Suchergebnisse

"The purpose of this book is to explore the key substantive, methodological, and institutional issues raised by the proposed EU unitary patent system contained in EU Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012, and the Unified Patent Court Agreement 2013. The originality of this work lies in its uniquely broad approach, taking seven different (historical, constitutional, international, competition, economic, institutional, and forward-looking) perspectives on the proposed EU patent system. This means that the book offers a multi-authored and all round appraisal of the proposed unitary system from experts in patent law, EU constitutional law, private international law, competition law, and economics, as well as leading figures from the worlds of legal practice, the bench, and the European Patent Office. The unitary patent system raises issues of foundational importance in the fields of patent and intellectual property law, EU law and legal harmonization, which it is the purpose of the book to engage with. This is a work which will enjoy wide and enduring interest among academics, policy makers and decision makers/practitioners working in patent law, intellectual property law, legal harmonization, and EU law."--Bloomsbury Publishing

This work deals with the temporal effect of judicial decisions and more specifically, with the hardship caused by the retroactive operation of overruling decisions. By means of a jurisprudential and comparative analysis, the book explores several issues created by the overruling of earlier decisions. Overruling of earlier decisions, when it occurs, operates retrospectively with the effect that it infringes the principle of legal certainty through upsetting any previous arrangements made by a party to a case under long standing precedents established previously by the courts. On this account

In this paper I examine the evolving role of constitutional law and courts as religion-harnessing agents in Israel and Malaysia - two complex constitutional settings, 'ethnic democracies' by some classifications - that occupy the largely uncharted middle-ground between a strict separation of religion and state, and a full-fledged 'constitutional theocracy'. As I show, a combination of instrumentalist and systemic factors, most notably the embedded 'statist' inclination of the constitutional domain, generate landmark jurisprudence that supports a nationalized, state-endorsed variant of religion and at the same time disarms religion of its radical edge and brings it under constitutional check. As a result, the constitutional domain in these and other similarly situated countries has become an attractive arena for those who oppose the expansion of religion-based morality beyond the boundaries of the canonical national meta-narrative. Adapted from the source document.

The integration, at the national level, of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights may open the subject of a dispute in relation to a contrary jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, regarding the protection of human rights. This paper integrates the possible disputes and proposes ways of solving them, as well as proposals for improving the dialogue of European states regarding the jurisdictional protection of human rights.

This Article replies to Professor' Jaffa's article, "What Were the 'Original Intentions' of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States?," and book, The Crisis of the House Divided. The Article argues that Professor Jaffa's method throughout his indictment of legal scholars has three flaws. First, the Article argues that Professor Jaffa takes statements of sensible political compromises-such as support for judicial restraint, British traditions, and local self-government-and treats them as if they were philosophical statements. Second, the author contends that Professor Jaffa assembles a composite indictment, which in law is appropriately applied only to an indictment against a proven conspiracy, the existence of which Professor Jaffa has not proved. Third, the Article shows in detail that each of the statements of the four steps almost certainly was not intended as such by its author. Therefore, the Article concludes that Professor Jaffa's indictment fails to meet its burden of proof.

This series provides an overview of current analyses and developments pertaining to the law and legal issues in the United States. Topics covered in this volume include constitutional and statutory privacy protections relating to cloud computing; the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; the legal framework for the protection of classified information; an overview of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832 corresponding to stealing trade secrets and economic espionage; an overview of perjury under federal law; a legal overview of 18 U.S.C. 3144 and the Federal Material Witness Statute; federal grand juries

The subject. Current constitutional legal relations are considered in the context of the objective legal reality of the COVID-19 pandemic.The purpose of the article is confirmation or confutation of the hypothesis that COVID-19 pandemic impacts on the development of constitutional relations.The methodology. The author uses the method of comparative legal analysis legal measures aiming the minimization of pandemic's impact on society and formal legal analysis of legislative acts.The main results of the research. It is alleged that the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the state of constitutional legal relations and revealed the most acute social and economic problems in all areas of public life.The development of constitutional legal relations in a pandemic will lead, firstly, to a new correlation of collective and individual human rights. As a result of a pandemic, constitutional legal relations in the healthcare sector will move from the category of individual right to life and health to the category of public interest. When the health of an individual citizen is a guarantee of economic and public safety.Secondly, the development of the institution of self-limitation of constitutional human rights. From the position of law, self-restriction of rights allows: to ensure personal and public safety of citizens; avoid introducing restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms; eliminate redundancy of human rights restrictions.Self-limitation of constitutional human rights is considered as conscious voluntary abstinence from the exercise of constitutional rights on the recommendation of public authorities in an emergency or other conditions close to them (high alert, self-isolation) in order to ensure public and personal safety. Self-limitation of constitutional human rights allows us to observe the constitutional balance of personal and public interests.Thirdly, the experience of combating a pandemic has shown that if the population is able to cope with the consequences of a short-term restriction of their rights on their own, then long-term quarantine measures lead to a significant drop in incomes of the population and must be compensated by the state.Conclusions. The COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic on the one hand triggered a new stage of constitutional legal relations, and on the other hand, like any emergency, exposed the most acute social and economic problems in society. The development of constitutional legal relations in the context of the emerging digital society and the state will not only lead to the development of new principles of constitutional development and, as a result, to constitutional legal relations of a new, digital level, but also affect such areas as the ratio of collective and individual human rights; development of the institution of self-restriction of human rights; further improvement of compensatory constitutional legal relations. ; Современные конституционные правоотношения рассматриваются в условиях правовой реальности, сложившейся в результате пандемии COVID-19. Утверждается, что пандемия COVID-19 оказала существенное влияние на состояние конституционных правоотношений и выявила наиболее острые социальные и экономические проблемы во всех сферах общественной жизни. Развитие конституционных правоотношений в условиях пандемии приведет к новому соотношению коллективных и индивидуальных прав человека; развитию института самоограничения прав человека; совершенствованию компенсационных конституционных правоотношений.