1 SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no /08 by Regina RINKŪNIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Regina Rinkūnienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Panevėžys. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 September 2004 the applicant s husband P.R. fell ill. On 15 September a doctor, V.D.S., who worked at the Aukštaičių Family Clinics, visited him at his home and prescribed him certain medication. The next days P.R. s medical condition had not improved and he had a fever of up to 40 degrees. The applicant succeeded in contacting V.D.S. only on 20 September. In the evening of the same day P.R. s condition substantially worsened and the medical emergency service took him to the Panevėžys hospital. On 22 September, at the applicant s request, blood samples were taken from her husband. On 24 September P.R. was found to have septicaemia and was transferred to the intensive care unit. On 26 September 2004 the applicant s husband died in the Panevėžys hospital. The clinical diagnosis of his death, recorded in the hospital s documents, was sepsis. That diagnosis was not confirmed by an autopsy, since the applicant refused one.
2 The applicant requested the State Medical Audit Inspection to appraise the quality of the medical services which V.D.S. and the Aukštaičių Family Clinics had provided to her husband. On 15 December 2004 the State Medical Audit Inspection produced an expert report (no. 1A K) which stipulated that, while treating the applicant s husband, V.D.S. had made certain mistakes. In particular, given that P.R. s condition was not improving, the doctor had not used all available means to establish factors which would have been important for determining the proper treatment. That is to say, having suspected pneumonia [the doctor] did not immediately send the patient for an X-ray examination, did not assess the effectiveness of the prescribed medication, and did not send the patient to hospital, as [the applicable medical instructions] required. Lastly, the experts noted that the head of the Aukštaičių Family Clinics had not been carrying out the Health Minister s instructions on medical care effectively. The State Medical Audit Inspection ordered the head of the Aukštaičių Family Clinics to assure adherence to the ministerial requirements and to evaluate the doctor s actions. On 25 January 2005 the State Medical Audit Inspection was informed that V.D.S. had received a disciplinary sanction by way of a warning. On 27 July 2005 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Aukštaičių Family Clinics, the Panevėžys hospital and V.D.S., alleging that the medical personnel had failed to carry out their duties properly and that this had caused her husband s death. On 30 December 2005 the Panevėžys Regional Court ordered the Mykolas Romeris University Forensic Medical Institute (the FMI ) to conduct a deontological examination as regards the circumstances and cause of P.R. s death. Four experts took part in the examination. On 27 February 2006 the FMI presented its results in report no. EDM 36/06 (01). The report stipulated that P.R. had died from sepsis, noting however that the cause of death had only been established on the basis of a clinical diagnosis. Given that there was no autopsy report, the actual cause of death remained uncertain. The report also stated that, when treating the applicant s husband, V.D.S. had acted properly and without undue delay. The experts concluded that V.D.S. s actions had no direct causal link with the death, since the treatment she prescribed was in accordance with the patient s condition. They also stated that applicable legislation did not empower a family doctor to compel her patient to go to hospital [against his will]. Lastly, the experts found the treatment at the Aukštaičių Family Clinics to have been appropriate to the patient s medical condition. As regards the treatment which P.R. received at the Panevėžys hospital, the experts again found it to have been adequate, with the exception of the treatment which P.R. had received in the hospital s intensive care unit. Yet the experts noted that it was not possible to ascertain what influence the latter had had on P.R. s death, since no autopsy had ever been performed. In sum, there was no direct causal link between either the actions of V.D.S. or the Panevėžys hospital s personnel and the death of the applicant s husband. On 15 June 2007 the applicant requested the Panevėžys Regional Court to order a supplementary expert report. She noted that the two expert reports, no. 1A K and no. EDM 36/06 (01), had been contradictory. In the applicant s view, the FMI s experts were partial and it was necessary to create a new expert commission which would evaluate the quality, objectivity and plausibility of the two previous reports, as well as establish the actual cause of her husband s death and whether the
