JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Tuesday, September 9, 2008




Dutch government outlines plan to ban burqas in schools
Joe Shaulis on September 9, 2008 3:49 PM ET

[JURIST] The government of the Netherlands on Tuesday detailed its plans to ban the burqa [JURIST news archive] in and around all primary schools, including Muslim institutions. In a letter to parliament [official website], Education Minister Ronald Plasterk [official website] predicted that a bill to prohibit the head-to-foot garment would be presented to lawmakers next year and could be enacted by 2010. He noted that the legislation would not extend to high schools or universities, which could decide on their own whether to ban the burqa, also known as a niqab, and the measure would not apply to the Muslim hijab, or headscarf. Plasterk said the ban on burqas would promote security and foster teacher-student communication. The Telegraph has more. NIS News has local coverage.

Dutch officials in January announced plans to ban burqas in schools and government offices, rejecting an alternative proposal [JURIST reports] to prohibit wearing them anywhere in public. In 2006, then-Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk announced plans to prohibit the public wearing of face coverings [JURIST report] to ensure security and promote the integration of Dutch society. The proposal was met by protests and was abandoned [JURIST reports] by Verdonk's successor following national elections. It is estimated that only 100 women among the Netherlands' 1 million Muslims wear the burqa. Elsewhere in Europe, France has banned religious clothing and symbols in public schools [JURIST report]. A German court has upheld a similar ban, and the Danish government announced plans [JURIST reports] in May to prohibit judges from wearing religious headscarves.






Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Former Taiwan president cleared on defamation charges in frigate scandal
Caitlin Price on September 9, 2008 2:44 PM ET

[JURIST] The Taipei District Court on Tuesday cleared former Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian [official profile; BBC profile] of defamation charges stemming from Taiwan's 1991 purchase of six frigates from France. Six retired Taiwanese admirals filed suit against Chen following his 2005 televised comments [DPA report] suggesting that the group received $20 million in improper kickbacks from the deal. The court held [Radio Australia report] that Chen's comments did not constitute slander because the matter was appropriate for public scrutiny. Following the verdict, one of the five living plaintiffs said the the group will appeal the decision. AFP has more.

The frigate sale launched a major corruption investigation in France into the so-called Clearstream scandal [BBC timeline], implicating then-Interior Minister and current French President Nicolas Sarkozy [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] in the kickback scheme. The accusations against Sarkozy resulted in defamation charges [JURIST report] in France, and last month French prosecutors requested the closure of the corruption investigation for lack of evidence [Reuters report]. A Taiwanese investigation resulted in prison terms for nearly 30 officers and arms dealers [RFI report]. Chen remains under investigation for unrelated corruption and embezzlement charges, following high-profile indictments of his family and colleagues. Last year, a high court affirmed the conviction [JURIST report] of Chen's son-in-law on insider trading charges. Chen's wife, Wu Shu-chen, was indicted [JURIST report] in 2006 for embezzlement and falsifying documents. Chen continues to maintain his innocence [AFP report] on all charges.






Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US trade commissioners speak out against DOJ antitrust enforcement policy
Joe Shaulis on September 9, 2008 2:38 PM ET

[JURIST] Three of the four sitting US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website; JURIST news archive] members on Monday denounced a report [PDF text; DOJ materials] released by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website; JURIST news archive] as "a blueprint for radically weakened enforcement" of federal antitrust law. The report explores single entity violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act [text], in which a competitor seeks or maintains monopoly power which harms consumers. Commenting [press release] on the purpose of the report, Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Barnett [official profile] said:

While we need to identify and prohibit conduct that harms the competitive process, we also need to avoid interfering in the rough and tumble of beneficial competition that drives innovation and economic growth.
In their own statement [PDF text; press release], the three FTC commissioners said the DOJ's proposed enforcement standards "would make it nearly impossible to prosecute a case under Section 2." They emphasized that the FTC "stands ready to fill any Sherman Act enforcement void that might be created if the Department actually implements the policy decisions expressed in its Report." The remaining commissioner, FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic [official profile], issued his own statement [PDF text] separate from that of his colleagues. Reuters has more. The Washington Post has additional coverage.

