Übersetzung für "Judicial review " (Englisch → Deutsch) :

14. Affirms that the right to judicial remedy should be upheld at all times in respect of the EPPO’s activity; considers, therefore, that any decision taken by the Office should be subject to judicial review before the competent court; in that regard, insists that decisions taken by the European Public Prosecutor before or independently from the trial, such as the decision to launch an investigation, the choice of jurisdiction for prosecution, the dismissal of a case or a transaction, should be subject to judicial review before the Union courts; stresses that the EPPO should make good any damage under national law caused by unlawful o ...[+++]r wrongful prosecution;

– to fully restore the prerogatives of the Constitutional Court as the supreme body of constitutional protection, and thus the primacy of the Fundamental Law, by removing from its text the limitations on the Constitutional Court’s power to review the constitutionality of any changes to the Fundamental Law, as well as the abolition of two decades of constitutional case law; to restore the right of the Constitutional Court to review all legislation without exception, with a view to counterbalancing parliamentary and executive actions and ensuring full judicial review; such a judicial and constitutional review may be exerted in different ...[+++]ways in different Member States, depending on the specificities of each national constitutional history, but once established, a Constitutional Court – like the Hungarian one, which after the fall of the communist regime has rapidly built a reputation among Supreme Courts in Europe – should not be subject to measures aimed at reducing its competences and thus undermining the rule of law;

To this end, Member States shall define in national law the period within which the judicial review ex officio and/or the judicial review at the request of the applicant shall be conducted.

12. Stresses that the reform of the judicial system is an indispensable prerequisite for Turkey's modernisation and that such reform must lead to a modern, efficient, fully independent and impartial judicial system, guaranteeing due process of law for all citizens; welcomes in this regard the adoption of legislation on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) and on the Constitutional Court, in close consultation with the Venice Commission; encourages the Government of Turkey to implement the 2011 recommendations of the Venice Commission, in particular with regard to the mode of election to the HSYK, the role of the Minister of Justice in this body, and the mode of appointment of judges and prosecutors; calls for steps to be tak ...[+++]en to ensure that the decisions of the HSYK are transparent and subject to judicial control; points to the need to take further steps towards ensuring the possibility of judicial review for all first-instance decisions of the High Council on promotions, transfers to another location and disciplinary sanctions; welcomes the decision of the Ministry of Justice to establish a directorate-general for human rights responsible for the full, effective and timely implementation by Turkey of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; regrets, in this connection, the growing number of new applications to the European Court of Human Rights; appreciates the new proposals to reform the judicial system, in particular with regard to detention criteria, as a first step in the right direction;

Furthermore, in such a case, provision must be made to guarantee procedures whereby any allegedly illegal measure taken by the review body or any alleged defect in the exercise of the powers conferred on it can be the subject of judicial review or review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty and independent of both the contracting authority/entity and the review body.

Furthermore, in such a case, provision must be made to guarantee procedures whereby any allegedly illegal measure taken by the review body or any alleged defect in the exercise of the powers conferred on it can be the subject of judicial review or review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty and independent of both the contracting authority/entity and the review body.