pondělí 25. ledna 2016

Soudní novinky 16/4 (Nacističtí důchodci před soudem)

A nyní zase pro změnu něco ze starého kontinentu:

  • Tribunál pro Kosovo ("The Netherlands has formally agreed to host an EU-funded tribunal on Kosovo war crimes, with “sensitive” trials of former Kosovo guerrilla chiefs to start “this year.”" (..) "But the Dutch foreign ministry said it expects trials, on “serious crimes allegedly committed in 1999-2000 by members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) against ethnic minorities and political opponents” to start “some time this year.”" (..) "But it will operate under Kosovan law and convicted criminals won’t serve sentences in the Netherlands, making it, the Dutch ministry said, “a Kosovan national court which administers justice outside Kosovo.”").
  • MEP takes EU to court on tax transparency ("The European Commission is being taken to court for not handing over documents in a case that aims to shed light on wide-spread corporate tax evasion schemes by EU states." (..) "He further noted full disclosure was needed to reveal the "systematic political backup for a tax avoidance cartel that costs taxpayers in the EU hundreds of billions of euros annually".").
  • "A 95-year-old former paramedic at the Auschwitz concentration camp is set to face trial in Germany in February on charges of being an accessory to murder in the deaths of more than 3,681 people."
  • Owen Bowcott: Whistleblower judge: austerity policies have made courts dangerous - opravdu zajímavý příběh škrtů v soudnictví, ekonomické krize, zvýšeného počtu nezastoupených osob před soudy a rizik z toho plynoucích. ("A district judge who is suing the Ministry of Justice after whistleblowing her complaints about courtroom dangers – death threats, violent claimants and hostage-taking – has spoken out for the first time about her experience of an under-resourced justice system. (..) Gilham requested better courtroom accommodation but was turned down. “I asked for my own room to be reconfigured because the door was behind the [claimants so she could not get out]. I was under a great deal of stress and feeling at risk. (..) Gilham said there was occasionally hostage-taking inside the courts when family cases erupted into angry disputes. Once she had to hide in a locked court room because someone accused of domestic violence was loose in the building. (..) The majority of family cases are dealt with by county court judges. “Workloads are uneven,” Gilham observed. “The higher courts are heavily resourced and people who do that work are protected.")
  • Four Syrian refugees must be brought from Calais camp to Britain, judges rule ("British judges have ordered that three Syrian youths and an accompanying adult should immediately be brought to Britain to join their relatives and to escape the “living hell” of a Calais refugee camp. Refugee welfare groups described as groundbreaking the order by two immigration judges that three unaccompanied boys and a dependent adult should, under European rules, be allowed to live with their family in Britain while their asylum claims are studied.")
  • NYT: The Death Penalty Endgame ("On Friday, the Supreme Court met to discuss whether to hear a petition from Ms. Walter, who is asking the justices to rule that in all cases, including hers, the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Ever since 1976, when the court allowed executions to resume after a four-year moratorium, the abolition movement has avoided bringing a broad constitutional challenge against the practice, believing that it would not succeed. In that time, 1,423 people have been put to death. Yet there is no question that the national trend is moving away from capital punishment. Since the late 1990s, almost every year has seen fewer executions, fewer new death sentences and fewer states involved in the repugnant business of killing their citizens.")
  • Liptak - Shear (NYT): Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Immigration Actions ("The court, which has twice rejected challenges to Mr. Obama’s signature legislative victory by upholding his health care law, will now rule on the president’s plan to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work indefinitely in the country legally. The justices raised the possibility of a broad decision by taking the unusual step of adding their own question to the case, asking the parties to address whether Mr. Obama had violated his constitutional obligations to enforce the nation’s laws. The answer to that question could significantly alter the scope of presidential power in realms far beyond immigration. (..) Mr. Obama has repeatedly taken unilateral action during his seven years in office, asserting the power of his office to sidestep a recalcitrant Congress on gun control, gay rights, the minimum wage, contraception and climate change. White House officials said Tuesday that the steps taken by Mr. Obama on immigration were “consistent with the actions taken by presidents of both parties” and expressed optimism that the court would agree. But Mr. Obama’s aggressive use of executive power has intensified the criticism by his adversaries that the president is abusing his authority. Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who is leading the challenge to his immigration actions, urged the court to make it clear that no president can “unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people’s representatives."") 
Příští soudní novinky bohužel až koncem února, do té doby se na internet moc nedostanu. 

1 komentář:

Anonymní řekl(a)...

Konec února :(