DOCSLIB.ORG

Revised Report on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Revised Report on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice CDL-AD(2021)001 Strasbourg, 22 February 2021 Or. Engl. Opinion No. 1004 / 2020 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REVISED REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission on 11 December 2020 at its 125th online Plenary Session (11-12 December 2020) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Honorary President) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2021)001 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL REMARKS .............................................................................................. 4 II. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 5 A. Evolution of constitutional justice ............................................................................... 5 B. Two types of constitutional review: diffuse vs. concentrated ...................................... 6 C. Recent developments and trends .............................................................................. 7 IV. TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ....................... 9 A. Direct access ............................................................................................................. 9 1. Individual complaints ......................................................................................... 10 2. Actio popularis ................................................................................................... 12 B. Indirect access ........................................................................................................ 13 1. Ordinary courts .................................................................................................. 13 2. Ombudsman Institutions .................................................................................... 17 C. Mixed solutions ........................................................................................................ 18 V. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS ................................................................................ 19 A. Conditions for opening proceedings (“filters”) .......................................................... 20 1. Time-limits for applications ................................................................................ 20 2. Obligation to be legally represented .................................................................. 21 3. Court fees .......................................................................................................... 21 4. Written form ....................................................................................................... 22 5. Manifestly ill-founded, frivolous, abusive or repetitive applications..................... 22 6. Exhaustion of remedies ..................................................................................... 23 7. Direct and immediate harm ............................................................................... 23 8. Redressability .................................................................................................... 24 9. Filters for preliminary requests .......................................................................... 24 10. Joinder of similar cases ..................................................................................... 24 B. Selection of cases by constitutional courts .............................................................. 25 C. Adjudication in chambers......................................................................................... 26 D. Appeals against inadmissibility decisions ................................................................ 27 VI. REMIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE ............................................................... 28 A. Substantive rights .................................................................................................... 28 B. Procedural safeguards ............................................................................................ 30 1. Adversariality ..................................................................................................... 30 2. Publicity ............................................................................................................. 31 3. Oral proceedings ............................................................................................... 31 C. Scope of review ....................................................................................................... 32 1. Interpreting the norm under review .................................................................... 33 2. Extension of norms under review ...................................................................... 34 3. Extension of the circle of grievances ................................................................. 35 D. Discontinuation of the proceedings .......................................................................... 35 1. Discontinuation if the petition is withdrawn ........................................................ 35 2. Discontinuation if the challenged act loses validity ............................................ 36 3. Time-limits for taking the decision...................................................................... 37 VII. DECISIONS............................................................................................................. 37 A. Interim measures ..................................................................................................... 37 1. Injunctions and suspensions.............................................................................. 37 2. Stay of ordinary proceedings ............................................................................. 