This study aims to analyze the legal responsibility of military doctors in malpractice cases from the perspectives of health law and military criminal law in Indonesia. Military doctors hold a dual status as members of the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) and as professional medical practitioners, thereby subjecting them to two legal regimes simultaneously. This research employs an empirical method with a statutory approach, supported by primary and secondary legal materials. The results show that from the perspective of health law, legal responsibility is based on the existence of professional fault, proven through violations of professional standards, standard operating procedures, and medical service standards, with forms of liability including ethical, administrative, civil, and criminal aspects. From the perspective of military criminal law, responsibility emphasizes discipline, command hierarchy, and organizational interests, with possible sanctions in the form of criminal penalties and military administrative sanctions. The determination of judicial forum is principally under the jurisdiction of Military Courts based on the principle of personality. However, if the case involves both military and civilian actors, the mechanism of connectivity courts applies to ensure unity of examination and legal certainty. Civil disputes remain under the jurisdiction of general courts and are preceded by professional disciplinary mechanisms through the Indonesian Medical Discipline Honor Council (MKDKI). Thus, the legal responsibility of military doctors in malpractice cases reflects an integration between health law and military criminal law in ensuring legal certainty and justice.

Background: Quasi-judicial institutions are new institutions that emerged after the 1998 reforms as auxiliary organs tasked with resolving specific legal disputes. After that year, the government began establishing several quasi-judicial institutions such as the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency, the National Commission on Human Rights, the Business Competition Supervisory Commission, the Ombudsman, the Professional Disciplinary Council, and several other institutions. Objective: This study aims to examine the position of quasi-judicial institutions in the Indonesian legal system and the obstacles they face within the existing legal system. Methods: The research methodology used was normative juridical, where the author conducts a literature review of legal theory, legislation, and existing quasi-judicial institutions to clarify their position and explain their uses and obstacles. Results: This was done with the aim of ensuring that specific legal disputes can obtain appropriate and beneficial justice for the disputing parties through a fast and efficient process. In some quasi-judicial institutions, decisions from these institutions can even contribute to making legally binding decisions that can be considered by judges in general courts or provide recommendations on whether a legal dispute can be forwarded to general courts or not. However, historically, some of these institutions' decisions have experienced inconsistencies with those of general courts. Conclusion: Therefore, in this paper, the author attempts to provide suggestions on how to address potential inconsistencies between the results of decisions and those of general courts.

Abstract This case note analyses the General Court’s judgment in Arysta Lifescience v EFSA (Case T-222/23), which addresses the tensions arising from the disclosure of the lists of co-formulant in the context of the EU risk assessment of pesticides. The decision consolidates the General Court’s interpretation of “information relating to emissions into the environment” under Article 6(1) of Aarhus Regulation, confirming its applicability to the list of co-formulants contained in representative products.

Data-driven research using artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming biomedical science, yet its application in medical imaging remains limited by fragmented datasets, heterogeneous legislation, and ethical uncertainties. The European Cancer Imaging Initiative (EUCAIM) addresses these barriers by establishing a federated, secure and interoperable European imaging infrastructure, fostering a trusted ecosystem for AI-enabled research. EUCAIM brings privacy, ethics, and security within a single, coherent operational framework. The project implements a risk-based, compliance-by-default approach that embeds Data Protection Impact Assessments throughout system design, translating legal requirements into verifiable technical safeguards. Its "de facto" anonymization model, aligned with the General Data Protection Regulation and Court of Justice jurisprudence, combines multi-stage anonymization pipelines, cryptographic hashing, and automated re-identification-risk analyses to deliver a federated Secure Processing Environment (SPE) for researchers. This federated infrastructure is consistent with the European Health Data Space Regulation (EHDSR) and national security frameworks, and ensures data sovereignty, interoperability, and accountability. A comprehensive governance and contractual framework, including Data Sharing and Transfer Agreements, clearly delineates roles and responsibilities, while the Data Access Committee provides robust ethical oversight. EUCAIM thus offers a lawful, secure, and sustainable model of a federated secure environment for the reuse of imaging data, advancing a genuinely data-driven research ecosystem.

