DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice Strasbourg, 8 December 2010 CDL(2010)134* Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) DRAFT STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE on the basis of comments by Mr Gaguik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL(2010)134 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS......................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ................................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS...................................................................................................16 I.1.1. Indirect access ....................................................................................................16 I.1.2. Direct access.......................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................27 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ................................................................................................28 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER I.................................................................29 II. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS...........................................................................................31 II.1. CONDITIONS FOR OPENING PROCEEDINGS (“FILTERS”) .............................................31 II.1.1. Time-limits for applications.................................................................................31 II.1.2. Obligation to be legally represented...................................................................32 II.1.3. Court fees...........................................................................................................32 II.1.4. Reopening cases................................................................................................33 II.1.5. Abuse of the right to appeal to the constitutional court ......................................33 II.1.6. Exhaustion of remedies......................................................................................33 II.1.7. Applicant directly and currently affected by the violation....................................34 II.1.8. Applicant as a proper means to repair the complainant’s grief ..........................34 II.1.9. Written form........................................................................................................34 II.1.10. Filters in preliminary ruling procedures ............................................................35 II.2. INTERVENTION AND JOINDER OF SIMILAR CASES.......................................................35 II.3. FURTHER RELEVANT PROCEDURAL RULES ...............................................................36 II.3.1. Adversarial systems ...........................................................................................36 II.3.2. Procedural publicity. ...........................................................................................37 II.3.3. Conduct of oral proceedings ..............................................................................37 II.4. INTERIM MEASURES ................................................................................................38 II.4.1. Suspension of implementation ...........................................................................38 II.4.2. Stay of ordinary proceedings..............................................................................38 II.4.3. Injunctive measures ...........................................................................................39 II.5. DISCONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS................................................................39 II.5.1. DISCONTINUATION IF THE PETITION IS WITHDRAWN ...............................................39 II.5.2. DISCONTINUATION IF THE CHALLENGED ACT LOSES VALIDITY.................................40 II.6. TIME LIMITS FOR TAKING THE DECISION ...................................................................40 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER II................................................................41 III. DECISION..................................................................................................................41 III.1. Scope of review....................................................................................................42 III.2. Effects ratione personae ......................................................................................45 - 3 - CDL(2010)134 III.3. EFFECTS RATIONE TEMPORIS.................................................................................50 III.3.1. Ex tunc or ex nunc invalidation of an act...........................................................50 III.3.2. Attenuation of the invalidations and their temporal effects................................51 III.4. EFFECTS RATIONE MATERIAE: REPARATION AND DAMAGES......................................52 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER III...............................................................53 IV. OTHER QUESTIONS ................................................................................................54 IV.1. DELIMITATION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND ORDINARY COURTS ................................................................................................................54 IV.1.1. Review competences........................................................................................54 IV.1.2. Binding force of the judgment’s reasoning........................................................55 IV.1.3. Obligation to put a preliminary request .............................................................56 IV.2. PROBLEM OF DIRECT INDIVIDUAL ACCESS AND OVERBURDENING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ..................................................................................................................57 IV.2.1. Writs of certiorari and selection of cases by constitutional courts.....................58 IV.2.2. Organisation of the constitutional court.............................................................59 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER IV ..............................................................60 TABLES..........................................................................................................................61 1.1.1 Table 1 summarising the types of access................................................61 1.1.2 Table: Time-limits for applications ...........................................................63 1.1.3 Table: Obligation to be legally represented .............................................66 1.1.4 Table: Exhaustion of remedies and exceptions .......................................68 1.1.5 Table: Preliminary