38 B. Final decisions ......................................................................................................... 39 1. Effects ratione personae .................................................................................... 39 2. Effects ratione temporis ..................................................................................... 45 - 3 - CDL-AD(2021)001 3. Effects ratione materiae ..................................................................................... 48 4. Finality of constitutional rulings .......................................................................... 49 VIII. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS .................................................... 50 A. Interpretation in conformity with the Convention ...................................................... 51 B. The ECtHR as an alternative to constitutional review .............................................. 51 1. Exhaustion of remedies ..................................................................................... 51 2. Right to an effective remedy: Full constitutional complaints ............................... 52 3. Full constitutional complaints as a national “filter” .............................................. 54 4. The ECHR as an alternative to constitutional review ......................................... 56 C. The right to a fair trial under the ECHR .................................................................... 57 D. Reopening of cases at the national level ................................................................. 59 IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 61 CDL-AD(2021)001 - 4 - I. GENERAL REMARKS 1. Over the past 70 years, a fundamental shift in the importance of constitutional protection of human rights has occurred in Europe and beyond. Respect for human rights is now considered to be an essential part of any democratic society.1 As a result, mechanisms that allow individuals to directly or indirectly invoke these rights conferred upon them by constitutions are becoming increasingly important. This report provides an overview of the ways in which individuals may access constitutional courts in order to adjudicate violations of their human rights in the Venice Commission’s member and observer States.2 It does so in order to contribute to a better understanding of the great variety of adopted solutions.3 2. The report draws on the constitutions and legal texts contained in the Venice Commission’s CODICES database.4 The Venice Commission is grateful to its liaison officers for their contribution to the e-Bulletin on Constitutional Case-law, the CODICES database as well as to the updating of the present report. 3. This report is divided into nine sections. Following some general and introductory remarks (Sections I and II), Section III clarifies the general framework of this comparative analysis by offering an overview of the historical background and the evolution of constitutional review as well as on the different types of constitutional review and recent trends and developments. Section IV analyses the different types of access to constitutional review and identifies the different actors, who may initiate constitutional review proceedings. Section V describes restrictions of access and their role in balancing individual access with the risk of overburdening constitutional courts. Section VI analyses the remit of constitutional justice, including the rights protected, the different
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus
    The Latins of Cyprus Published by the Research, Studies and Publications Service of the House of Representatives, Republic of Cyprus Coordination and supervision Georgia Andronikou, Service Director Anthi Tofari, Senior Ofcer for Research, Studies and Publications Research and texts Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Marianna Moyseos Elena Makrygiorgie Editing Natassa Haralambous Andreas Papayiannis Sofa Papadopoulou Translation Anastasia Korae Design Athena Sheittani Printing Government Printing Ofce ISBN 978-9963-39-084-4 (print) ISBN 978-9963-39-087-8 (ebook) © House of Representatives, Nicosia, November 2020 Javal Nechrou Avenue, 1402 Nicosia, Cyprus telephone: +357 22407315, fax: +357 22407290 [email protected], www.parliament.cy Table of contents Preface 7 Message by the Representative of the Latin religious group 9 Publisher’s note 11 Name and origin 13 The settlement and the frst years of the Latin Church in Cyprus 14 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 15 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the Turkish Rule 19 The Latin Church in Cyprus during the British Rule 20 The Latin Church in Cyprus from Independence to date 21 Latin infuences on the Orthodox church architecture 22 Walls and fortresses during the period of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 25 Music 29 The assizes of the kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus 30 Infuences on Literature 31 Efect of the Latins on the Cypriot dialect 33 Toponyms related to the times of the Frankish Rule and the Venetian Rule 34 The
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Constitution