3 treatment he had received had been appropriate and effective. That commission was also to establish whether the medical personnel who had treated her late husband had breached any applicable medical instructions. By a decision of 5 July 2007, the Panevėžys Regional Court dismissed the applicant s lawsuit as unfounded. The court s arguments and reasoning were set out in six pages. The applicant s lawyer took part in that hearing. Whilst noting the State Medical Audit Inspection s report about certain defects in V.D.S. s and Aukštaičių Family Clinics actions, the court nevertheless emphasised that those flaws were of an organisational character (organizacinio pobudžio) and had no causal link to the quality of medical services which were provided to P.R. The court furthermore noted that there were no grave doctors mistakes, which the Commission for the Assessment of Doctors Professional Competence would have established. Referring to the Supreme Court s guidelines in medical negligence cases and having examined the FMI s deontological report no. EDM 36/06 in the light of other evidence, the Panevėžys Regional Court found that report credible. It stressed that the cause of death of the applicant s husband had only been established from clinical characteristics (pagal klinikinius požymius). Yet, as both experts had noted in their written reports and in person at the hearing, in the absence of an autopsy it had not been possible to ascertain the exact cause of death. From all the above, the court concluded that the applicant had failed to prove that the doctors had acted in breach of applicable medical norms. Neither had the applicant proved a causal link between the doctors actions and her husband s death. The Panevėžys Regional Court also observed that the evidence in the case ruled out the doctors negligence. The court did not address the applicant s request for a supplementary expert examination. Lastly, the Panevėžys Regional Court ordered the applicant to cover the other parties litigation costs in the sum of 8,089 Lithuanian litai (approximately 2,343 euros). The applicant appealed, arguing that the two expert reports were contradictory, and requested the Court of Appeal to order a new expert examination into the circumstances of her husband s death. She also claimed that the first-instance court had ordered her to cover the other parties litigation costs for too high a sum. On 13 November 2007, at the hearing of the Court of Appeal, the applicant s lawyer requested that the experts of the State Medical Audit Inspection and the FMI be summoned for questioning in open court. The Court of Appeal granted that request. The lawyer further requested that a new expert examination be carried out, arguing that the two reports were contradictory. The court decided to resolve that question after the lawyer submitted the request in writing and formulated his questions to the experts. It transpires from the record of the hearing of the Court of Appeal that on 19 May 2008 the applicant s lawyer again requested the court to order a new expert examination. Given that other parties to the proceedings objected to that request, the Court of Appeal decided to adjourn the hearing until 22 May On 22 May 2008 the applicant s lawyer reiterated his request for a supplementary expert report. Having considered the lawyer s request on the spot, the chamber decided to adjourn the
4 determination of this issue until the parties had made their final submissions. Having heard the parties summings-up, the Court of Appeal adjourned its decision until 5 June On 5 June 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant s appeal. The court acknowledged that V.D.S. had made certain errors of judgment by not exhausting all means available to diagnose P.R. s illness, and by not consulting other doctors when his condition did not improve. Yet the appellate court found no proof that those errors had been the direct cause of P.R. s death. The court also had regard to the FMI s deontological report to the effect that the measures which V.D.S and the Aukštaičių Family Clinics had undertaken were adequate for the physical condition of P.R. The court noted that the FMI s conclusions were confirmed and elaborated by four experts, who testified before both the first-instance and the appellate courts. For the latter, the applicant s allegation that the FMI s experts had been partial and not objective was unfounded, even though their conclusion contradicted that of the State Medical Audit Inspection. On the contrary, the court noted that those experts were well qualified, with scientific and pedagogical degrees in their respective fields of medicine. As to the treatment which P.R. had received in the Panevėžys Hospital s intensive care unit, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that it had been inadequate. However, given that the applicant herself refused to allow an autopsy, it was not possible to establish what influence that inadequate treatment could have had on P.R. s death. Consequently, the first-instance court was correct in not finding a causal link between the actions of the Panevėžys Hospital doctors and the death of the applicant s husband. Lastly, the Court of Appeal found that the award of litigation costs which the applicant was ordered to pay was in accordance with the recommendations prescribed by the Ministry of Justice. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, complaining that the lower courts had not allowed her claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. She further alleged that the first-instance and appellate courts had evaluated the evidence wrongly, that the expert examination had not been thorough and that important factual circumstances had not been established. By a ruling of 5 September 2008, the Supreme Court refused to examine the cassation appeal, noting that the applicant s claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages was intrinsically related to her allegation of an erroneous examination of the factual circumstances, but the latter did not fall within the Supreme Court s jurisdiction. The applicant submitted new cassation appeals. However, on 6 and 21 October and 27 November 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed them as lodged out of time. B. Relevant domestic law and practice The Law on the Medical Practice of Physicians (Medicinos praktikos įstatymas) stipulates that a doctor who has made a grave error when practising the profession can be deprived of his or her licence. The State Medical Audit Inspection is one of the bodies which can propose that a licence be withdrawn (Article 6 1 (3) and 3). Moreover, the doctor who has breached the requirements of this law is answerable under the domestic law and regulations (Article 11). Furthermore, a special body the Commission for the Assessment of Doctors Professional Competence exists to assess the professional qualifications of doctors (Article 12). Article 3 2 of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to their Health (Pacientų teisių ir žalos sveikatai atlyginimo įstatymas) stipulates that patients must be accorded
5 qualified health care. Pursuant to Article 14 3, the damage suffered by patients as a result of the culpable actions of a physician is to be compensated in accordance with the procedure established by the Civil Code. Article of the Civil Code provides that any pecuniary damage caused to another person must be fully compensated by the responsible person. Article allows compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred due to health impairment or a deprivation of life. As regards medical negligence specifically, in the ruling of 25 April 2005 no. 3K-3-222/2005 the Supreme Court confirmed this right, specifying that, in case of a person s death, the spouse, parents and children have the right to request compensation for non-pecuniary damage for their loss. Lastly, Article of the Civil Code provides that an employer is liable to compensation for damage caused by the fault of employees in the performance of their service (official) duties. Article 178 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the parties must prove their claims. Pursuant to Article 185, the court evaluates the probative value of evidence according its own inner belief, basing its conclusions on a comprehensive and objective examination of the facts of the case. Unless the Code provides otherwise, no evidence has predetermined value. In its ruling No. 15 of 13 June 1997, the Supreme Court noted that, when an issue of possible medical negligence arises, the deontological expert report constitutes a critical piece of evidence. Moreover, when evaluating a deontological report, the court must also have regard to the comprehensive and objective evaluation of the circumstances of the case in an open hearing and in the light of all the evidence gathered in the case. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the refusal of the domestic courts to order a supplementary expert examination, and to hold the doctors accountable for the death of her husband, amounted to a violation of her civil rights in breach of Article 6 1 of the Convention. She also submitted that the sum which she was ordered to pay for the respondents litigation costs was too high and not fully justified. THE LAW Invoking Article 6 1 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that the Lithuanian courts had failed to investigate the circumstances of her husband s death properly. Regardless of the fact that the two expert reports on the subject had been contradictory, both the Panevėžys Regional Court and the Court of Appeal refused to grant her lawyer s request for a new expert examination which, in her opinion, would have dispelled uncertainties as to the cause of death and helped to identify the culprits. The Court notes that the applicant argued that her husband had died as a result of professional negligence on the part of the doctors and that the guilty have been left unpunished. It considers that the applicant has thereby raised, in substance, a complaint under Article 2 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant to the present case, reads as follows: 1. Everyone s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally...
