Skip to content
PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

Subjects

Rule of law

Records whose title is actually about this topic. Use a country filter if the list is still too broad.

401 records in 2024

All countriesUnited States · 6,478France · 4,395Austria · 2,318Netherlands · 1,543Ireland · 1,470European Union · 675Germany · 256United Kingdom · 182Belgium · 1Search this topic

Records

Question· writtenPQ 668asked

668. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his views on the practice in some third level institutions whereby students are automatically signed up as members of the students' union upon enrolment at the institution; his views on whether this arrangement is in accordance with the freedom of association guaranteed in the Constitution; whether current legislation provides adequate protections for students in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21298/24]

Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 14 May 2024

668. Deputy John Paul Phelan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science his views on the practice in some third level institutions whereby students are automatically signed up as members of the students' union upon enrolment at the institution; his views on whether this arrangement is in accordance with the freedom of association guaranteed in the Constitution; whether current legislation provides adequate protections for students in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21298/24]

Question· Mündliche Frage20/11319open

Auswahl der Autoren und Herausgeber für den Grundgesetzkommentar "Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz"

Germany · German Bundestag · 10 May 2024

Originaltext der Frage(n):<br /> <br /> Wer hat nach Kenntnis der Bundesregierung nach welchen allgemeinen Grundsätzen die Herausgeber und die Autoren für das vom Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung geförderte Projekt "Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz (OZUG)" (www.jura.uni-hannover.de/de/forschung/forschungsbereiche/einzelansicht/projects/offener-zugang-zum-grundgesetz-ozug) ausgewählt, und erfolgte die Auswahl der Autoren jeweils für jeden einzelnen Grundgesetzartikel?

Record· CJCELEX 62023CJ0053_RESdecided

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2024.#Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” and Asociaţia “Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor” v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Judicial independence – Article 19(1) TEU – Cooperation and Verification Mechanism – Benchmarks subscribed to by Romania – Fight against corruption – Investigations of offences committed within the Judiciary – Action challenging the nomination of prosecutors with competence to conduct those investigations – Standing of professional associations of judges to bring proceedings.#Case C-53/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 8 May 2024

Record· CJCELEX 62023CJ0053decided

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2024.#Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Asociaţia 'Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor' v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Piteşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Judicial independence – Article 19(1) TEU – Cooperation and Verification Mechanism – Benchmarks subscribed to by Romania – Fight against corruption – Investigations of offences committed within the judicial system – Action challenging the nomination of prosecutors with competence to conduct those investigations – Standing of professional associations of judges to bring proceedings.#Case C-53/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 8 May 2024

Bill· SS. 4268 (118th)referred

A bill proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

United States · United States Congress · 7 May 2024

This bill proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber. The prohibition excludes outlays for repayment of debt principal, receipts derived from borrowing, receipts or outlays of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and outlays relating to a natural disaster if the act providing the funds explicitly exempts the funds from the requirement and is agreed to by a majority of each chamber of Congress. The amendment requires the President to annually submit to Congress a budget in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts. The amendment specifies exceptions to the requirements if a declaration of war is in effect, the United States is engaged in military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security, economic growth is less than 0%, or the unemployment rate is more than 7%. The amendment prohibits a court from enforcing the requirements by ordering reductions to Social Security or Medicare payments unless the funds available to the trust fund for a program are not sufficient to cover the outlays that would occur during the year if the fund were fully solvent.

Bill· SJRESS.J.Res. 77 (118th)referred

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the fundamental right to vote.

United States · United States Congress · 7 May 2024

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment related to the fundamental right to vote. Specifically, it grants every U.S. citizen of legal voting age the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. Next, it specifies that the fundamental right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, a state, or a political subdivision of a state, unless the denial or abridgment is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means. Finally, it repeals a specific portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for the denial of the right to vote based on crime. (Currently, some states disallow individuals from voting, either temporarily or indefinitely, after incarceration for a felony.)

Question· Written questionUIN 24263answered

Rwanda: Rule of Law

United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 30 April 2024

To ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary, what recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the operation of the rule of law in Rwanda.