ruling procedures .......................................................72 1.1.6 Table: Joinder of similar cases ................................................................74 1.1.7 Table: Adversary systems .......................................................................76 1.1.8 Table: Public proceedings and exceptions ..............................................80 1.1.9 Table: Oral proceedings and exceptions .................................................83 1.1.10 Table: Suspension of implementation......................................................85 1.1.11 Table: Stay of ordinary proceedings ........................................................89 1.1.12 Table: Injunctive measures......................................................................91 1.1.13 Table: Extension of norms under review .................................................92 1.1.14 Table: Erga omnes effect.........................................................................93 1.1.15 Table: Confirmation of constitutionality..................................................100 1.1.16 Table: Ex nunc or ex tunc effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision.102 1.1.17 Table: Capacity of constitutional courts to attribute damages ...............110 1.1.18 Table: Authorisation to put a preliminary request ..................................111 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL BASES FOR INDIRECT AND DIRECT INDIVIDUAL ACCESS......115 1.1.19 Table: Indirect access: Ombudsperson .................................................115 1.1.20 Table: Indirect individual access: Preliminary requests .........................124 1.1.21 Table: Direct individual access: Constitutional and legal bases ............133 CDL(2010)134 - 4 - Executive Summary 1. Among the member and observer states of the Venice Commission, very few countries do not provide at least some type of individual access to question the constitutionality of a norm or individual act. These are Algeria, Morocco, the Netherlands and Tunisia (France can no longer be classified in this group after its recent constitutional reform). It is possible to distinguish between direct individual access, in which individuals are given the possibility
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court
    Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JARITA MESA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; ALAMOSA LIVESTOCK GRAZING ASSOCIATION; SEBEDEO CHACON; THOMAS GRIEGO; DONALD GRIEGO; MICHAEL PENA; JUAN GIRON; JOE GURULE, JR.; FERNANDO GURULE; DIEGO JARAMILLO; LORENZO JARAMILLO; GABRIEL ALDAZ; ARTURO RODARTE; JEFFREY CHACON; GLORIA VALDEZ; JERRY VASQUEZ; CARLOS ORTEGA; LEON ORTEGA; HORACIO MARTINEZ; RONALD MARTINEZ; STEVE CHAVEZ; VANGIE CHAVEZ; ALFONSO CHACON; DANIEL RAEL; JOHN VALDEZ and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF RIO ARRIBA, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CIV 12-0069 JB/KBM UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE and DIANA TRUJILLO, in her official and individual capacities, Defendants. Case 1:12-cv-00069-JB-KBM Document 135 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 106 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants‟ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies, filed February 18, 2013 (Doc. 55)(“MTD”). The Court held a hearing on July 26, 2013. The primary issue is whether the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs‟ retaliation claim under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because the Plaintiffs never argued their First Amendment retaliation claim before Defendant United States Forest Service in the administrative proceedings, because a claim is not exempt from the administrative-exhaustion requirement merely because it is constitutional in nature, and because the administrative-exhaustion requirement is mandatory and thus not subject to judicial waiver, the Court will dismiss without prejudice the First Amendment retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of State Remedies Before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: a Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 7 1963 Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section Merritt aJ mes University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Merritt aJ mes, Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section, 43 Neb. L. Rev. 120 (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW VOL. 43, NO. 1 EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS: A REAPPRAISAL OF U.S. CODE SECTION 2254 I. INTRODUCTION There are many instances in which a state's prisoner, after being denied his liberty for years, has subsequently, upon issuance of federal writ of habeas corpus, either been proven innocent or adjudged entitled to a new trial upon grounds that he was denied some constitutional right during the process of his state court trial.' In some of these cases it has been clear from the very beginning that if the allegations of the writ were proven, the de- tention was unconstitutional. Yet the prisoner is still forced to endure years of confinement while exhausting state remedies before 2 federal habeas corpus is available to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Law on Occupied
    Strasbourg, 4 March 2009 CDL(2009)045* Opinino no. 516/2009 Engl.only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMMENTS ON THE LAW ON OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF GEORGIA Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL(2009)045 - 2 - Introduction The Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly has asked the Venice Commission to assess the law of Georgia “On occupied territories of Georgia” which was enacted on 23 October 2008. The reporters were provided with an English translation of the relevant law as well as with additional information, i.e. an extract of the Criminal Code of Georgia (Articles 322/1 and 344), an extract of the Georgian Law on General Education (Article 63/1) and an extract of the Georgian Law on High Education (Article 89/1). They were also sent “Information regarding the criminal charges being brought against foreigners having breached the law on occupied territories”. The “Law on Occupied Territories of Georgia” is based on the perception that the two break- away regions of the Republic of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, are part of the Republic of Georgia, but are illegally occupied by the Russian Federation. This understanding is clearly expressed by the reference to the sovereignty and integrity of Georgia in the preamble to the law and the qualification of the presence of military forces as “illegal military occupation of the territory of a sovereign country”.
    [Show full text]
  • Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules?
