Skip to content

cearta.ie

the Irish for rights

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact
  • Research

Author: Eoin

Dr Eoin O'Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.

ECHR on Arts 6, 8 and 10

6 February, 20095 February, 2009
| 1 Comment
| ECHR, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint, Privacy

Logo of the Council of Europe.The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was promulgated by the Council of Europe in 1950. The European Court of Human Rights was established under that Convention to enforce the rights protected by it, and it has recently handed down three very interesting judgments concerning Articles 6 (fair trial), 8 (privacy), and 10 (speech).

Article 6(1) provides that

… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. …

ECHR blog brings news of Application no 22330/05 Olujic v Croatia (05/02/2009), in which adverse public comments by three judges in advance of hearing a case against the applicant denied him a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6. What makes the case all the more interesting is that Olujic had been President of the Supreme Court, the case concerned his dismissal from the bench for publicly fraternising with known criminals, the three judges had publicly and adversely commented about this after the allegations had been made, and one had been a rival candidate for the Presidency of the Court.

Article 8(1) provides:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

…

Read More »

Rethinking Law – Law Student Colloquium at TCD

6 February, 200917 November, 2010
| No Comments
| Conferences, Lectures, Papers and Workshops, Legal Education

Greek Symposium image.Are you a Law student, undergraduate or postgraduate? Would you like to present a short paper or give a presentation on a legal topic of your choice at a colloquium at TCD on Saturday 4 April 2009?

Individual presentations will last 10-15 minutes. Prospective participants may consider presenting a paper on a topic in which they are personally interested or have conducted research for an essay or article. Whatever the topic, and reflecting the title Rethinking Law, proposals should challenge existing law or current understandings of law. For further information, including how to submit an abstract, visit the website or send an email to the organisers as soon as possible.

This is a wonderful idea. I love the fact that it is entirely general, soliciting contributions on all aspects of the law. Moreover, whilst there are now are now lots of outlets for postgraduates, this colloquium – uniquely, and excitingly – also solicits submissions from undergraduates. Indeed, it actively welcomes their (your) participation on the day, whether by presenting papers or as members of the audience. So, what are you waiting for? Send that email now!

Update: the deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to 5:00pm on 16 February 2009, so send that email now!…

Read More »

Game about law

5 February, 2009
| 1 Comment
| Law

'Honest Lawyer' image via the Carbolic Smoke Ball side.Inspired by the posts below, my game about law – for lawyers and non-lawyers alike – is the following question: can the readers of this blog provide non-US examples of misunderstood legal statements?

To begin, I offer the common misunderstanding about the basic words “legal” or “lawful” and “illegal” or “unlawful”. Lawyers know that there are many ways something can be “illegal” or “unlawful”, from constituting a tort to being liable to be quashed in judicial review proceedings to contravening the criminal law. On the other hand, it is common for lay people to go assume that if something is unlawful it must necessarily be contrary to the criminal law.

Here are the inspirations:

Misunderstood legal quotations

OK, Dear Readers: Let’s play a law-geek game: Give and discuss examples of famous legal and law-related quotations or statements that are frequently thrown around (by lawyers and non-lawyers alike) in a way that completely and utterly misses the point of the original quotation or statement. …

Picked up on Volokh: Famous Misunderstood Legal Quotations and Statements

So, any other examples?…

Read More »

This is not just a VAT case

4 February, 200914 March, 2009
| 7 Comments
| Restitution

Teacake via BBC.It’s an unjust enrichment case from your M&S. For those who have a taste for this kind of thing, this morning brings momentous news. The teacakes litigation is over! Eventually! After more than 13 years! See Marks and Spencer plc (Appellants) v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Respondents) [2009] UKHL 8 (4 February 2009) (also here). The matter had been referred to the ECJ twice, and had returned to the House of Lords after the second reference (earlier stages are: CA, ECJ, CA, HL here and here, ECJ). Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe concluded his speech as follows:

The Court of Justice’s answers to the third and fifth questions did therefore raise the possibility of further issues having to be decided by the national court. But the Commissioners have, after thirteen years of litigation, decided that they do not wish to pursue these matters. The House can therefore dispose of the matter by allowing the appeal from the order dated 21 October 2003 of the Court of Appeal, and inviting submissions as to costs (if necessary) within fourteen days.

Now, the only question is, what kind of teacake do I want with my morning coffee?!…

Read More »

The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age

4 February, 20092 February, 2009
| No Comments
| Freedom of Expression

SSRN logo, via their website.Jack Balkin, on his blog, has just posted a paper under the above title on SSRN. It is a very insightful consideration of some very important theoretical and practical issues. Here’s abstract:

In the twenty-first century, at the very moment that our economic and social lives are increasingly dominated by information technology and information flows, the judge-made doctrines of the First Amendment seem increasingly irrelevant to the key free speech battles of the future. The most important decisions affecting the future of freedom of speech will not occur in constitutional law; they will be decisions about technological design, legislative and administrative regulations, the formation of new business models, and the collective activities of end-users. Moreover, the values of freedom of expression will become subsumed withing a larger set of concerns that I call knowledge and information policy. The essay uses debates over network neutrality and intermediary liability as examples of these trends.

Freedom of speech depends not only on the mere absence of state censorship, but also on an infrastructure of free expression. Properly designed, it gives people opportunities to create and build technologies and institutions that other people can use for communication and association. Hence policies that promote innovation and protect the freedom to create new technologies and applications are increasingly central to free speech values.

…

Read More »

Hecklers must not have a veto

3 February, 20093 March, 2023
| 7 Comments
| college funding, Freedom of Expression, Uncategorized

I’m very disappointed with the Literary and Debating Society of NUI Galway. Having wrapped themselves in the mantle of freedom of expression over their invitation to David Irving, they let the mantle slip last night. Having invited former Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern to a public interview, the event had to be abandoned because of protests by students opposing the reintroduction of college fees (see Belfast Telegraph | GalwayNews.ie | Indymedia | Irish Times | Ninth Level Ireland | RTÉ here and here | YouTube). The Auditor of the Lit & Deb, Dan Colley, is reported to have said that he was “disappointed” at the turn of events, and concluded

This was a failure of freedom of speech.

No, Dan, this was a failure on the part of the Lit & Deb to protect the process of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not self-executing. Those who claim to support it have a duty to do so actively. It’s not enough to say free speech is important; it is necessary to be active in its defence and support. If a society such as the Lit & Deb invites controversial speakers, making a grab for the headlines, then that society must ensure that the controversial speakers actually have the opportunity to speak.…

Read More »

Updates

3 February, 200911 May, 2010
| No Comments
| Gallimaufry

Cover of 'The Lexicon' via IPKatIn no particular order, here a few posts which caught my eye recently which update issues on which I have blogged on this site.

I am Chicken (Hear Me Squawk…) updates Chicken Soup for the academic soul

The crossed purposes of legal education updates The Goals of a Law School Education

Students have been sold a lie (hat tip Ninth Level Ireland) updates Laptops in class

Dancing with a pole. That’s not pole-dancing, is it? updates Censoring Theatre in Britain and Ireland

Memories in cyberspace and Looking back to Apple’s future update two of the Three internet tropes

Client Fraud and the Lawyer, Madoff victims could reach 3m, say lawyers, New claim of €1.8m made against O’Brien and O’Brien ordered to repay €1.85m update More on Madoff, O’Brien, and Restitution


Wilders heads to Supreme Court
updates Incitement

Friday fripperies (the source of the picture, above right) updates Harry Potter copyright update

Alarm sounded over wi-fi networks updates Just when are wardriving and piggybacking illegal?

A fifth of gay people tried suicide – study updates Ethical reporting of suicide [Further update here]

ICO urges organisations to promise to do better on privacy and Staggering absence of data protection officers, ‘DPO survey – the results’ (pdf) update Happy Data Privacy Day, 2009!…

Read More »

Specific Restitution

2 February, 20092 February, 2009
| No Comments
| Restitution, Uncategorized

Roger Williams University School of Law logo, via their websiteRecently posted on SSRN, a very important paper by Colleen P. Murphy (of Roger Williams University School of Law) on “What is Specific About ‘Specific Restitution’?” (forthcoming Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 60, 2009). Here’s the abstract:

An important functional difference among restitutionary remedies is between giving a plaintiff the monetary value of the defendant’s unjust enrichment or giving the plaintiff an identifiable asset that constitutes the defendant’s unjust enrichment. This difference commonly is labeled by scholars to be a difference between a money judgment and “specific restitution.” This terminology obscures important concepts, such as that a plaintiff’s asset-based remedy might be for a fund of money or that recovery of an asset might not constitute “specific” relief-that is, the plaintiff might not get the thing to which the plaintiff originally was entitled. In many of its uses by scholars, there is nothing “specific” about specific restitution. This article situates the term specific restitution within the larger context of how the term “specific” is used in the law, and it examines how scholars and courts have used “specific restitution.” Finally, the article turns to the American Law Institute’s ongoing project to produce a Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment.

…

Read More »

Posts pagination

Previous 1 … 134 135 136 … 183 Next

Welcome

Me in a hat

Hi there! Thanks for dropping by. I’m Eoin O’Dell, and this is my blog: Cearta.ie – the Irish for rights.


“Cearta” really is the Irish word for rights, so the title provides a good sense of the scope of this blog.

In general, I write here about private law, free speech, and cyber law; and, in particular, I write about Irish law and education policy.


Academic links
Academia.edu
ORCID
SSRN
TARA

Subscribe

  • RSS Feed
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Recent posts

  • A trillion here, a quadrillion there …
  • A New Look at vouchers in liquidations
  • Defamation reform – one step backward, one step forward, and a mis-step
  • As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted … the Defamation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has been restored to the Order Paper
  • Defamation in the Programme for Government – Updates
  • Properly distributing the burden of a debt, and the actual and presumed intentions of the parties: non-theories, theories and meta-theories of subrogation
  • Open Justice and the GDPR: GDPRubbish, the Courts Service, and the Defence Forces

Archives by month

Categories by topic

Licence

Creative Commons License

This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. I am happy for you to reuse and adapt my content, provided that you attribute it to me, and do not use it commercially. Thanks. Eoin

Credit where it’s due

Some of those whose technical advice and help have proven invaluable in keeping this show on the road include Dermot Frost, Karlin Lillington, Daithí Mac Síthigh, and
Antoin Ó Lachtnáin. I’m grateful to them; please don’t blame them :)

Thanks to Blacknight for hosting.

Feeds and Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress