Regarding the failure and title of this post, only two questions. The court noted in its role as No. 634 legitimate individual interests should be understood within a broad approach to the concept of "right" (c. 21 °), and thus can be understood in the Constitution, referring to art. 1 of the Charter .. I assume that an interest is legitimate particularly when it encounters an endorsement in the legal system. No one could argue, well, the legitimate interest of the future heir. But if that interest, once considered mere expectation, is a legitimate concern, this implies, according to the Court, which is a right, in its corresponding category, nature heritage, protected by art. 19 No 24. And here the question, then the legislature could deny the same to potential heirs without compensation? Did it consider, the court weighed the consequences for the entire legal system had this statement?
0 comments:
Post a Comment