Podcasts about Advocate general

⚖️ The long-awaited Advocate General's Opinion on FIFA's Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) has landed… but is it a definitive ruling or just another layer of confusion?In this episode of The Agents Angle, we unpack FIFA's perceived 'win', the grey areas in the AG's analysis, and what it might all mean moving forward.

⚽ From Brazil to England… with a stop-off at FIFA, this episode of The Agents Angle explores what's shaping the football agent world right now.We're joined by Luís Fernando Pamplona Novaes, a highly respected Brazilian sports lawyer at NKDPN and director of international agency N29 Football Solution - who shares expert insights into Brazil's evolving agency market, suspended regulations, the impact of Saudi football, and the need for cultural understanding.

Nick Henderson, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, responds to the opinion of the European Court of Justice's Advocate General that Ireland must provide adequate accommodation for asylum seekers.

A Clare MEP has accused the Government of an "act of desperation" in allowing a case involving asylum seekers' human rights go to the European Court Justice. The ECJ's Advocate General has issued an opinion stating that Ireland can't use lack of capacity as an excuse not to house those seeking international protection here. The High Court in Ireland had sought a ruling from the ECJ after two applicants alleged breaches of their rights after being denied housing when seeking asylum in Ireland in 2023. Scariff native, Independent MEP Michael McNamara, saying the Government's resources should be going into speeding up processing times.

Dame Eleanor Sharpston KC served as an Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union from 2006 to 2020, before being removed following Brexit. Eleanor has held academic roles at the University of Cambridge, has numerous honorary doctorates and is a Bencher at the Middle Temple. In this conversation we discuss her remarkable career and explore parallels between our different paths.

