Judicial protection of fundamental rights in the transition from the world of atoms to the word of bits: The case of freedom of speech

This article underlines the role of Courts in protecting fundamental rights in the atomic and the digital dimension. The main aim of this work is to show how the coming of the Internet has affected the exercise and the judicial protection of freedom of expression in a comparative perspective. In order to answer this research question, this study will focus on the role of Courts as ‘playmakers’ in interpreting and solving issues deriving from interconnected legal regimes affecting the protection of fundamental rights and, especially, free speech. More specifically, the comparative focus will be on the decisions of the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Right and the US Supreme Court.     

Spanish Supreme Court provides limited relief for data controllers

Earlier this year the Spanish Supreme Court gave judgment on an application to annul the data protection regulations set out in Royal Decree 1720/2007 and to refer the Spanish implementation of the Data Protection Directive to the European Court of Justice. The application was partially successful. Some sections of the Royal Decree have been annulled but much of it was upheld. The Supreme Court also referred the Spanish implementation of the legitimate interests processing condition (art. 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive) to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice’s decision could have a material impact on data controllers in Spain. If the legitimate interest condition is finally recognised it should make data protection compliance significantly easier.     

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Since Chief Justice Taft's highly activist tenure, many people have looked to the Supreme Court for leadership in efforts to modernize federal judicial administration. This article reviews the role of the Chief Justice of the United States in federal judicial administration. as well as organizational and procedural improvements in court management at all three tiers of the federal court system, as seen by one trained in public administration Although improvement is apparent. other needed steps include less emphasis on the number of judgeships and more careful long-range planning and experimentation with new techniques     

Las restricciones a la libertad de reunión en relación con las elecciones en españa y méxico

This article compares and contrasts the laws that restrict freedom of assembly in Mexico and Spain during elections and electoral campaigns. It analyzes the key decisions and precedents of the Constitutional Court of Spain, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico and the Electoral Tribunal of Mexico. It also examines the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the freedom of assembly, noting that this Court typically defends citizens freedom of assembly in political contexts although it tends to favor States in contexts of extreme violence such as terrorism. The present article argues that electoral authorities are mistaken if they prohibit meetings out of the mere suspicion that during the event, public support may be expressed for or against a candidate. Electoral authorities should enforce the principle of “favor libertatis” when deciding on limitations on freedom of assembly in electoral contexts.     

Unfair Contract Terms,Unfair Prices and Bank Charges

This note considers how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 draws the line between the review of unfair contract terms and the review of unfair contracts (and, in particular, unfair prices) in the context of two cases concerning bank charges: Abbey Life plc v The Office of Fair Trading (2009) (the Bank Charges case) in the UK Supreme Court and Case 484/08 Caja de Madrid (2010) in the European Court of Justice. The note explains the proper question to be addressed by a court for this purpose under article 4(2) of the Directive and criticises the Supreme Court's approach to the interpretation of article 4(2) and its application of the UK regulation implementing this article to the circumstances in the Bank Charges case.     

MUDDLING THROUGH THE MURKY WATERS OF TROXEL

A critical case in the area of third-party visitation rights was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in July 2000 ( Troxel v. Granville ). A plurality in this case held that a Washington grandparent visitation statute was not facially unconstitutional but was as applied to the facts of that case. The author discusses the varying opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Troxel decision. Next, he analyzes the plurality opinion to determine the appropriate standard of review in grandparent visitation cases. Following is a consideration of how the decision will affect other state grandparent visitation legislation. Examining these issues, the author concludes that future third-party visitation cases will be decided on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis.     

La responsabilidad patrimonial del estado legislador en el derecho español

This article analyzes the figure of the liability of the State legislature that, unlike the responsibility of the Public Administration and the Administration of Justice, under the Spanish Constitution, in the case of the legislature, its development in terms of key features and requirements, has been made by the Supreme Court, taking into account, as necessary, the European Union law. This responsibility of the State legislature may have two origins, depending essentially on the monitoring charge is used to test the law in question, the Spanish Constitution and the European Union law.     

With the fourth sentence of the First Chamber on wrongful birth: is it possible to start talking about "jurisprudence"?]

Chamber number 1 of the Spanish Supreme Court of Justice has announced its fourth wrongful birth case decision dated December 18, 2003. The issue is whether we can state that with these four rulings there is a genuine law of precedent, that is, reiterated doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice on this matter (Article 1.6 of the Civil Code).     

The Roberts Court and Police Practices: The Impact of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in Police Practices Cases

In police practices cases, the Supreme Court decides issues that determine when the law enforcement interest in solving crimes must give way to the interest of individuals to be left alone by the government. The replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist with John Roberts and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with Samuel Alito has now been in place for more than four terms. The time is appropriate to assess the likely impact of these two new members of the Court on police practices cases. This article examines that question by analyzing both the police practices opinions written by Roberts and Alito while they served on U.S. Courts of Appeals and their opinions while on the Supreme Court through the 2008-09 term. The conclusion is that the previous pattern of the police prevailing in the vast majority of these cases is unlikely to change. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that Chief Justice Roberts is aligning himself closely with Justice Scalia in these cases and may be setting the stage for a significant modification or even elimination of the exclusionary rule.     

Once more with ‘sympathy’ but no resolution for intended mothers: the EU,Ireland and the surrogacy dilemma

This article examines the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School and the court’s interpretation of existing EU legislation on whether commissioning or intended mothers are entitled to paid leave equivalent to maternity benefit. It highlights the failure of the CJEU in this case to call for specific EU legislation on the issue of surrogacy. The Irish Courts have been more proactive in this regard. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that ‘pending the introduction … of legislation dealing with this field, it is … not for the courts to attempt to resolve the complex questions that need to be addressed’. This article compares recent decisions of the Irish Courts to that of the CJEU as they struggle to keep abreast with modern society in the absence of legislation at national and EU level.     

Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

The European Arrest Warrant and the Sovereign State: A Marriage of Convenience?

The article aims to analyse the extent to which mutual recognition and mutual trust in the criminal law area are developing in the EU in the context of the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). First, an overview of the decisions of the Constitutional Courts in Germany, Poland, Cyprus and Czech Republic will be given. These decisions are evidence of a tension, on the one hand, between mutual recognition and state sovereignty and, on the other hand, between the powers of the European institutions in criminal matters and the fundamental rights of the individual. Second, national case‐law in the UK, Belgium, Spain and Italy will be examined. Third, an analysis of the recent decision of the European Court of Justice of 3 May 2007 will be carried out. Finally, a global assessment of the EAW will be made. Is this instrument effectively promoting normative mutual trust among the judicial authorities in the EU? Should it be amended or is it the wrong response at the wrong time? Some suggestions will be put forward, in light of what is considered to be the nature of the EAW and the birth of this instrument as part of the mutual recognition agenda.     

A contractual model of the voting behavior of the supreme court: The role of the chief justice

Political scientists have long debated the role of the Supreme Court in public policymaking. Much of the debate has centered around the issue of judicial independence from political factors. Despite a rather extensive debate in the literature, the question of independence has rarely been subjected to systematic testing. This paper examines the role of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in linking decisions of the Court to the desires of Congress. Specifically, the paper focuses on the role of the Supreme Court Chief Justice as an agent of Congress that reacts to budgetary signals sent by the Congress. The resulting relationship between budgets allocated to the Court and decisions reached by the Court are analyzed from 1946 to 1988.     

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Common Market Freedoms in Union Law: Schmidberger and Omega in the Light of the European Constitution

Abstract:  This article deals with how the Court of Justice balances fundamental rights protection and Common Market freedoms. From the particular perspective of the Charter and the ECHR, whose legal status will be upgraded upon entry into force of the European Constitution, it studies the Court of Justice's approach to fundamental rights invocations by Member States in the context of Common Market freedoms. For this purpose the judgments in Schmidberger and Omega will be discussed both in the current setting and that envisioned by the European Constitution. It will emerge that the Court of Justice's reasoning in Schmidberger and Omega can be criticised on different levels, and alternative approaches are proposed. At a later stage some further elements for refining the methodology for assessing Member States' fundamental rights invocations are addressed with a view to facilitating the Court of Justice more satisfactorily to take account of the current and likely future setting of fundamental rights protection in Union law.     

