Post by nurnobi85 on Feb 11, 2024 23:33:43 GMT -5
The Public Power. But there was an DF, granted a precautionary suspension of the validity of the aforementioned law and the action was judged to be valid, with the condition of autarchy of these organizations continuing. Nothing is therefore changed regarding the responsibility of the Councils. 5. Responsibility of Directors And what about the counselors responsible for the mistake? What are the consequences? These can also be triggered, either by the aggrieved party, or regressively by the Autarchy, in accordance with the same constitutional provision mentioned above. However, for them to be held responsible, the failure must necessarily arise from fraud or intent and serious omission. In these cases there.
Is no doubt of responsibility, because in these terms articles 49, I and II, of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, and 133, I and II, of the CPC, referring to magistrates, are provisions applicable to counselors in the judicial function, by assimilation. What about serious guilt in a commissive act? It can be understood that it gives rise to the counselor's personal responsibility, because this position Dubai Email List would arise from paragraph 6 of article 37 of the Major Law, which speaks of return due to intent or guilt, a provision not to compromise administrative judicial activities, with the legal restriction remaining back declined limited to magistrates, given the specificity of the diplomas. It is also possible to take.
A contrary position, arguing that the counselor takes the judge's turn, in the administrative sphere, being equal in functional duties and responsibilities. In any case, it is impossible to hold the judge responsible for any and all mistakes, because this would make the judicial exercise and, consequently, state jurisdiction, in the broadest sense, unfeasible. It must be serious, resulting from malpractice or negligence, in addition to intentional conduct, which even falls into the criminal sphere. 6. Omission of Councils It is also worth mentioning the Council's own omission in relation to the erring doctor. If a failure occurs, the body must, obviously, upon becoming aware of it, initiate due process or immediately.
Is no doubt of responsibility, because in these terms articles 49, I and II, of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, and 133, I and II, of the CPC, referring to magistrates, are provisions applicable to counselors in the judicial function, by assimilation. What about serious guilt in a commissive act? It can be understood that it gives rise to the counselor's personal responsibility, because this position Dubai Email List would arise from paragraph 6 of article 37 of the Major Law, which speaks of return due to intent or guilt, a provision not to compromise administrative judicial activities, with the legal restriction remaining back declined limited to magistrates, given the specificity of the diplomas. It is also possible to take.
A contrary position, arguing that the counselor takes the judge's turn, in the administrative sphere, being equal in functional duties and responsibilities. In any case, it is impossible to hold the judge responsible for any and all mistakes, because this would make the judicial exercise and, consequently, state jurisdiction, in the broadest sense, unfeasible. It must be serious, resulting from malpractice or negligence, in addition to intentional conduct, which even falls into the criminal sphere. 6. Omission of Councils It is also worth mentioning the Council's own omission in relation to the erring doctor. If a failure occurs, the body must, obviously, upon becoming aware of it, initiate due process or immediately.