In this episode of Eyeway Conversations, George Abraham reminisces about Sadhan Gupta in conversation with his daughter, Chandriya Alam. Blind from the age of 15 months, Sadhan Gupta defied all odds. He rose to become a prominent Member of Parliament, Advocate General of West Bengal, and a dedicated trade union leader. This episode explores his remarkable journey, showcasing his resilience, his passion for social justice, and his unwavering commitment to workers' rights and disability rights. Discover how Sadhan Gupta, despite his visual impairment, lived a full and impactful life. Learn about his multifaceted career, his contributions to Indian politics, and the profound influence he had on his family and community. This is a conversation that celebrates the life of a truly remarkable individual and serves as an inspiration to all. Key Points: Sadhan Gupta's life and career: Lawyer, politician, social activist. Overcoming adversity: Living a fulfilling life despite blindness. Dedication to workers' rights, social justice, and disability rights. His profound impact on family and community. Tune in for an inspiring conversation that celebrates the life and legacy of a truly remarkable individual. Eyeway National Toll-Free Helpline:If you or someone you know with vision impairment needs guidance, contact 1-800-5320-469.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes tied to Israel's defense operations in Gaza. Why should supporters of Israel—regardless of political views—reject these accusations?  Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief Advocacy Officer, explains why the ICC's charges are not only baseless but also undermine justice, distort international law, and fuel harmful narratives following the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: with Hen Mazzig, Einat Admony, and more. People of the Pod:  What President-Elect Trump's Nominees Mean for Israel, Antisemitism, and More What the Election Results Mean for Israel and the Jewish People The Jewish Vote in Pennsylvania: What You Need to Know Go Deeper – AJC Analysis: Statement: American Jewish Committee Appalled by ICC's Issuance of Arrest Warrants Against Israelis Explainer: What You Need to Know About the ICC and the Israel-Hamas War Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. __ Transcript of Conversation with Belle Yoeli: Manya Brachear Pashman:   The International Criminal Court announced on Thursday that it issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister. You have Galant as well as Hamas terrorist Mohammed, if the Court said it had found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Galant quote, each bear criminal responsibility for starvation as a method of warfare and crimes against humanity, end quote. All tied to Israel's military operations in Gaza focused on defeating Hamas terrorists, securing the return of the 101 remaining hostages and preventing more attacks.  Here to talk about why the court is prosecuting Israel's leaders for its defense operation after the country suffered the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, and why that's dangerous, is Belle Yoeli, AJC's Chief advocacy officer. Belle, welcome to People of the Pod. Belle Yoeli:   Thanks so much, Manya. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do Belle, why have warrants been issued for Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   Right. So first and foremost, I just want to make it abundantly clear, and it really needs to be said, that this decision is absolutely outrageous. It's a gross distortion of international law and so many other things. It undermines the credibility of the court, and it fuels a lot of malicious lies about the state of Israel and its self defensive activities in Gaza since October 7. I will share the Court's reasoning for the warrants, and you alluded to it, quote, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least the eighth of October, until at least the 20th of May 2024. The court claims they found reasonable grounds that Netanyahu and Gallant, again, quote, bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others. The war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. That's the direct quote, obviously very hard to read. And of course, AJC fundamentally rejects these claims, as do the United States and many, many leading international law and warfare experts. This is just a total and complete failure of justice. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So why should supporters of Israel stand firmly against this accusation, no matter what their political views are? In other words, if they're not fans of Netanyahu, but they are ardent supporters of Israel, why should they stand firm against this?  Belle Yoeli:   Yeah, it's an important question, and we have to be clear. I mean, the court has politicized this by sort of taking this unprecedented action. But this is not about political issues, it's not about Netanyahu or Gallant. This is about the truth. This is about right and wrong, and the claims that are being made here are so outrageous and malicious. I mean, Israel is not intentionally starving Palestinian civilians or committing crimes. It just doesn't make sense.  If it were, it would not be facilitating tons and tons of aid into the Gaza Strip every day, not to mention polio vaccines. I mean, the list goes on and on. Israel, like any other country, is defending itself, and not just in Gaza against Hamas, but on seven fronts, including Hezbollah and Lebanon, against Iranian proxies.  And look, we've said it from the beginning, since Israel responded in this self defensive way, and we'll say it again: civilians die in war, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. But Israel is fighting its war in Gaza in response to Hamas' actions on October 7. It's about bringing the hostages home and preventing the ability of Hamas to attack Israeli civilians. And it's been said by many experts that Israel is conducting itself in this war in an unprecedented manner, in a positive way. And I know that's hard for people to grasp, because, again, people have died, Palestinians have died, and, yes, civilians have died, and that's terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Israel is trying to prevent civilian death and why it's fighting this war, and none of that has to do with intentionally harming civilians. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I want to back up here and talk about who is actually pressing these charges, who is actually issuing these warrants and making these accusations in this case. For people who may not be familiar or they may be confused between the International Criminal Court and another international court, the International Court of Justice, which has a separate case against Israel and is connected to the United Nations. So what is the International Criminal Court? How is it different than the ICJ? Belle Yoeli:   So you mean, not everybody is a legal scholar? It's quite confusing, and I'm grateful for my colleagues who have really helped us try to explain this to everyone, and I'll try to break it down for you as simply as I can. So the ICC is an independent, international judicial tribunal. It's based in the Hague, and it was created in 2002 by the Rome Statute.  And that's a treaty that essentially spells out what crimes this specific body, the ICC, should investigate and adjudicate when it can. And the ICC's jurisdiction is essentially that it can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. That's four categories.  And it's allowed to prosecute not just state actors, but also non-state actors. And when you think about the ICC, as colleagues have explained to me, you really are supposed to think about it as a court of last resort. So when you think about national legal systems, and respecting the right that sovereign states have their own courts and that should be respected, the ICC would step in when an important crime or a crime did not get prosecuted. That's what this body is meant for, and again, trying to respect sovereign states. Now, by contrast, the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN, the United Nations, and the ICJ is supposed to settle legal disputes between states, and it also can issue opinions upon requests by UN entities. So there are two different bodies, two very different purposes. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So is Israel a member of the ICC? Belle Yoeli:   So Israel is not a member of the ICC. And this is actually sort of interesting. Israel was involved in drafting the Rome Statute that I mentioned, that created the ICC, that treaty. But things got a little complicated, which is not so surprising when you hear why. Essentially, the ICC, as we discussed, was intended to focus on these most heinous crimes, right?  But eventually the entity was urged by several Arab countries, and the majority of the countries that are party to the ICC agreed, to add as one of the categories of things that can be investigated and prosecuted, the transfer of civilians into occupied territory. And so if you hear that, I'm sure a ping goes off, obviously based on Israel and its situation and dynamics in the region. Israel took this as a sign that countries were aiming to distort the purpose of the body and really to try to just prosecute Israelis for actions in the West Bank, for example. So it ended up refraining from joining. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So now, countries cannot be prosecuted by the ICC, right? I mean, I understand that Israel as a country can't be prosecuted, but Israelis can be, and that's why the warrants issued named Netanyahu and Gallant. Belle Yoeli:   So technically, the body is supposed to go after individuals. But the question here, of the warrants is about jurisdiction, right? And clearly there's a disagreement. The Israelis, the United States and others have said that the ICC has no jurisdiction over, you know, for the warrants they've issued. And AJC agrees.  The Palestinians and actually, the court itself have said that it's based on certain technicalities which are actually quite complicated, and you can read about in our explainer on our website about this subject, that there is jurisdiction. But for me, the thing that is most clear here is that as we reference, Israel has a strong, independent judiciary, and even when it comes to the conflict. Most recent conflicts is October 7, Israel's own military Advocate General has in fact, opened dozens of investigations into incidents.  So when you consider the fact that Israel has a mechanism for investigating things that are happening in Gaza, that in itself, should tell everyone that the ICC has no jurisdiction here based on its own treaty. So yes, these warrants were issued, but from our perspective, there's really no jurisdiction. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so would you say the fog of war makes this almost impossible to adjudicate, or is this, in your eyes, an open and shut case? Is it abundantly clear that Israeli leaders have avoided committing these crimes they're accused of? Belle Yoeli:   So, I mean, to me, it's open and shut for a few reasons, right? We've mentioned them. One, the ICC has no jurisdiction. Two, the claims are, of the crimes are, are false and really offensive. And, you know, there is, of course, this phrase, the fog of war, and there's always fog in war. But this is really not what it's about. The travesty in all of this is that Israel does so much in an unprecedented environment that shows that the claims that are being made are untrue.  So, yes, the technicalities, yes, there's no jurisdiction. The claims are offensive. But it's more than that. This is so clearly being politicized, because, yes, people are upset about what's happening and the conflict, and we understand that the entire world is reacting, but it's just not true. It's just about truth here, and what the court is suggesting is simply not true, and really targeting Israel in a way that is against justice and is really unheard of. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So here in America, we are amid a leadership transition. Has the response differed between the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration? Belle Yoeli:   So from what we've seen so far, I mean, the Biden administration and incoming administration officials from the Trump administration have both spoken out and both rejected the decision outright. You'll see, and I think we'll see in the coming days, there are differences of opinion also in Congress about how to deal with this action. And this been, this has been in conversation, you know, discussion for months when this was first raised, that this could possibly happen, questions around sanctions and different actions that can be taken. But I think we'll know a lot more about concrete potential proposals and next steps in the coming days. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And what about the international community? Belle Yoeli:   You know, it's interesting, at this point, when we're as of this recording, the international response has actually been quite muted, and I think that's because countries are trying to balance upholding the respect for the court and the idea of the court and its jurisdiction with this really outrageous decision that I think many of them know is is false and wrong and has really bad implications for what the court is meant to do. You know, some have been quite clear. Just to name a few, Argentina and Paraguay spoke out forcefully. Some responses have been a bit more murky. I think, trying to thread that needle that I mentioned, like the United Kingdom had a pretty murky response. And actually, the EU high representative who's thankfully on his way out, Joseph Burrell, really fully embraced the decision in a sort of grotesque way. But this isn't new for him. He's fairly problematic on these types of issues. So we'll see how other countries react. You know, more things are in play, and I'm sure Israel and the United States are having close conversations with allies. I think the US even alluded to that, and we'll have a better sense of what's to come soon. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And so what does this mean for Israel and for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war? Belle Yoeli:   I mean, I don't have a crystal ball. I can say, look, it remains to be seen what will happen next. I think countries who are party to the ICC need to do the right thing. They need to reject the jurisdiction and really refuse to enforce the warrants. That's the most important piece here. That's what we're hoping to see.  I think we'll see that international pressure likely be applied by the United States and others. But the bigger picture here, I mean, again, it speaks to the travesty that I spoke about before. It's this larger attempt to delegitimize Israel and really discredit and slander Israel, I would even go so far to say, is just unjust, and it fuels all of the disinformation that we're seeing.  And what does that lead to? It leads to hate. It leads to hate against Israelis, and let's be honest, it puts Jews around the world at risk at a time when there's already surging antisemitism. This isn't new. Look at what happened in Amsterdam.  So more broadly, this just, this hits. This is an issue and so problematic in so many ways, and it just, it does so much harm and the ideals of democracy and the ideas of justice, it's really unprecedented and unforgivable. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do you think it gets in the way of bringing the hostages home? Belle Yoeli:   Unfortunately, the reality is that it's been difficult enough as it is to bring the hostages home, and we just haven't seen movement in negotiations. And obviously we're praying for that every day. I couldn't tell you how this will impact that. I don't, I don't see an immediate connection. I think, look, we need to be clear that every action like this contributes to a feeling in Israel of already, sort of, as they say in conflict negotiation or resolution speak. like a siege mentality, right? Israelis feel under attack. The government likely feels under attack, and so it certainly doesn't help when Israel is trying to defend itself, to carry out war and to bring the hostages home, it certainly doesn't help, but how it will affect actual negotiations, I couldn't say. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Belle, thank you so much for sharing your insights and trying to explain this to our listeners. Belle Yoeli:   Thank you so much for having me.    