Competing Supremacies and Clashing Institutional Rationalities: the Danish Supreme Court's Decision in the Ajos Case and the National Limits of Judicial Cooperation

On 6 December 2016, the Supreme Court of Denmark (SCDK) ruled on the grounds of Ajos case. The ruling concerned the scope of the principle of non‐discrimination on the grounds of age and whether a national court could weigh the principle of non‐discrimination on grounds of age against the principles of legal controversy, as the protection of legitimate expectations. The ruling has caused a great deal of controversy as the SCDK defied clear guidelines from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the ruling. Moreover, the case has been seen by some as an example of a new ‘sovereigntism’ in Danish law that is at odds with the project of European integration through law. This article explains the case from both an EU law and Danish constitutional law perspective. It concludes by providing a set of explanations of the new course of the SCDK in its relationship with the EU.     

从Gubisch案看欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定

国际诉讼竞合的认定是解决国际民商事管辖权冲突的先决条件。通过对欧共体法院一则判例的分析,指出,欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定趋向于持宽松的态度,而且,这种宽松的认定方法已被目前的国际立法和司法判例所吸收和支持。     

The Supreme Court and Police Practices: The Last Two Terms

The 2003–2004 term of the Supreme Court was noteworthy because it decided a relatively large number of cases dealing with police practices, many of which were of special significance. The next two terms (2004–2005 and 2005–2006 terms) were not quite as noteworthy, but still the Court decided eight police practices cases, dealing with such important issues as the detention of the residents of a home while executing a search warrant, the use of canine sniffs during a traffic stop, the validity of anticipatory search warrants, and the validity of third party consent to search when another person with authority to consent is present and objects to the search. These two terms do not provide enough cases to permit a confident prediction about the approach that the two new members of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to take in police practices cases. However, their positions in the cases discussed in this article suggest that both will take positions in support of the police in these cases.     

Northern Ireland Dimensions to the First Decade of the United Kingdom Supreme Court

This article focuses on the relationship between the United Kingdom Supreme Court and Northern Ireland over the course of a constitutionally significant period of time, namely the first decade of the Court's existence. It does this by exploring what difference the Court has made to the law of Northern Ireland, what significance the cases from Northern Ireland have had for the law in other parts of the United Kingdom, and what part has been played in the Court's work by the sole Justice from Northern Ireland, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, and by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC. It concludes that the Court has established itself as an indispensable component of the legal system of Northern Ireland.     

Judicial Review of Politics: The Israeli Case

In the tradition of studies questioning the impact of celebrated court rulings, this article discusses the effectiveness of the judicial review of politics conducted by the Israeli Supreme Court. The Israeli Supreme Court is generally viewed as a highly influential, almost omnipotent body. During the last two decades, the Court has intervened repeatedly in the so–called political domain, thereby progressively eroding the scope of realms considered non–justiciable. It has ventured to enter domains of 'pure' political power to review the legality of political agreements, political appointments (appointments of political allies to public positions), and political allocations (government funding to organizations affiliated with its political supporters). The prevalent perception is that these developments had a significant impact on Israeli political life. The present article challenges this view and argues that, on closer scrutiny, the influence of the Court on many of the issues reviewed here is negligible. First, many of the doctrines developed by the Court in order to review political measures proved ineffective. Usually, when the Supreme Court (acting as a High Court of Justice) engages in judicial review, it lacks the evidence needed in order to decide that administrative decisions on public appointments or public funding should be abolished because they were based on political or self–serving considerations. Second, the norms mandated by the Court hardly influence politicians' decisions in everyday life, and are applied only in contested cases. The reasons for this situation are not only legal but also socio–political. Large sections of current Israeli society support interest–group politics and do not accept the values that inspire the Court.     

Abela and Others v Baadarani: The Politics Within the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court deals with many political cases, where policies are at stake, while on the other hand there is the politics within the Court which can also play an important role. It is difficult to judge the current system without sound empirical and theoretical studies, so one cannot confidently assess the effectiveness of the paper appeals in the American System in the light of the long history of the UK system, of different career paths of advocates in these two countries and of different routes of appointment for judges in both jurisdictions. Nevertheless, any interviews that were conducted with senior judges in the UK were conducted a long time ago and might not be applicable to the current realities. It is true that the British system is open to moderation—the elimination of the House of Lords and its replacement with the Supreme Court is the best example—but maybe more changes are needed. It is paramount that greater diversity in the profession brings fresh perspectives. This is evident in electing practitioners with different career paths, such as Justice Kennedy and Lord Sumption. The president of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, even suggested advertising the next position in the Supreme Court to be on a part time basis, to enable the election of an academic. As stated in the introduction, since Abela and others v Baadarani is a case with important principles at stake, is there a space for political disagreement?