    Fail to Comment at Your Own Risk: Does Issue Exhaustion Have a Place in Judicial Review of Rules? Jeffrey S. Lubbers* The requirement that parties seeking judicial review of agency action first “exhaust” their administrative remedies initially developed as a prudential judicial construct1 and now is also sometimes reflected in statutes.2 The classic version of the exhaustion requirement generally requires a party to go through all the stages of an administrative adjudication before going to court. This ensures that the agency action being challenged is the final agency position and that the agency has had the opportunity to bring its expertise to bear and to correct any errors it may have made at an earlier stage. It also allows for the resolution of disputes before they come to court, thus avoiding potentially unnecessary additions to court dockets. I will refer to this as “remedy exhaustion.” The orthodox application of the remedy exhaustion requirement involves cases where the petitioner for judicial review has eschewed available administrative appeal opportunities. In some cases, a court’s refusal to accept review will simply clear the way for the further administrative proceedings to take place;3 but in other situations, the foreclosure of judicial relief occurs after “the opportunity to invoke the relevant administrative processes had passed.”4 * Professor of Practice in Administrative Law, Washington College of Law, American University; Research Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States (“ACUS”) from 1982–1995, Special Counsel to ACUS 2011– present, J.D., University of Chicago. I thank my research assistant Cooper Spinelli (Class of 2014) and ACUS staff (Stephanie Tatham, Connie Vogelmann, and Seth Nadler), for very helpful research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Only Five Per Cent of the 168 Ad Hoc Panelists Who Served During the GATT Period Were Women
    Celebrating women in WTO dispute settlement The WTO dispute settlement system recently reached a milestone, when a woman was selected to serve on a panel for the 100th time since the establishment of the WTO in 1995. This represents an achievement not only for the WTO, but for international adjudication more generally. Traditionally, women have not been well represented on international adjudicative bodies. For example, during its more than 75 years of operation, almost all judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have been male. Only four women have been elected to the ICJ, the first ever in 19951, and four women have served temporarily as ad hoc judges in specific cases before the Court.2 One woman, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, has served as President of the Court. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has a shorter yet similar history. Only one woman has been elected to the Tribunal out of a total of 41 judges elected since August 19963, and no women have served temporarily as ad hoc judges in specific cases. The field of investor-state arbitration has not fared much better. A 2015 study found that only 25 of the 499 arbitrators appointed in such disputes between the 1970s and the end of 2014 were women, making up approximately five per cent of the total.4 The European Court of Human Rights features slightly higher numbers, with 37 (or approximately 16 per cent) of the 184 judges elected since 1959 being women.5 Ms Işıl Karakaş of Turkey is currently serving as the Vice-President of the ECHR, following in the footsteps of one other woman Vice-President.6 The same tradition was found in international trade adjudication, where only five per cent of the 168 ad hoc panelists who served during the GATT period were women.
    [Show full text]
  • Members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010)
    Members of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (2010) Mr. Mario ACKERMAN (Argentina), Director of the Labour Law and Social Security Department and Professor, Labour Law Chair, University of Buenos Aires; former adviser to the Parliament of Argentina; former Director of the Labour Police of the National Ministry of Labour and Social Security of the Republic of Argentina. Mr. Anwar Ahmad Rashed AL-FUZAIE (Kuwait), Docteur en droit; Professor of Law; Professor of Private Law of the University of Kuwait; attorney; former member of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); member of the Administrative Board of the Centre of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Kuwait; Member of the Governing Body of the International Islamic Centre for Mediation and Commercial Arbitration (Abu Dhabi); former Director of Legal Affairs of the Municipality of Kuwait; former Director of Legal Affairs of the Bank KFH; former Adviser to the Embassy of Kuwait in Paris. Mr. Denys BARROW S.C. (Belize), Justice of Appeal for the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court; former High Court Judge for Belize, Saint Lucia, Grenada and the British Virgin Islands; former Chairperson of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in Belize; former member of the Committee of Experts for the Prevention of Torture in the Americas. Ms. Janice R. BELLACE (United States), Samuel Blank Professor and Professor of Legal Studies, Business Ethics and Management of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Trustee and Founding President, Singapore Management University; Senior Editor, Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal; President-elect of the International Industrial Relations Association; member of the Executive Board of the US branch of the International Society of Labor Law and Social Security; member of the Public Review Board of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implements Workers’ Union; former Secretary of the Section on Labor Law, American Bar Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:35:01 EST Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 199 Job Number: 1861:196830226
    1225VR Time of Request: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:35:01 EST Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 199 Job Number: 1861:196830226 Research Information Service: LEXSEE(R) Feature Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: Get by LEXSEE(R) Search Terms: 285 ark. 397 Send to: MILLER, ROD ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT LIBRARY 625 MARSHALL ST LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201-1054 Page 1 LEXSEE 285 ARK. 397 REHAB HOSPITAL SERVICES CORP. v. DELTA-HILLS HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY, INC.; and Frances FLENER, Individually and as Executive Director of Delta-Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc. No. 85-2 Supreme Court of Arkansas 285 Ark. 397; 687 S.W.2d 840; 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1928; 11 Media L. Rep. 1929 April 15, 1985, Opinion delivered PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Jackson As such, the parties are required to exhaust administrative Circuit Court; Andrew G. Ponder, Judge. remedies prior to seeking a declaratory judgment. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Reviewability > LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Exhaustion of Remedies Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Exhaustion of Remedies > Administrative Remedies Civil Procedure > Declaratory Judgment Actions > State Judgments > General Overview Administrative Law > Governmental Information > [HN3] The Supreme Court of Arkansas requires Freedom of Information > Enforcement > Reviewability exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to > Jurisdiction & Venue an action for declaratory judgment. Civil Procedure > Judgments > Relief From Judgment > Motions to Alter & Amend Governments > Courts > Rule Application & Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Reviewability > Interpretation Exhaustion of Remedies [HN1] Jurisdiction to interpret the Freedom of [HN4] A basic rule of administrative procedure requires Information Act is in the Supreme Court of Arkansas. that the agency be given the opportunity to address a Ark.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Role of the Opposition
    Strasbourg, 25 May 2009 CDL-DEM(2009)002* Or. Engl. Study no. 497/2008 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) COMMENTS ON THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITION by Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) *This document has been classified restricted on the date of issue. Unless the Venice Commission decides otherwise, it will be declassified a year after its issue according to the rules set up in Resolution CM/Res(2001)6 on access to Council of Europe documents. This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-DEM(2009)002 - 2 - Legal assessment and standards concerning the role of the opposition in democratic regimes The Parliamentary Assembly has elaborated a comprehensive document on “Procedural guidelines on the rights and responsibilities of the opposition in a democratic parliament”. It is based on a comparative analysis of existing rules on the role, function and rights of the parliamentary opposition and also takes into account documents on topical discussions on new rules on this subject. Resolution No. 1601 (2008) summarizes procedural guidelines, but nevertheless stresses the necessity of a study on the role of opposition in modern democratic society by the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission had to deal with the role of parliamentary opposition when assessing the Draft Law on the Parliamentary Opposition in Ukraine (Opinion No. 422/2006, CDL-AD(2007)015. In this opinion the Commission doubts and reserves its position on “whether it is appropriate to regulate all questions concerning the opposition in a single law and, if so, what procedural guarantees in favour of the opposition need to exist in respect of the adoption of such a law by the majority (Para.
    [Show full text]
  • JOINT OPINION on the LAW on AMENDING SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTS on the ELECTION of the PRESIDENT of UKRAINE Adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009
    Strasbourg/Warsaw, 12 October 2009 CDL-AD(2009)040 Or. Engl. Opinion No. 546 / 2009 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) JOINT OPINION ON THE LAW ON AMENDING SOME LEGISLATIVE ACTS ON THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 24 July 2009 by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR Adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 30 th meeting (Venice, 8 October 2009) and by the Venice Commission at its 80 th Plenary Session (Venice, 9-10 October 2009) on the basis of comments by Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute member, Venice Commission, Germany) Mr Jessie PILGRIM (Electoral expert, OSCE/ODIHR) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2009)040 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 II. Executive Summary........................................................................................................... 4 III. Discussion of the Presidential Election Law ..................................................................... 5 A. Nomination and Candidate Registration....................................................................... 5 B. Election Administration ................................................................................................. 7 C. Observers and Transparency....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi No. 2016
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-SA-00112-COA MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC APPELLANTS SAFETY AND ALBERT SANTA CRUZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. STACY SMITH, GREG NESTER, AND APPELLEES KRISTOPHER WINGERT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/06/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM A. GOWAN JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: PETER W. CLEVELAND WILSON DOUGLAS MINOR ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DENNIS L. HORN SHIRLEY PAYNE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GRANTED THE APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/01/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: EN BANC. CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Forensic scientists Stacy Smith, Greg Nester, and Kristopher Wingert (collectively, the Appellees), after proceeding through four levels of administrative review for grievances related to their transfer from the Mississippi Crime Laboratory (Crime Lab) to the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation (MBI) and the subsequent loss of their Crime Lab “position identification numbers” (PINs), filed a petition for a writ of mandamus on July 9, 2013, in the Hinds County Circuit Court, First Judicial District. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety (MDPS) failed to notify the Appellees, who were state civil-service employees, about the loss of their Crime Lab PINs until well after the event occurred. In their mandamus petition, the Appellees requested the following relief: (1) placement in the forensic[-]scientist step appropriate with their experience and performance, (2) all back pay due along with all fringe benefits, including contributions to the Mississippi State Retirement System [(PERS)], (3) on[-] call pay, (4) prospective placement in steps earned by experience, and (5) placement in supervisory positions if such become available.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES Supreme Court of the United States
    RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States ADOPTED APRIL 18, 2019 EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, N. E. Washington, DC 20543 Clerk of the Court ............................... (202) 479-3011 Reporter of Decisions.......................... (202) 479-3390 Marshal of the Court........................... (202) 479-3333 Librarian................................................ (202) 479-3175 Telephone Operator ............................. (202) 479-3000 Visit the U.S. Supreme Court Website http://www.supremecourt.gov Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4) Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE COURT Page Rule 1. Clerk ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 2. Library ............................................................................................ 1 Rule 3. Term ................................................................................................ 1 Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum ................................................................... 2 PART II. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS Rule 5. Admission to the Bar.................................................................... 2 Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice.............................................................. 3 Rule 7. Prohibition Against Practice ...................................................... 4 Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary
    [Show full text]