In his remarks to the IIEA, Anthony Michael Collins, Former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reflects upon his time at the Court. As the rule of law in Europe faces increased challenges, Mr Collins discusses the importance of the Court for European citizens, and offers his perspective on the future of the CJEU. About the Speaker: Anthony Michael Collins is a former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (2021-2024). In October 2024, he was nominated by the Government of Ireland to serve as a Judge at the Court of Appeal. Prior to his role as Advocate-General, he served as a Judge at the General Court of the European Union from 2013 to 2021, where he was elected President of Chamber for two terms starting in September 2016. Mr Collins is President of the Irish Centre for European Law, an Adjunct Professor of Law at University College Cork, and a Bencher of the Honourable Society of King's Inns.

Become a Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Get our free Weekly Rundown newsletter and be the first to hear about breaking news and offers:https://nomadcapitalist.com/email Join us for the next Nomad Capitalist Live event: https://nomadcapitalist.com/live/ In this episode, we explain the battle Malta is fighting with the European Union over its citizenship program and cover an opinion issued by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in favor of Malta. Mr. Henderson also delves into what makes Malta's passport program so unique and what types of entrepreneurs and investors it is suited for. Nomad Capitalist helps clients "go where you're treated best." We are the world's most sought-after firm for offshore tax planning, dual citizenship, international diversification, and asset protection. We use legal and ethical strategies and work exclusively with seven- and eight-figure entrepreneurs and investors. We create and execute holistic, multi-jurisdictional Plans that help clients keep more of their wealth, increase their personal freedom, and protect their families and wealth against threats in their home country. No other firm offers clients access to more potential options to relocate to, bank in, or become a citizen of. Because we do not focus only on one or a handful of countries, we can offer unbiased advice where others can't. Become Our Client: https://nomadcapitalist.com/apply/ Our Website: http://www.nomadcapitalist.com/ About Our Company: https://nomadcapitalist.com/about/ Buy Mr. Henderson's Book: https://nomadcapitalist.com/book/ DISCLAIMER: The information in this episode should not be considered tax, financial, investment, or any kind of professional advice. Only a professional diagnosis of your specific situation can determine which strategies are appropriate for your needs. Nomad Capitalist can and does not provide advice unless/until engaged by you.

This special episode features UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in conversation with Professor Katerina Linos and Temple Law Professor Mark Pollack introducing a wider audience to the European Union Court of Justice and a special series of Linos' “Borderlines” podcast on the court.Together, these three leading legal educators introduce listeners to the form and function of the EUCJ and contrast its civil law history and consensus methodology with the U.S. common law heritage utilizing dissenting opinions. Learn about the court's traditions, scope, and unique Advocate General role, get a glimpse behind the scenes of the massive EU caseload, and compare fundamentals like sovereignty over states, the role of voting in chambers, and balancing accessibility and privacy.“Borderlines" features exclusive content with the world's leading international law experts. Check out recent interviews with former ICJ President Donoghue and ICC President Hofmański. About:More Just from Berkeley Law is a podcast about how law schools can and must play a role in solving society's most difficult problems. The rule of law — and the role of the law — has never been more important. In these difficult times, law schools can, and must, play an active role in finding solutions. But how? Each episode of More Just starts with a problem, then explores potential solutions, featuring Dean Erwin Chemerinsky as well as other deans, professors, students, and advocates, about how they're making law schools matter.Have a question about teaching or studying law, or a topic you'd like Dean Chemerinsky to explore? Email us at morejust@berkeley.edu and tell us what's on your mind. Production by Yellow Armadillo Studios. Please visit the episode page for a full transcript. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CBI gets a win, but the EU's watching. CBI firms should prioritize transparency and prepare for more oversight and scrutiny.View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.

Advocate General Collins proposed that the court “dismiss the Commission's action” against Malta and order it to pay Malta's legal fees.View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. Follow us on Youtube: www.youtube.com/@IASCompanion In today's lecture, we will discuss the Attorney General and the Advocate General. The Attorney General of India: Article 76 of the Constitution establishes the Attorney General (AG) as the chief legal advisor to the Government of India. Appointed by the President, the AG must be qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. The Advocate General of the State: Article 165 provides for the Advocate General, the highest law officer in a state. Appointed by the Governor, the Advocate General must be qualified to be a high court judge and serves at the Governor's pleasure. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

Welcome back to THE IAS COMPANION. The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary system for both the Centre and states, detailing the state executive in Part VI (Articles 153-167), which includes the Governor, Chief Minister, Council of Ministers, and Advocate General. The Governor is the nominal executive head of a state and an agent of the central government. Appointed by the President, the Governor is not elected. One person can serve as Governor for multiple states. A Governor must be an Indian citizen and at least 35 years old. Customarily, the Governor is not from the state of appointment, and the President consults the state's Chief Minister. The term is five years, subject to the President's pleasure, and can be extended until a successor assumes office. The Governor's powers include appointing key state officials, recommending President's Rule, acting as Chancellor of state universities, summoning and dissolving the state legislature, and promulgating ordinances. They also ensure the state budget is presented and can grant pardons and appoint judicial officers. The Governor has discretionary powers such as reserving bills for the President, recommending President's Rule, and appointing the Chief Minister in a hung assembly. They have special responsibilities in certain states for regional development and law and order. #UPSC #IASprep #civilserviceexam #IASexamination #IASaspirants #UPSCjourney #IASexam #civilservice #IASgoals #UPSC2024 #IAS2024 #civilservant #IAScoaching #aUPSCmotivation #IASmotivation #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity #UPSCpreparation #IASpreparation #UPSCguide #IASguide #UPSCtips #IAStips #UPSCbooks #IASbooks #UPSCexamstrategy #IASexamstrategy #UPSCmentorship #IASmentorship #UPSCcommunity #IAScommunity --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theiascompanion/message

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century'. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU's capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe's Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) and Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS. Abstract: On 18 September 2023 the Group of 12 Experts from both France and Germany released their proposal ‘Sailing on High Seas: Reforming and Enlarging the EU for the 21st Century'. The Group make two proposals on the Rule of Law and five further proposals for institutional reform. Overall, the Group had three objectives to increase the EU's capacity to act, to get the institutions ready for enlargement and strengthen democratic legitimacy and rule of law. This resulted in a series of proposals for inter alia treaty change. The proposals are all on a continuum but largely aim for reform rather than a recreation of the European Union. They align with other reform proposals and at times take up proposals that were made for EU reform in the past or indeed discussed during the EU Constitutional convention process in the early 2000s. The objective here was clearly reformation rather than revolution. This conversation discusses some of the individual reform proposals in the context of the practice of the Court of Justice – could these proposal mean the beginning of 'Europe's Second Constitution'?For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion' in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d'Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d'assistance aux bêtes d'abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.For more information see:https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this episode, Visualising Peace researcher Harris Siderfin interviews Lord Jim Wallace, Baron Wallace of Tankerness, about his career and the relationship between peace and politics in the UK.Lord Wallace is a Scottish Liberal Democrat politician with a long career of service in the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the House of Lords, where he has been a life peer since 2007. He has held various ministerial positions during his time in government, including Deputy First Minister of Scotland, acting First Minister twice, Justice Minister and Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Minister. He trained initially in law, and in addition to his political career he is an advocate and member of the King's Council. He served as Advocate General for Scotland between 2010 and 2015, and he was Deputy Leader of the House of Lords from 2013 to 2015. He stood down as leader of the Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords in 2016 but retains an interest in human rights and constitutional affairs. Among other roles, he served as Moderator of the General Assembly of Scotland in 2021.In the episode, Lord Wallace reflects on his long career in politics and on the various ways in which he has seen politics and peacemaking intersect over that time. He reflects on the lack of political interest in solving conflict in Northern Ireland prior to John Major's premiership; on political debates about the first and second Gulf Wars, the renewal of Trident (as a nuclear deterrent), the UK's response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria; and on the limited discussions in Westminster about ways to address conflict in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia.  Lord Wallace is clear that peace is not as high a priority in political debates and campaigning as many other issues, and also that political understanding and discussion of peace-making (as opposed to peace-keeping) is somewhat lacking.Lord Wallace and Harris consider positive steps forward: for instance, more attention paid to justice, equality, mental health, climate change, poverty and discrimination, as key aspects of peacebuilding. Reflecting on his own faith, Lord Wallace also talks about the role that different religions and religious leaders can play in promoting peace both at home and abroad. Several times the conversation also turns to connections between democracy, debate and peacebuilding, with Lord Wallace stressing that increasingly combative, polarising modes of political discussion are driving more conflict. This ties into some work which the Visualising Peace team is doing on connections between peacebuilding and Responsible Debate (as outlined in the Young Academy of Scotland's Responsible Debate Charter).  We hope you find the discussion interesting. For a version of our podcast with close captions, please use this link. For more information about individuals and their projects, please visit the University of St Andrews' Visualising War website.Music composed by Jonathan YoungSound mixing by Harris Siderfin and Zofia Guertin

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues' with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve' (and, if so, in what direction).For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is a court that speaks through a single judgment, and that ‘dialogues' with its Advocates General without ever saying quite what that dialogue means. What is the reader to make of the interplay between the individual opinion of the advocate general and the collective decision of the judges? The final seminar in the series asks some questions, suggests some partial answers, and invites reflection on whether the current arrangements should ‘evolve' (and, if so, in what direction).For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner?For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speakers: João Vale de Almeida, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the United Kingdom (2020-2022) and Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The UK and EU relationship has not been straight forward since Brexit but since Rishi Sunak became Prime Minister a certain amount of pragmatism has prevailed. Meanwhile, the European Union is facing significant geo-political challenges – not least the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Does it have capacity to think about these broader issues? The Ukraine conflict has led to much deeper thinking about enlargement of the EU, not just for Ukraine but also the Baltic states. The question of Europe of concentric circles has been raised again. What might a Europe of concentric circles mean for the accession and neighbourhood countries? What else can be done to improver relations with our closest trading partner?For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you're reading really mean.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: A common complaint of common lawyers is that the way in which CJEU judgments are written is abstract and obscure. The criticism is levelled most notably at judgments that reply to requests for a preliminary ruling from national courts. Once you understand about language and the Court, there are a lot of hidden clues, if you only know where to look for them. This second seminar is designed to help you squeeze the maximum information out of the text, and alert you to what those formulae you're reading really mean.For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

Speaker: Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024) Abstract: The CJEU is unique in having 24 equally valid languages of procedure, plus an informal and unofficial working language (French) which is not necessarily spoken by as great a percentage of staff members in 2023 as it was when the Court was first set up by the original six founding Member States. What does running a 24-language court mean in theory and in practice? How does the diversity of language – and indeed of legal tradition (in the sense of how legal argument is presented) – impact upon the way the CJEU functions, how it handles its caseload, and how it writes its judgments? For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series