6 The Court recalls that the first sentence of Article 2 obliges the State not merely to refrain from intentionally causing death, but also to take adequate measures to protect life (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no /96, 48, ECHR 2002-I). The Court has also held that the positive obligation on the State to protect life includes the requirement for hospitals to have regulations for the protection of their patients lives (see Işıltan v. Turkey, no /92, Commission decision of 22 May 1995, DR 81- B, pp. 39 and 40). As a result, the Court accepts that it cannot be excluded that acts or omissions of health care authorities may in certain circumstances engage the State s responsibility under the positive limb of Article 2. However, where a Contracting State has made adequate provision for securing high professional standards among health professionals and the protection of the lives of patients, the Court does not consider that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a health professional or negligent co-ordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no /99, ECHR 2000-V). For the Court, the events leading to the tragic death of a patient and the responsibility of the health professionals involved are matters to be examined in the light of the adequacy of the mechanisms in place for shedding light on the course of those events, allowing the facts of the case to be exposed to public scrutiny not least for the benefit of the applicant. The Court has attached particular weight to the procedural requirement implicit in Article 2 of the Convention. In its opinion, and with reference to the facts of the instant case, the obligation at issue extends to the need for an effective independent system for establishing the cause of death of an individual under the care and responsibility of health professionals and any liability on the part of the latter (see Powell, cited above). Turning to the instant case, the Court observes that V.D.S. and the other medical practitioners concerned were subject to a legislative framework regulating their activities. The Court notes the existence of legal provisions as well as the Supreme Court s guidelines in medical negligence cases which allow persons who claim to have been victims of medical malpractice to bring proceedings for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (see Relevant domestic law above). The Court is therefore satisfied that a sufficient legal framework for securing high professional standards among health professionals as well as their liability existed at the material time (see, mutatis mutandis, Calvelli, cited above, 51). In addition, the Court observes that in the present case the applicant had an opportunity to have her claims of medical negligence considered by independent judicial authorities who gave them due consideration. The Lithuanian courts based their conclusions on two expert reports and four experts were summoned to shed light on the circumstances of P.R. s illness and death. They testified before both the first-instance and appellate courts. The Court does not find that the applicant was placed at a procedural disadvantage vis-à-vis the medical institutions or V.D.S., given that throughout civil proceedings she was represented by a lawyer whose motions, except for the request for a third expert report, were granted. In particular, on 13 November 2007 the applicant s lawyer requested the Court of Appeal to summon the experts of the State Medical Audit Inspection and the FMI for questioning, which motion was granted. With reference to the applicant s allegations that the Lithuanian courts ignored discrepancies in the experts reports, the Court emphasises that, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, its only task is to ensure observance of the obligations undertaken by the States Parties to the Convention. In particular, the assessment of evidence and its probative value are primarily a matter
7 for the domestic authorities: the Court is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of fact or law have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see Erikson v. Italy (dec.), no /97, 26 October 1999). In the light of the Court s conclusions in the preceding paragraph and all the materials submitted to it, the Court cannot conclude that the Lithuanian courts restricted the applicant s opportunities to prove her case or that they assessed the evidence before them arbitrarily. Overall, even if the Court of Appeal s silence as regards the applicant s call for a third expert report could be regarded as a procedural flaw, the Court does not find that this aspect alone had the effect of reducing the effectiveness of the examination of the doctors responsibility for the death of her husband. Of particular significance for the Court is the fact that it was open to the applicant to request an autopsy of her late husband s body. As unequivocally noted, the experts of the FMI and, relying on them, both the Panevėžys Regional Court and the Court of Appeal considered that, without an autopsy, it was not possible to determine exactly the cause of death and any related negligence. The Court finds therefore that the applicant denied herself an essential element satisfying the positive obligations arising under Article 2 to elucidate the matter. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that the Lithuanian authorities cannot be held responsible for not having carried out an adequate investigation under Article 2 of the Convention into the husband s death. Consequently, the Court concludes that the present complaint does not disclose failure by the respondent State to comply with its positive obligations, including procedural requirements, imposed by Article 2 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention. Finally, as to the applicant s complaint that the award against her for litigation costs was too high and unsubstantiated, the Court repeats that it is not a court of appeal from the decisions of domestic courts and that, as a general rule, it is for the latter to determine such matters (see, mutatis mutandis, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, 44, Series A no. 296-C). In the light of the circumstances of the present case and the considerations above, the Court does not find anything arbitrary in the costs award. It follows that this part of the application also must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 53161/99 by Raimundas MEILUS
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MUSTAFA AND ARMAĞAN AKIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4694/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 6 April 2010 FINAL 06/07/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ZICHY GALÉRIA v. HUNGARY (Application no. 66019/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 April 2005 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 10240/03 by Theodoros
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF SWEDISH TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION v. SWEDEN (Application no. 53507/99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application nos. 40766/06 and 40831/06 by Afram
European Court of Human Rights Questions & Answers Questions & Answers What is the European Court of Human Rights? These questions and answers have been prepared by the Registry of the Court. The document
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS : QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGISTRY OF THE COURT 2 WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS? T he European Court of Human Rights is an international court based in Strasbourg.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF K. v. ITALY (Application no. 38805/97) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July 2004
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR/C/112/D/2070/2011 Distr.: General 25 November 2014 Original: English Human Rights Committee Communication No. 2070/2011 Decision
Prof. Dr. Harald Jatzke Judge at the Supreme Tax Court, Munich Selected Procedural Issues I. Recusal of a judge from a case II. Opinion process III. Expert evidence IV. Sanctions (refusal to admit comments
Version: 21.11.2015 South Australia Building Work Contractors Act 1995 An Act to regulate building work contractors and the supervision of building work; and for other purposes. Contents Part 1 Preliminary
Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights and the Parot Doctrine March 2014 The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center (202) 707-6462 (phone) (866) 550-0442 (fax) email@example.com http://www.law.gov
THIRD SECTION Application no. 39974/10 M.P. and Others against Romania lodged on 9 June 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The applicants, Ms M.P., Mr M.P. and their son M.-D.P., are Romanian nationals who were
Page 2 2009 FMOD Gazette (Translation) No. 1 2009 FMOD Gazette p. 2 Revised Version of the German Military Complaints Regulations With Article 5, Act to Amend Military Law and other regulations (2008 Military
107 THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CASES AGAINST CROATIA REGARDING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO A LAWYER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Lovorka Kušan * INTRODUCTION By 27 November 2016 Croatia
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT CENTRE v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6689/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 March 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
Roetzheim v. Germany AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31177/96 by Theodor (Dora) ROETZHEIM against Germany The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 23 October
III. EXPOSÉ DE LA OU DES VIOLATION(S) DE LA CONVENTION ET/OU DES PROTOCOLES ALLÉGUÉE(S), AINSI QUE DES ARGUMENTS À L APPUI STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT
1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 46854/2009 DATE: 29/04/2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE REPORTABLE: YES/NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 23131/03 by Mark Anthony NORWOOD
1 THE FINNISH BAR ASSOCIATION July 2005 A D V O C A T E S A C T (12 December 1958/496) Section 1 An advocate is a person who is registered in the Roll of Advocates as a member of the general Finnish Bar
CODE OF LAW PRACTICE Royal Decree No. (M/38) 28 Rajab 1422 [ 15-October 2001] Umm al-qura No. (3867) 17- Sha ban 1422-2 November 2001 PART ONE DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND ITS REQUIREMENTS Article
1 SASKATCHEWAN MEDICAL CARE INSURANCE c. S-29 The Saskatchewan Medical Care Insurance Act being Chapter S-29 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the
INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED *(Please be advised that this is a general guide only and is by no means an exhaustive summary of all criminal court hearings.
FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3145/16 J.M.N. and C.H. against Norway The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Angelika Nußberger,
BASIC GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS TAKING THEIR CASE TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS This document is a basic guide to the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the operation of
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (RAFA) Topic: Roads and Public Liability IN A CALABASH Introduction Road transportation is the major mode of transportation in South Africa. Despite a number of road laws
STATUTE OF THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL Adopted by Commonwealth Governments on 1 July 1995 and amended by them on 24 June 1999, 18 February 2004, 14 May 2005, 16 May 2007 and 28 May 2015.
Introduction to regulatory decision making and adjudication August 22, 2016 Agenda What is regulatory decision making and adjudication? The fundamental decision making sequence Our adjudicative committees
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2002 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SPARKASSE BREGENZ BANK AG and In The Matter of ASSOCIATED CAPITAL CORPORATION Appellant Respondent Before: His Lordship,
NB: Unofficial translation Ministry of Justice, Finland Criminal Procedure Act (689/1997; amendments up to 733/2015 included) Chapter 1 Right to bring a charge and the consideration of charges (670/2014)
PROPOSED NEW DISCIPLINARY BYE-LAWS: NOT IN FORCE The Institute of Chartered Accountants In Ireland Incorporated by Royal Charter 14 th May 1888 Operating as DISCIPLINARY BYE-LAWS Effective Date: [ ] NOT
Civil Procedure Code 7 Part : Arbitration Title : General Provisions Art. 5 Scope of application The provisions of this Part apply to the proceedings before arbitral tribunals based in Switzerland, unless
THE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS LAW (As amended, last amendment being on July 26, 2005) CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV CHAPTER V CHAPTER V-II CHAPTER VI GENERAL PROVISIONS CPA EXAMINATION
Consultation on a proposed Apologies (Scotland) Bill A response by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers September 2012 Introduction The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), a not-for-profit
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
FIRST SECTION CASE OF VILBORG YRSA SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. ICELAND (Application no. 32451/96) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 May 2000 In the case of Vilborg Yrsa SIGURÐARDÓTTIR v. Iceland, The European Court of Human
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL FOR EDUCATORS CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS DEFINITIONS 1. In this Code, unless the context indicates otherwise any word or phrase defined in the South African Council for Educators
ROYAL INSTITUTION OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS APPEAL PANEL HEARING Case of Mr Gregor McGill  and Gregor C. McGill & Co (firm)  Cheshire, WA2 On Friday 13 March 2015 At Warrington Village Urban
People v. Eamick. 06PDJ086. June 21, 2007. Attorney Regulation. Following a hearing, a Hearing Board publicly censured Respondent Dennis L. Eamick (Attorney Registration No. 34259) and ordered him to pay
General Insurance Conditions (GIC) Clinical Trials in Human Research Edition 2014 Translation For information only. The original wording is binding. General Insurance Conditions, clinical trials Edition
DISCIPLINARY POLICY AND PROCEDURE Date: 5 May 2015 Approved: 3 June 2015 Review date: 22 April 2018 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. NOTES OF GUIDANCE Counselling General Principles Investigation Minor Matters
Alerter Banking, Finance and Consumer Credit 3 June 2015 Summary Disposal of Unfair Relationships Claims: Axton & Axton v GE Money Mortgages Limited and another  EWHC 1343 By Judgment on appeal 1.
Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994 Act No. 68 of 1994 Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994 Section PART 1 PRELIMINARY TABLE OF PROVISIONS Division 1 Title and commencement Page 1 Short
Cooperation with the International Criminal Court Act (2002:329) Issued: 8 May 2002 Entered into force: 1 July 2002 General provisions Section 1 If the Court established under the Rome Statute of the International
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary of Proposed Florida Legislation Florida House Bill 1233 / Senate Bill 1588, the Patient Compensation System sponsored by Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Panama City, and Sen.
