A Dutch court ruled Wednesday that border police can use ethnicity as one of the gauges for selecting people for checks at the border, although it cannot be the only one.
Read more at:
Dutch Court Rules Border Police Can Use Ethnicity as One of the Gauges for Searches
Showing posts with label Court Ruling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court Ruling. Show all posts
9/23/21
6/21/21
Coronavirus Vaccine: AstraZeneca must deliver 50m doses by September or face fines - by Elena Sánchez Nicolás
A Brussels court on Friday (18 June) ordered AstraZeneca to deliver 50 million doses of Covid-19 vaccines to EU member states by September, in a legal case brought by the European Commission - with both sides claiming victory.
AstraZeneca is now expected to supply 15 million doses by 26 July, 20 million doses by 23 August, and 15 million doses by 27 September.
Responding to the ruling, the company said it would "substantially exceed" these deliveries by the end of June
Read more at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/152192
AstraZeneca is now expected to supply 15 million doses by 26 July, 20 million doses by 23 August, and 15 million doses by 27 September.
Responding to the ruling, the company said it would "substantially exceed" these deliveries by the end of June
Read more at: https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/152192
5/29/21
The Netherlands: What the Dutch court carbon emissions ruling means for Shell
A Dutch court on Wednesday ordered Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) to significantly deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts, in a landmark ruling that could pave the way for legal action against energy companies around the world. read more
Shell said it was "disappointed" by the ruling which it plans to appeal.
Here are some key points about the ruling:
WHAT WAS THE RULING? The district court ordered Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. Shell currently aims to reduce the carbon intensity of products it sells by 20% over the same period from a 2016 baseline.
DOES THE RULING AFFECT SHELL'S GLOBAL OPERATIONS? Yes. The reduction relates to Shell's global operations and is not limited to the Netherlands, the court ruling said. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR SHELL? The ruling said that "it is up to RDS (Royal Dutch Shell) to design the reduction obligation, taking account of its current obligations and other relevant circumstances." Shell earlier this year announced a strategy to become a net zero emissions company by 2050, meaning its absolute emissions will also be net zero at that point. It has stated that it believes its emissions peaked in 2018.[USN:L1N2KH0LV] ABSOLUTE TARGETS VS INTENSITY TARGETS? The court ordered Shell to reduce absolute emissions by 45%. Shell's short and medium-term targets are intensity based. Intensity-based targets measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy produced. That means that absolute emissions can rise with growing production, even if the headline intensity metric falls. At its annual general meeting this month, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden rejected setting absolute reduction targets, saying: "Reducing absolute emissions at this point in time is predominantly possible by shrinking the business."
HOW BIG ARE SHELL'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? Shell, the world's largest oil and gas trader, produced 1.38 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2020, roughly 4.5% of global energy-related emissions that year, based on International Energy Agency figures. Shell's 2020 emissions were down from 1.65 billion tonnes the previous year, largely as a result of a fall in oil and gas demand due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Read More at: Explainer: What the Dutch court carbon emissions ruling means for Shell | Reuters
Shell said it was "disappointed" by the ruling which it plans to appeal.
Here are some key points about the ruling:
WHAT WAS THE RULING? The district court ordered Shell to cut its absolute carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. Shell currently aims to reduce the carbon intensity of products it sells by 20% over the same period from a 2016 baseline.
DOES THE RULING AFFECT SHELL'S GLOBAL OPERATIONS? Yes. The reduction relates to Shell's global operations and is not limited to the Netherlands, the court ruling said. WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR SHELL? The ruling said that "it is up to RDS (Royal Dutch Shell) to design the reduction obligation, taking account of its current obligations and other relevant circumstances." Shell earlier this year announced a strategy to become a net zero emissions company by 2050, meaning its absolute emissions will also be net zero at that point. It has stated that it believes its emissions peaked in 2018.[USN:L1N2KH0LV] ABSOLUTE TARGETS VS INTENSITY TARGETS? The court ordered Shell to reduce absolute emissions by 45%. Shell's short and medium-term targets are intensity based. Intensity-based targets measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy produced. That means that absolute emissions can rise with growing production, even if the headline intensity metric falls. At its annual general meeting this month, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden rejected setting absolute reduction targets, saying: "Reducing absolute emissions at this point in time is predominantly possible by shrinking the business."
HOW BIG ARE SHELL'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? Shell, the world's largest oil and gas trader, produced 1.38 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2020, roughly 4.5% of global energy-related emissions that year, based on International Energy Agency figures. Shell's 2020 emissions were down from 1.65 billion tonnes the previous year, largely as a result of a fall in oil and gas demand due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Read More at: Explainer: What the Dutch court carbon emissions ruling means for Shell | Reuters
11/15/18
The Netherlands recall embassy staff from Pakistan over threats says FM
The Netherlands said Monday it has pulled several embassy
staff members from Pakistan over persistent threats from religious
groups angry over tweets by the far-right politician Geert Wilders.