In this world you and I will encounter temptations to sin, this condition is common to all of us; none are exempt from these temptations. These temptations may be overt or covert, anywhere from sexual sin to being proud in heart. But as believers in Christ, we have a Savior who will show us how to escape temptations to sin. He is our Advocate General and He shows us through the Word of God how to overcome. +++++++ You can find more information on my website: https://pastorjohndunning.com/ You can hear my personal testimony on this website: https://www.ifyouonlyknew.life/

What does the EU's Advocate General's non-binding ruling mean for the future of the European Super League? Does it spell the end for Juventus, Real Madrid and Barcelona's efforts to revive the project? Nima Tavallaey and Carlo Garganese discuss.This is an extended clip from this week's Thursday episode of The Italian Football Podcast which is only available for patrons on Patreon.com/TIFPTo listen to ALL complete episodes of The Italian Football Podcast, go to Patreon.com/TIFP and become a Patron for only $2.99 USD per month (excluding VAT).Follow us: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Former Real Madrid President Ramon Calderon speaks to Roger Hearing after Uefa and Fifa receive significant backing in their battle to block the creation of a European Super League. The European Court of Justice's Advocate General said the rules of football's European and world governing bodies were "compatible with EU competition law". A final ruling will be made by a 15-member Grand Chamber next spring. Tens of thousands of nurses in the state-run National Health Service are staging a strike in Northern Ireland, Wales and England in a dispute about pay. We find out why and whether there's a wider difference between public and private sector pay deals. Plus airports close in Peru as a result of the protests there.

From France's chances of becoming the first country to win back-to-back FIFA World Cup's since 1962, Didier Deschamps greatness as a tactician should he become first coach since Italy's Vittorio Pozzo to win back-to-back World Cups, to Roma's José Mourinho linked with Portugal job, and what the EU's Advocate General's non-binding ruling means for the future of European Super League and much more, as Carlo and Nima discuss it all.This is a teaser from the Thursday episode of the Italian Football Podcast.To listen to this & all other full episodes of The Italian Football Podcast, go to Patreon.com/TIFP to become a Patron for only $2.99 USD per month (excluding VAT).Follow us: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

In this episode of Welcome To Fatherhood Interviews, Sir Royce Briales and Dr. Raheem Young talk to General Parker- Father, Son, Brother, Retired Boilermaker talk about his work in fatherhood advocacy and his struggle with the child support system. Thanks for listening and be well, You already are! ****Hall of Fame**** What does Fatherhood mean to you, General? The world! General/'s advice to any dad: Don't become one until we change this court system. Get in contact with General Parker gparker326@gmail.com www.allofusirnone.org Get connected with Welcome to Fatherhood: WTF Linktr.ee --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/wtf-interviews/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/wtf-interviews/support

On 5 May, 2022, a selection of Lund University's honorary doctors from 2020 and 2021 met to discuss the role of science in society. Never before has the university gathered honorary doctors in this way for an interdisciplinary and popular science panel discussion. What do we really mean by the role of science in society? How much room can and should science take? How has the role of science in society developed? Participants: Thomas Henning, professor of astrophysics, Faculty of Science Ernest Aryeetey, professor of development economics, Faculty of Social Sciences Penelope J.E. Davies, professor of history of art, Faculty of Humanities Tuhina Neogi, professor of medicine and epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine Sylvaine Laulom, Advocate General, Faculty of Law Gary McPherson, professor of music education, Faculty of Fine & Performing Arts Moderator: Lisa Kirsebom, science journalist. Photo: Kennet Ruona. Recorded on 5 May 2022 at Palaestra, Lund.

On Monday 21 February, the Review of Democracy and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law co-hosted an event on the Court of Justice of the EU's judgment on the budget conditionality regulation. An article co-authored by two of the panelists,'Linking Money to Values - the New Rule of Law Regulation and its Constitutional Challenges', was cited by the Advocate General in the Opinion for the case. In this podcast, Oliver Garner and one of those co-authors, Professor Antonia Baraggia (Associate Professor in the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law at the University of Milan), discuss the judgment and conditionality as a constitutional tool in more detail.

How simple should it be to take interim measures against the other party to a case? In these employment law proceedings this question is considered in the context of EU law and we also think about the imbalance of power between employers and employees. https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe Music from bensound.com

Two bills from the Scottish Parliament are questioned before the Supreme Court for fear that they go beyond the legislative competence of Holyrood. Music from bensound.com https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe

Nicole Scott is the Managing Partner at NMS Family Law Firm in Illinois. Nicole is a Family Law Practitioner, currently servicing the Chicagoland area. She graduated from Philadelphia University with my Bachelors of Science in Law and Society. While attending Philadelphia University, she interned for Councilman Curtis Jones Jr., of the 4th District and she worked for Kane and Silverman, P.C. While attending John Marshall, she interned for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, externed for the Honorable Judge Lionel Jean- Baptiste who resides in the Domestic Relations Division in Cook County, worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless as an Alvin H. Baum Fellow and she most recently worked as a senior law clerk at Schiller DuCanto and Fleck, LLP (the largest firm that practices solely family law in the nation). As far as school involvement goes, she was on the executive board for The Glenn T. Johnson chapter of the Black Law Students Association. There, she was the Advocate General, and her role involved being the face of community service and community relations for the group. She was also an Executive Board Member of the Journal for Information Technology and Privacy Law serving as Communications/Business Editor. Through all, she was able to maintain her position at the top of my class and graduated Cum Laude. Learn from her expertise and what trends are helping grow her firm on this episode of The Managing Partners Podcast! —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

This episode reviewed the “McGee Case” (1973), in which Mary McGee, a 27-year-old mother of four, took a case against the Attorney General and the Revenue Commissioners, in Ireland, because at that time, she could not get access to contraceptives.  This case was selected by, Gerard Hogan, S.C., a leading Irish lawyer, author, and academic who provided the commentary and analysis.  It must be pointed out that Gerard Hogan's career advanced significantly, in the legal world, since the recording of his observations and contribution in 2005. Having served in the High Court and Court of Appeal, he was Ireland's appointee as Advocate General to the European Court of Justice, in 2018 and, in 2021, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan was appointed to the Irish Supreme Court.

