In France PM is appointed by the President (Art. 8) and doesn’t require an explicit vote of confidence from NA.
In NL however officially PM is appointed by the King/Queen but in practice( if we look at cabinet formation) Second Camber appoints a formature, who will become a PM and whose task is to form a cabinet. Formature is then appointed by King/Queen. So here (and also in UK) parliamentary investiture is hidden. Correct me please if I am wrong.
I struggle to understand treaty review in Netherlands. In the book there is a question: Would it be constitutional for a Dutch judge to examine whether the Treaty of Lisbon is computable with Article 1 Dutch Constitution? I obviously understand that Constitutional review is prohibited in Netherlands (Art. 120) but in the book it says that courts are able to check the compatibility of statutes with treaty provisions. I am a bit confused. Could you please help me understand?
As far as I know none of the classes are mandatory. They say they are, but if you don't go they punish you by looking at you angrily. If you skip your presentation, you won't get the bonus point obviously but it's a bonus point, so theoretically you can still get a 10.
There won't be any point deduction. The worse thing that can happen to you is that your tutor asks you not to attend his/her tutorials anymore. Bear in mind that every tutor is different when it comes to attendance, some are very strict while some just don't care.
In s. 4(4) Human Rights Act 1998 it says that only certain courts can declare incompatibility of a statute with the human rights. Does that mean that one had to appeal to a higher court first if one wants to claim that a statute violates the Convention?
The US Supreme Court is the court of highest instance in the US in all matters. It more or less assumed the judicial competence of constitutional review in Marbury v Madison. The French Constitutional Council is a quasi-judicial organ (its members are no judges) whose primary function is judicial review. However, judicial review in France and the US are really the opposites of each other. In the US, it's decentralised concrete ex-post review, in France it used to be only centralised abstract ex-ante review (Art. 61 French Constitution). More recently, France introduced centralised concrete ex-post review (Art. 61-1 French Constitution).
Hey guys I was wondering if you had any idea of where I could look for the question “ May domestic human rights in the national systems under review be invoked in national
courts and to what effect?” because I cannot find anything anywhere
I'm selling my "contract law: a comparative introduction" second edition book for 30€, my "constitution compared" book for 35€, and my Maastricht collection (I, II, iii, IV) for 75€. if you're interested, leave a comment please.
Hi can someone help me to understand the second question of assignment I? Do we need to rank US germany and France from highest degree of judicial involvement in the impeachment procedure to the lowest? Thank you guys
with the Italian guy we gotta take it with us on a usb and not through e-mail or such because that takes too long
4 months ago
Does anyone know what is need to pass the exam? How to apply the knowledge gained in an exam situation and what’s expected from us? How are we supposed to study? Should it be something remotely similar to Intro to Law, cause memorising infos from chapters for each and every country doesn’t seem to be the right way.
For anyone with objections. Send the coordinator an email. As can be seen in smei we were apparently incorrect but they still changed the answer. So the more people who send emails the more likely they will change the grading scheme
Am i the only one who found the last question of the resit exam unreasonable? I think the materials to answer the question was not clearly in the book or discussed in the tutorial (Update:There was a lecture on treaties, and furthermore all relevant constitutional documents in the Maastricht collection contain clauses re treaty making. In that respect the question simply asked for reproducing the relevant clauses and articles. (This is what he sent back))
I’ll also send an email ??
Even if it was in a lecture that’s still too vague, come on a 10 point question that wasn’t even mentioned in the book?? Plus I remember when we first took the course they told us the lectures deviated from the course material so..
I just uploaded a file with the information in the book about human rights. I think the best way is to go through the role of the ECHR, ECtHR, the EU charter, the relevant articles stated in the book, and then go on about answering the questions in the coursebook. When looking at jurisdictions focus on whether the country is monist or dualist. When looking at individual cases with regard to the ECHR, this is the criteria you should follow:
o Before launching his case, the applicant must have first exhausted all domestic remedies (Art. 35(1) ECHR), meaning that he must have tried everything to seek a remedy domestically until the last instance of appeal.
o He must then launch his case within six months of the final domestic decision of last instance.
o He is only admissible in as far as he is still a victim (Art. 34 ECHR), meaning that once he has received satisfaction for his alleged suffering from domestic authorities, he will no longer be heard in Strasbourg on the merits.
Usually I think they will not be able to rely on it, as the ECHR is a means of absolute last resort, and usually in the questions they will include a substantive or procedural limit, which will lead to the conclusion that the individual cannot make a point in Strasbourg.
Also focus on the hierarchy of the ECHR, EU Charter of fundamental rights, the ICCPR and the ECJ. EU law is always supreme.
Orange - presidential competencies (when relevant)
Pink - government & head of States competencies
Green - Parliament (both chambers) competencies + elections
Purple - Lawmaking process
Blue - vertical separation of powers (decentralization, devolution, or federal/subunits competencies)
Yellow - judical review & Human Rights
Of course this is just a suggestion, you're free to organise your maastricht collection as you please!
with regards to highlighting in the Maastricht collection for the exam, how are ppl doing it? Are u just highlighting with different Colour for each; judicial, legislative and executive, or what is best way to do it?