Record· Brief regering2024Z07471concluded

Financiering Rechtspraak

Netherlands · House of Representatives · 25 April 2024

Financiering Rechtspraak

Record· Enquete-Kommission20/11137rejected

Einsetzung einer Enquete-Kommission "Coronavirus - Fehleranalyse und Entwicklung besserer Handlungsansätze für künftige Pandemien"

Germany · German Bundestag · 23 April 2024

Einsetzung einer Enquete-Kommission mit 15 Abgeordneten und 15 Sachverständigen: Untersuchung möglicher Konfliktpotenziale und angemessener Maßnahmen im Rahmen künftiger Pandemien, insbes. Prüfung des Infektionsschutzgesetzes im Verhältnis zu den Grundrechten, der Grenzen der Eingriffsrechte von Bundes- und Landesregierungen bei jeder durchgeführten Corona-Maßnahme und Aufhebung von Grundrechten durch einfache parlamentarische Mehrheit, Erarbeitung von Vorschlägen zu gesetzlichen Neugestaltungen einschließlich eindeutiger Begriffsdefinitionen, Aufarbeitung der problematischen Rollen relevanter Akteure; Verhinderung künftiger Lockdowns und weitestgehende Aufrechterhaltung des wirtschaftlichen, gesellschaftlichen und sozialen Lebens auch in einer Pandemie; Beantwortung einer Vielzahl von Fragen betr. wissenschaftlicher Rahmen, Rechtsstaat und Demokratie, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Gesundheit, Bildung und Forschung sowie Familien und Kinder; Berichterstattung vor der parlamentarischen Sommerpause 2025

Question· Mündliche Frage20/11103open

Förderung des Projektes "Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz"

Germany · German Bundestag · 19 April 2024

Originaltext der Frage(n):<br /> <br /> Aus welchen im Einzelnen aufzuführenden Gründen ist die Bundesregierung der Auffassung, dass die Förderung des Projektes "Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz (OZUG)" mit 291.800,80 Euro durch das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (www.jura.uni-hannover.de/de/forschung/forschungsbereiche/einzelansicht/projects/offener-zugang-zum-grundgesetz-ozug) die Grenzen zulässiger staatlicher Öffentlichkeits- und Informationsarbeit wahrt sowie auch wettbewerbsrechtlich zulässig ist?<br /> <br /> Wie wird im Rahmen des vom Bundesminis- terium für Bildung und Forschung mit 291.800,80 Euro geförderten Projekts "Offener Zugang zum Grundgesetz (OZUG)" (www.jura.uni-hannover.de/de/forschung/forschungsbereiche/einzelansicht/projects/offener-zugang-zum-grundgesetz-ozug) die Meinungsvielfalt der Grundgesetzkommentierung sichergestellt und dauerhaft unzulässige staatliche oder (partei)politische Einflussnahme auf deren Inhalt ausgeschlossen?

Record· CJCELEX 62022CJ0634_SUMdecided

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2024.#Criminal proceedings against OT and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Values and objectives of the European Union – Article 2 TEU – Rule of law – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Independent and impartial court – Reorganisation of jurisdiction of courts in a Member State – Abolition of a specialised criminal court – Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling.#Case C-634/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 18 April 2024

Record· CJCELEX 62022CJ0634decided

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 April 2024.#Criminal proceedings against OT and Others.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Values and objectives of the European Union – Article 2 TEU – Rule of law – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Independent and impartial court – Reorganisation of jurisdiction of courts in a Member State – Abolition of a specialised criminal court – Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling.#Case C-634/22.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 18 April 2024

Bill· Selbständiger Antrag4013/Aselbständiger antrag

Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, Änderung

Austria · National Council · 17 April 2024

Antrag der Abgeordneten Johann Singer, Mag. Nina Tomaselli, Kolleginnen und Kollegen betreffend ein Bundesverfassungsgesetz, mit dem das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz geändert wird

Report· Ausschussbericht2511 d.B.ausschussbericht

Bundesverfassungsgesetz, mit dem das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz geändert wird

Austria · National Council · 12 April 2024

Bericht des Verfassungsausschusses über den Antrag 3944/A der Abgeordneten Mag. Wolfgang Gerstl, Mag. Agnes Sirkka Prammer, Kolleginnen und Kollegen betreffend ein Bundesverfassungsgesetz, mit dem das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz geändert wird

Report· CCCELEX 62021CC0647decided

Opinion of Advocate General Collins delivered on 11 April 2024.#D. K. and Others.#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Słupsku.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Rule of law – Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU – Principle of the irremovability of judges and judicial independence – Resolution of the college of a court withdrawing all cases from a judge – Lack of objective criteria for taking a withdrawal decision – Lack of obligation to state reasons for such a decision – Primacy of EU law – Obligation to disapply such a decision to withdraw cases.#Joined Cases C-647/21 and C-648/21.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 11 April 2024

Question· writtenPQ 1049asked

1049. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth further to Parliamentary Question No. 481 of 20 February 2024, if he will provide and publish in full the minutes and documents associated with the Interdepartmental Group that met to discuss the recent referenda on the Constitution; if he will provide details of the membership of the group; the number of times it met; the attendees at each meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13584/24]

Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 April 2024

1049. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth further to Parliamentary Question No. 481 of 20 February 2024, if he will provide and publish in full the minutes and documents associated with the Interdepartmental Group that met to discuss the recent referenda on the Constitution; if he will provide details of the membership of the group; the number of times it met; the attendees at each meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13584/24]

Question· writtenPQ 1012asked

1012. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to explain how a company with a stated objective within its constitution/rules to promote one studbooks above all others won a tender to promote all Department-approved studbooks (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14821/24]

Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 April 2024

1012. Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to explain how a company with a stated objective within its constitution/rules to promote one studbooks above all others won a tender to promote all Department-approved studbooks (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14821/24]

Question· writtenPQ 664asked

664. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if, in relation to his commitment to support a referendum enshrining public ownership of our water services in the Constitution, he will confirm when the Government will announce a date for the water referendum (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14665/24]

Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 April 2024

664. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if, in relation to his commitment to support a referendum enshrining public ownership of our water services in the Constitution, he will confirm when the Government will announce a date for the water referendum (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14665/24]

Record· scrutin public solennel3663adopté

l’ensemble du projet de loi organique modifiant la loi organique n° 2010-837 du 23 juillet 2010 relative à l’application du cinquième alinéa de l’article 13 de la Constitution (texte de la commission paritaire).

France · National Assembly · 9 April 2024

l’ensemble du projet de loi organique modifiant la loi organique n° 2010-837 du 23 juillet 2010 relative à l’application du cinquième alinéa de l’article 13 de la Constitution (texte de la commission paritaire).

Record· CJCELEX 62021CJ0582_RESdecided

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024.#FY v Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Article 4(3) TEU – Principle of sincere cooperation – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law – National legislation providing for an extraordinary remedy allowing the reopening of civil proceedings closed by a final judgment – Grounds – Subsequent decision of a constitutional court declaring that a provision of national law on the basis of which that judgment was given is incompatible with the Constitution – Loss of the opportunity to take action on account of a breach of the law – Broad application of that remedy – Alleged infringement of EU law resulting from a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the interpretation of EU law – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Default judgment – Failure of the court hearing the case to ascertain of its own motion whether contractual terms are unfair.#Case C-582/21.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 9 April 2024

Record· CJCELEX 62021CJ0582decided

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 April 2024.#FY v Profi Credit Polska S.A. w Bielsku Białej.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy Warszawa-Praga w Warszawie.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principles of EU law – Article 4(3) TEU – Principle of sincere cooperation – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law – National legislation providing for an extraordinary remedy allowing the reopening of civil proceedings closed by a final judgment – Grounds – Subsequent decision of a constitutional court declaring that a provision of national law on the basis of which that judgment was given is incompatible with the Constitution – Loss of the opportunity to take action on account of a breach of the law – Broad application of that remedy – Alleged infringement of EU law resulting from a subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the interpretation of EU law – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Default judgment – Failure of the court hearing the case to ascertain of its own motion whether contractual terms are unfair.#Case C-582/21.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 9 April 2024

Question· Schriftliche Frage20/10926open

Vereinbarkeit rechter Ideologie mit dem Grundgesetz

Germany · German Bundestag · 5 April 2024

Originaltext der Frage(n):<br /> <br /> Bedeutet die Aussage des Bundesministeriums des Innern und für Heimat (BMI) "Der wesentliche Kerngedanke einer &sbquo;rechten&lsquo; Ideologie ist die Annahme einer Ungleichheit/Ungleichwertigkeit der Menschen" (Antwort der Bundesregierung auf meine Schriftliche Frage 34 auf Bundestagsdrucksache 20/10791), dass eine "rechte" Ideologie oder Orientierung nach Auffassung des BMI grundsätzlich nicht mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar ist, unabhängig davon, ob diese "extremistisch" im Sinne der in der Antwort aufgeführten Begriffsbestimmung des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz ist, oder gibt es "rechte" Ideologien und Orientierungen, die nach Auffassung des BMI mit der Demokratie und dem Grundgesetz vereinbar sind?

Record· TOCELEX 62023TO0139decided

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 April 2024.#Miskolci Egyetem v Council of the European Union and European Commission.#Action for annulment – Measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary – Prohibition on entering into legal commitments with any public interest trust or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust – Article 2(2) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 – Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures – Direct concern – Admissibility – Act not open to challenge – Act not having an adverse effect – Inadmissibility.#Case T-139/23.

European Union · Court of Justice of the European Union · 4 April 2024

PreviousPage 8 of 9Next