Facts in Brief In this case, transfer of a Criminal Trial from the Court at Salem (Tamil Nadu) to Patiala House Court, New Delhi, was sought by the Petitioner. A private complaint was filed before a Magistrate in respect of illegal use of a Trademark and in the said Criminal Trial, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, and the matter was fixed for appearance of the accused. Some civil suits were also filed in the said trademark dispute matter by the Respondents and the same were transferred by the Supreme Court from Salem to Delhi in the year 2018. Provision of Law Involved 406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney- General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney- General of India or the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Grounds of the Petitioner 1. Point involved in the Criminal Case is similar to one in the Civil Suits that are now being contested under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. 2. Proceedings in Salem are conducted in Tamil language that the Petitioner does not understand. 3. It would be more convenient for both the parties if the criminal matter is also heard in Delhi. 4. There is a distance of 2000 km from Salem to Petitioner's place of residence at Indore (MP) and there is no direct connectivity between two places. 5. The case of Mridum M. Damle v. CBI, (2012) 5 SCC 706, was also cited to buttress the submission that when a number of witnesses are gravely inconvenienced due to large distance between their place of residence and the place of trial, then there could be deleterious effects on the conduct of the trial and in such cases, a criminal case may be transferred. 6. Respondents have influence in Salem and there is apprehension that the Petitioner may not a fair Trial at Salem. Grounds of the Respondents 1. There is delay by the Petitioner in approaching the Supreme Court as the Trial that commenced in the year 2018 has already reached the stage of leading of evidence. 2. Personal appearance of the Petitioner in the Criminal Trial has been dispensed with by the Trial Court at Salem. 3. A criminal case cannot be equated and mixed with a civil case. And there is no bar in law that civil and criminal proceedings cannot go on simultaneously. 4. The case of Umesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 845, was cited to argue that mere apprehension that the Petitioner would not get a fair trial at Salem is not enough and he must bring credible evidence or material to support his contention. No such material or evidence has been brought by the Petitioner in the present case. Held by the Court 1. Even if it is conceded that the civil cases would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case, yet the same would not justify the transfer. And two different judicial fora are hearing the civil and criminal cases respectively. 2. Substantial progress has been made in the criminal case. 3. The apprehensions and allegations of the Petitioner do not show any unjust influence of the Respondents in respect of the criminal case at Salem. Therefore, the Petitioner's case of having a possible tainted trial is unfounded. 4. Problem in understanding the language is in itself not a ground for transfer of a case. It may be a weighing factor when the decision to transfer has already been taken by the Court. 5. Power under Section 406 of CrPC to transfer a case is to be sparingly used and cannot be exercised on mere apprehensions of one of the parties. 6. If the Court hearing a case has jurisdiction to hear the matter, then grounds such as unfamiliarity with the language of the Court cannot be a ground for transfer. Aid of translator could be sought in this regard. 7. Convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for transfer and powers under Section 406 of CrPC can be exercised only when it is “expedient for the ends of justice.” The present case is not the one. 8. The case of Mridul M. Damle (supra) is of no help to the Petitioner as in that case, 88 out of 92 witnesses were from different parts of Maharashtra and it was difficult for them to travel to Delhi. 9. The Court cited the case of Rajesh Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 217, wherein it was held that often one of the parties have to travel in a case to reach the court and if the plea of inconvenience is accepted every time, then the contents of Section 406 of CrPC would have no meaning left. It was further stated that “convenience or inconvenience are inconsequential so far as the mandate of law is concerned.” 10. Therefore, the Transfer Petition was dismissed. Concluding Remarks Section 406 of CrPC shall come into effect only when it is expedient for the ends of justice. But what is justice? I think in terms of Section 406 of CrPC, justice would mean anything that does not lead to some serious financial disadvantage or evidence regarding possibility of a mistrial or loss of rights or other such issues, to any of the parties. If the mere location of a Court is leading to any of the above, then it would not be expedient for the ends of justice to continue the criminal trial at such a place. Suppose a person is hand to mouth and he is asked to travel long distances, then I think that it would be a travesty of justice in such a case and the case must be transferred in order to do justice to such a person. In the present case, the parties were well-off. Both of them had engaged Senior Advocates and the dispute between them had commercial origins. Further, the Petitioner failed to bring on record any evidence that would justify his apprehensions of not having a fair Trial. I concur with the reasoning of the Court that issues like language and convenience are quite trivial in nature when it comes to transfer of cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure has granted jurisdiction to a particular criminal court to hear and try the matter. Such jurisdiction cannot be taken away so lightly. There must be cogent reasons for doing so. Further, equating civil and criminal cases is never a good idea. Both of them have different courts, different grounds, different procedure and different law that governs them. Just because a criminal matter and a civil matter stem from the same subject-matter, that by itself cannot mean that a transfer of criminal case to the place of the civil case would be justified. Wealthy parties waste a fortune in contesting such frivolous simply because of petty ego issues. I consider such kind of litigation wasteful, not for the advocates but for the parties themselves. I feel that lack of efficacious and speedy modes of alternate dispute resolution is one of the reasons for litigating for the sake of litigating. People think that they can achieve anything with the help of law, but they cannot for law takes its own course and take into consideration the larger picture.

In this episode, we touch on the recent opinion by the EU's Advocate General in regards to the EU's Blocking Statute that runs up against US sanctions on Iran and Cuba.

Court didn't go well last week for 2 out of 3 PC residents, Alexis is in jail! Jason is in jail! Marty defends himself. Valentin gets in deeper. Brook Lynn is lying about a baby! Maxie is lying about a baby! Will their lies become ONE? We dunno. Join us as Matt & Kat jabber on for an hour about ABC's General Hospital! 

