Tiesas spriedums angļu valodā

« previous entry | next entry »
Feb. 24., 2009 | 10:26 am
posted by: stihija in pajautaa

Droši vien jautājums juristiem.

Ko tiesas spriedumā nozīmē vārdi "Holds..." un "Joins to the merits...", ja runa ir tieši par gala sprieduma pasludināšanu, Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesā. T.i., kurš termins nozīmē, ka lēmums ir par sliktu Latvijas valstij, un kurš nozīmē, ka ir par labu Latvijas valstij?

# | jā, ir doma! | Add to Memories


Comments {7}

nenopietns cilvēks

from: [info]pzrk
date: Feb. 24., 2009 - 10:55 am
#

Konteksts ir stipri par īsu. Vajag vismaz teikumu vai rindkopu.

Atbildēt | Diskusija


from: [info]stihija
date: Feb. 24., 2009 - 11:42 am
#

2. Joins to the merits the Government's preliminary objections concerning the failure to appeal against the decision of 8 September 2005 and the failure to lodge a civil action pursuant to Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

3. Declares the application admissible;

4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention;

6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


Anne

from: [info]puuce
date: Feb. 24., 2009 - 02:00 pm
#

ir pārkāpts 1KOnvencijas 6.panta 1. punkts (5.) un par to ir jāmaksā 8000 EUR + procenti.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


from: [info]stihija
date: Feb. 24., 2009 - 02:51 pm
#

tātad principā uzskatāms, ka lēmums ir par labu prasītājai un par sliktu valstij, vai ne?

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


Anne

from: [info]puuce
date: Feb. 24., 2009 - 06:45 pm
#

Vienā punktā par labu, otra punktā - par sliktu. Tas ir, vienā punktāprasība ir apmierin āta, otrā - noraidīta.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


from: [info]stihija
date: Feb. 25., 2009 - 09:04 am
#

Tātad - tie, kas sākas ar Holds, ir par labu peiprasītājai, par sliktu valstij, ja?

nu jā, paldies.

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais | Diskusija


Anne

from: [info]puuce
date: Feb. 25., 2009 - 10:13 am
#

Holds that there has been NO violation = nolemj, ka NAV pārkāpts
Holds that there has been a violation = nolemj, ka IR pārkāpts

Atbildēt | Iepriekšējais