    CYPRUS PROBLEM: Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus file:///home/taygeti/Desktop/kupros/valmena/constitution... OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION The Republic of Cyprus was born in the early hours of 16 August 1960. On that date the Republic´s constitution was signed by the lst Governor of the Colony of Cyprus, Sir Hugh Foot, the Consul-General of Greece, George Christopoulos, his Turkish counterpart, Turel, and Archbishop Makarios and Dr. Fazil Kutchuk on behalf of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. The range of signatories reflected the fact that the constitution of Cyprus did not emanate from the free will of its people, who were not consulted either directly or through their ad hoc elected representatives, but from the Zurich Agreement between Greece and Turkey. The terms of that agreement, outlined in the last chapter, were included in the constitution as fundamental Articles, which could not be revised or amended. The constitution was drafted by the Joint Constitutional Commission created under Part VIII of the London Agreement of 19 February 1959. It comprised representatives of Greece, Turkey, the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community. But the structure of the constitution again reflected the Zurich Agreement, with various provisions from the 1950 Greek constitution also incorporated along with the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights in respect of fundamental rights and liberties. Two main principles underpinned the constitutional structure agreed at Zurich. The first recognised the existence of two communities on the island - the Greek and the Turkish - who, despite their numerical disparity, were given equal treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Provisions on the Prosecution Service in Council of Europe Member States
    Strasbourg, 3 October 2008 CDL-JD(2008)003* Study No. 494/2008 Engl. only EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON THE PROSECUTION SERVICE IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES *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-JD(2008)003 - 2 - Table of contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 II. Overview according to ‘legal families’............................................................................ 5 III. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 6 IV. Common Law system................................................................................................ 7 A. Appointment, incompatibilities, transfers, detachements, promotion, retirement and dissmisal ........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Cyprus................................................................................................................... 7 2. Malta ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protracted Occupation That Leads to De Facto State Creation: the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, an International Legal Evaluation
    Global Journal of Politics and Law Research Vol.8, No.2, pp.30-64, March 2020 Published by ECRTD-UK ISSN: ISSN 2053-6321(Print), ISSN: ISSN 2053-6593(Online) PROTRACTED OCCUPATION THAT LEADS TO DE FACTO STATE CREATION: THE TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, AN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL EVALUATION Sanford R. Silverburg, Ph.D Professor Emeritus Department of History and Politics Catawba College Salisbury, NC [email protected] ABSTRACT: The history of Cyprus is replete with foreign invasions and occupation. Modern history has Great Britain in control over the island, betwixt a long-term period of antagonism and hostility over the island’s control between Greece and Turkey. Greek Cypriots have for many years sought enosis, or union with Greece, while the minority Turkish community’s ethnic community goal has been taksim (partition) between the two ethnic groups. A crucial temporal dividing point came in 1974 when following a coup d’etat against the Greek Cypriot leadership leading to some instability which was then followed by a Turkish military invasion in order to protect the island’s Turkish population. Once order was restored and with Ankara’s backing, the Turkish Cypriots created the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Because of the manner in which the political action occurred, only Turkey provided diplomatic recognition, thus bringing up the legal issue of non-recognition and a discussion of the use of force to achieve a political objective. KEY WORDS: Cyprus, Turkish republic, northern Cyprus, Turkish foreign policy, Greek foreign policy, occupation, international law, de facto state INTRODUCTION Occupation in its varied forms1 has taken on increased interest in the post-World War II era, at multiple legal2 and political levels.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr
    UNITED NATIONS A General Assembly Distr. GENERAL A/HRC/WG.6/6/CYP/1 16 September 2009 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Sixth session Geneva, 30 November-11 December 2009 NATIONAL REPORT SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 15 (A) OF THE ANNEX TO HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL RESOLUTION 5/1* Cyprus * The present document was not edited before being sent to the United Nations translation services. GE.09- A/HRC/WG.6/6/CYP/1 Page 2 I. METHODOLOGY AND CONSULTATION PROCESS 1. The Report has been prepared in line with the guidance provided in the Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 and the General Guidelines for the Preparation of Information under the Universal Periodic Review, contained in document A/HRC/6/L.24. 2. The present Report was prepared by the Law Commissioner of the Republic who, pursuant to a Decision of the Council of Ministers, is entrusted with ensuring compliance of Cyprus’ reporting obligations under international human rights instruments, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The information and data, on the basis of which the Report was compiled, was provided by the Ministries and Services having competence for the specific matter (i.e. the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, the Ministry of Communications and Works, the Ministry of Health, the Law Office of the Republic, the Cyprus Police). 3. Independent institutions (such as the Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights and the Ombudsman), non-governmental organizations and individual experts, active in the promotion of human rights, were invited to participate in the drafting of the Report in the framework of a consultative process that included various forms of interactions with the drafting team over a period of six months.