Messianic Concert Violinist, Maurice Sklar, joins Sharon and Philip to describe a very significant experience he had in December of 2018. He was summoned to the Courtroom of Heaven as a recorder of an end-time proceeding. Satan declared that it was his time to take over the earth and demanded his rights be given to him. But Jesus Christ, our Advocate General, presented a document that had been hidden from the beginning of time. https://sklarministries.com/  https://www.facebook.com/mauricesklar  https://globaloutpouring.com/ CONNECT ON SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook https://www.facebook.com/GOGlobalOutpouring/ Find us on Facebook and Instagram @GOGlobalOutpouring and on Twitter @Global_Outpour Instagram https://instagram.com/goglobaloutpouring?igshid=b72ar1wr39e7 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoOlbvsSkM4SIJGOyPSYprg

Coming up in this week's episode: GDPR compliance when working from home during Covid-19 lockdown, GDPR changes continue after the end of Brexit transition, Capital Business Media relocates to Ireland to avoid UK-EU data transfers, Leave.EU moves to Ireland and faces calls for investigations into GDPR breaches, Advocate General CJEU pronouncement in Facebook case may have widespread implications, Soft Opt-in - when can it be used and what limitations, United Nations data breach, German laptop retailer fined for excessive staff and customer video surveillance, Colorado Covid-19 data breach, UK Police National Computer (PNC) data breach

Pastor Larry ministers in Minot Thursday evening.

Follow The MirYam Institute Twitter: https://bit.ly/3jkeUyxFollow Benjamin Anthony Twitter: https://bit.ly/3hZeOe9Like Benjamin Anthony Facebook: https://bit.ly/333Ct93Like The MirYam Institute Facebook: https://bit.ly/2SarHI3Follow Benjamin Anthony Instagram: https://bit.ly/30m6uPGFollow The MirYam Institute Instagram: https://bit.ly/3l5fvEDSupport the show (https://www.miryaminstitute.org/donate)

Constitutional courts are under attack in many countries in Europe and beyond. Why? And why now? What can be done to protect them, and what are the most important conditions for constitutional courts to function? These are the questions we discuss in the first episode of our new podcast with three guests, two of them former constitutional judges with first-hand experience on these matters, and one a scholar who has written an outstanding book on the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. STANISLAW BIERNAT was the Vice President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal while the government launched its takeover campaign against the court. PEDRO CRUZ VILLALON, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, was a Judge at and President of the Spanish Constitutional Court, which has suffered greatly in recent years in the Catalan secession drama. MICHAELA HAILBRONNER is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Gießen and an expert on the probably most influential constitutional court in Europe, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht.

Suella Braverman is a barrister, MP and Brexiteer. In February 2020 she was appointed to the role of Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland. This week she found herself in the headlines after sending a tweet in support of Dominic Cummings, a senior government adviser caught travelling across the country during lock down. Edward Stourton profiles the minister for Fareham and government's chief legal adviser. Producer: Sandra Kanthal, Vivien Jones Editor: Penny Murphy

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”. In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission. In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix. Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’ As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”. While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

MirYam's podcasts are uploaded for your listening pleasure and convenience.Taking the form of speeches, interviews, conversations and debates, our podcasts are an ideal means for you to join the conversation wherever you are.Support the show (https://www.miryaminstitute.org/donate)

After more than 30 years as an Advance Care Paramedic, Kerry is now working on health navigation, advocacy and disruption. She is disrupting the status quo with new innovation in coaching/teaching people on how to ask the tough questions in our fractured healthcare system, plan for their own health future, being an active collaborator with their health and creating new support systems for caregivers who are the unrecognized heros of health. Lucca and Rebecca explore Kerry's journey both professional and personal, and hear stories of transformation!

Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.  

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Dr. John Ackerman, professor of Constitutional Law at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), researcher at the Legal Research Institute of UNAM, and editorial director of the Mexican Law Review.Mexico’s new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador was inaugurated on Saturday and began his six year term with a press conference--something unusual for Mexican presidents. He promised to bring what he called “deep and radical change” in his fight against crime, and he even held a meeting with his national security team at 6:00 am today, something he said would happen daily. López Obrador said that he has a “respectful” relationship with President Trump, but it promises to turn rocky in negotiations over migrants and a border wall. And, Obrador has proposed sweeping changes to the country’s economic policy to break from neoliberalism. Tuesday’s weekly series is False Profits—A Weekly Look at Wall Street and Corporate Capitalism with Daniel Sankey. Financial policy analyst Daniel Sankey joins the show. French Prime Minister Edouard Phillippe announced this morning that the fuel tax that set off rioting around the country will be suspended for six months. The yellow vest protests have grown to include other issues, however, reflecting widespread anger at President Macron for his failure to implement reforms. Brian and John speak with Gilbert Mercier, editor in chief of News Junkie Post and the author of “The Orwellian Empire.” Former President George H. W. Bush died over the weekend at the age of 94. His body now lies in state in the US Capitol and a funeral will take place tomorrow. The hosts look at the Bush presidency and the Bush legacy each day this week, focusing on a different issue. Today is about his role in the coup that overthrew Haiti’s democratically elected government in 1991. Kim Ives, an editor of the newspaper Haïti Liberté, joins the show. The European Court of Justice’s Advocate General delivered a non-binding opinion yesterday that the UK could arbitrarily cancel its decision to withdraw from the European Union if it so chose. The decision comes as the House of Commons begins a week of debate on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit plan, and Parliament found the government in contempt this morning for not issuing Brexit advice. Steve Hedley, the senior assistant general secretary of the the UK’s Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers Union, joins Brian and John. Israel’s military says that it has begun an operation to destroy what it calls “cross border attack tunnels” under its border with Lebanon dug by Hezbollah operatives. An Israeli government spokesman said the tunnels had only recently been detected and they will be destroyed without having to cross the border into Lebanon. But is this in fact motivated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s legal and political problems at home? Miko Peled, the author of “The General’s Son - A Journey of an Israeli in Palestine” and "Injustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five,” joins the show.Nexstar Media Group announced this morning that it will buy Tribune Corporation’s 42 television stations and cable network in an all-cash $4.1 billion deal. An earlier takeover attempt by Sinclair Media was blocked by the Federal Communications Commission. If approved, the company will own more than 200 television stations covering 39 percent of all American households. Brian and John speak with Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press.

What does it mean to be British? The legal answer is not as simple as you might think. For years citizenship by descent could only be passed down the male line and in this case the Supreme Court grapples with Parliament's attempt to correct the discrimination in the British Nationality Acts. In this episode we also discuss how the Justices engage with Parliament and how the concept of nationality is at a crossroads in 2018. Music from bensound.com

The Supreme Court has opened up British citizenship by double descent to all children born to British women in non-Commonwealth countries between 1949 and 1983. Delivering a judgment which makes no attempt to disguise his academic interests as a historian, Lord Sumption delivered a simple solution to a question of statutory interpretation that has been described as “impenetrable” by the leading authority on nationality law (with whom the Inner House agreed) and “paradoxical” by the Supreme Court. The case is Advocate General for Scotland v Romein [2018] UKSC 6. Historical gender discrimination British nationality law was from its inception until 1983 discriminatory towards women. Prior to 1983, British citizenship could...

