Principle Of Non-retroactivity Research Articles

Subrogation of Tax and the Principle of Non-retroactivity in Law: A Review of Supreme Court Judgment No. 3178, Year 110

Subrogation of Tax and the Principle of Non-retroactivity in Law: A Review of Supreme Court Judgment No. 3178, Year 110

GLOSA DO PUNKTU 2 LIT. B WYROKU TRYBUNAŁU KONSTYTUCYJNEGO Z DNIA 7 PAŹDZIERNIKA 2021 R., K 3/21

The author offers a critical commentary on the point 2b of the Constitutional Tribunal judgment of 7 October 2021, K 3/21. The Tribunal claims that issuing court verdicts on the basis of the provisions which are not binding, having been revoked by the Sejm and/or ruled by the Constitutional Tribunal, is inconsistent with Art. 2, 7, 8(1), 90(1), and 178(1) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court reconstructs the mentioned above jurisdiction of the courts based on the Art. 19(1), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union. The author doesn’t agree with this statement and argues that the Tribunal incorrectly and unlawfully interprets the provisions of the Treaty. Furthermore, the verdict is in contrary to Art. 2 and 42 of the Polish Constitution and the principle of non retroactivity of law. Moreover, the Tribunal’s decision violates the concept of the Constitutional Tribunal judicature with the deferred clause. The author claims that the Tribunal’s decision does not cause any legal effects and the courts in Poland will not apply it during resolving cases.

The Principle of Non-Retroactivity of Administrative Decisions

The Principle of Non-Retroactivity of Administrative Decisions

The Principle of Non-Retroactivity and the Principle of the Protection of Trust

법치국가(법치주의) 원리의 관점에서 법이 지향하는 이념(목적)인 ‘법적 안정성’은 불소급원칙과 신뢰보호원칙으로 구체화된다는 점에서 두 가지 원칙은 공통점을 가진다. 불소급원칙을 보장하는 목적을 신뢰보호와 법적 안정성으로 이해하면 애초에 불소급원칙은 진정소급입법이든 부진정소급이든 상관없이 신뢰보호원칙과 밀접한 관련을 맺을 수밖에 없다. 법공동체의 구성원이 가지는 신뢰를 보호하겠다는 신뢰보호원칙은 불소급원칙을 보장하는 목적이 되거나 불소급원칙을 포함하는 상위개념이 되는 것이다. 흔히 과거의 법적 규율을 받던 기존의 상태에 전혀 존재하지 않던 부담이나 의무가 추가됨으로써 법적 규율을 받는 공동체의 구성원이 불리한 상태에 놓이게 되는 경우에 불소급원칙이 적용되고, 과거의 법적 규율을 받던 기존의 상태에 지속적으로 존재하던 이익이나 권리가 박탈됨으로써 법적 규율을 받는 공동체의 구성원이 불리한 상태에 놓이게 되는 경우에 신뢰보호원칙이 적용되고 있다. 하지만 과거에 대한 신뢰를 보호하는 불소급원칙과 미래에 대한 신뢰를 보호하는 신뢰보호원칙은 밀접하게 관련될 수밖에 없다. 물론 불소급원칙이 문제되는 사안에서는 대체로 과거의 상태에서 존재하지 않던 불이익(부담/의무)이 추가되는 반면에 신뢰보호원칙이 문제되는 사안에서는 대체로 과거의 상태에서 존재하던 이익(혜택/권리)이 배제된다는 점에서 불소급원칙과 신뢰보호원칙의 차이를 확인할 수도 있다. 결국 진정소급입법을 예외적으로 허용해야만 하는 중대한 공익적 이익이 존재하지 않거나 진정소급입법을 예외적으로 허용할 수 있는 위험한 객관적 상황이 존재하지 않는다면 진정소급입법의 허용 여부를 판단하기 위한 이익의 형량을 거쳐 진정소급입법이 최종적으로 허용되지 않는다는 판단으로 귀결될 것이다. 신뢰보호원칙을 적용하는 경우에도 불소급원칙을 적용하는 경우와 마찬가지로 본질적으로 ‘이익의 형량’이 문제된다.

PENYIMPANGAN TERHADAP ASAS NON-RETROAKTIF DALAM PERKARA PELANGGARAN HAM BERAT

Indonesia has been criticized by the international community, especially the many actors who are considered responsible for some particularly of the gross violation of human rights that occurred in the past are allowed to live free from prosecution. With regard to the occurrence of the gross violations of human rights in the past there is a legal breakthrough in an effort to uncover and resolve cases the gross violations of human rights, namely the demise of a provision enacted criminal known as retroactive. It is stipulated in Article 43 Paragraph (1) Law No. 26 of 2000 concerning Human Rights Court. Efforts to impose a retroactive principle on one hand has been controversial because it is considered contrary to the principle of non retroactivity which is a manifestation of the principle of legality, which in principle is a provision that prohibits the enactment of the statute retroactively. But the other side of the principle of non retroactivity is also considered to be protecting the perpetrators to be free from prosecution and sentencing. Kata Kunci: Penyimpangan, Asas, Non-Retroaktif, Pelanggaran, HAM.

The Obsolescence of the Court, the Evolutions of its Application in the New Civil Procedure Code and the Shortcomings of the Law, Pending the Reform

The respect of the equality of rights, and of the non-discrimination liability, involves taking into account the treatment provided by the law for the ones to which it is applied, throughout the period while its regulations are effective, legal treatment that cannot be different. The present paper brings into debate a very serious problem, the settlement of which consists of the analysis of the constitutionality and/or of the shortcomings of the law by reference to art. 3 of Law no. 76/2012 for the enforcement of Law no. 134/2010 regarding the Civil procedure code, in the context of the special obsolescence of the court, considering the provisions of art. 46 comma (1) of Law no. 10/2001 regarding the legal regime of certain immovable properties which had been abusively taken over during the period March 6 1945-December 22, 1989 (by which the suspension cannot last for an unlimited period of time, without the obsolescence to operate, according to the regulations provided by the old Civil procedure code). It shall be further checked whether the principle of non-retroactivity of the civil procedural law – in terms of the obsolescence of the civil action – is compatible with art. 6 of the CEDO convention which guarantees the right to an equitable trial, but also if the litigants who are parties to proceedings under the old law are somehow discriminated compared to those who are parties to proceedings under the new law and to whom is applied the privilege of special obsolescence within 10 years.

Italy’s Compliance With ICJ Decisions vs. Constitutional Guarantees: does the “Counter-limits” Doctrine matter?

One of the most common obstacles to the domestic enforcement of international decisions is represented by the presence of a constitutional impediment. Indeed, most national constitutions, though open to international law, can prevent the implementation of an international decision, insofar as the latter conflicts with the basic principles of the constitutional order. This article argues that in such cases it is necessary to preserve a space where the State continues to retain full sovereignty and whose protection acts as an unbreakable “counter-limit” to the limitations deriving from the international legal order (“counter-limits” doctrine). Yet recent judicial and legislative practice in Italy concerning the implementation of the ICJ decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State seem to overlook the need to preserve this “space”. As a consequence, certain fundamental constitutional guarantees, such as the right of access to justice, the rule of res judicata and the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, have inescapably ended up being compromised.

A Study on the Legal Character of Attachment Order of Electronic Device for Position Tracking and the Principle of Non-Retroactivity of Punishment

A Study on the Legal Character of Attachment Order of Electronic Device for Position Tracking and the Principle of Non-Retroactivity of Punishment