Suchergebnisse

Even though Russia's new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2001 had from the very beginning contained the article titled 'Preclusive Effects,' it was not until a decision by the Constitutional Court of 2008 that the doctrine of issue preclusion was, in its proper sense, reinstated in Russian criminal law, barring facts definitively established in a civil trial from relitigation in criminal proceedings. Despite heavy criticism that came down on the Constitutional Court for what was seen by law enforcement agents as unwarranted judicial activism, the Russian Parliament soon amended the article in line with the interpretation offered by the Court. This, however, did not end the controversy as critics raised a valid point: an automatic transfer of facts from civil proceedings with a priori more lenient requirements of proof is likely to distort outcomes, harming defendants, the prosecution, and, ultimately, societal interests. This article will turn for apotential solution to common law, which has been able to avoid this problem by clearly distinguishing between different standards of proof applicable in civil v. criminal litigations. It will be shown, using the United States as an example, how courts can effectively use issue preclusion to pursue a number of legitimate objectives, such as consistency of judgments and judicial economy, with due account for the interests of parties in proceedings. At the same time, issue preclusion appears an inappropriate and ineffective means to combat arbitrariness of the judiciary – the end which Russia's Constitutional Court and law makers arguably had in mind when introducing the doctrine into Russian law.

ABSTRACT
The article presents the results of an exhaustive statistical examination of 83 dispute settlement reports in which the Appellate Body addressed one or more claims under Article 11 of the DSU. In addition to identifying the Appellate Body's grounds for upholding and rejecting Article 11 claims and assessing their weight in the total statistics, the analysis reveals that, perhaps contrary to received opinion, neither the average number of disputes in which one or more Article 11 were made nor the average number of allowed claims demonstrate pronounced growth while the bulk of the increase in the number of claims brought is attributable to a limited number of complex disputes.

Abstract
Simple and elegant as a theoretical concept, an appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection (ALOP) has proven complicated to implement in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement. While the Appellate Body has insisted that ALOP must be defined with sufficient precision to apply the relevant provisions of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), 'high or conservative' remains as precise a formulation of ALOP as one can get. Despite the Appellate Body's clear guidance that SPS measures are not to be confused with ALOP, panels – including the Appellate Body – have routinely mistaken one for the other. The most to suffer has been Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement, which prohibits 'arbitrary distinctions' in ALOPs applied 'in different situations'. By substituting differences in SPS measures for differences in ALOPs and finding two different situations, i.e. two ALOPs, where there is only one, the jurisprudence has eviscerated this provision of its meaning and converted it into a peculiar version of the least-trade-restrictive-measure requirement. This article takes stock of the panel and Appellate Body jurisprudence on ALOP and offers some thoughts, de interpretatione ferenda, on the direction that future jurisprudence should take.

AbstractOn 1 January 2017, France started a two-year trial of a mandatory country of origin labelling (hereinafter, COOL) scheme, which requires producers of milk, food containing milk products and food containing meat to provide information on the country of origin of the products. The scheme was introduced through Decree No 2016-1137 (i.e. Décret n° 2016-1137 du 19 août 2016 relatif à l'indication de l'origine du lait et du lait et des viandes utilisés en tant qu'ingrédient,1 hereinafter, the Decree). Before the end of this trial period, France has promised to provide a report to the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) that would allow it to review consumer patterns and the potential impact on the internal market. In view of the report, the Commission may consider implementing such a scheme in all EU Member States. This article also notes that other EU Member States are introducing their own COOL measures and concludes that, when COOL is being made mandatory, the EU's international trade obligations must be taken into account by the EU and its Member States.