Supreme Court of New Batavia: Difference between revisions
From MicrasWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→Fourth Republic Era: link) |
(→Fourth Republic Era: corr) |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| 2021-04-28 || [[Supreme Court of New Batavia/2021-04-28|The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera]] ||A dissolved Majlis-ash-Shoera cannot be reconvened by the Cabinet. Only the President has emergency powers. The proposed "[[Laws of New Batavia/Wet opvolging ambtsdragers 2021|Act succession office holders]]" is in part unconstitutional. | | 2021-04-28 || [[Supreme Court of New Batavia/2021-04-28|The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera]] ||A dissolved Majlis-ash-Shoera cannot be reconvened by the Cabinet. Only the President has emergency powers. The proposed "[[Laws of New Batavia/Wet opvolging ambtsdragers 2021|Act succession office holders]]" is in part unconstitutional. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| 2021-12-23 || [[Supreme Court of New Batavia/2021-12-23|The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera]] ||Joining [[Treaties of New Batavia/Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court|Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court]] does not violate the constitution, but the judicial power of the Republic, as well as the Supreme Court, will at all times continue to have primacy over this Commonwealth Court when it comes to rulings that have national effect . | | 2021-12-23 || [[Supreme Court of New Batavia/2021-12-23|The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera]] ||Joining the [[Treaties of New Batavia/Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court|Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court]] does not violate the constitution, but the judicial power of the Republic, as well as the Supreme Court, will at all times continue to have primacy over this Commonwealth Court when it comes to rulings that have national effect . | ||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:22, 25 December 2021
Chief Justice of New Batavia | |
Coat of arms of the Supreme Court | |
Incumbent | |
Abdullah van Nedersticht | |
since 2020-12-09 | |
Style | Meneer de voorzitter |
Residence | Lucerne |
Appointer | President of New Batavia |
Term | for life |
Inaugural holder | Erwin V.H. |
Formation | 2007-01-24 |
The Supreme Court of New Batavia (Hooggerechtshof) was established by the Union of Utrecht in 2007. The Supreme Court was retained by the constitutions of the Second, Third and Fourth Republic.
Justices
History of New Batavia |
First Republic (2007-2008) |
|
Portal New Batavia |
This is a list of Chief Justices of New Batavia and its predecessor states.
# | Picture | Name | Period |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Erwin V.H. | 2007-10-03 - 2011-07-04 | |
2 | Abdullah van Nedersticht | 2020-12-09 - present |
Cases heard
Second Republic Era
Date | Case name | On |
---|---|---|
2008-11-30 | Xander v. the Cabinet | On the legality of the referendum |
2009-01-26 | The President v. the National Assembly | On the constitutionality of the Intelligence Bill |
2009-03-26 | Frans v. the President | On the violation of the separation of powers by the President |
2009-11-23 | Frans v. the National Assembly | On the language of a friendship treaty and its translation into Dutch |
2009-11-17 | Frans v. the National Assembly | On the law on the Economy of the Small Commonwealth. This law and the law on human rights were both dismissed |
Fourth Republic Era
Date | Case name | Holding |
---|---|---|
2020-12-13 | The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera | A treaty is part of New Batavian law, hence it must be in Dutch language as per article 6 of the Constitution. The proposed treaty between Hurmu and New Batavia is unconstitutional. |
2021-04-28 | The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera | A dissolved Majlis-ash-Shoera cannot be reconvened by the Cabinet. Only the President has emergency powers. The proposed "Act succession office holders" is in part unconstitutional. |
2021-12-23 | The President v. the Majlis-ash-Shoera | Joining the Convention on the Establishment of a Commonwealth Court does not violate the constitution, but the judicial power of the Republic, as well as the Supreme Court, will at all times continue to have primacy over this Commonwealth Court when it comes to rulings that have national effect . |
|