Portuguese Supreme Court’s Decision on the Absence of Licensing for the Use of Extra Speakers (original) (raw)
Related papers
CUADERNOS DE DERECHO TRANSNACIONAL, 2020
The commentary on the judgment of 21 November 2019 of the Provincial Audience of Barcelona on the appeal filed against the Order of 20 February 2019 analyses the need for translating judicial and extrajudicial documents delivered by the judicial authority of a European Union (EU) Member State to an addressee located in another EU Member State. The judgment sets out the views of the Spanish court by analysing relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and agreeing with the most recent doctrine of the European court. However, the Spanish court cannot compel a court of another EU Member State to comply with Regulation 1393/2007.
Notas sobre la jurisprudencia del trabajo en Portugal
2010
espanolEl autor describe la evolucion historica de la jurisprudencia en el marco del Derecho portugues del Trabajo, y expone algunas de las principales tendencias en el ambito de las metodologias y criterios de toma de decisiones, derivados de la actividad de los tribunales portugueses, incluido el Tribunal Constitucional, y relativos a la resolucion de conflictos de trabajo. EnglishThe author describes the historical evolution of case law in the framework of Portuguese Labour Law, and exposes some of the main trends in the field of decision-making methodologies and criteria arising from the activity of Portuguese courts, including the Constitutional Court, and related to labour disputes resolution.
SIEPS Report, 2021
The European Court of Justice is behind a recent and genuine enhancement of European constitutionalism, placing the rule of law, a long-established value and principle of EU law, at the centre stage. This rule of law-enhancing process of re-articulation of EU constitutionalism is ongoing and represents the Court of Justice’s incrementalist response to the process of rule of law backsliding which first emerged in Hungary before spreading to Poland. This volume aims to present and critically analyse this judicial response on a case-by-case basis taking the Court’s judgment in Case C-64/16, ASJP (Portuguese Judges) as a departure point and its judgment in Case C-896/19, Repubblika (Maltese Judges) as a provisional end point. By offering key excerpts and a critical assessment of the Court of Justice’s most important orders and judgments which have reshaped the meaning and scope of the EU rule of law principle and associated legal obligations since 2018, this casebook-style volume will be of interest to those wishing to gain an expert understanding of the importance and the added value of the Court’s orders and judgments, both taken individually and as a whole.
Anexo Q Carta de Protesto e Solidariedade Júris ICA 12.02.2017
O Cinema Português: entre a arte e a indústria, 45 anos de políticas públicas (1971-2016), 2017
Em Portugal, um colectivo de realizadores, produtores, actores, técnicos e distribuidores, festivais de cinema e associações profissionais escreveu uma carta aberta ao governo português e recebeu apoio da comunidade internacional do sector:
A contribution from the spanish constitutional court to the european construction process: requesting preliminary ruling” in Creighton International and Comparative Law Journal, abril 2011, pp. 30-54. https://dspace.creighton.edu/xmlui/handle/10504/38565, 2011
This Article focuses on the convenience or the obligation of the Spanish Constitutional Court (“CC”) to request preliminary rulings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). This is a very practical and real problem that requires an urgent answer, as it becomes in Spain increasingly important at the present time. In order to illustrate this, let us remember two different cases. First, in the Judgment of September 19, 2008, the Spanish Supreme Court overturned a resolution of the Spanish Agency of Data Protection, which ordered the Archbishop to note in the baptism register the exercise of the right to cancel an inscription (which would be the consequence of declaring apostasy in the data protection legislation field). The resolution was based on the idea that the baptism register was a “file” under the data protection legislation. Huelin Martínez de Velasco, a senior judge of the Supreme Court, wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissent employed autonomous concepts of European law (like the definition of “file”) included in a European directive that pursues the complete harmonization of the national legislations on personal data protection to determine the dispute. The dissent’s interpretation was not clear, and the aforesaid judge considered that the Supreme Court should have presented a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. Something similar occurred in the Judgment of the Supreme Court of October 14, 2008, although in this particular case, the dissenting opinion was more thorough. We do not know whether the case will be submitted to the Spanish Constitutional Court. In such a case the Court would find itself in the same situation as the Supreme Court in relation to the European Union Law. Therefore, the reasoning found in Judge Huelin’s dissenting opinion would have also been applicable. The second case is the Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court 199/2009, September 28, about the Euro order. In this judgment, the Spanish Constitutional Court overturned a court order of the Spanish Audiencia Nacional because the referring court order decided to hand a British citizen to Rumanian authorities applying the Euro order. The Spanish Constitutional Court considered that the referring court order violated the right of the challenger to a procedure with all the guarantees (recognized in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution), because the challenger was convicted to a four-year punishment of prison in his absence. Furthermore, the Spanish Audiencia Nacional had not established the condition that the punishment imposed in absence could be revised. Judge Pérez Tremps wrote the dissenting opinion. Judge Tremps based his dissent on various arguments, but this Article focuses on the argument that a European government cannot impose, on any other European governments, its own parameter of protection of fundamental rights. Rather, each European government must function within a common parameter. According to Judge Tremps, if the Constitutional Court viewed a punishment in absence as a violation of the so called “absolute content” it should have presented a preliminary ruling to the CJEU concerning the European rule that regulates the Euro order committing an irresponsibility if Spain did not apply said norm.
The Influence of CJEU Judgments on Brazilian Courts
SSRN Electronic Journal
This paper aims at discussing the influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law on Brazilian jurisprudence or legislation. First, it presents an overview of the Brazilian legal system as well as of the functioning of its Judiciary. Then the paper analyses the dialogue between Brazilian courts, mainly the Supreme Court, with supranational and foreign courts, indicating and discussing some cases and legislation where foreign jurisprudence is mentioned by Brazilian courts or laws. The paper concludes that there is no tradition in the Brazilian Judiciary of citing international and foreign jurisprudence. Moreover, although so far there has not been much influence of CJEU case-law on Brazilian jurisprudence or legislation, there is a great potential for CJEU influence on Brazilian Supreme and Superior courts jurisprudence as well as on the Brazilian national parliament decision-making process in the coming years, especially on issues relating to the Information Society.