Search Results
Search Results
-
DUE DILIGENCE ACCORDING TO THE UNGP: ANALYSIS OF ITS UTILITY TO DETERMINE THE DUTY OF CARE INFRINGEMENT ON THE CIVIL LIABILITY JUDGMENT
Considering that Chile does not have an exhaustive Due Diligence law or regulation in accordance with the UNGP, the purpose of this paper its to identify connection points between UNGP’s Due Diligence and the violation of a duty of care needed to establish civil liability. We argue that UNGP’s Due Diligence is useful to the civil court to rule the case, since it allows to specify diligence criteria to establish a duty of care infringement such as foreseeability, control of the activity and intensity of the impacts; through UNGP’s impact typology and its severity and control parameters, constituting a framework that conceptualizes what implies a human rights risk or what is dangerous to human rights, within companies or business holdings activities. The analysis of UNGP’s utility is proposed under the International Human Rights Law obligation to protect human rights falling under the civil jurisdiction, considering the problem posed by national doctrine and case law regarding how to determine what is foreseeable, what is under control, as well as what is dangerous, in order to be able to attribute civil liability.
-
CROSS-BORDER DIVORCES AND INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION: THE SPANISH SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE
International divorces are becoming more frequent every day. In many cases, there is a special interest for the parties in litigating before the courts of a certain State; the “forum shopping” mechanism is acquiring special relevance in order to obtain the most favorable forum, in particular regarding the applicable Law. Currently the main rule for international jurisdiction in the European Union is founded on Regulation 2201/2003. Its section 3 contains a wide number of grounds of jurisdiction for this purpose. The application of this Regulation has displaced the Spanish internal rules (section 22, Organic Act on the Judiciary 1985). Concerning the application of the mentioned Regulation, the Supreme Court has addressed some controversial issues related to the determination of the international jurisdiction of Spanish courts on divorces.
-
THE COURT’S DETACHMENT AS A LIMIT TO THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER
In the present paper, the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on April 30, 2026, in case docket No. 1608-2023, is analyzed with respect to the scope of the court’s loss of jurisdiction and its consequences for the functional competence of the Court of Appeals when hearing an appeal.
-
SOME PRECISIONS REGARDING THE DEFENSE OF THE GENERAL AND DIFFUSED INTERESTS OF CONSUMERS AND USERS
This paper analyzes the ruling handed down by the Court of Appeals of Santiago on October 2, 2019, in case role No. 2086-2018, entitled “National Consumer Service with Banco de Chile”, referring to the determination of jurisdiction to hear actions brought to ensure the general interests of consumers, as distinguished from supraindividual interests and their protection mechanisms.
-
FUNDAMENTALS OF GERMAN MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW IN THE FIELD OF AESTHETIC SURGERY
The German medical liability law makes a distinction between the responsibility for treatment mistakes and responsibility for lack of information. Interventions in aesthetic surgery is, as a rule, a medical practice when the physician is below the standard in force in the respective special field of aesthetic plastic surgery. However, in the case of lack of information liability (tort) is based on bodily injury, according to the jurisdiction of German courts is inherent in any medical intervention in body or health status of the patient. However, bodily injury is not considered unlawful if the patient, after having been duly informed, has given valid consent (informed consent). Informed consent, which the treating party should give evidence at trial, can justify the bodily injury. In the aesthetic operations it is of practical importance, above all, the responsibility for insufficient information on the risks of the respective intervention. If aesthetic surgery, as no medical indication occurs often, the requirements for patient information are particularly stringent. In this sense, the jurisdiction requires a extensive, intense and sometimes “thoughtless” information about imminent risks, in the case of offset to some extent the purely “aesthetic indication” by the qualified patient consent after extensive information (intensely informed consent ). If it is found that the information was insufficient, doctors and hospitals may be liable for damages and ordered to pay compensation for personal injury.
-
JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW ON LIABILITY FOR CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE: THE EUROPEAN UNION’S SYSTEM
The rules of private international law in the European context have evolved considerably since 1970. Such rules applied to trans-boundary pollution problems pose greater environmental and people protection because of the possibility to make use of favor laesi principle, which allows choosing the forum and applicable law of the place where damage originated or where damage occurred. however, Directive 2004/35/EC, which regulates the environmental or per se ecological damages, contains no enough rules of private international law producing a number of problems with the Regulations that discipline the competence and the law applicable to extracontractual civil liability cases (respectively, Brussels i and Romeii). This paper aims to identify and expose all these rules in an orderly manner to demonstrate the conflicts warned by the doctrine.