Uniform Application Of Law Research Articles

Uniform Application of Law as a Function of the EAEU Court: Current Issues of Practice

Uniform Application of Law as a Function of the EAEU Court: Current Issues of Practice

Clarifications of the Russian Supreme Court on General Aspects of Intellectual Property Protection: A Summary

Abstract Since April 2019, Russian intellectual property law has been enriched by an interpretative Resolution of the highest judicial instance, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, which performs, among other prerogatives, the task to ensure the correct and uniform application of law.** The last time a judicial instrument of an equivalent scale was adopted was in 2009 (the Joint Resolution No. 5/29 of 26 March 2009 of the Plenary Sessions of the Supreme Court and of the Supreme Arbitration Court ‘On certain issues arising in connection with the enactment of Part Four of the CCRF’). Back then a significant number of issues deriving from the introduction in 2006 of Part Four of the Civil Code (dedicated to Intellectual Property) were identified, solved and converted into guidance for courts and other legal professionals. Now, subsequent revisions of the legislation, primarily aimed at its ‘modernisation’, as well as the adoption of other modifying instruments (such as the Ruling of the Constitutional Court n° 28-P of 13 December 2016), pushed by a growing IP practice and disparate case law, have provided a fertile ground for this new supreme judicial effort. The outcome is generous – useful to those wishing to acquire a global overview of Russian IP law. It slightly resembles a Prévert’s inventory, as many issues are touched upon with a varying depth, length and degree of sophistication. Although some observers have deplored the avoidance of this or that issue, the document is comprehensive and lengthy (182 paragraphs), and generally lauded by the Russian IP community.1

Szczegółowe lub kompleksowe zasady ochrony danych osobowych stosowane przed wejściem w życie RODO na przykładzie Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w RP

Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady Unii Europejskiej nr 2016/679 z dnia 27 kwietnia 2016 r. w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych i w sprawie swobodnego przepływu takich danych (w skrócie RODO), ma znacznie większą siłę oddziaływania na Kościoły i inne związki wyznaniowe niż wcześniej obowiązująca dyrektywa 95/46/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 24 października 1995 r. w sprawie ochrony osób w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych oraz swobodnego przepływu takich danych. Zgodnie z art. 91 ust. 1 RODO Kościoły i inne związki wyznaniowe, które w momencie wejścia w życie rozporządzenia – tj. 24 maja 2016 r. – stosowały szczegółowe zasady ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych, mogą je nadal stosować, jeśli zostały one dostosowane do RODO.
 Porównanie polskiej wersji art. 91 RODO z jego angielskim odpowiednikiem budzi jednak poważne wątpliwości. Zamiast przymiotnika „kompleksowy”, który wydaje się być dokładniejszym tłumaczeniem słowa „comprehensive” występującego w angielskiej wersji tekstu, użyto określenia „szczegółowy”. W konsekwencji, w obowiązującym prawie państw Unii Europejskiej, dwie różne kategorie pojęciowe są używane w tym samym kontekście w zależności od języka: „szczegółowe zasady” oraz „kompleksowe zasady”. W tej sytuacji jednolite stosowanie prawa jest znacząco utrudnione. 
 W niniejszym opracowaniu zostały poddane analizie zasady ochrony danych osobowych przewidziane w porządku prawnym Kościoła Ewangelicko-Augsburskiego w RP. Stanowią one przykład zasad, jakie Kościoły i inne związki wyznaniowe stosowały przed wejściem w życie RODO. Uzasadnieniem wyboru KE-A jako przykładowego jest fakt, że należy on do największych Kościołów i innych związków wyznaniowych w Polsce, a ponadto stosunek państwa do niego – jak i czternastu innych –został określony odrębną ustawą.

Admissibility of Remedies Filed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Macedonia in Civil Matters

The text provides the genesis of the existing regime for access to the highest judicial body in Macedonia, the particularities of that regime and an assessment on its effects on the judicial system. The authors provide insight into two different modes of revision in Macedonian legal system, namely the ordinary revision and the leave to file a revision, depending on the goals each of these remedies primarily strives to achieve – individual justice in a particular dispute or uniform application of law and harmonisation of the judicial practice. The text also presents the issue of granting a leave to appeal, which has a number of specificities in comparison to its German and Austrian counterparts. Finally, it offers a critical assessment of recent reforms and provides statistical data on the Supreme Court’s caseload in Macedonia.