In this Column, the author analyses the General Court of the European Union’s decision in Versãofast. In the author’s view this decision provides some clarity by refocusing the analysis on the actual economic function of the services (intermediation services) supplied rather than on formal criteria.

The backlog of civil cases in court is a crucial issue in the Indonesian judicial system because it causes delays in dispute resolution, increases litigation costs, and reduces public trust in judicial institutions. In response to this situation, the Supreme Court has mandated mediation as the initial stage of civil case resolution through Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2016. This policy reflects efforts to reform the judicial system to make it more efficient and oriented towards peaceful resolution. This study aims to evaluate the role of mediation in reducing case backlogs and increasing the efficiency of dispute resolution. In addition, this study compares the application of mediation in the General Court and the Religious Court. The method used is normative legal research with a legislative, conceptual, and philosophical approach. The results of the study show that mediation in the General Court tends to be formalistic, so its impact on reducing cases is still limited. In contrast, mediation in the Religious Court is more effective because it uses a persuasive, cultural, and religious approach. The efficiency of mediation should be interpreted not only as procedural acceleration but also as the realization of sustainable substantive justice.

Abstract In a ruling delivered on 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice upheld a General Court judgment annulling the classification as a suspected carcinogen of titanium dioxide in powder form containing at least 1% of particles of a diameter equal to or below 10 μm. Both EU Courts criticise the scientific assessment underlying that classification, but the Court of Justice relies on conceptual distinctions that reveal its reluctance to perform a genuine “manifest error of assessment” review. While these issues are not addressed by the Court of Justice, the case also raises thorny questions regarding the meaning of “intrinsic properties” of a substance.

The ruling in Valanius 1 is a prime example of a dynamic whereby the European Court of Justice establishes a broad scope of review for a provision, while exercising restrained scrutiny when it comes to applying its content.The case concerned whether a member state could disregard a merit-based list, compiled by a national expert group established under national law, when nominating a candidate for the EU's General Court.Mr Virgilijus Valanius, at the time a sitting judge at the General Court, challenged the Lithuanian government's decision to nominate a lower-ranked candidate for the position.The argument defended by Valanius was that the Lithuanian authorities involved in the process violated the requirements of ability and independence

ABSTRACT A central concern for the social work profession has been related to preparing students for social work practice in the legal context of court settings. This article focuses on a university-court teaching initiative that supported social work students to attend the General Magistrates Court, to witness court proceedings for people charged with criminal offenses and bail hearings for people being held in custody and seeking release. This paper highlights the perspectives of 43 social work students who attended and responded to an anonymous online student survey which was thematically analyzed. Three key themes were found which related to the students experiencing a “real life” experience of the criminal justice system, learning about court terminology and processes, and engaging with ethical challenges in the criminal justice system. The students reflected on how their experience developed their knowledge of social justice and human rights issues in criminal justice, which is at the forefront of students being prepared for the social work profession.

This study examines the legal position of interfaith inheritance under Indonesian civil law, focusing on the principle that religious differences do not constitute an impediment to inheritance rights. Employing a normative legal research method, the study analyzes statutory regulations, doctrinal legal principles, and relevant court decisions governing inheritance under the Indonesian Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). The findings indicate that civil inheritance law is fundamentally based on blood relations and lawful marriage, rather than religious affiliation. As long as the legal requirements of heirs and inheritance objects are fulfilled, and no legal disqualifications apply, heirs of different religions remain entitled to inheritance rights. Judicial practice in general courts further demonstrates a consistent application of religious neutrality in inheritance disputes, reinforcing legal certainty and equality before the law. Although this approach differs from Islamic inheritance law, civil law serves as an inclusive legal framework that accommodates Indonesia’s pluralistic social structure. Consequently, civil inheritance law plays a crucial role in safeguarding civil rights and promoting justice within interfaith family relations.

