comparative law perspective - Canada: The Supreme Court

23-07-2019

This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. Following a brief historical introduction to the jurisdiction of the state in question, the various reports examine the composition, internal organization, functioning, jurisdiction of the various highest courts, as well as the right of access to its courtroom, its procedural rules, and the effects and the execution of its judgments. The present study examines ...

This study is part of a wider project investigating, from a comparative law perspective, the role of constitutional courts of different states. Following a brief historical introduction to the jurisdiction of the state in question, the various reports examine the composition, internal organization, functioning, jurisdiction of the various highest courts, as well as the right of access to its courtroom, its procedural rules, and the effects and the execution of its judgments. The present study examines Canada’s highest court, the Supreme Court. While all judicial courts may rule on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court of Canada enjoys a privileged status in the Canadian legal landscape. As the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, it has the final word with respect to constitutional interpretation, notably in constitutional matters. It thus plays a central role in Canada’s federal democracy.

Autor externo

EPRS, Comparative Law

El Premio Sájarov 2017

05-12-2017

Creado en 1988 por el Parlamento Europeo, el Premio Sájarov a la Libertad de Conciencia se concede cada año en diciembre a personas u organizaciones por sus sobresalientes logros en la defensa de los derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales. Con la concesión del premio 2017 a la oposición venezolana, el Parlamento denuncia la situación en Venezuela, reitera su apoyo a la Asamblea Nacional, elegida democráticamente, hace un llamamiento en favor de una transición pacífica hacia la democracia ...

Creado en 1988 por el Parlamento Europeo, el Premio Sájarov a la Libertad de Conciencia se concede cada año en diciembre a personas u organizaciones por sus sobresalientes logros en la defensa de los derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales. Con la concesión del premio 2017 a la oposición venezolana, el Parlamento denuncia la situación en Venezuela, reitera su apoyo a la Asamblea Nacional, elegida democráticamente, hace un llamamiento en favor de una transición pacífica hacia la democracia, y rinde homenaje al pueblo venezolano, en particular a aquellos ciudadanos que han sido encarcelados injustamente por expresar sus opiniones.

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.

Autor externo

EPRS, Comparative Law

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.

Autor externo

EPRS, Comparative Law

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.

Autor externo

EPRS, Comparative Law

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.

Dictámenes divergentes en los Tribunales Supremos de los Estados miembros

15-11-2012

El presente estudio examina las ventajas e inconvenientes de la emisión de dictámenes divergentes. Tras analizar su difusión en los tribunales supremos y constitucionales de los Estados miembros, este estudio presenta la práctica de los tribunales internacionales. Por último, también se tienen en cuenta los motivos por los cuales la publicación de dictámenes divergentes puede o no ser conveniente para el TJUE.

El presente estudio examina las ventajas e inconvenientes de la emisión de dictámenes divergentes. Tras analizar su difusión en los tribunales supremos y constitucionales de los Estados miembros, este estudio presenta la práctica de los tribunales internacionales. Por último, también se tienen en cuenta los motivos por los cuales la publicación de dictámenes divergentes puede o no ser conveniente para el TJUE.

Próximos actos

20-01-2021
EPRS online policy roundtable with the World Bank: Where next for the global economy
Otro acto -
EPRS
25-01-2021
Public Hearing on "Gender aspects of precarious work"
Audiencia -
FEMM
27-01-2021
Public hearing on AI and Green Deal
Audiencia -
AIDA

Socios