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).
Last shared documents Angel Rbm 71 shared last document 1 day ago
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
3 weeks 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?
Hey guys! Can anyone tell me how do we proceed with the presentations of comparative government. Do we all have to prepare each 1), 2), 3) presentation questions under german law for example ? Please reply as soon as possible..
You had to choose one question corresponding to a certain country. Let's say that you took question n°9 about the Human Rights Act of 1998, this means that you will present this question in tuto 4 (week 4 about UK)
+++++++++++Ask your Law questions and an experienced Success Formula tutor will answer them as soon as possible++++++
Any problems or questions while studying/preparing for Comparative Government ? Don't worry, we've got you covered! Just post any of your questions in course you are attending on Studydrive (as a separate post, not as a comment please) and our tutors will help you as soon as possible!
We wish you a lot of success!
The Success Formula Team
I think the best way to highlight the text would simply be highlighting the things you feel would be important because most of the time you are correct. If you feel as if everything is important in a particular text, re-read it and highlight things you think could be asked in terms of "what is______" questions.
Something I've experienced is that if you're trying to deepen your understanding of the knowledge, most likely you're doing more than is required which reflects poorly on the university, but shows that you still have a brain which is good :) Idk if this helps but its just my lowly opinion
I think the person misunderstood the table in the book here. The book's table mentions whether EU law supremacy is "qualified" in the national systems, e.g. NL has no qualifications for EU law supremacy, thus the "No" in the book: EU law is supreme over national law in all EU member states!
The upper chamber would be rather the Council of ministers (also called Council of the European Union).
The European council is the one with the heads of state and government and has NO legislative functions
Hi everyone, I've made flashcards to work with on government. It's not all complete/correct yet but I will upload more as I go through. In the meantime, you are welcome to use them, here is the link https://www.brainscape.com/p/1I3FR-LH-60ZWW
hey, it might be a little off-topic, but i think this is the perfect place to ask:
can anyone recommend a good paper that summarizes the political and economical consequences of the brexit?
thank you for every answer.