The Maritime Court (Mahkamah Pelayaran) is a judicial body under the Ministry of Transportation authorized to examine and adjudicate ship accidents, specifically regarding shipping safety aspects and the responsibility of masters or officers by imposing administrative sanctions. The regulations concerning the functions, authorities, and duties of the Maritime Court are governed by Law Number 66 of 2024 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 17 of 2008, specifically in Articles 251 to 253 of the Shipping Law. Article 251 of the Shipping Law outlines the functions of the Maritime Court; Article 252 details the authority to examine ship collisions occurring between commercial vessels, commercial and state vessels, as well as commercial and warships; and Article 253 defines the duties of the court, including investigating the causes of ship accidents, determining the presence of procedural errors or negligence by the master or officers, examining negligence by operators, ship owners, or officials that result in accidents, and recommending administrative sanctions to the Minister. The method used in this research is normative legal research conducted to obtain the necessary data related to the issues. The data used is secondary data consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, supported by primary data. Data analysis was performed using a qualitative juridical analysis method. The results of this research indicate that the current authority of the Maritime Court remains limited to administrative matters and has not yet addressed the need for more comprehensive justice for victims, ship owners, or aggrieved third parties, even though every ship accident involves not only technical navigation issues but also economic, environmental, and social impacts. Law Number 66 of 2024 has strengthened administrative sanctions but has not changed the position of the Maritime Court as a quasi-judicial institution. Therefore, a more integrative restructuring of authority is required so that the Maritime Court's decisions can be recognized as part of the judicial process and serve as considerations for judges in General Courts. This integrative process can be achieved by appointing the expert panels of the Maritime Court as ad hoc judges in General Courts. Thus, General Court decisions can create and strengthen the quality of rulings through precise and accurate maritime technical considerations given that the expert panels possess the background, experience, and specialized expertise in the shipping field while creating harmonization between Maritime Court decisions and General Court rulings to reduce contradictions and strengthen legal certainty.

Implicit VAT Legislation, Legal Certainty and the Right to Property <div> Examination of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-221/25 (TUI) in the light of the criteria for review under Article 256(3) TFEU </div>

This case note analyses the judgment of the First Chamber of the EU Court of Justice rendered in an appeal, whereby the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) asked the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 April 2023, SRB v EDPS (T-557/20, EU:T:2023:219).In the earlier judgment, the General Court annulled the revised decision of the EDPS of 24 November 2020, adopted following the request from the Single Resolution Board (SRB) for review of an EDPS decision concerning five complaints from several complainants.The note discusses the background of the dispute and the findings of the CJEU.It particularly focuses on two key points: first, the 'relative approach' confirmed by the CJEU for determining whether data is considered 'personal'; and second, the practical implications of this approach.It finally sheds light on legislative efforts (ie, Digital Omnibus proposal) to codify recent CJEU case law, particularly with regard to SRB, on the definition of personal data.

The General Court in T-534/23 and T-535/23: Aarhus and the EU's Functionally Legislative Power under Article 122(1) TFEU

The subject of the research is the collisions between the presumptions of public and private law in relation to tax legal relations. The legal nature of the presumption of taxpayer good faith is analyzed, its genesis in constitutional legal doctrine and judicial practice, as well as its correlation with the principles of public legal regulation. Institutional contradictions arising from the simultaneous application of private law and public law presumptions in the field of taxation are identified, including in the context of Article 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The possibility of applying the principle of estoppel in tax legal relations is considered. An analysis of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is conducted from the perspective of forming and developing a legal position on the balance of public and private interests, as well as resolving inter-sectoral conflicts. Dialectical and formal-legal, comparative-legal, and systemic analyses of the judicial practice of arbitration courts and general jurisdiction courts, as well as doctrinal approaches, are carried out. The main conclusion of the research is the establishment of the objective nature of the conflict of presumptions, determined by the inter-sectoral character of tax law. The work formulates an approach to the presumption of taxpayer good faith as a phenomenon of “transnormative reception”: the private law construct is adapted to the public law environment; however, this adaptation is not methodologically flawless, leading to systemic contradictions in law enforcement. Article 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation only partially resolved the conflict of presumptions, legislatively enshrining a number of previously formulated judicial positions, but did not create an independent public legal concept of taxpayer behavior standards. A promising direction in doctrine is proposed – the development of a special tax legal theory of presumptions based on the constitutional principles of proportionality, legal certainty, and protection of legitimate expectations. The direct enshrinement in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation of the concept of the “reasonable taxpayer standard” as a public law analogue of the “bona fide participant in civil turnover” standard is suggested, which would eliminate the methodological dependence of tax law on private law constructs and create an independent toolkit for assessing the behavior of subjects of tax legal relations.

