The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from official national legal publications, and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the Global Legal Monitor.

For questions about articles or copies of materials in the Law Library’s collections, contact us at glm@loc.gov.

Current News

Indonesia: New Province, Autonomous Regions Planned

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403379_text

(Oct 19, 2012) Indonesia's Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (House of Representatives) has agreed to a plan to form a new province, North Kalimantan. The new province will bring to 34 the total number of provinces in the country. North Kalimantan will comprise Tarakan, Nunukan, Malinau, Bulungan, and Tanah Tidung, five districts that are currently part of the province of East Kalimantan. (House Agrees on Creation of Indonesia's 34th Province; "North Kalimantan," THE JAKARTA GLOBE (Oct. 22, 2012).)

The new province is located on the island of Borneo, adjacent to the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. It will become fully functional as a separate province in three years. The rationale for the creation of the additional province was that it would facilitate the development of the region. (House Approves Five New Autonomous Regions, THE JAKARTA POST (Aug. 22, 2012).)

The legislature also approved the creation of four sub-provincial administrative units, the districts of Pangandaran, in West Java; South Coast, in Lampung; and Arfak Mountains and South Manokwari, both in West Papua. This is the first time new districts have been created in Indonesia since 2009. New districts in four other provinces were considered but rejected. (House Agrees on Creation of Indonesia's 34th Province; "North Kalimantan," supra.)

• Author: Constance Johnson More by this author
• Topic: Administrative law  More on this topic
• Jurisdiction: Indonesia  More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

Italy: Supreme Court Ruling on Mobile Phones and Tumors

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403378_text

(Oct 19, 2012) On October 18, 2012, it was reported that Italy's Supreme Court had handed down a ruling based on its acceptance of the argument that there is a causal connection between extensive cell phone use and the development of a brain tumor. The Court agreed with the appellant's claim that the growth of a benign tumor on the left side of his face had resulted from his having to spend five to six hours a day on the phone, for 12 years, as part of his job requirements. The Court ruled that he merited compensation, in the form of entitlement to an 80% disability pension. (Dan DeRight, Italy High Court Finds Causal Link Between Mobile Phones and Cancer, PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST (Oct. 19, 2012).)

The appellant in the case, former Brescian company director Innocenzo Marcolini, discovered in 2002 that he had developed a "neurinoma," a benign tumor that arises from the cells of a nerve sheath, in this case the Gasser's ganglion of the trigeminal nerve. (Neurinoma, THE PROBERT ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MEDICINE (last visited Oct. 23, 2012); Manager bresciano risarcito per un tumore provocato dall'uso del cellulare, IL GIORNO (Oct. 18, 2012), .) Even though the tumor was deemed non-cancerous, it "nevertheless required surgery that badly affected his quality of life." (Virginia Alimenti, Naomi O'Leary, & Kate Kelland, Italy Court Ruling Links Mobile Phone Use to Tumor, REUTERS (Oct. 19, 2012).)

Marcolini's application to the Italian Workers' Compensation Authority, INAIL, for financial compensation was turned down on the ground of lack of evidence that the tumor was work-related, but a Brescian court subsequently held that a causal link did exist between mobile and cordless phone use and tumors. INAIL's appeal against that decision was rejected by the Supreme Court on October 12, 2012. (Id.)

In upholding the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court held "that scientific evidence advanced in support of the claim was reliable" and that "Marcolini's situation had been 'different from normal, non-professional use of a mobile telephone.'" (Id.) That evidence was based chiefly on studies done by a Swedish group of cancer specialists, led by Lennart Hardell, between 2005 and 2009. (DeRight, supra; Lennart Hardell, Long-Term Use of Cellular and Cordless Phones and the Risk of Brain Tumours [Power Point presentation] (last visited Oct. 23, 2012).) The Court deemed their work to be independent and not, like some others' research, "co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones." (Alimenti et al., supra.)

Scientific opinion remains divided, however, as to the strength of the causal tie between mobile phone use and tumors. In response to the Italian ruling, Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Great Britain, noted, "[g]reat caution is needed before we jump to conclusions about mobile phones and brain tumors." (Id.) In May 2011, moreover, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization made the cautious announcement in a press release that it had classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, of the sort used by wireless phones, as only "possibly carcinogenic to humans." (Press Release, IARC, IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (May 31, 2011).)

