The Experts below are selected from a list of 99228 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Richard Griffith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment
British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 2015Co-Authors: Richard GriffithAbstract:The previous article in this column considered a patient's right to demand or refuse treatment for their heart condition. This article considers the cardiac team's rights and responsibilities when considering withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. It focuses on the UK Supreme Court Judgment in Aintree University Hospitals Foundation Trust v. James [2013] and considers the impact of the ruling on a cardiac nurse's practice.
-
the impact of the supreme Court Judgment in cheshire west v p on the human rights of vulnerable patients
British Journal of Community Nursing, 2014Co-Authors: Richard GriffithAbstract:The UK Supreme Court's Judgment in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] has had a huge impact on the promotion of human rights of vulnerable patients. The ruling emphasises the positive duty on the state and its organisations, such as the NHS, to have in place procedures that independently confirm that the human rights of those vulnerable patients are being applied in the same way as any other human being. This article discusses the background and basis for the Supreme Court's decision in Cheshire West and its impact on vulnerable patients.
Francisco Marcos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Requirement of Sensibility in the Distortions of Competition in the Spanish Competition Act: Notes Regarding the Problematics Raised by the Supreme Court Judgment of 29 January 2008 (in Spanish)
Social Science Research Network, 2010Co-Authors: Francisco MarcosAbstract:The Supreme Court Judgment of 29 January 2008 was delivered in an appeal in the interest of law against a fine imposed by the Catalonian regional antitrust authority, which was annulled by an Administrative Judge. That Judgment made relevant considerations concerning the need for sensitivity in the restrictions on free competition in all or part of the national market for the prohibitions to be applied. Those considerations and others regarding the geographical boundaries of the markets thereby defined are especially relevant in a decentralized system (judicial and administrative) for the enforcement of the Defence Competition Act and glimpse the risks that threaten an efficient an consistent functioning of the various enforcement responsible institutions.
-
A Dangerous Call to Create Crisis Cartels: Notes to Supreme Court Judgment of January 20, 2010
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010Co-Authors: Francisco MarcosAbstract:Situations of economic crisis do not justify an exemption to the prohibition of anticompetitive agreements. There is neither a special rule for the agricultural sector that would provide a broad antitrust exemption aside from the common agricultural policy (CAP). The primacy of CAP goals does not mean that the agricultural sector is exempted from the application of competition rules. Only the European Commission and common market organizations’ regulations may, in justified cases, establish limitations to free competition rules. The Supreme Court Judgment of 20 January 2010 makes a mistaken reading of EU case law and introduces a dangerous precedent regarding anticompetitive actions by agricultural producers. The judicial creation of a specific antitrust exemption for the storage of olive oil by producers (to raise its sale prices) violates competition law.
Arindam Nandi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
evaluating the impact of the indian supreme Court Judgment on sex selective abortion
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Sital Kalantry, Arindam NandiAbstract:Lawyers bring public interest litigation cases (“PIL”) to the Indian Supreme Court seeking many different types of remedies, including to prevent the construction of power plants that may damage the environment or to prevent violations of rights of a group of people. The Indian Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court” or “Court”) sometimes responds by creating guidelines like what the executive branch might do. But in many PIL cases, litigants are not asking for the creating of new rules, but instead they are simply asking the Supreme Court to encourage the government to amend, implement, and enforce laws that already exist.