Prohibition of Discrimination in Working Life of People because of Disability Act (1999:132) Amendments: up to and including SFS 2006:1330 Purpose of the Act Section 1 The purpose of this Act is to combat
Statutory duty of candour with criminal sanctions Briefing paper on existing accountability mechanisms Background In calling for the culture of the NHS to become more open and honest, Robert Francis QC,
Queensland building work enforcement guidelines Achieving compliance of building work with the provisions of the Building Act 1975 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997 Effective 1 September 2002 Contents
Act CLXV of 2013 on Complaints and Public Interest Disclosures The National Assembly, committed to increasing public confidence in the functioning of public bodies, recognising the importance of complaints
Tipp FM Legal Slot 29 th May 2012 Medical Negligence John M. Lynch, Principal Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests. Firstly, what is Medical
FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AND STRIKE OUT (Articles 37-38) 8.1 Friendly Settlement 8.1.1 Introduction 8.1.2 Friendly Settlement Declaration Textbox xi Example of Friendly Settlement Declaration 8.1.3 Enforcement
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
European CourtTHE ECHR of Human RightsIN 50 QUESTIONS ENG? AN COURT OF HUM The ECHR in 50 questions This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court and does not bind the Court.
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal 119th Session Judgment No. 3451 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the fifth
STATES OF JERSEY r DRAFT MOTOR TRAFFIC (THIRD- PARTY INSURANCE) (COST RECOVERY) (JERSEY) REGULATIONS 201- Lodged au Greffe on 13th December 2012 by the Minister for Health and Social Services STATES GREFFE
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal 118th Session Judgment No. 3347 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the fourth
S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR ROBERSON MARCH, Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to certain civil actions involving negligence. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government:
ACT AMENDING THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS, INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPULSORY DISSOLUTION ACT Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Slovenia 2010 MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF SLOVENIA LEGISLATION Disclaimer:
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq. 1901. Short title This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 1902. Definitions As used in this chapter: (1) "Abandoned"
Licence Appeal Tribunal Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) Rules of Practice Revised: May 1, 2014 Disponible en français TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page 1. DEFINITIONS...
Law of the People s Republic of China on Lawyers Order of the President of the People s Republic of China No. 76 The Law of the People s Republic of China on Lawyers, revised and adopted at the 30th Meeting
Regulations for the Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) degree Adopted by the Executive Board of the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration on 26 April 2007. Changes adopted by the Executive
05/02/03 See News Release 032 for any concurrences and/or dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 03-B-0910 IN RE: HARRY E. CANTRELL, JR. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM This matter arises
Senate Bill No. 292 Senator Roberson CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to civil actions; providing immunity from civil actions for a board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of a charter school
What Does Article 2 Require in Cases of Medical Negligence or Analogous Situations? KATE GRANGE Thursday 25 th January 2007 1) Introduction 1. The aim of this paper is to consider a particular category
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES Division of Professions and Occupations Office of Speech-Language Pathology Certification 4 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS (CCR) 748-1 RULES REGULATING SPEECH-LANGUAGE
S.116 Of The Courts of Justice Act Can Defendants Impose A Structured Settlement on the Plaintiff? Robert Roth Historically, at common law, a plaintiff was not obliged to accept a structured settlement,
Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction
NB: Unofficial translation - Ministry of Justice, Finland Paternity Act (700/1975; amendments up to 379/2005 included) Chapter 1 General provisions Section 1 Scope of application of the Act The provisions
12 May 2014 Geoff Bowyer T 03 9607 9497 F 03 9607 5270 firstname.lastname@example.org Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 By Email to: email@example.com
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 June 2016 (Coordination of social security systems Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 Binding effect of medical findings) In Case E-24/15, REQUEST to the Court under Article
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal 108th Session Judgment No. 2862 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint
Principles of European Tort Law TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic Norm Art. 1:101. Basic norm (1) A person to whom damage to another is legally attributed is liable to compensate that damage. (2) Damage
Executors and Administrators Rights and Duties 1. Introduction One of the most important decisions a person must make when preparing his or her Will is who to appoint as executor or executors. An executor
3721L.01I AN ACT To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI,
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LOUIS CLAY, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral