340 Recht
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Buch (Monographie) (14)
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (2)
- Sonstiges (2)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (19) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Europäische Union (4)
- Religion (4)
- Folter (2)
- Kirche (2)
- Law of the European Union (2)
- Recht der Europäischen Union (2)
- Religionsgemeinschaft (2)
- Religionsrecht (2)
- Strafrecht (2)
- Strafverfahren (2)
Institut
- Rechtswissenschaft (14)
- Fachbereich 5 (1)
The unrestrainable evolution of medical science and technology is drastically changing health-care, enabling new medical procedures and remedies, which are increasingly intertwined with moral principles. Although a uniform European approach on assisted suicide is lacking, a common trend is developing: the boundary between euthanasia, assisted suicide and end-of-life care and the frontiers of legitimate medicine are becoming increasingly blurred. In Italy, a ruling of the Constitutional Court, no. 242/2019, declared the partial unconstitutionality of article 580 of the Italian Criminal Code, which prohibited assistance in suicide.
Specifically, article 580 excluded the criminal liability for the person who, in the manner provided for in Articles 1 and 2 of the law 22 December 2017, no. 219, “facilitates the execution of intention of suicide, autonomously and freely formed, of one person kept alive by life-sustaining treatments and suffering from an irreversible pathology, source of physical or psychological suffering that he/she deems intolerable, but fully capable of making free aware decisions, provided that such conditions and methods of execution have been verified by a public structure of the national health service, following the opinion of the territorially competent ethics committee.” The present paper analyzes the legal regime of assisted suicide in Italy, the role of the rule of law, and the crucial boundary between the branches of government with regard to this delicate issue, and investigates current legal challenges and potential future legal tracks.
Subject of this publication is torture as an interrogational instrument in criminal proceedings from a legal history point of view. Thereby, the paper at hand is the continuation of Volume I (published in 2014, number 68 of the Legal Policy Forum).
Volume II covers the following historical periods: Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Age; the latter ending with the 18th century as the so called Century of Enlightenment, being the actual beginning of the Modern Age in criminal law and criminal procedure law.
The paper ends with critical remarks against the predominant view that the torture's reign of terror in the former inquisitionsprozess merely was the inevitable consequence of the unreasonable kaw on evidence applicable at that time.
Major threats to the Spanish Constitutional Court’s independence and authority have come, first, from political parties and the media and, second, by the Catalonian secession movement. The authority and the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court were tested in the stormy
proceedings on the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia of 2006 that ended in 2010 and, above all, in the period of 2013–2017, when successive acts directed at the secession of were recurrently Catalonia challenged before the Court and subsequently overturned, and to stop the continued disobedience its rulings the of Court was given extended execution powers for its judgments. These new powers include the temporary replacement of any authority or public official that does not comply with a Court’s ruling and the ordering of a substitutive execution through the central government. The Court declared the new powers to be consistent with the Constitution (with three dissenting votes by four constitutional judges) and it even used them for the first time to enforce its prohibition of the referendum on the independence of Catalonia of 1 October 2017. Nevertheless, the Venice Commission has raised doubts about the opportunity of those powers, which are unusual in European constitutional jurisdiction models. At the end, the Court’s powers were not enough to stop the Catalonian secession process, and on 27 October 2017 the state government implemented the federal coercion clause and suspended Catalonian autonomy until new elections were held.
Although geographically it belongs to Europe, as far as the constitutionality control of the statutory provisions is concerned, Greece follows the American system. That means that there is no Constitutional Court and, on the contrary, every court (even those of first instance) are entitled, and indeed obliged, to control the constitutionality of the laws (Articles 87 par. 2 and 93 par. 4 of the Greek Constitution). The Greek Courts examine only the substantial and not the formal constitutionality of the statutory provisions. If a court comes to the result of the unconstitutionality, then the statutory provision is not annulled and removed from the legal order, but it is not applied by the court in the relevant court procedure. The only – rather rare – case where a statutory provision is erga omnes annulled is when this is ordered by a decision of the Highest Special Court (Article 100 of the Greek Constitution), following a disagreement between two of the three highest Courts, namely between Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (highest Administrative Court), Areios Pagos (Cassations Court in Civil and Criminal procedures) and Elegtiko Synedrio (Court of Audit).
The presentation is going to examine the origins of the Greek system of the constitutionality control. It will also focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the Greek system and on the scientific and political discussion. Last but not least, the presentation will examine the role of the Council of State, which, although formally not a Constitutional Court, in practice issues the vast majority of the court decisions which accept the unconstitutionality of statutory provisions.
Subject of this publication is torture as an interrogational instrument in criminal proceedings from a legal history point of view. Thereby, the author makes a distinction between torturing the accused on the one hand and, on the other hand, torture as an instrument to force a witness' incriminating testimony against third parties (in German: Zeugenfolter), torture as a means to avert dangers (lifesaving torture), torture as an additional cruelty to the accused's punishment (in German: Straffolter), and corporal punlishment for lying in a court. Only the first manifestation, namely torturing the accused intending to extort his confession, is the real subject of this paper.
In his article, the author asks how legitimacy of law and the concept of rules of law can be described taking into account the interaction between aspects of philosophy and sociology as well as the will of the state in states' constitutions. As the rule of law, versus other kinds of rules in our society, should be regarded as a rule of "three-dimensionality" " an interaction between the will of the state, the social, historical, and economic factors, and the idea or concept of justice ", the author focuses his interest on the examination of these three factors always taking into account that law is the will of the state, but that not every decision of the state can be considered as law.
Religion, churches and religious communities have growing importance in the Law of the European Union. Since long a distinct law on religion of the European Union is developing. This collection of those norms of European Union Law directly concerning religion mirrors today's status of this dynamic process.
Religion, churches and religious communities have growing importance in the Law of the European Union. Since long a distinct law on religion of the European Union is developing.rnThis collection of those norms of European Union Law directly concerning religion mirrors today's status of this dynamic process.
The 23rd Annual Congress of the European Consortium for Church and State Research took place in Oxford, United Kingdom from 29 September to 2 October 2011. Founded in 1989, the Consortium unites experts in law and religion from Member States of the European Union. The Oxford conference took as its theme Religion and Discrimination Law focusing on the manner in which State governments had sought to implement the non-discrimination policy of the EU by legislation and through courts and tribunals. The proceedings comprise three introductory papers considering the historical, cultural and social background; the prohibition on discrimination, and the exemptions to the general prohibition. This is followed by national reports from twenty-three countries describing the reach of discrimination law in the field of religion. These are supplemented by further papers analysing the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court and the background to EU Directive 2000/78/EC and by some concluding reflections. The proceedings begin with the text of a public lecture given at the opening of the Congress by Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights on the subject of freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention.
The article deals with the untenable overloading of German criminal trial court judges presenting the overloading in detail and analyzing its reasons and consequences. In this context, serious failures by the German federal and state executive and legislative organs as well as undesirable developments of the Federal Constitutional Court's (BVerfG and the Federal Supreme Court of Justice's BGH) case law.