The DOJ and the FTC jointly enforce the federal antitrust statutes. Among other recent developments in US antitrust law [JURIST news archive], the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled [JURIST report] in July that a lower court had erroneously dismissed an FTC lawsuit seeking to prevent Whole Foods Market from buying out competitor Wild Oats Markets. The FTC had been seeking a temporary injunction against the merger while it conducted an investigation. In June, the FTC began an investigation [JURIST report] of whether computer chip manufacturer Intel Corp. has been engaged in anti-competitive business practices. The FTC had previously declined to investigate.





Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Thailand high court ousts PM for accepting payment from cooking show appearance
Caitlin Price on September 9, 2008 11:09 AM ET

[JURIST] Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej [official website, English version; BBC profile] and his cabinet were ousted Tuesday following a guilty verdict from the Constitutional Court of Thailand [official website, in Thai] on the charge that Samak violated the constitution when he accepted payment for his appearance on a television cooking program [Sky News report, with video]. Section 267 of the Constitution of Thailand [PDF text] states in part:

Except for holding a position and performing duties according to the provisions of the law, the Prime Minister or Ministers are prohibited to hold a position in a partnership, company, or business enterprise pursuing profits or income to be shared, or be an employee of any person.
The court unanimously rejected Samak's defense that he received only an honorarium [Bloomberg report] as a free-lance actor when he appeared on the show. Samak and his cabinet will remain in temporary control while the nation's political parties meet to nominate candidates for the position. Samak himself may regain the seat if selected by his ruling People's Power Party (PPP) as was indicated by his party spokesmen [Xinhua report]. The Times Online has more. The Sydney Morning Herald has additional coverage.

Last week Samak imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok [press release; JURIST report] following weeks of anti-government protests. Members of the opposition People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) party refused to recognize the order as they demanded Samak's resignation. Samak resisted those calls and instead proposed a national referendum [JURIST report] on whether he should continue in office. PAD announced plans to seek Samak's impeachment [JURIST report] in July after a series of court decisions against key officials in the government and the PPP. Also last week, Thailand's Election Commission voted to recommended that the PPP be disbanded [JURIST report] for election fraud allegedly committed by one of its former top officers.





Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Ukraine PM summoned for questioning before prosecutor
Devin Montgomery on September 9, 2008 10:41 AM ET

[JURIST] Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko [personal website] said Monday that she has been summoned [UNIAN report] to testify before Ukraine's Prosecutor General’s Office on September 11. An official for the office has said that her testimony is being sought by prosecutors investigating the 2004 poisoning of President Viktor Yushchenko [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], but Tymoshenko has said the real reason for the summons is Yushchenko's allegation that she has committed treason [Ukranian Journal report] by supporting Russia in its conflict with Georgia [JURIST news archive] and other political issues. Tymoshenko has denied having a pro-Russia agenda [RIA Novosti report], and has said that she does not want to burden Ukraine by becoming more involved in the conflict. As a result of conflicts between Yushchenko and Tymoshemko, the country's ruling coalition collapsed last week [Financial Times report] and must be reconstituted within 40 days, or will be dissolved in order for new elections to be held. AP has more.

Yuschenko's Our Ukraine-People's Self-Defense Bloc and Tymoshenko's Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc [party websites, in Ukrainian] had formed the county's ruling coalition after winning 228 seats in the 450-member Verkhovna Rada [official website, in Ukrainian] in the 2007 parliamentary election [JURIST report]. Those results were challenged by leaders of the Communist Party of Ukraine [party website, in Ukrainian], but were upheld [JURIST report] by the High Administrative Court of Ukraine in October 2007. The 2007 elections were held after Yushchenko issued a degree dissolving parliament [JURIST report] in April of that year.






Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Fifth Circuit sends Enron lawsuits back to state court
Joe Shaulis on September 9, 2008 10:11 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday revived the possibility of several state-law claims against individuals and entities connected to Enron Corp. [JURIST news archive] by ruling [opinion, PDF] that Texas courts may decide whether the period allotted for bringing such claims has lapsed. The court, based in New Orleans, reversed in part a ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas [official website] that all the claims were time-barred. Invoking a statute [text] which allows federal courts to "enjoin[] repeatedly vexatious litigants from filing future state court actions," the district court in 2002 ordered Houston law firm Fleming & Associates [firm website] to seek court permission before filing any additional Enron lawsuits. In 2005, the court denied the firm's motion to file 34 lawsuits on behalf of about 1,200 clients alleging state law claims. The court reasoned that allowing the suits to be filed would be futile because they were time-barred under Texas law. The firm appealed, arguing that the claims fell within the limitations period because they "related back" to the date of the firm's motion. In the Fifth Circuit opinion, Circuit Judge Charles Prado [official profile] wrote for the three-judge panel:

The district court was incorrect ... in denying the motion for leave to file suit for the claims that have a four-year statute of limitations. The court did not cite any authority for using its own local rules to dictate the state's filing date for purposes of Texas's relation-back principle. ... Thus, the district court should have allowed the Texas state courts to decide whether the filing of the state petitions relates back to the filing of the motion for leave to file suit (for the claims that have a four-year statute of limitations), meaning that these claims might not be futile. Because the Fleming Firm sought to file these claims before the statute of limitations expired, it is up to the state court to determine how to proceed.
The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly denied the firm leave to file claims with limitations periods shorter than four years. The Wall Street Journal has more. Reuters has additional coverage.

Also on Monday, US District Judge Melinda Harmon [official profile] in Houston ruled that plaintiffs in another Enron lawsuit were entitled to nearly $700 million in legal fees - the largest such award in a securities case. This July, experts predicted [JURIST report] that former Enron executives convicted on charges related to the 2001 accounting scandal may be eligible for new trials, depending on the outcome of an appeal by former CEO Jeffrey Skilling. Retrials for three former Enron Broadband Services executives are scheduled to begin in November [JURIST report] following the Fifth Circuit's refusal to dismiss charges.





Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Pakistan ambassador to US seeks release of nationals from Guantanamo Bay
Andrew Gilmore on September 9, 2008 8:49 AM ET

[JURIST] The Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani [official profile], met with US officials on Sunday to discuss the release of six Pakistani citizens currently being held at the US military detention center at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Pakistani media outlets, including the Associated Press of Pakistan (APP), have reported [APP report] that Haqqani has met with officials from the US Departments of State and Defense [official websites] to discuss the possible release of the prisoners. According to reports, any Pakistani prisoners facing terrorism charges upon their release would be tried by Pakistani courts. From Pakistan, the Daily Times has more.

Ambassador Haqqani's efforts to secure the release of the remaining Pakistani prisoners at Guantanamo comes just after Saturday's unannounced release [AP report] of Pakistani detainee Qari Saad Madni from the detention center. Six Pakistani terrorism suspects are believed to be held by the US, including Aafia Siddiqui [FBI materials], the first woman scheduled to stand trial on terrorism charges related to al-Qaeda. Siddiqui was extradited to the US and appeared before a federal court [JURIST report] in New York last month.






Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Serbia parliament ratifies EU association agreement
Joe Shaulis on September 9, 2008 8:19 AM ET

[JURIST] The Serbian National Assembly [official website, English version] on Tuesday ratified a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) [PDF text; EU backgrounder] to guide it toward accession [EU materials; Serbian government materials] to the European Union (EU) [official website; JURIST news archive]. The parliament voted 140-28 in favor of the agreement [official press release], which sets forth benchmarks for evaluating Serbia's prospective membership, particularly with regard to trade. The agreement will take effect upon ratification by EU member states, the EU Council of Ministers and the European Parliament [official websites]. Also Tuesday, the parliament approved a 900-million-euro agreement with Russia [JURIST news archive] to grant the Russian natural gas company Gazprom majority ownership of Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) [corporate websites], Serbia's state oil monopoly. AP has more.

After negotiations began in late 2005, Serbia [JURIST news archive] initialed the SAA in November and signed it in April. The EU has made Serbia's cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] a key element of its membership process. This July, a Serbian prosecutor said the government planned to extradite [JURIST report] Bosnian Serb leader and former fugitive Radovan Karadzic [JURIST news archive] to the Hague to face a war crimes indictment. In 2006, the EU suspended membership talks [JURIST report] with Serbia after it had failed to meet a deadline for arresting war crimes fugitive Ratko Mladic [JURIST news archive] and turning him over to the ICTY.






Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org