    [Show full text]
  • Bribery & Corruption
    Bribery & Corruption Third Edition Contributing Editors: Jonathan Pickworth & Jo Dimmock Published by Global Legal Group CONTENTS Preface Jonathan Pickworth & Jo Dimmock, White & Case LLP Albania Adi Brovina & Dritan Jahaj, Haxhia & Hajdari Attorneys at Law 1 Australia Greg Williams & Tobin Meagher, Clayton Utz 8 Austria Norbert Wess, Bernhard Kispert & Dietmar Bachmann, wkk law attorneys at law 22 Brazil Alberto Zacharias Toron, Edson Junji Torihara & Luisa Moraes Abreu Ferreira, Toron, Torihara & Szafir Advogados 30 Canada Riyaz Dattu, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 40 Cayman Islands Martin Livingston & Adam Huckle, Maples and Calder 47 China Catherine E. Palmer, Tina Wang & Chi Ho Kwan, Latham & Watkins 56 Cyprus Costas Stamatiou & Andreas Christofides, Andreas Neocleous & Co LLC 69 France Emmanuel Marsigny, EMMANUEL MARSIGNY AVOCATS 78 Germany Hans-Peter Huber, Knierim | Huber 89 Ghana Esi Tawia Addo-Ashong, Ashong Benjamin & Associates 97 Hong Kong Kareena Teh & Fabian Roday, Dechert 108 Indonesia R. Suharsanto Raharjo & Pamela Kiesselbach, Hiswara Bunjamin Tandjung in association with Herbert Smith Freehills 123 Ireland Jamie Olden, Brendan Hayes & Caitríona Harte, Ronan Daly Jermyn 128 Italy Roberto Pisano, Studio Legale Pisano 142 Japan Daiske Yoshida & Junyeon Park, Latham & Watkins 153 Mexico Luis F. Ortiz, OCA Law Firm 164 New Zealand Ben Upton, Simpson Grierson 173 Portugal Paulo de Sá e Cunha, Marta Saramago de Almeida & Carolina Mouraz, Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira 182 Romania Mihai Mares, Mares / Danilescu / Mares 188 Serbia Vladimir Hrle, Hrle Attorneys 203 Spain Fermín Morales Prats & Thea Morales Espinosa, Gabinete Jurídico Fermín Morales 209 Sri Lanka Sudath Perera, Deshan Hewavithana & Zahrah Cader, Sudath Perera Associates 219 Switzerland Marcel Meinhardt & Fadri Lenggenhager, Lenz & Staehelin 232 Turkey Gönenç Gürkaynak & Ç.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Points (30 November 1963)
    13 Points (30 November 1963) An Introduction The constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus which resulted from the 1960 Zurich and London Agreements suffered from fundamental defects which impeded the smooth functioning of the State. The fact that the Constitution did not emanate from the free will of the Cyprus people but was imposed upon them by virtue of the agreements was at the origin of feelings of discontent among Cypriots. Moreover many of the constitutional provisions conflicted with international law e.g. the fact that the Constitution could not be amended, rendering the Republic of Cyprus subject to the will of the guarantor powers and depriving it of the fundamental requirements of the state such as internal independence and territorial supremacy. Other provisions promoting communal segregation prevented the smooth functioning and development of the country and created permanent sources of friction between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The ratio of participation in the public service attaining 30 per cent for the Turkish Cypriot community (which represented 18 per cent of the population) constituted one of the causes of discontent for Greek Cypriots as it offended the international accepted principle of the right of everyone of equal access to the public service of his country. The constitutional provision relating to separate majorities for the enactment of certain laws in the House of Representatives was another source of serious problems affecting the smooth functioning of the state which was left without any taxation legislation for several months. Another element that created problems was the right of final veto accorded to the President and the Vice-President of the Republic against any law or decision both in the House of Representatives and the Council of Ministers.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyprus Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
    Cyprus Page 1 of 13 Cyprus Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 31, 2003 Prior to 1974, Cyprus experienced a long period of intercommunal strife between its Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. In response the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) began operations in March 1964. The island has been divided since the Turkish military intervention of 1974, following a coup d'etat directed from Greece. Since 1974 the southern part of the island has been under the control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. The northern part is ruled by a Turkish Cypriot administration. In 1983 that administration proclaimed itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ("TRNC"). The "TRNC" is not recognized by the United States or any country except Turkey. A buffer zone patrolled by the UNFICYP separates the two parts. A substantial number of Turkish troops remained on the island. Glafcos Clerides was reelected President of the Republic of Cyprus in 1998. In April 2000, following the first round of Turkish Cypriot elections, Rauf Denktash was declared "President" after "Prime Minister" Dervish Eroglu withdrew. The judiciary is generally independent in both communities. Police in the government-controlled area and the Turkish Cypriot community were responsible for law enforcement. Police forces in the government-controlled area were under civilian control, while the Turkish Cypriot police forces were under military authority. Some members of the police on both sides committed abuses. Both Cypriot economies operated on the basis of free market principles, although there were significant administrative controls in each community.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Report Submitted by Cyprus Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities ______
