- Sözde Hukuk Devletinde Adaleti Arıyoruz | Çek Mağdurları
- Yeni Cek Yasasi, tarih tekerrur ediyor..
- Obama Signs into Law Restriction on Arbitration Clauses
- ECtHR, the Court’s organization
- ECHR; History and organization
- FORMATION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- Obama Taps Law School Classmate For Technology Position
- Obama’s law days effective but brief
- President Obama’s First Law
- Karşılıksız çek savunma alınmadan karar vermek
3167 sayılı eski çek kanunda 2009 yılı oluşan boşluk nedeniyle mahkemeler yasayı farklı yorumlayıp farklı kararlar vermişti,Yeni Çek yasası 2009 yılının sonunda yasallaştı, yine farklı yorumlar farklı kararlarla karşı karşıya kaldık..
Yeni Çek kanunu hazırlanırken, Adalet komisyonu Başkan vekili Hakkı Köylü, yeni yasanın asıl amacının, şirketlerle organik bağı olmayan, çalışan odacı çaycı gibi şirketin aktif ve pasifinden menfaati olmayan kişilerin, imzaladığı çeklerden dolayı cezaevinde olduğunu bunun haksızlık olduğunu, şirke sahiplerinin cezalandırılması gerektiğini defalarca ifade etmişti.
Mahkemeler bu konuda bile farklı kararlar vermekteler..
Barolar ise ses vermiyor..
Yeni Çek Yasası Tarih tekerrür ediyor
Most military contractors will no longer be able to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts under a provision signed into law over the weekend.
The provision is included in the 2009-10 spending bill for the U.S. Department of Defense, and it touches on an issue that has been a high priority this year for trial lawyers and for consumer groups. They say that clauses mandating the use of arbitration deny employees an impartial hearing in open court, while supporters of arbitration have defended the process as both fair and efficient.
The White House said today that President Barack Obama signed the spending bill into law on Saturday.
Jamie Leigh Jones, a former employee of defense contractor Kellogg Brown & Root, has been a public face for arbitration opponents for more than a year, after she reported being raped by her coworkers in Iraq. KBR and its former owner Haliburton sought to handle her case in arbitration, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in September that Jones could take some of her claims to court. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) spoke about Jones’ case on the floor of the U.S. Senate in October, and he sponsored the new provision.
Under Section 8116 of the bill, no money can go to a defense contractor unless the contractor agrees not to enter into or enforce any employment contract “that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” or many tort claims.
In six months, the restrictions will apply also to subcontractors. Contracts and subcontracts under $1 million are except from the provision. The defense secretary or his deputy may also grant a waiver if doing so is “necessary to avoid harm to national security interests of the United States,” though the waiver will become public.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
A. Court’s organization
8. Protocol No. 11 with a different contract, which was established by the European Court of Human Rights on the number of State contract (contract today, the number of States is forty-four) equal number of judges (see Annex II List of Judges) is composed. The number of judges from the same nationality restriction does not have any. Judges at a time for six years by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly are elected. In contrast, half of judges in an election three years can be made in order during the first election of judges selected a half years after the end of the mission was three.
Judges in the Court are located on their own behalf and do not represent any State. Independence and impartiality or the permanent task to task with no activity in the not incompatible. Duties of judges at age seventy-ends.
Presence of all members of the Court for three years president, two vice-president and president selects two sections.
9. In accordance with internal regulations, the Court determined for the formation of three years, in terms of geography, as well as in the formation of gender representation and the different legal systems existing in the contracting parties must be taken into consideration is divided into the four sections. Two sections of the Court’s two vice presidents chair while the other two sections, the section shall be chaired. Vice presidents are elected by the section section section helps the president and should take place as the head of the section.
10. Each section within twelve months of the committees will be created with three judges.
11. Conversion system in the body of each section according to the seven-member circles are created, the head section and the relevant Government departments on behalf of the members selected as judges are located. Selected members of the dominant sections of the State concerned on behalf of the apartment is not ex officio members include adjectives. Apartments are not members of the noble section members are located with the proxy attribute.
12. The court’s Grand Chamber of seventeen judges consists of. President of the Court’s Grand Chamber vice president and heads of departments are located as members ex officio.
B. In front of the court proceeding
13. States each contract or breach of the Convention so that the victims who think every person, a contract with the State Convention by guaranteeing the rights acquired by one of the violations suggest a direct appeal to the Strasbourg Court may direct. Applicant a brief description of the use and application forms for my editorial director can be obtained from.
14. The trial court and the public is conditioned Niza. Due to exceptional circumstances apartment / Grand Chamber, unless the contrary decision, the trial of scarcity, is open to the public. As a rule, the Court left to the editorial director of the petition and other documentation that the public has access.
15. Individual applicants can apply themselves, but be represented by a lawyer is recommended, and even, for the hearing of the application may be accepted or to be represented by a lawyer be explained later is required. Council of Europe do not have sufficient resources for the applicant is a legal aid system has been implemented.
16. Court’s official languages French and English, but the applications be submitted in one of the official languages of the State contract is possible. If the application is acceptable as open, one of the two official languages must be used, but the apartment / Grand Chamber for permission to use the language if the application can continue.
2. Accept the trial procedures relating
17. Appoint a rapporteur on the head of each individual application that is sent to a section. After review of the application preparation, rapporteur of the case by a three-member committee reviewed whether you decides by a circle.
18. Such a decision can be taken to another state without examination of an application, the Committee unanimously declared unacceptable, or may remove from the Court’s tasks.
19. Sent to them directly by the rapporteur of the case outside the apartments can not be accepted by the three-member committee to review the application and state their applications are not open. Apartments on the basis of applications accepted and the separate decisions or in some cases only decide.
20. An application of the Convention concerning the interpretation a serious problem, you put a question or a solution by the court previously given a decision may conflict with the flat sides of the jurisdiction abandon their intention to report, starting in a month not to appeal the circle always in favor of the Grand Chamber may give up jurisdiction. Abandonment in trial procedures to be followed is the same as described above for apartments.
21. Circle, open to the public the merits of the Remember decided to hold a hearing even if the first stage of the trial is usually written.
22. Apartment decisions taken regarding accept the majority must be justified and should be made public.
3. Basis of the trial procedures
23. Applicant decides to accept the case, the office added by crazy people, and the applicant in relation to the “equitable compensation” including a request concerning a possible, may be invited to provide written comments. Acceptance has not been done during the trial, circles about the merits, may decide to hold hearings.
24. Chairman of the Department’s proper administration of justice to judge the benefit of every covenant not party other than the State or the applicant relevant to each person to provide written comments or in exceptional cases to trial may be invited to participate, or they may allow. Each of the nationality of the applicant in the contract the State may intervene ex officio to the case.
25. Basis during the trial, the editor-in-chief may be made through negotiations to ensure amicable solution.
26. Apartments are usually decided. Have been involved in the review of cases each judge’s decision that the different opinions – appropriate or counter-statement or a simple expression of differences of opinion are entitled to add.
27. Circle by a given date tefhim decision within three months, if the proceedings of the Convention and Protocol interpretation or application of the serious questions relating to the general nature or cause a serious problem if the parties to the proceedings before the Grand Chamber may request to be sent. These demands, the court president, the office is attached to the head of the section outside the heads of other sections and the first apartment did not take place, the conversion system according to another selected to judge, the Grand Chamber of the five judges made up of a committee which will be reviewed by.
28. A decision of the Department, or by the expiration of three months to send to the front of the Grand Chamber found no intentions or descriptions made up of five judges who sent the request to set up rejection is finalized.
29. If the Board accepts the request, the Grand Chamber case decision about the most accurate.
30. Court’s final all decisions related to the defendant State is challenging.
31. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers is responsible for pursuing enforcement of decisions. Committee of Ministers decided that they were violating the Agreement States to meet their obligations arising from the Court’s decision to take the necessary measures and receive checks.
5. Advisory opinions
32. Court at the request of the Committee of Ministers of the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocol concerning advisory opinions on legal questions can not vote.
Committee of Ministers to the Court majority opinion takes the decision to ask.
33. Advisory opinion requested by the majority of their opinions which examines the Grand Chamber. Each judge advisory opinion of the different opinions – appropriate or counter-statement or a simple expression of differences of opinion can add.
A. 1950 European Convention on Human Rights
1. The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the Council of Europe Convention has been prepared. In Rome on November 4, 1950 Convention opened for signature, 1953 came into force in September. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention resulting from the path of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of authors through the development and intends to follow the Council of Europe were the target. Contract with the Universal Declaration of the rights expressed in the public is assured that some of the first measures was related to.
2. Contractual rights on the one hand and a series, given to civil and political freedom gives (financial provisions for the title, see attachment I) contract from the other side of States have taken them comply with their obligation to obtain a scheme which aims to put into practice was. This is the responsibility of controlling the three institutions were shared: the European Human Rights Commission (established in 1954) The European Court of Human Rights (established in 1959) and Member States’ foreign ministers or their representatives which, Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.
3. According to the initial text of the Convention, entries in contract against the State Government or other contract could be made by individual applicants (Individuals, individual communities or civil society organizations). However, recognition of the right to individual application was discretionary and only knew him agree to these rights which could be invoked against the State (the Convention and Protocol No. 11 recognition was made compulsory – see paragraph 6 below)
Applications primarily accept the Commission’s decision about preparation was subject to review. Explained that an application is acceptable from the Commission to provide an amicable solution with the parties themselves would be ready to order. Can not succeed if the Commission set out the events and expressed views on the basis of the application, wrote a report. Report to the Committee of Ministers had devolved.
4. Respondent Court’s compulsory jurisdiction of the State acknowledge that the situation in the State Commission and every contract related matter, accurate and compelling to give its decision before the Court to bring the report to the Committee of Ministers from the three-month transition period had. Individuals was not possible to apply to the Court.
Applications not be referred to the Court, the Committee of Ministers of the Convention does not decide about the presence of violations, and violation of the victim in cases where the “equitable compensation” was given. Committee of Ministers at the same time follow the Court’s decisions from the executive was responsible.
B. Subsequent developments
5. Since the contract came into force on the two additional Protocols adopted edilmiştir.1, 4,6,7 and 12 of Protocol Additional to the Agreement are the rights and freedoms. Number 2 of the Protocol to the Court has authority to give advisory opinions. Protocol number 9, the defendant by the State concerned and checking of the document be approved to accept the terms of a committee to refer to the individual applicant the opportunity to bring before the Court has opened the way. Restructuring of Protocol No. 11 has control mechanisms (see below). Protocols have been implemented with other contracting organizations and the organization maintains a keen interest in front of the procedures to be followed.
6. Bodies in front of the Convention since 1980, growing from an increase in the number of application times of trial within acceptable limits to keep the task force has made better than good. Since 1990, the State with the participation of new contractual problems become serious. In 1981 a record 404 applications, the Commission has made contact in 1997, 4750. Addition, he has opened the unsaved or the number of temporary files in the same year 1997 climbed to more than 12000’den. Numbers reflect a similar situation to the Court of: In 1981, transferred to the reference count of seven, while his 1997 119’du.
Increasing workload created by the Convention control mechanisms need to be reshaped on the cause was a long discussion, the Convention has led to the adoption of Protocol 11. Incentive to shorten the duration of the goal judge and the system is completely made compulsory and the decision-making function of the Committee of Ministers by eliminating the system’s structure in order to strengthen the judicial nature simple.
In 1998, this Protocol entered into force November 1 as part-time Court and Commission’s working instead of a continuous one and then brought the court. Commission an interim period of one year (31 October until 1999) had decided before this date is acceptable continued to work on applications.
7. Entry into force of Protocol 11 to the court during the three years following an unprecedented increase in workload experienced. The recorded number of submissions about? 0’luk with an increase in 1998 reached 5 979’dan 2001 13 858’e. Court’s growing volume of work on the capacity to apply additional resources to the demands and concerns about the new requirements on the reform led to editing.
50 of the Convention opened for signature anniversary in November 2000 in Rome, 3 and 4 on the human rights during the Ministerial Conference a thinking process on the reform of the system began. “The European Court of human rights on” Following the Ministerial Declaration in November 2002 ministerial delegates of the executive committee for human rights into concrete and coherent proposals of all, especially without losing time to put into practice measures and bring the Convention likely to be changes, prepare a warrant for gave
Mr Luzius Wildhaber, President (Swiss)
Mr. Christos ROZAKIS, vice president (Greek)
Mr. Jean-Paul COSTA, Vice President (French)
Mr. Georg Ress, flat head (German)
Sir Nicolas BRATZA, flat head (British)
Mr. Gaukur JÖRUNDSSON (Icelandic)
Mr Giovanni Bonello (Maltese)
Mr. Lucius CAFLISCH (Swiss) 
Mr. Loukis LOUCAIDES (Cypriot)
Mr. Kuriş Pranas (Lithuanian)
Mr. Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal)
Mr. Riza Türmen (Turkey)
Mrs. Françoise TULKENS (Belgian)
Ms. Viera STRÁZNICKÁ (Slovak)
Mr. Corneliu Birsa (Romanians)
Mr Peer Lorenzen (Danish)
Mr. Karel JUNGWIERT (Czech)
Mr. Marc Fischbach (Lüksenburglu)
Mr. Volodymyr BUTKEVYCH (Ukrainian)
Mr. Josep CASADEVALL (Andoralı)
Mr. Boštjan ZUPANCIC (Slovene)
Mrs. Nina VAJIĆ (Croatian)
Mr. John HEDIGAN (Irish)
Mrs. Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch)
Mr. Matti PELLONPÄÄ (Fin)
Mrs. Margarita TSATSA-NIKOLOVSKA (a citizen of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Mrs Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian)
Mr. András BAK to the (Hungarian)
Mr. Rait MARUSTE (Estonian)
Mr. Egils LEVITS (Latvian)
Mr. Kristaq Trajan (Albanian)
Mrs. Snejana BOTOUCHAROVA (Bulgarian)
Mr. Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian)
Mr. Anatoly KOVLER (Rus)
Mr. Vladimiro ZAGREBELSKY (Italian)
Ms. Antonella MULARONI (San Marinolu)
Mrs. Elisabeth STEINER (Austrian)
Mr. Stanislav PAVLOVSCHI (Moldovan)
Mr. Lech GARLICKI (Polish)
Mr Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish)
Mrs Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish)
Mrs. Alvina GYULUMYAN (Armenian)
Mr. Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani)
Mr. Paul Mahoney, editorial director (British)
Mr. Erik FRIBERGH, editorial assistant director (Swedish)
Bosnia-Herzegovina on behalf of the judge selected locations are empty.
In beginning to shape his cabinet, Barack Obama has selected two veterans of the telecom industry to help create the administrations high-tech policy priorities, including a former classmate of the President-elect.
Julius Genachowski, a classmate of Obama in law school who was former chief of council to the FCC, has been selected as one of the leaders of a group that will work on technology, innovation, and government reform for the administration, including net neutrality.
The Harvard Law School alumus has often been named as one of the top candidates for FCC chairman under the Obama administration.
Genachowski is credited with recommending that Obama use the power of the internet to organize support and is an advisor on the Obama-Biden Transition Project Advisory Board.
Also named to the group is Blair Levin, an investment analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, who has also been a front runner for the FCC chairmanship, and Sonal Shah, who heads the philanthropic arm of Google.
Obama has stated that technology will be one of the main agenda in his administration. Among the technology plans for the Obama-Biden administration are to protect the openness of the internet and encourage diversity in media ownership.