Suchergebnisse

Abstract
German patent law faces challenges in trying to accommodate a changing technological and economic reality. As a result, recent legislative initiatives have been dominated by discussions about adjusting the German Patent Act, especially with regard to the claim for an injunction. This article gives a brief overview of these new challenges as well as the legal background of injunctions in German patent law and the underlying case law. It also evaluates the proposed amendment of the provision on injunctions in the discussion draft of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) on the modernisation of patent law of 14 January 2020.

This article analyses three important developments in EU free movement law from the perspective of the structure of free movement law. Each of these developments – market access, horizontal direct effect and the assimilation of justifications – is caused by structural changes in the application of the free movement provisions. Firstly, the Court of Justice of the European Union has used 'backwards reasoning', which means that the Court no longer maintains the consecutive order of the structure. Moreover, the Court has increasingly merged what were previously distinct stages of inquiry in free movement cases. The result is that the proportionality test has become the most likely tool to solve free movement cases. This process of centralisation can be explained by the Court's aim to guarantee the effet utile of the free movement provisions. However, the centralisation of proportionality has a number of important consequences. Ultimately, the (almost) exclusive reliance on proportionality to solve free movement cases does not improve the functioning of the internal market. Therefore, the Court should also develop and rely on the other pillars of the structure of free movement law.

First published online: 09 June 2021 ; This article compares the conceptions of proportionality in the Weiss judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) and the PSPP judgment of the German Constitutional Court (GCC). It will be pointed out that the two courts embrace a quite similar view when it comes to the structure of the test for proportionality, but a different one on the intensity of review. While the ECJ accepts a minimalist 'manifest error' standard of review, the GCC performs a more demanding scrutiny. As a result, the two judgments expose different conceptions of the "unity" of public law: all decisions by public authorities can become the subject of judicial scrutiny through a proportionality assessment, but the intensity of review can vary greatly. This, in turn, brings about serious consequences for the relations between reviewing and reviewed authorities. Finally, it will be claimed that the inner limitations of proportionality make strong views on the "correct" method for carrying out the test problematic.

Preliminary Material /I. Henderson -- Chapter 1. Introduction /I. Henderson -- Chapter 2. What Is The Law Applicable To Targeting? /I. Henderson -- Chapter 3. Lawful Non-Human Targets /I. Henderson -- Chapter 4. Lawful Human Targets /I. Henderson -- Chapter 5. Effects-Based Operations And Controversial Military Objectives /I. Henderson -- Chapter 6. United Nations Operations: Does The Law Of Targeting Differ? /I. Henderson -- Chapter 7. Precautions In Attack /I. Henderson -- Chapter 8. Proportionality /I. Henderson -- Chapter 9. Who Owns The Bomb? /I. Henderson -- Chapter 10. Conclusions And Implications /I. Henderson -- Bibliography /I. Henderson -- Index /I. Henderson.

"This book considers the relationship between proportionality and facts in constitutional adjudication. Analysing where facts arise within each of the three stages of the structured proportionality test - suitability, necessity, and balancing - it considers the nature of these 'facts' vis-à-vis the facts that arise in the course of ordinary litigation. The book's central focus is on how proportionality has been applied by courts in practice, and it draws on the comparative experience of four jurisdictions across a range of legal systems. The central case study of the book is Australia, where the embryonic and contested nature of proportionality means it provides an illuminating study of how facts can inform the framing of constitutional tests. The rich proportionality jurisprudence from Germany, Canada, and South Africa is used to contextualise the approach of the High Court of Australia and to identify future directions for proportionality in Australia, at a time when the doctrine is in its formative stages. The book has three broad aims: First, it considers the role of facts within proportionality reasoning. Second, it offers procedural insights into fact-finding in constitutional litigation. Third, the book's analysis of the dynamic Australian case-law on proportionality means it also serves to clarify the nature and status of proportionality in Australia at a critical moment. Since the 2015 decision of McCloy v New South Wales , where four justices supported the introduction of a structured three-part test of proportionality, the Court has continued to disagree about the utility of such a test. These developments mean that this book, with its doctrinal and comparative approach, is particularly timely."--

Abstract
This article shows the importance in human rights law of the right to leave any country, in light of increasing efforts by European countries of destination to prevent departures and to contain movement by enlisting countries of origin and transit to act as gatekeepers. The article highlights the autonomous nature of the right and challenges in triggering its application. It assesses whether this right is opposable to destination countries, and finds two key challenges – first, meeting the requisite jurisdictional threshold, and secondly, as this is a qualified right, applying the proportionality test. The article examines the interplay between these difficulties. It argues that the jurisdictional threshold expresses a political and legal relationship between the duty bearer (the State) and the right holders (the individuals). This relationship enables us to operationalize the proportionality test – namely whether measures limiting rights are in accordance with the law and are proportionate.