Although the Dutch embassy in Islamabad remains open and visa requests are still being handled, “a whole number of people” have returned to the Netherlands, Foreign Minister Stef Blok said.
“Unfortunately Dutch citizens are being threatened, Dutch diplomats,” Blok told a news programme on the NPO public broadcaster’s Radio 1 channel.
“That is serious enough already” for the step to be taken, said Blok, adding that he had spoken with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi about the issue.
Blok did not specify how many embassy staff were affected by the move.
Last week, the Pakistani lawyer, who represented Aasia Bibi, a woman acquitted of blasphemy from death row, fled to the Netherlands.
The Dutch gave Saif-ul-Malook a temporary stay after he fled Islamabad when violence erupted following the Pakistani Supreme Court’s historic decision to acquit her.
Thousands of protesters poured on to the streets in protest, calling for her death after Supreme Court judges overturned the conviction.
Read more: The Netherlands recall embassy staff from Pakistan over thre
Although the Dutch embassy in Islamabad remains open and visa requests are still being handled, “a whole number of people” have returned to the Netherlands, Foreign Minister Stef Blok said.
“Unfortunately Dutch citizens are being threatened, Dutch diplomats,” Blok told a news programme on the NPO public broadcaster’s Radio 1 channel.
“That is serious enough already” for the step to be taken, said Blok, adding that he had spoken with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi about the issue.
Blok did not specify how many embassy staff were affected by the move.
Last week, the Pakistani lawyer, who represented Aasia Bibi, a woman acquitted of blasphemy from death row, fled to the Netherlands.
The Dutch gave Saif-ul-Malook a temporary stay after he fled Islamabad when violence erupted following the Pakistani Supreme Court’s historic decision to acquit her.
Thousands of protesters poured on to the streets in protest, calling for her death after Supreme Court judges overturned the conviction.
Read more: The Netherlands recall embassy staff from Pakistan over thre
3/13/16
Poland: Protests as Poland's Radical Right Wing Government Rejects Top Court Ruling
 |
| Poland's Government overrules top court and Council of Europe |
Since winning October elections, the PiS has pushed through a number of reforms in the media, constitutional court and other institutions that have garnered criticism and concern from the EU, United States and other rights institutions.
The latest battle lines have been drawn over the constitutional court, after PiS passed amendents in December increasing the number of judges to make a ruling, requiring the court to review cases in the order they were received, and changing the threshold for a decision from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority.
Critics argue the changes are designed to slow down the court and render it dysfunctional in order to prevent judges from blocking controversial PiS legislation.
On Friday,March 11 the Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, made a non-binding judgment that the changes had "crippled" the Constitutional Tribunal and "endangered not only the rule of law but also the functioning of the democratic system."
The Council of Europe also said the government must follow the constitutional court's decision.
That judgment is likely to put Poland on a fresh collision course with the EU, which has referred Poland to a review at the European Commission over concerns of a retrenchment of democracy and rule of law.
A negative decision from the EU's executive body could lead to Poland losing its voting rights at the EU level.
On Saturday, Poland's government said it would ask parliament to review the Venice Commission's judgment but would still not recognize the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling.
The government has refused to officially publish the top court's findings, effectively blocking them from going into force.
Read more: Protests as Poland rejects top court ruling | News | DW.COM | 12.03.2016
3/6/15
France - Court tells Facebook France has jurisdiction in vagina row
A Paris court ruled Thursday that it has jurisdiction to judge a case against Facebook, which blocked the account of a French teacher who posted an image of a vagina by 19th century artist Gustave Courbet.
The court ruled that Facebook's clause that forces all users to agree that any litigation must be based in California, where the site is based, was "abusive."
Facebook is being sued by a French father-of-three whose account was suspended after he posted a photo of a painting by 19th century picture by Gustave Courbet, "The Origin of the World", depicting a naked woman’s vagina.
The irate teacher filed a complaint in a French court complaining that the site could not differentiate between pornography and art.
But in a hearing on January 22, Facebook's lawyer Caroline Lyannaz argued that the site did not fall under French jurisdiction as users have to sign a clause agreeing that only a California court can rule in disputes relating to the firm.
The teacher's lawyer, Stephane Cottineau, hailed the court ruling as a "first victory won by David against Goliath".
"This decision will create jurisprudence for other social media and other Internet giants who use their being headquartered abroad, mainly in the United States, to attempt to evade French law."
The lawyer said this was an "abusive clause" as none of the 22 million Facebook users in France "can ever take recourse to French legal jurisdiction in the event of a dispute".
Facebook said it noted the judgement and was considering its response.
Read more: France - Court tells Facebook France has jurisdiction in vagina row - France 24
The court ruled that Facebook's clause that forces all users to agree that any litigation must be based in California, where the site is based, was "abusive."
Facebook is being sued by a French father-of-three whose account was suspended after he posted a photo of a painting by 19th century picture by Gustave Courbet, "The Origin of the World", depicting a naked woman’s vagina.
The irate teacher filed a complaint in a French court complaining that the site could not differentiate between pornography and art.
But in a hearing on January 22, Facebook's lawyer Caroline Lyannaz argued that the site did not fall under French jurisdiction as users have to sign a clause agreeing that only a California court can rule in disputes relating to the firm.
The teacher's lawyer, Stephane Cottineau, hailed the court ruling as a "first victory won by David against Goliath".
"This decision will create jurisprudence for other social media and other Internet giants who use their being headquartered abroad, mainly in the United States, to attempt to evade French law."
The lawyer said this was an "abusive clause" as none of the 22 million Facebook users in France "can ever take recourse to French legal jurisdiction in the event of a dispute".
Facebook said it noted the judgement and was considering its response.
Read more: France - Court tells Facebook France has jurisdiction in vagina row - France 24
1/23/14
European Financial Industry: EU court rebuffs UK legal challenge to short-selling law
T
he UK government's
attempt to limit the extent of European Union power to ban certain
financial practices has failed in the courts.
 |
| Londen City: "The Party Is Over" |
The UK challenged the law as a restraint of trade on the City, but the EU's highest court rejected the case.
Britain will not be able to opt out.
EU authorities believe short-selling contributed to financial instability during the region's debt crisis by increasing the volatility of stocks.
Under the new law, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) can ban short-selling if it thinks the practice threatens the stability of the EU financial system.
Britain has argued that such measures interfere with the efficiency of the financial markets.
The Luxembourg-based Court of Justice said the EU's new powers were "compatible with EU law" and dismissed the UK's legal case "in its entirety".
Read more: BBC News - EU court rebuffs UK legal challenge to short-selling law
5/4/13
Srebrenica - the Netherlands: 'Netherlands Liable in Srebrenica Case’
The death of three Muslim men following the fall of Srebrenica in 1995 can be imputed to the Netherlands, said the Solicitor-General of the Supreme Court Friday in advice to the Netherlands’ highest court.
The State appealed to the Supreme Court after an appeal court earlier ruled that it was liable for the death of the men. The Solicitor-General has now advised the Supreme Court to reject this appeal. The Supreme Court will likely give its verdict on 6 September.
The lawyers of the State argued that only if the Netherlands had gone in with its own instructions against the instructions of the UN could the State have been responsible for behaviour or negligence of the Dutch military. But according to the Solicitor-General, the UN no longer had effective control over Dutchbat (the Dutch UN troops) after the fall of Srebrenica, as a result of which the behaviour of the Dutch military came under the responsibility of the Dutch State.
The case was brought by Hasan Nuhanovic, an interpreter for the Dutch UN troops, and the family of the murdered electrician for Dutchbat, Rizo Mustafic. Nuhanovic lost his father and his brother. The victims were sent from the Dutchbat compound, fell into the hands of the Bosnian Serb army and were murdered. The Dutch battalion turned out to be unable to protect the enclave. At least 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed.
Read more: Netherlands News - Dutch News
The State appealed to the Supreme Court after an appeal court earlier ruled that it was liable for the death of the men. The Solicitor-General has now advised the Supreme Court to reject this appeal. The Supreme Court will likely give its verdict on 6 September.
The lawyers of the State argued that only if the Netherlands had gone in with its own instructions against the instructions of the UN could the State have been responsible for behaviour or negligence of the Dutch military. But according to the Solicitor-General, the UN no longer had effective control over Dutchbat (the Dutch UN troops) after the fall of Srebrenica, as a result of which the behaviour of the Dutch military came under the responsibility of the Dutch State.
The case was brought by Hasan Nuhanovic, an interpreter for the Dutch UN troops, and the family of the murdered electrician for Dutchbat, Rizo Mustafic. Nuhanovic lost his father and his brother. The victims were sent from the Dutchbat compound, fell into the hands of the Bosnian Serb army and were murdered. The Dutch battalion turned out to be unable to protect the enclave. At least 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed.
Read more: Netherlands News - Dutch News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)