Employees of state hospitals in Hamburg were granted the right in 1995 to continued employment in case of privatization of the hospitals. In 2000, the cleaning staff were spun off into a separate company which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state hospitals. Upon privatization in 2005, the right to continued employment was applied only to those employees employed by the state hospitals, not those employed by the wholly-owned subsidiary company.
The lower court issued an expedited injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner filed, inter alia, a constitutional complaint appealing the injunction, which prohibited him from approaching or contacting his partner and from re-entering the flat he shared with her to protect her from his domestic violence. The Court did not allow the constitutional complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the injunction did not breach the complainant’s constitutional rights.
The Court held that it was unconstitutional to require an attorney without earnings to continue to make compulsory pension contributions during time taken off to care for children (up to the age of three years). The Court found that requiring such compulsory pension contributions was a breach of the right to equal treatment enshrined in the German constitution because it disproportionately affected women, who are the parent taking time off to care for small children in the vast majority of cases.
The 2011 Amendments to the Jamaican Constitution specifically enumerated a “right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of . . . being male or female.” The amendments also guaranteed a number of fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, and protection of the right to own property, receive an education, vote, and speak freely.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
The manual for judges and judicial officers explains the common-law origins of evidence law, then offers contemporary country-specific analyses of thirteen southern and eastern African countries with a shared common-law colonial history: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Nam