<div> The General Court in T-534/23 and T-535/23: Aarhus and the EU's Functionally Legislative Power under Article 122(1) TFEU </div>

The Role of Institutional Excellence in Developing Job Performance: A Field Study on the Administrative Employees of the General Court in Jeddah Province

Agrarian disputes remain pervasive and complex, frequently involving violations of land rights, land grabbing, and overlapping claims. Such disputes often span civil, administrative, and even criminal dimensions, resulting in fragmented litigation before the General Courts and the State Administrative Courts. This fragmented adjudication has produced inconsistent and conflicting judicial decisions, thereby undermining legal certainty and justice in the land sector. These conditions underscore the urgency of establishing a specialized agrarian court with a clear institutional and procedural framework. This study aims to formulate a conceptual model of an agrarian court and to propose its future institutional mechanism in order to ensure legal certainty in the resolution of agrarian disputes. From the perspective of Islamic law, land ownership constitutes a protected right (ḥifẓ al-māl) that necessitates an effective and just dispute-resolution mechanism. This research employs a normative legal methodology using statutory, case, comparative, and conceptual approaches, supported by primary, secondary, and non-legal materials. The findings propose the Agrarian Court Concept based on the “3Ps” framework—Position, Procedure, and Professionalism—which emphasizes institutional clarity, specialized procedural rules, and competent adjudicators. This model is designed to prevent future disputes, harmonize judicial decisions, and resolve agrarian conflicts in a manner that promotes legal certainty, justice, and the broader objectives of law, including the principle of enjoining good and preventing harm.

The purpose of the article is to clarify foreign experience concerning legal regulation of the prosecutor’s office functioning. Based on a comparative study of foreign prosecutors’ offices, data on their place in the government system, type of model and main functions are given, and this gives an idea of the role and directions of development of the prosecutor's office in the leading countries of the modern world. In Germany, public prosecutor's offices function at all levels of general courts. The Federal Prosecutor General exercises his powers under the overall direction of the German Minister of Justice. It is noted that the modern French prosecutor's office belongs to the executive branch of government and is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice. Officials of the prosecutor’s office are very close to the judicial corps, as they receive the same training and in the course of their careers often move from prosecutors to judges and vice versa. According to the special law defining the legal position of the prosecutor’s office in Latvia, the prosecutor’s office is a judicial authority that independently supervises the observance of legality within the limits of the established competence. In Great Britain, there is no public prosecutor’s office or its direct counterpart at all. In the system of state authorities, the Royal Prosecutor’s Office functions as a self-consistent and independent authority, whose activities are coordinated by the Attorney General. In the Republic of Lithuania, prosecutors organize and manage the process of pre-trial investigation, and they also support the state prosecution in criminal cases. It has been concluded that there is no single standard in Europe regarding the model of the prosecutor’s office. The analyzed models of prosecutor’s offices have advantages and disadvantages, but none of them is excluded and neither of the models is preferred.

Descente and constatering are two legal terms in civil procedure law that often cause confusion because they are considered to be the same but are actually different. This is because descente and constatering both involve direct examination conducted outside the courtroom. Descente or on-site examination is regulated in Article 153 HIR/180 RBg, which is an action at the evidence stage in civil proceedings carried out by a judge outside the courtroom when necessary by directly visiting an object of examination at the location where the object is located, while constatering is an act of verification at the execution stage carried out by examining the object of examination directly at its location to ensure that the object is in accordance with what is stated in the court decision. The existence of descente is very important and even mandatory to provide clarity on an event in a civil trial as stipulated in the Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA), namely SEMA Number 7 of 2001, SEMA Number 10 of 2020. Likewise, the existence of constatering is also no less important. The Supreme Court, through the execution guidelines issued by the Directorate General of General Courts, requires the court to conduct constatering before the eviction execution is carried out. With constatering, the court ensures that the object being executed is in accordance with the verdict and prevents errors in execution and/or execution that exceeds the verdict. Research on descente and constatering is important to clearly identify the differences between the two. The research was conducted using a doctrinal research method based on legislation and literature studies, namely by analyzing the provisions of legislation and literature studies in the form of literature, jurisprudence, court decisions, and relevant Supreme Court guidelines.