“Major confrontations between the courts and the government in Britain and the United States are looming. Just this week, the Home Secretary has warned British judges to take account of the views of MPs on foreign offenders who claim the right to family life. But the courts are also poised to rule on the contentious issue of assisted dying, where those who wish to end their own life are seeking new rights.”
BBC Law in Action, 12th June 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Regulating nanotechnology is fraught with difficulties. Current environmental law simply doesn’t apply on the nano-scale.”
The Guardian, 11th June 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A provision in a collective agreement applicable to a group of companies within the airline industry which only took into account experience acquired as a cabin crew member from the date of recruitment by a specific airline company for the purposes of grading in the employment categories provided for in that agreement did not constitute indirect discrimination within the meaning of article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC.”
WLR Daily, 7th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc: [2012] EWCA Civ 729; [2012] WLR (D) 166
“Where the proprietor of a registered Community design, the validity of which was already in issue in proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) or another Community design court, brought a counterclaim alleging infringement of the design against a claimant who had issued a claim in a Community design court seeking a declaration of non-infringement, the stay of proceedings required by article 91(1) of the Community Design Regulation was a stay of the counterclaim, not the claim.”
WLR Daily, 30th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A newsflash, really, confirming that ClientEarth’s claim for a declaration and mandatory order against Defra in respect of air pollution was refused by the Court of Appeal, in line with the judgment below. And the lack of a link to the CA’s judgment because it is not available, I imagine, because the judgment was extempore, and it is being transcribed at the moment. Sadly, that does not necessarily mean it gets onto the public access site, Bailli, in due course: the first instance decision still languishes on subscription-only sites. So all I know is that ClientEarth’s appeal did not find favour with Laws and Pitchford LJJ, sitting with Sir John Chadwick, but this, as ClientEarth explains, may not be the end of the line.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 5th June 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Today, the Supreme Court held that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden for alleged rape. This is subject to further submissions on one point (concerning the Vienna Convention on Treaties), well covered by Joshua Rozenberg in his post on the lively proceedings when the judgment was handed down. The whole of the appeal turned on one technical point, simple to state, but it took the Court 266 paragraphs to answer. Was the European Arrest Warrant which triggered the extradition request signed by a ‘judicial authority,’ given that it was signed by a prosecutor?”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st May 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Claims for recovery of unlawfully exacted tax under the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Comrs [1993] AC 70 (‘the Woolwich principle’) were not limited to those cases where there had been an actual demand by the revenue for payment, but applied generally in all cases where there had been a payment in response to an apparent statutory requirement to pay tax, which was not lawfully due.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
I v Oberbürgermeisterin der Stadt Remscheid (Case C-348/09); [2012] WLR (D) 157
“An individual who had committed an offence, including those referred to in article 83(1)FEU of the FEU Treaty, such as the sexual exploitation of children, could be regarded as constituting a particularly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society and therefore could be excluded from a host member state on ‘imperative ground[s] of public security’ pursuant to article 28(3)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC.”
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Serious criminals cannot avoid deportation by hiding behind EU rules on free movement, judges concluded yesterday.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd May 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Individuals who access information about football goals that is stored in a database do not infringe on the database rights of football authorities, the High Court has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 11th May 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Senior representatives from business, consumer, digital and legal organisations met Lord McNally, to share their views on the proposed Common European Sales Law.”
Ministry of Justice, 9th May 2012
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
Migrationsverket v Kastrati and Others (Case C-620/10); [2012] WLR (D) 139
“The withdrawal of an asylum application which occurred before the requested member state had agreed to take charge of the asylum seeker, had the effect that Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 which established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application would no longer be applicable. In such circumstances, it was for the member state within the territory of which the application was lodged to take the decisions required as a result of that withdrawal and to discontinue the examination of the application, with a record of the information relating to it being placed in the applicant’s file.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Neidel v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Case C-337/10); [2012] WLR (D) 137
“The provisions of article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, concerning an employee’s entitlement to annual leave and an allowance in lieu where the employment relationship was terminated, applied to a public servant carrying out the activities of a fireman in normal circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 3rd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd: (Case C-406/10); [2012] WLR (D) 131
“The functionality of a computer program, the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions did not constitute a form of expression of that program within the meaning of article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 1991 L122, p 42) and, as such, were not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that Directive.”
WLR Daily, 2nd May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
DR v NCB – Nordisk Copyright Bureau (Case C-510/10); [2012] WLR (D) 127
“The exception in article 5(2)(d) of and Preamble 41 to Directive 2001/29 which permitted a broadcaster to use their own facilities or ‘those of a person acting on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcasting organisation’ to reproduce works by way of ephemeral recordings without the author’s consent, entitled a broadcaster to use a third party to reproduce the works either if that third party acted on their behalf or if they were under the responsibility of the broadcaster.”
WLR Daily, 26th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024