Damien Geradin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Limiting the Scope of Article 82 of the EC Treaty: What can the EU Learn from the US Supreme Court's Judgment in Trinko in the wake of Microsoft, IMS, and Deutsche Telekom
Social Science Research Network, 2004Co-Authors: Damien GeradinAbstract:This paper seeks to draw some insights from the landmark Supreme Court Judgment in Trinko with a view to enlightening the current debate taking place in the EU over the proper scope of application of Article 82. Trinko is a particularly relevant Judgment for EC competition lawyers since it addresses two extremely important questions related to the application of this provision of the Treaty. The first question relates to the extent to which dominant firms in possession of essential products or services should be mandated to give access to these inputs to their competitors. This question, which is at the core of the recent Microsoft decision and IMS Judgment, does not find an obvious economic response. While granting access to "essential facilities" will stimulate competition in a secondary market (thereby contributing to allocative efficiency), it risks reducing the incentives for essential facility holders to invest. This issue also raises questions about the proper role of the competition authorities and the Courts. Mandatory access involves complex price-related questions for which these institutions seem poorly equipped. The second question relates to the interface between competition law and sector-specific remedies. In many key sectors of the economy, which can be referred to as network industries, these two categories of remedy co-exist, thus raising problems of overlap or even conflicts. Trinko addresses this issue by saying that there is no space for competition law remedies once a sector-specific regime has been established. This approach seems to conflict with the Commission's decision in Deutsche Telekom, which rules that the presence of a regulatory remedy does not prevent the application of EC competition rules.
Mshengu, Kwazikwenkosi Innocent. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
An analysis of the substantive fairness in cases of dismissal for misconduct in South Africa - the need for constitutional value of dignity in determining substantive fairness.
2017Co-Authors: Mshengu, Kwazikwenkosi Innocent.Abstract:Master of Laws in Business Law. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 2017.The development of labour laws in South Africa has registered major strides in regulating the employment relations. These developments have been in tandem with the political and socio-economic development of South African society. Amongst the major progressive developments in the realm of labour law is the notion of substantive fairness in cases of dismissal for misconduct. Prior to the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act 94 of 1994, the notion of substantive fairness was virtually absent from the labour law jurisprudence. Influenced by the socio-economic developments in South Africa as well as the International Labour Organisation's recommendations, South African Courts introduced the notion of substantive fairness in cases of dismissal for misconduct. The application of the novel notion of substantive fairness was first premised on the employer deference approach which was borrowed from s57(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act of 1978 (the English Statute). The employer deference approach demanded that presiding officers must accord respect to the interest of the employers in determining substantive fairness in cases of dismissal. This approach was followed by contradictory judgements by South African Courts – with some embracing the approach whilst other rejecting it. The South African approach to the notion of substantive fairness was eventually decided by the Constitutional Court in the case of Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines and Others. The Constitutional Court rejected the employer deference approach and replaced it with the exercise of value judgement by presiding officers which demands balancing the interests of employers and employees in determining the substantive fairness. The Court further, without being exhaustive, enumerated factors which must be taken into account in the process of establishing substantive fairness and these included the importance of the rule breached; the reason the employer imposed the sanction; the basis of the employee‟s challenge of dismissal; the harm caused by the employee‟s conduct; whether additional training may avoid repeat of the offence; the effect of dismissal on the employee and his or her record of long service. Notwithstanding the Constitutional Court Judgment, the exercise of value Judgment remains vulnerable to arbitrary application if it is not anchored on a specified value to be protected. This vulnerability has been apparent in certain cases that followed the Sidumo case such as that of Theewaterskloof Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council (Western Cape Division and Other) and Miyambo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration. In both cases, the employees were dismissed for what may be argued as inconsequential acts of misconduct. This was palpably against the spirit and purport of the precedent-setting decision in the Sidumo case. This study proposes that the exercise of value Judgment should be anchored on the constitutional value of dignity which is intrinsically interwoven with the right to work security. Recognizing the importance of dignity as the right was aptly articulated by Justice O‟Regan in the case of S v Makwanyane5 that: “recognizing the right to dignity is an acknowledgment of the intrinsic work of human beings: human beings are entitled to be treated as worthy of respect and concern. This right therefore is the foundation of many of the other rights that are specifically entrenched in the Bill of Rights.” If the right to dignity is the foundation of many rights, it stands to reason, therefore, that it should also anchor the exercise of value Judgment in order to avoid arbitrary application
