LegalPost.eu

Science and Judicial Reasoning - The legitimacy of international environmental adjudication (Sulyok Katalin / 2022).  Science, which inevitably underlies environmental disputes, poses significant challenges for the scientifically untrained judges who decide such cases.  In addition to disrupting ordinary fact-finding and causal inquiry, science can impact the framing of disputes and the standard of review. Judges must therefore adopt various tools to adjust the level of science allowed to enter their deliberations, which may fundamentally impact the legitimacy of their reasoning. While neglecting or replacing scientific authority can erode the convincing nature of judicial reasoning, the same authority, when treated properly, may lend persuasive force to adjudicatory findings, and buttress the legitimacy of judgments. In this work, Katalin Sulyok surveys the environmental case law of seven major jurisdictions and analyzes framing techniques, evidentiary procedures, causal inquiries and

By Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer Truth and trial are two concepts that seem to follow opposite paths, despite the fact that the former should be the purpose of the latter and despite the fact that the invocation of the truth during the trial is continuous and repeated.  In both civil and criminal trials the competition between the participants in the process is usually focused on distorting and misrepresenting the truth in order to make it convenient and ultimately accepted by the final arbiter, who is the judge. Witnesses are mostly prepared, if not «fabricated», to testify to what each party wishes to be proven. The truth in their testimony often seems to be lost or degraded in details which, however, are decisive for the needs of the trial. A deviation in the minute of time can affect the verdict, an omission of a seemingly insignificant fact can overturn a judicial conviction. Lawyers, masters at constructing the truth that is favorable each time, the version that will facilitate th

By Konstantina Kotsaki MSc, Forensic Phychology* Based on 2012 evidence more than 200.000 of 700.000 incarcerated women were held in USA prisons [1]. The USA has the highest number of incarcerated women compared to international imprisoned women [1]. It reached circa 1/3 of global women kept in prison [1]. The psychic disorders - mainly depression and anxiety - accompany pregnancy even in nonincarcerated cases [2-5]. Therefore, the presence of psychic abnormalities during pregnancy is predictable and unavoidable. Contrary to that, the development of these disorders depends on many variables, is unpredictable and avoidable. A vulnerable psychic state comprises a criminal’s characteristic feature [6]. It gets clear that the incarcerated women experience psychic abnormalities before beginning their sentence in prison.  Thus, when transferred to prison many women had already initiated to experience grave psychic disorders [7]. No health care service was available to many women before impri

By Konstantina Kotsaki MSc, Forensic Phychology  The permanent scope of courts has been to detect the truth and the lie, because they comprise the hallmark of justice. The last more reliable lie-detection tool before fMRI was the polygraph. fMRI was proved to be a more reliable tool, compared to a polygraph, to evaluate the claims of somebody as true or deceptive. Yet, it could detect false memory and if this memory leads to a lie or is restored. Its accuracy and reliability were proved through abundant scientific studies, and the scientific community has approved fMRI as a reliable lie-detection machine. Furthermore, fMRI could evaluate the psychopathic level of someone. The prejudices that the fMRI recordings were just images could not stand up. Either the countermeasures could not jolt the fMRI accuracy.  Since the beginning, neither the fact that its feedback did not cover all the American Supreme Court parameters to be accepted as court evidence nor the fear that the justice repre

According to ECJ's Judgment (12/1/2023) in Case C-154/21 (Österreichische Post), every person has the right to know to whom his or her personal data have been disclosed. Nevertheless, the controller may indicate only the categories of recipient if it is impossible to identify the recipients or the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.  A citizen requested Österreichische Post, the principal operator of postal and logistical services in Austria, to disclose to him the identity of the recipients to whom it had disclosed his personal data. He relied on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). That regulation provides that the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller information about the recipients or categories of recipient to whom his or her personal data have been or will be disclosed.  In response to the citizen’s request, Österreichische Post merely stated that it uses personal data, to the extent permissible by law, in the course of its activitie

The Data Protection Commission of Ireland imposed a fine of 5.5 million euros on WhatsApp for breaches of the GDPR relating to its service. The Commission’s announcement states the following: “The Data Protection Commission (“DPC”) has today announced the conclusion of an inquiry into the processing carried out by WhatsApp Ireland Limited (“WhatsApp Ireland”) in connection with the delivery of its WhatsApp service, in which it has fined WhatsApp Ireland €5.5 million (for breaches of the GDPR relating to its service). WhatsApp Ireland has also been directed to bring its data processing operations into compliance within a period of six months. The inquiry concerned a complaint made on 25 May, 2018 by a German data subject about the WhatsApp service. In advance of 25 May 2018, the date on which the GDPR came into operation, WhatsApp Ireland updated its Terms of Service, and informed users that if they wished to continue to have access to the WhatsApp service following the introduction