1 yıl önce - çevirmek

[JURIST] A new report [press release, PDF] by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) [advocacy websites] on Monday reveals that 11 of the 31 chief ministers of the various states and union territories of India, representing 35 percent of the chief ministers, have declared criminal charges against themselves in self-sworn affidavits.

The chief ministers represent the heads of the various state governments and are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the state. These affidavits were the latest filed by the individuals prior to contesting in assembly elections of the various states.

Eight of these 11 chief ministers have declared charges as serious as murder, attempted murder and criminal intimidation. These chief ministers belong to various political parties including the major national parties—Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Indian National Congress (INC),—the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Telangana Rashtra Samithi, Aam Admi Party (AAP), the Marxist Communist Party of India (CPI-M), the Janata Dal-United Party (JD-U), and the Jammu & Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party (JKPDP) [party websites]. Some of the individuals named as having criminal charges include Nara Chandra Babu Naidu, Arvind Kejriwal [official profile], Amarinder Singh, Chandrasekhar Rao, and Mehbooba Mufti.

The report further reveals that twenty-five of these chief ministers have personal assets in excess of ₹10 million (USD $155,60, with two of them—Naidu and Pema Khandu, chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Arunuchal Pradesh, respectively—having a personal net worth in excess of ₹1.29 billion (USD $20 million). These figures contrast significantly with the net worth of the chief ministers of Tripura, West Bengal, and Jammu & Kashmir, which are approximately ₹2.6 million (USD $40,50, ₹3 million (USD $46,70, and ₹5.5 million (USD $85,60. Three of the chief ministers only have 12th grade-level education, 12 have an undergraduate degree and only one has a doctorate.

The report was compiled with chief ministers' affidavits obtained from the website of Election Commission of India (ECI) [official website], and various nomination papers. None of the individuals named have yet commented on the report.


JURIST -  New report reveals 35 percent of India's Chief Ministers have criminal charges

JURIST - New report reveals 35 percent of India's Chief Ministers have criminal charges

1 yıl önce - çevirmek

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice [official website] on Thursday dismissed [judgment] Austrian attorney Max Schrems' class action privacy lawsuit against Facebook, ruling that Schrems can sue Facebook in his home country as an individual.

Schrems has continually campaigned against Facebook's use of users' personal information. Schrems was a party to the case against "Safe Harbor," the EU-US data sharing agreement. In that case, the EU court issued a ruling [judgement] in support of Schrems after he successfully proved that Facebook was not protecting its users against US intelligence.

In Schrems' current class action suit, Facebook argued that Schrems did not fall under the consumer protections in Europe. The court agreed with this argument. A court press release [text, PDF] stated that the activities of, "publishing books, giving lectures, operating websites, fundraising and being assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement in judicial proceedings do not entail the loss of a private Facebook account user's status as a 'consumer.'"

Though the class action case was dismissed, Schrems sees this as a victory that Facebook will have to defend its use of individuals' personal information in Austrian courts. Schrems stated [press release, PDF] that, "Facebook will now have to explain to a neutral court whether its business model is in line with stringent European privacy laws. This is a huge blow for them. Unfortunately, the ECJ has missed a unique opportunity to finally enable collective redress."


European high court rules Uber must comply with taxi regulations

[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled [judgment] Wednesday that Uber must comply with existing transportation regulations.

In doing so, the ECJ found that Uber operates more like a transportation company than an online platform that merely connects riders with drivers. This ruling will require Uber operating in an EU country to abide by the transportation regulations of an individual member state as opposed to the less restrictive e-commerce rules of the EU.

the court stated that

the service provided by Uber is more than an intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application, a non- professional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban journey ... that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and, accordingly, must be classified not as "an information society service" but as "a service in the field of transport" ... [C]onsequently, the directive on electronic commerce does not apply to that service, which is also excluded from the scope of the directive on services in the internal market. For the same reason, the service in question is covered not by the freedom to provide services in general but by the common transport policy. However, non-public urban transport services and services that are inherently linked to those services, such as the intermediation service provided by Uber, has not given rise to the adoption of measures based on that policy.
While this has broad implications for Uber and other ride-hailing apps wishing to expand their influence in the EU, this ruling only pertains to Uber's peer-to-peer ride-hailing service, which has already faced a ban in numerous EU countries such as France, Spain and Belgium. Moreover, Uber already operates under the transportation regulations of numerous EU countries.


JURIST -  European high court rules Uber must comply with taxi regulations

JURIST - European high court rules Uber must comply with taxi regulations

The surgeon who signed patients’ livers was silly, not criminal. The law is an ass
Henry Marsh

Last Wednesday Simon Bramhall, a consultant surgeon specialising in liver transplantation, pleaded guilty in Birmingham crown court to “assault by beating”. He awaits sentencing. On two occasions during liver transplantation surgery – a highly complex and difficult procedure – he had signed his initials on the surface of his patients’ organs using an argon gas coagulator. If I understand the details of the case correctly, there is no suggestion that marking the liver in this way caused any damage to its function, so the effect was – so to speak – purely artistic.

  • Hakkımızda
  • Daily legal news.