Search for: "People v. Hirst"
Results 21 - 40
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2012, 2:00 am
" Here's more:A Stanford law professor who helped argue Rumsfeld v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 4:34 am
The French equivalent, “fondamental/e”, is used with equal abandon - le droit de vote est un droit fondamental pour la démocratie (Hirst c Royaume-Uni) inégalité de traitement dans la jouissance du droit en cause constitue un aspect fondamental du litige (Chassagnou et autres c. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:21 am
For Moyn, then, the driving motivation behind the inclusion of “human rights”—which he notes was a “throwaway line,” not a fully conceptualized program—in the founding documents of the UN was to create an alternative to national liberation and self-determination demands by extending basic civic rights to subject peoples, at least on paper. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 4:00 am
Lothian and Borders Police probed allegations made by Mr Hirst in September but said they would take no further action.A spokeswoman for Ms Grahame said: “Mr Hirst’s comments have absolutely no credibility and Ms Grahame will not respond to such ridiculous claims. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 1:17 am
The FCO also referred to another prisoner voting case, Frodl v Austria (see my post), which “in the Government’s view, is inconsistent with Hirst”. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:23 am
The UK had attempted to appeal the recent decision in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 remains unamended by the rulings in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 849 and Greens and MT v United Kingdom (23 November 2010) that it offends against Article 3 Protocol 1 by imposing a blanket ban on prisoners from participating in elections. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
Very briefly, in 2005 the Strasbourg Court ruled, in the case of Hirst v UK (2006) 42 EHRR 41, that this blanket ban violated the right to vote under Article 3 Protocol 1. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 6:19 am
The background to this issue is that in the 2005 decision of Hirst (No. 2),the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 12:25 pm
IN, CASE OF GREENS and M.T. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 5:57 am
Ireland avoided such cases by allowing prisoners the vote in the wake of Hirst. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 1:27 am
The very basic background to this issue is that in the 2005 decision of Hirst (No. 2), the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:55 am
He asked the administrative court initially, following Hirst No. 2 and the more recent case of Frodl v Austria (see our post), if there was anything else it could do to implement the principles made very clear in those judgments. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:00 pm
In particular, this Court had had occasion to consider Hirst in the recent cases of Calmanovici v. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 4:48 am
They argued that, following the Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment (among other things), the ERO was obliged to add their names to the electoral register. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 7:54 am
(It reminds me a bit of the Random House v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:50 am
Thank you to John Hirst for the tip-off. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:43 pm
In the 2005 decision of Hirst, the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 7:16 am
Lehmann describes the dubious reasoning behind the court’s 1886 fiat, in Santa Clara County v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 6:26 am
(picture, left -Michael's new car) He said that the exclusiveness of the top brands does to a certain extent depend upon the fact there are a section of people that can never attain them. [read post]
