Source: http://authormapper.com/search.aspx?val=subject%3ALaw&val=keyword%3AFundamental+rights
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 03:46:15
Document Index: 274120192

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 3', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 6']

Fundamental rights[x]
Free movement of civil judgments
Social Assistance: Analysis of the Fundamental Right Based on the 20-Year Experience of Law 8.472/93
Assistance Benefits in Brazil (2016-01-01): 53-63
By Balera, Wagner
There are two essential points that the text deals with: the qualification of social care as a social right and the character of constitutional program granted to social inclusion. Thus, interests on social assistance to identify social needs and, consequently, carrying out the measures—benefits, services, projects, and programs—able to transform the social reality in which the poor live. Everything will be done so that they give full implementation of the task of eradicating poverty and marginalization, qualified by art. 3, III, of the Constitution of Brazil as the magnum social constitutional goal.
“Pechstein/International Skating Union”
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (2016-11-01) 47: 865-874
By European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6(1); Code of Civil Procedure, Secs. 1025(2), 1032(1); Act Against Restraints of Competition, Sec. 19(1); German Constitution, Art. 12
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne is an arbitration court within the meaning of Secs. 1025(2) and 1032(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An international sporting federation organised on the “one-place principle” is, as concerns the athletes’ admission to the sporting contests organized by that federation, market-dominating.
It does not constitute abuse of the market power of the sporting federation when it makes the participation of an athlete in a sports competition dependent on the signing of an arbitration agreement which, pursuant to the anti-doping rules, provides for the CAS as the arbitration court. The order of procedure of the CAS contains sufficient guarantees for the safeguarding of the athletes’ rights, and the arbitration decisions of the CAS are subject to monitoring by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
The order of procedure of the CAS does not lack sufficient guarantees for the safeguarding of the athletes’ rights, even if the arbitrators are chosen by the parties to the dispute from a closed list which is compiled by a board made up for the most part of representatives of the International Olympic Committee, the National Olympic Committee and the international sporting federations. Sporting federations and athletes do not per se constitute opposing “camps” driven by conflicting interests when it comes to combating doping.
Under these circumstances, the arbitration agreement is not invalid even with respect to the guarantee of recourse to the courts arising from Art. 2(1) of the Constitution, the fundamental right to free pursuit of a profession according to Art. 12(1) of the Constitution, or the right to a fair trial pursuant to Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
China-EU Law Journal (2015-02-01) 4: 11-32
By Broemel, Roland
On the basis of the structural characteristics of markets the article analyses the constitutional and European framework of market activities.
ERA Forum (2015-12-01) 16: 459-466
No abstract available Reconciling the Dublin system with European fundamental rights and the Charter
ERA Forum (2014-12-01) 15: 485-494
The article analyses the changes introduced to the Dublin system by the Dublin III Regulation concerning namely the provisions related to determining the Member State responsible for examining the application for protection, rules regarding procedural rights, the possibility to detain the person in order to secure transfer procedures and the “early warning mechanism”. It also assesses those rules from the point of view of fundamental rights.
Some Aspects of the Application and Ascertainment of Foreign Law in the Light of Article 6 of the ECHR
Fundamental Rights in International and European Law (2016-01-01): 185-209
By Stuij, Steven
Private international law deals with cross-border civil matters and, inter alia, determines the applicable (substantive) law. When this law turns out to be the law of a foreign state, the question of the procedural status of that law will come up. Since foreign law is not known to the court, the latter should obtain information on that law, either of its own motion or by requiring party adduced proof. Thus, the applicability of a foreign law may lead to a number of complications in civil procedure that need to be taken into account. The question arises as to what extent the requirements of the ECHR, especially of Article 6(1) thereof, may have an impact on the way foreign law is applied. Since this provision has an impact on civil procedure as such, the applicability of a foreign law may give rise to a violation of Article 6(1) as well. In this paper, these potential violations of Article 6(1) will be explored by focusing on a selected group of issues that the application and ascertainment of foreign law might entail. The relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will be analysed and analogously applied in the context of the procedural treatment of foreign law.
The EU Fundamental Rights Policy as a Source of Euroscepticism
Human Rights Review (2014-03-01) 15: 83-96
By Leconte, Cécile
This article analyzes how the development of the European Union (EU) fundamental rights policy feeds Euroscepticism—and notably political Euroscepticism—within segments of national political elites in EU Member States. More specifically, it argues that this relatively new policy also gives rise to a new form of political Euroscepticism, which has been defined as “value-based Euroscepticism,” e.g., the perception that the EU via its fundamental rights policy, unduly interferes in matters where value systems and core domestic preferences on ethical issues are at stake. This happens in a context where the EU is resented, by some segments of political elites, for allegedly empowering diverse groups (such as ethnic minorities, immigrants' associations, judges, and so on) at the expense of popular sovereignty. This resentment is exacerbated by the fact that national governments are increasingly submitted to the critical assessment of EU-level actors (e.g., the European Parliament or the European Commission) in terms of democratic credentials.
Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial (2017-01-01): 413-427
By Hazelhorst, Monique
Human Rights Review (2011-03-01) 12: 15-25
By Jheelan, Navish
The use of foreign law by national courts when deciding cases that concern fundamental rights has provoked a debate on the legitimacy of the judiciary to resort to this practice. Indeed, many arguments have been made by legal scholars to support the proposition that judges should not take account of unincorporated international human rights instruments or the decisions of foreign courts when they decide cases that concern fundamental rights. This article puts these arguments to scrutiny, and discusses whether this judicial practice should be resorted to.