• Author: Wendy Zeldin More by this author
• Topic: Health and safety  More on this topic
• Jurisdiction: Italy  More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

Gambia: Seven Death Sentences Upheld

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403377_text

(Oct 19, 2012) On October 19, 2012, the Gambia Supreme Court upheld the treason convictions of seven men, including the former Chief of Defense Staff, Lieutenant General Lang Tombong Tamba. The defendants originally were convicted in 2010 and given death sentences. (Jaimie Cremeans, AI: Gambia Convicts at Risk of Execution After Supreme Court Decision, PAPER CHASE NEWSBURST (Oct. 20, 2012).)

Amnesty International (AI) has issued a statement calling on the Gambian government to allow the men to make maximum use of the appeals process. (Press Release, Amnesty International, Seven Men at Imminent Risk of Execution in The Gambia (Oct. 19, 2012).) The statement goes on to point out that under Gambia's Constitution, the death sentence is reserved for offenses that result in another person's death. (Id.; Constitution of the Republic of Gambia, 1997, as amended in 2001, art. 18(2), UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA HUMAN RIGHTS LIBRARY.)

AI's West Africa Program Director, Lucy Freeman, argued that Gambia "must not carry out any executions, and commute as a matter of urgency the death sentences of the seven men - and all death row inmates. They must also uphold the moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty." (Press Release, supra.) Gambia instituted a temporary, conditional halt on capital punishment in September 2012. (Constance Johnson, Gambia: Death Penalty Impositions Temporarily Halted, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (Sept. 18, 2012).)

• Author: Constance Johnson More by this author
• Topic: Capital punishment  More on this topic
• Jurisdiction: Gambia  More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

Norway: Proposed Criminal Law Amendment to Include Internet in Public Space, Public Act Definition

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403376_text

(Oct 19, 2012) On September 12, 2012, Norway's Ministry of Justice published for public comment a proposal recommending that the country's Criminal Code be changed to reflect a new definition of public space and of public action to include the Internet, so that persons who publish hate speech, regardless of the medium, can be more strictly punished. (Julie Ryland, Wants Ban on Online Statements of Hate, THE NORWAY POST(Sept. 14, 2012); Ønsker å straffe hatytringer pånettet [Want to Punish Hate Speech on the Web], Norwegian Labor Party website (Sept. 13, 2012).)

The impetus for the proposal appears to be a ruling issued in August by the Norwegian Supreme Court, which determined that the Internet is not a public space, upholding an appeals court decision that had ordered the release of a blogger who had allegedly made threats against the police on his blog. Thus hate speech published in a newspaper would at present be handled differently under the law than similar statements that appear on Facebook or in a blog. (Id.; Wendy Zeldin, Norway: Making Public Threats on a Blog Will Be Criminalized, GLOBAL LEGAL MONITOR (Aug. 13, 2012).)

The current definition of public space and public action for the purposes of criminal law is found in section 7 of the Norwegian Penal Code of 1902. It states:

1. In this code public place means any place intended for public use or frequented by the public.

2. An act is considered to be committed in public when it is committed by publication of printed matter or in the presence of a large number of persons or under such circumstances that it could easily have been observed from a public place and is observed by any person present there or close to it. (The General Civil Penal Code (Act No. 10 of May 22, 1902, as last amended by Act No. 131,Dec. 21, 2005),University of Oslo Law Library Translated Norwegian Legislation online database; Almindelig borgerlig Straffelov (Straffeloven) [General Civil Penal Code (Penal Code)] (last amended June 22, 2012), LOVDATA online legal database.)

It may be noted that unlike the 1902 Code, Norway's new Penal Code of 2005, which is only partially in effect, in its definition of public space and public action under section 10 (not yet in force), does not refer to "the publication ofprinted matter" (Udgivelse af trykt Skrift)in defining a public act. Instead, it includes as part of the definition of a public act the"issuance of a message" (fremsettelse av et budskap). It does not mention the Internet, however. (Lov om straff (straffeloven) [Law on Punishment (Penal Code)] (May 20, 2005; enforcement date determined by the King),§ 10 (as amended by Law No. 74 of June 19, 2009), LOVDATA.)

