Restrictive measures of a criminal law nature in the system of legal regulation of prevention and to combat domestic violence

The article is devoted to the study of the system of state measures applied to persons, who are suspected, accused of committing or having committed domestic violence, as well as determining the place of restrictive measures of a criminal law nature in the proposed system. For this purpose, it is necessary to conduct an analysis of the legislative regulation of state measures applicable to persons suspected of committing or having committed domestic violence at all levels of №rmative legal regulation; to delimitate the terms “restrictive measure”, “precautionary measure”, “restrictive prescription” and “temporary prohibition injunction” and to analyse the expediency of the new term “security measures” proposed by the draft of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine. The result of the conducted study is an analysis of the existing state measures to combat domestic violence in order to form a system of special measures to combat domestic violence, as well as examination of the issue concerning the place of restrictive measures of a criminal law nature applicable to persons having committed domestic violence. So, today, the system of special measures to combat domestic violence consists of types of measures to temporarily restrict the rights and obligations of the perpetrator who committed domestic violence, as well as to a person suspected, accused or committed a criminal offense related to domestic violence. The types of such measures are taking the offender into preventive registration and carrying out preventive work with him; referral of the offender to the offender program; a temporary injunction; a restrictive prescription of a civil nature a restrictive measure of a criminal procedure nature applicable to persons suspected or accused of committing domestic violence; and a restrictive measure of a criminal nature nature applicable to persons who have committed domestic violence having different preconditions, grounds , subjects and the term of appointment, but have the sole intention of protecting persons suffering from domestic violence.

The Federal Constitutional Court's Emergency Power to Intervene: Provisional Measures Pursuant to Article 32 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act

In three high-profile cases the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG — Federal Constitutional Court) was recently called upon to exercise its authority to issue a temporary injunction in proccedings referred to as einstweilige Anordnungen (provisional measures). Article 32 of the Bundesverfassungsgerichtgesetz (BVerfGG — Federal Constitutional Court Act) provides: In a dispute the Federal Consitutional Court may deal with a matter provisionally by means of a temporary injunction if this is urgently needed to avert serious detriment, ward off imminent force or for any other important reason for the common good.

Cutting-in On the Dance: The Federal Constitutional Court Rejects a Motion for a Temporary Injunction from Berlin's Love Parade

To characterize the administrative lead-up to the 12th Annual Love Parade in Berlin it might be more appropriate to invoke the violent, thrashing mosh pits of the grunge scene from a decade ago rather than the pulsing, rhythmic harmony expected of a rave, of which the Love Parade may be the world's largest and most celebrated. Held on July 14 each year since 1989, the Love Parade in recent years has drawn more than a million people for a day-long dance/party/festival all set to the distinctive drive of techno-music. The Love Parade has become so popular that in 1997 it spawned an alternative, opposition festival called the Fuck Parade, which has been held each year on the same day at another location in Berlin, promising a more authentic, less commercialized rave.

Federal Constitutional Court Issues Temporary Injunction in the NPD Party Ban Case

German Law Journal reported last November on the German Government's plans to take the extraordinary move of seeking a constitutional ban of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party of Germany. At the end of January, 2001, the Federal Government filed its motion for a ban of the NPD with the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. At the end of March, 2001, the Bundestag (Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Legislative Chamber of the States) followed with separate motions. The Federal Constitutional Court now has before it three separate actions, raising distinct claims and presenting distinct evidence, seeking the constitutional excommunication of the NPD. The motions present a unified front from every political sector of the German constitutional order: the executive, the legislature and the Länder (federal states). This lock-step approach to the effort to ban the NPD was part of the master-scheme of Federal Interior Minister Otto Schily, who pressed hard to gain support for the move to seek a ban from all mainstream political parties and all the Länder, at least in part to limit the political fall-out in the case that the Constitutional Court finds against the motions.

Federal Constitutional Court To Decide Whether to Issue a Temporary Injunction Against Germany's New Lifetime Partnerships Law for Homosexual Couples

On July 18, 2001, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) will issue its ruling in the application for a temporary injunction, brought by the Länder (Federal States) of Bavaria and Saxony, to block the August 1 effective date of the new federalLebenspartnerschaftgesetz(LPartG — Registered Lifetime Partnership Act for Homosexual Relationships). This act has been the subject of considerable controversy including the claims at the heart of the Federal States' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. This article will: (a) briefly survey the social evolution that has necessitated the regulations in this statute; (b) describe some of the statute's provisions; and (c) end by summarizing some of the sometimes harsh and often very emotional arguments involved in the debate over the LPartG and raised as part of the challenge to the statute's constitutionality in the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.

Freedom of Memory v. Copyright Law: The American Première of Caste

Playgoers needed no special incentive to attend the opening of T. W. Robertson's Caste at the Broadway Theatre in New York on 5 August 1867. The same author's Ours had been the hit of the previous New York season, and the enthusiastic reception of his latest domestic comedy in London heralded its American appearance. A few days before the première, however, Broadway manager Barney Williams received an unwelcome piece of extra publicity: a temporary injunction against the forthcoming production had been granted by the New York Supreme Court to Lester Wallack, actor-manager of the renowned Wallack's Theatre. Although the essential facts of the subsequent hearing have been accurately preserved in Odell's Annals, the case deserves to be reopened and examined more carefully. To contemporary observers, the proceedings revealed the court's inability and unwillingness to protect the work of a respected English dramatist. Yet events following the judge's decision ultimately won for Robertson and Wallack the vindication denied by the court, and the case is now remarkable as a judicial ‘last stand’ against the legitimate rights of foreign authors.