    Strasbourg, 27 October 2006 ACFC/SR/II(2006)006 [English only] ___________ SECOND REPORT SUBMITTED BY CYPRUS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES ___________ (received on 27 October 2006) ACFC/SR/II(2006)006 TABLE OF CONTENTS: PART I - INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 3 PART II – GENERAL REMARKS ON THE OPINION AND ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................. 5 PART III – MAIN PART........................................................................................................ 6 A. Specific comments in respect of Articles 1 -19...................................................................... 6 Article 1 .................................................................................................................................... 6 Article 3 .................................................................................................................................... 6 Article 4 .................................................................................................................................... 7 Article 5 ...................................................................................................................................11 Article 6 ...................................................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Distr. GENERAL HRI/CORE/1/Add.28 2 July 1993 Original
    Distr. GENERAL HRI/CORE/1/Add.28 2 July 1993 Original: ENGLISH CORE DOCUMENT FORMING PART OF THE REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES CYPRUS [31 May 1993] CONTENTS Paragraphs Page I. LAND AND PEOPLE ................. 1-18 2 A. Geography .................. 1 2 B. Historical background ............ 2- 7 2 C. Population .................. 8-11 3 D. Economy ................... 12-17 4 E. Socio-economic indicators .......... 18 5 II. GENERAL POLITICAL STRUCTURE ............ 19-41 5 A. Recent political history and developments . 19 - 30 5 B. The constitutional structure ......... 31-41 8 III. GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH HUMAN RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED ............ 42-56 10 IV. INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY ............ 57-59 14 GE.93-17396 (E) HRI/CORE/1/Add.28 page 2 I. LAND AND PEOPLE A. Geography 1. Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean with an area of 9,251 sq km and a population of just over 714,000 inhabitants. It is situated at the north-eastern end of the Mediterranean basin at a distance of approximately 360 km east of Greece, 300 km north of Egypt, 105 km west of Syria and 75 km south of Turkey. It is a mainly mountainous country with two mountain ranges. Pentadaktylos in the north and Troodos in the south-west culminating in the peak of Mount Olympus (1,953 m). The largest plain is situated between them. The climate is temperate (Mediterranean), with its typical seasonal rhythm strongly marked in respect of temperature, rainfall and weather generally. The average annual rainfall is 500 mm, the fall from December to February being nearly two thirds of the yearly total.
    [Show full text]
  • And Cyprus 159-167 MARIA P
    CCYPRUSREVIEW A Journal of Social Sciences T H E C Y P R U S R E V I E W F all 2018, V o l . 30, No. 2 Fall 2018, Volume 30, Number 2 Published by the University of Nicosia ISSN 1015-2881 (Print) | ISSN 2547-8974 (Online) P.O. Box 24005 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus T: 22-842301, 22-841500 E: [email protected] www.cyprusreview.org SUBSCRIPTION OFFICE: The Cyprus Review University of Nicosia 46 Makedonitissas Avenue 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus Copyright: © 2018 University of Nicosia, Cyprus ISSN 1015-2881 (Print), 2547-8974 (Online) DISCLAIMER The views expressed in the articles All rights reserved. and reviews published in this journal are those of the authors and do No restrictions on photo-copying. not necessarily represent the views Quotations from The Cyprus Review of the University of Nicosia, are welcome, but acknowledgement the Editorial Board, or the Editors. of the source must be given. EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-Chief: Dr Christina Ioannou Consulting Editor: Prof. Achilles C. Emilianides Assistant Editor: Dr Maria Hadjiathanasiou Managing Editor: Dr Emilios A. Solomou Publications Editor: Aileen O’Donoghue EDITORIAL BOARD Dr Constantinos Adamides University of Nicosia Prof. Panayiotis Angelides University of Nicosia Prof. Costas M. Constantinou University of Cyprus Prof. Dimitris Drikakis University of Nicosia Prof. Hubert Faustmann University of Nicosia Dr Sofia Iordanidou Open University of Cyprus EDITORIAL Dr Hayriye Kahveci Middle East Technical University Prof. Andreas Kapardis University of Cyprus TEAM Prof. Savvas Katsikides University of Cyprus Prof. Farid Mirbagheri University of Nicosia Dr Petros Papapolyviou University of Cyprus EDITORIAL Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Cypriot Nationalisms in Context
    CYPRIOT NATIONALISMS IN CONTEXT EDITED BY THEKLA KYRITSI NIKOS CHRISTOFIS Cypriot Nationalisms in Context Thekla Kyritsi · Nikos Christofs Editors Cypriot Nationalisms in Context History, Identity and Politics Editors Thekla Kyritsi Nikos Christofs Political Science and History Center for Turkish Studies and School Panteion University of Social of History and Civilization and Political Sciences Shaanxi Normal University Athens, Greece Xi’an, China ISBN 978-3-319-97803-1 ISBN 978-3-319-97804-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97804-8 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018950734 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]