A consultation document on the proposal to broaden section 7's definition of public space and public action has been released, and the deadline for submission of comments is October 26, 2012. (Høring– Forslag til endring av definisjonen av når en handling er begått «offentlig» i straffeloven 1902 – ytringer mv. fremsatt på internett [Consultation – Proposal to change the definition of when an act is committed "in public" in the Penal Code 1902 – statements, etc., made on the Internet] (Sept. 12, 2012).)

Punishment of Hate Speech Under the Norwegian Penal Codes

Section 135a of the amended 1902 Penal Code provides a punishment of a fine or imprisonment for up to three years for those who "wilfully or through gross negligence publicly [utter] a discriminatory or hateful expression." Those who aid and abet the commission of such an act will be liable to the same penalty. (The General Civil Penal Code, § 135a, supra.) Section 135a defines "a discriminatory or hateful expression" as "threatening or insulting anyone, or inciting hatred or persecution of or contempt for anyone because of his or her a) skin colour or national or ethnic origin, b) religion or life stance, or c) homosexuality, lifestyle or orientation." (Id.)

Norway's new Penal Code of 2005 covers the same crime in section 185 on "hate speech" (Hatefulle ytringer). It includes threatening, insulting, etc., a person because of a disability as a fourth type of discriminatory or hateful expression. (Lov om straff (straffeloven), § 185, supra.)

Labor Party memberPål Lønseth reportedly attributes the delay in the 2005 Code's full enforcement"to the fact that present computer systems in the police districts are not able to handle both the old criminal code and the new one in a transition period." (Ryland, supra.)

• Author: Wendy Zeldin More by this author
• Topic: Criminal law and procedure  More on this topic
• Jurisdiction: Norway  More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top

European Union: Parliamentary Committee on Organized Crime and Money Laundering

To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403375_text

(Oct 19, 2012) In March 2012, the European Parliament established a Special Committee on Organized Crime, Corruption, and Money Laundering (COCCML) with the mandate of making recommendations to tackle organized crime across the European Union. On October 1, 2012, the COCCML presented its first document, designed to highlight the different approaches to organized crime among the EU Member States. (European Parliament, Special Committee on Organized Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering, Working Document on Organized Crime, EUROPA (Oct. 1, 2012).)

The COCCML noted that there are a number of legislative instruments at the EU level that define organized crime and are designed to combat its various forms, and it also noted the fact that all EU Member States have been affected to some extent by such crime. However, the EU and its Member States have neither adopted a uniform definition of organized crime, nor put in place similar legislative approaches to the problem. Italy, the epicenter of mafia-type crime, has adopted a special criminal code to combat such crime, while other countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, have no special legislation. (Id.) Instead, the law enforcement agencies of these two Nordic countries rely on the EU's current multifaceted definition of organized crime. (Lars Korsell & Paul Larsson, Organized Crime the Nordic Way, 40:1 CRIME & JUSTICE 525 (Aug. 2011).)

The COCCML therefore paid particular attention to methods and procedures used in Italy, as models. For instance, the prison system in Italy that isolates perpetrators of organized crime, the so-called hard jail, has proven an effective method for preventing mafia bosses from communicating and giving orders to subordinates from prison. Another example of interest to the COCCML is the Italian provisions on confiscation of property and other assets; the confiscation can be done prior to conviction as a preventive measure. (Working Document on Organized Crime, supra.)

The key recommendations on organized crime made by the COCCML to the European Parliament include the following:

· formulation of an EU-wide definition of mafia-type organized crime and criminalization of organized crime in all EU Member States;

· seizure of criminal assets, including real property, vehicles, etc., before conviction as a preventive measure and their use for the benefit of the community;

· establishment of an EU prosecutor as mandated by the Lisbon Treaty;

· adoption of new rules on public procurement to exclude from participation those convicted by a final court judgment for having a role in organized crime; and

· an increase in the use of new technologies, such as satellite observation, in fighting organized crime. (Id).

• Author: Theresa Papademetriou More by this author
• Topic: Criminal law and procedure  More on this topic
• Jurisdiction: European Union  More about this jurisdiction

Back to Top