The Disintegration of the Judiciary Within Eurasian Integration

The Eurasian Economic Union (‘eaeu’) – an international organization for regional economic integration in post-Soviet space – has a judicial body aimed at ensuring uniform application of law. This article argues that the eaeu Court will struggle in achieving its aim as there are issues of independence, it has diminished powers, and limits have been imposed on its interpretative practices, at least as compared to its predecessor. This may lead to problems in respecting the rule of law and ‘dis-integrates’ the judiciary in the sense of a common system involving national courts. At the same time, it is also argued that, although the Court’s procedural and substantive powers have been limited, the attempt to limit certain interpretative powers of the Court can hardly result in meaningful consequences for the development of law.

Paper Tiger or Roaring Dragon, China's TRIPs Implementations and Enforcement

Thesis about whether China’s IPR enforcement laws are TRIPs compliant. At least on paper most of China’s IPR procedural laws are compliant with specific TRIPs provisions. China’s IPR laws are certainly non-compliant to the more general provisions of TRIPs, due to incompatible extra-judicial factors. Nevertheless, no unequivocal preference for a WTO case against China can be given. Another option, although more complicated, to tackle China’s IPR enforcement challenges is to be preferred: to address China’s transparency, market access, uniform application of law, integrity and impartiality of the courts and expertise in and respect for IPR.

Uniform Application of Law in Ethiopia: Effects of Cassation Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court

The Ethiopian legal system has transplanted substantial elements from both Continental Law and Common Law legal systems. While the legal system is characterized by its reception of substantial rules from the Continental Law Legal System, there are some concepts transplanted from the Common Law legal system particularly incorporated in the procedural laws. Moreover, under Proclamation No. 454/2005, the interpretation of laws by the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court (hereinafter Cassation Division) is made to have binding authority on all lower courts at all levels in the entire country. Although the Proclamation seems to introduce the doctrine of precedent, there is a debate as to whether what is introduced under the Proclamation amounts to a precedent system or not. Moreover, it is not expressly given whether judicial organs other than regular courts such as administrative agencies or tribunals, religious and customary courts are bound by the decision of the Cassation Division. The Proclamation also does not provide for the effects of overruling and preconditions to overrule previous decisions of the Cassation Division. The purpose of this article is to critically analyze the legal effects of the binding interpretation of law given at cassation by the Federal Supreme Court in the Ethiopian legal system.

Toward Uniform Application of Law in Ethiopia: Development of Precedent System

Toward Uniform Application of Law in Ethiopia: Development of Precedent System

On the Criminal Naisai in the Edo Shogunate

The main purpose of this paper is to inquire into why the criminal Naisai (reconciliation) was permitted by the Shogunate court of law and how it actually functioned.The criminal Naisai was effected through the procedure of Yumen (acquittal, commutation of sentence) or Ginmisage (non-prosecution). The two procedures differ in form, but are essentially the same in that after a private agreement or compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer, the former and/or, his relations apply to the court for a mitigation and remission of the punishment. Hence the two procedures may be considered as Naisai in a broader sense of the term.In the early days of the Edo era the Naisai was extensively practiced in respect of both classes and weighing of offences. But it was gradually limited during the days of the Enpo period into the Osadamegaki (the code of civil and criminal law of the Edo shogunate) legislation for the reason that the court's need speedily to deal with the increasing number of crimes and to secure legal certainity at the same time led towards uniform application of the law, and especially that the unfairness had to be avoided which would have ensued according to whether the Naisai procedure succeeded in a given crime.In the later days of the Edo era, and especially towards the end thereof, the Naisai was extensively allowed in disregard of the Osadamegaki requirements. The reasons are: (1) that the police control was so weak that there had to be limits on punishable offences;(2) that it was intended to relax the exceedingly uniform and stuck application of the criminal law to meet the social realities; (3) that measures were being taken to reduce the waste of huge costs and time incurred in the criminal procedure of the day; etc.