Suchergebnisse

Context of corporate crime, the principle of proportionality places position that in accordance with provisions in Article 1365 of Civil Code, an act against law in civil law must contain following elements: 1. The existence of an act; 2. The act is against law; 3. There is an error on part of perpetrator; 4. There is a loss for victim; and 5.There is a casual relationship between act and loss. By looking at perpetrator and loss to victim of corporate crime, based on value of justice, it must be seen from side of default and unlawful acts which are considered as fraud and money laundering in context of civil and bankruptcy and may be punished.

The book applies the principle of proportionality to a number of conventional wisdoms in the social sciences, such as in dubio pro reo and the assumption that a crime is always a crime; that you must go to war if instructed to do so. Individuals and states are not obliged to come to the aid of stricken individuals and states. The book is organised in seven chapters, each dealing with a self-standing theme related to proportionality.

Proportionality refers to an appropriate relationship between two comparators and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. This can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, and qualitative disproportion, on the other. The former reflects an economic imbalance between the comparators, while the latter indicates an unsatisfactory quality of the relationship between the comparators. It must be stated that, under Mauritius law, the principle of proportionality applies to the contract. However, the proportionality thus defined only covers situations where the comparators are clearly pre-established, thus avoiding bad surprises for the parties. This article examines two types of disproportion mentioned above, as well as penalties which serve as a technical tool to combat the disproportion of the contract. ; International audience Proportionality designates an adequate relationship between two elements of comparison and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. Disproportion can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, and qualitative disproportion, on the other. The first one shows an economic imbalance between the elements of comparison, while the second one reveals an unsatisfactory quality of the relationship between the elements of comparison. It is clear that under Mauritian law the principle of proportionality applies to the contract. However, the proportionality thus defined includes only situations where the elements of comparison are pre-established with certainty. In this article, two types of disproportion mentioned above are analyzed, as well as sanctions which are the technical tool to combat the disproportion of contract. ; Proportionality refers to an appropriate relationship between two comparators and there is disproportion each time when this relationship becomes inadequate. This can take two different forms, namely quantitative disproportion, on the one hand, ...

The principle of proportionality protects civilians and civilian objects against expected incidental harm from an attack that is excessive to the military advantage anticipated from the attack. However, despite its status as a fundamental norm of international humanitarian law (IHL), key terms are not defined in relevant treaties nor do they benefit from critical judicial explanation. This has caused challenges for both academics and military commanders alike in explaining and applying the test for proportionality. The Article expands upon two points that were raised and generated interesting discussion at The Second Israel Defense Forces International Conference on the Law of Armed Conflict during a panel that dealt with contemporary issues in proportionality.

The paper analysis the principle of proportionality, which is widely applied in the EU legal order and is therefore one of the fundamental principles of the system of the European Union. It is one of the legal principles that govern decision-making processes and common strategic objectives, and which are applicable when establishing European Union legislation and transposing it into national law, including in the area of criminal law, although the current analyses do not often focus on discussing this aspect. Due to its complexity and significance for the processes of establishing and applying the law, the principle of proportionality requires detailed and separate discussion, especially in the context of European criminal law.

International human rights courts accord their member states a margin of appreciation in relation to the implementation and interpretation of human rights law. This book argues that a degree of deference is justified - human rights inevitably look different from place to place.

AbstractIn academic discourse it has been pointed out that many European courts do not pay sufficient attention to assessing the proportionality of patent law remedies. Article 3 of the Enforcement Directive (IPRED), which harmonizes the remedies for all intellectual property rights (IPRs), requires that remedies be proportionate. However, it seems that this requirement is often overlooked, with more attention being paid to the rest of Art. 3, namely the requirements that remedies be efficient and dissuasive. This article contributes to the discussion on the potential over-enforcement of IPRs, but focuses in particular on analyzing the remedies available under the Trade Secret Directive (TSD). Special attention will be paid to the explicit proportionality factors under the TSD. The availability of the bona fide defense under the TSD will also be analyzed. In this article, comparisons will be made between remedies under patent law and those under trade secret law. This article argues that the trade secret regime differs from the patent regime. Therefore, balancing the various interests under the TSD proportionality factors and the bona fide defense is more important under the trade secret regime than under the patent regime. This article seeks both to identify the differences between the two regimes and to dissect possibilities for a more balanced approach to enforcement practices under the IPRED for patent rights.