The financial dealings of Rangers Football Club have been subject to a great deal of scrutiny in the recent past and in this case the Supreme Court focused on one particular aspect of the way that the club was run. When a footballer signed for the club they were offered the chance to avoid paying income tax by using a complicated trust mechanism. In this episode we unpack that mechanism and consider the legal arguments that allowed the system to be abused. Music from bensound.com

RFC 2012 Plc Appellant V Advocate General For Scotland Respondent by Timur Boltaev

Nick’s review of three recent cases covers the significant litigation involving equal pay claims against a private sector employer, the ambit of the ACAS early conciliation procedure and the Advocate General’s opinion on a dress code banning clothing associated with a religion or belief. To follow Nick on Twitter, please go to Nicholas Robertson@NicholasRober11 to receive links to all the cases mentioned.

Hey people, welcome back! This episode has a slight difference in tone to the others, we are mainly focused on one topic throughout (hard to believe I know!). That topic? Well it's THE topic for vapers right now, advocacy and the damned foolish regulations that are being imposed on the sale, distribution and manufacture of vape products. We mainly focus on the EU regulations (as that's what effect us most), but please do make sure you check out whats happening in your corner of the world as it's grim all over, fucking 1984 is here man!! :P Key points of discussion include 100Thousdand campaign, an upcoming protest march in London, and the always informative and excellently articulate Clive Bates and his look at the AG decision on the Totaly Wicked E-Liquid case against Article 20 of the TPD. This as I said a slight change of tone, and apologies I kind of dominate, when I get ranty I get ranty :P Also I pull apart a letter I received from my local MP Lucy Fraser, to which I will be responding and keeping you all up to date with. Plus: Guest appearance from my cat Yuki PayPal and Bitcoin Bloodbowl and our first non losses Marvel Heros 2016 Please send any correspondence you have had from local officials regarding vaping restrictions where you are (so we can mock/praise accordingly), as well as comments and feedback to ramblingvapers@gmail.com Links: VAPERS STAND UNITED: Protest, 19th March, Parliament Square, London - https://www.facebook.com/events/997773430314802/ Vaper? Living in the UK? Show your support and hopefully see you there! 100Thousdand Campaign - http://100thousand.com/ These guys are doing fantastic work, please at least sign their petition, it's on our Advocacy page and check out their site. Clive Bates: http://www.clivebates.com/ This my friends is a true stalwart of vaping, please do have read of his blog, his articles are some of the most well thought out and informative on the net, here are some recent great reads: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3719 - What was unethical about snoopers measuring particulates at a vape convention? http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3711 - Totally Wicked case: Advocate General's flawed reasoning would protect the cigarette trade http://www.clivebates.com/?p=3589 - TPD implementation – maximising harm by going beyond the minimum https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOLXs6Yhaj4&index=2&list=LLudEkBk4hzZt2xCFfDLUGjw - Great video from Smoke Without Fire on YouTube. Over the next coming show's we are going to play with format and look to introduce new segments, and feedback is always welcome!

Nick is joined by David Reade QC to discuss the recent Opinion from the Advocate General in the Woolworths/Bluebird cases on the trigger for collective redundancy consultation. These cases are very significant for UK employers, and since David represented Bluebird in the European Court, he is well placed to share his thoughts on what the Opinion means for employers. The link to the cases mentioned have been posted on Twitter by Nick. Please follow Nick at Nicholas Robertson@Nicholasrober11

Dominic Grieve makes the case for the Human Rights Act and civil liberties recorded at a special event celebrating Liberty. The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP was appointed Conservative spokesman for Scotland in June 1999 and in September 2001 he was appointed Conservative spokesman for criminal justice and community cohesion as part of the Shadow Home Affairs team. From 2003 to 2009 Dominic Grieve was Shadow Attorney General. The Leader of the Opposition appointed Dominic Grieve to Shadow Home Secretary in June 2008, and in January 2009 Dominic Grieve became the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, continuing with his front bench role in criminal justice matters, constitutional affairs and ethnic diversity. Under the coalition Government Dominic Grieve was the Attorney General for England and Wales and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, until July 2014. 5x15 brings together five outstanding individuals to tell of their lives, passions and inspirations. There are only two rules - no scripts and only 15 minutes each. Learn more about 5x15 events: 5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories

For the 64th episode of the Scottish Independence Podcast I spoke with Baron Wallace of Tankerness and I could not have hoped for a more distinguised guest. As his wikipedia page says about him......a British politician, leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords and the Advocate General for Scotland. He was formerly Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Member of Parliament (MP) for Orkney and Shetland, Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) for Orkney and the first Deputy First Minister of Scotland in the Scottish Executive.I managed to catch Jim briefly on the first night of his new speaking tour.Hope you enjoy...LINKShttp://michaelgreenwell.wordpress.com/https://twitter.com/mgreenwell

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivering a lecture describing the roles and responsibilities of the Advocate General on 26th November 2012.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies - Speaker: ELEANOR SHARPSTON, QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union Sir William Dale Memorial Lecture 2011 in association with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Institute of Advanced Legal Studies - Speaker: ELEANOR SHARPSTON, QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union Sir William Dale Memorial Lecture 2011 in association with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/

The Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) hosts an annual public lecture in honour of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the first British Judge to be President of the Court of Justice. Among the eminent scholars of European legal studies invited to give the lecture are Professor Joseph Weiler, former Judge David Edwards of the European Court of Justice, and Advocate-General Francis Jacobs of the European Court of Justice. The texts of the Mackenzie-Stuart Lectures are published in the Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies. On 6th November 2009, Eleanor Sharpson QC, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered the annual CELS (Centre for European Legal Studies) Mackenzie-Stuart Lecture for 2009 entitled "Addressing Linguistic Transparency in the ECJ". More information about this lecture is available from the Centre for European Legal Studies website at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/mackenzie_stuart_lectures/