Prime Directive

their symptoms of withdrawal, but the captain refuses to intervene citing the prime directive. The planet of drug dealers asks for help in repairing their ships in order doc continue trade with the suffering planet, and the captain again refuses to intervene, thus ending the contact between the two planets. Although the episode has a happy ending of sorts with the drug trade coming to an end thanks to the Prime Directive, it is still an unsatisfactory result as The Enterprise leaves the planet full

sev1eral different cultures by embracing different key ideals such as altruism, self-determination, and diversity. Of all of the ideals presented in Star Trek the one that holds the highest moral obligation is The Prime Directive. According to Starfleet General Orders, The Prime Directive is defined as, “The right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien

This question concerns the application of direct effect to the facts in question. In particular, Fergie requires advice on whether or not he can rely on Directive 15/2012 and enforce his EU law rights in the national court. Fergie takes legal proceedings against Charlston Council to claim compensation for his injury. The council seems to have complied with the domestic law which stipulate only that, the caterers has a duty to eliminate unhealthy food. The Act is silent on genetically modified food

direct effect, the CJEU has skilfully managed to create an effective enforcement regime for directives while applying consistent principles in regards to respecting the purpose and function of directives, keeping EU directives and regulations distinct, and crafting new methods of achieving the aim of directives. According to article 288 of Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a directive is a legal instrument of the EU which requires member states to achieve a designated result

“A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to decide how. This was the case with the working time directive, which stipulates that too much overtime work is illegal.” http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm In Rochelle’s case the European Union and the European Parliament adopted Directive 2012/507 (The Off-Premises Sales Contract Directive), Rochelle may seek to rely on Article

slightly different when it comes to directives. Article 288 states that a directive must be implemented into national law. Even if it does not fulfil the second criteria of the test in Van Gend en Loos about implemented measures, in the latter case of Van Duyn v Home Office it was held that directives can be directly effective provided that they are clear and unconditional. There are conditions, however, in the case of Ratti , it was held that for a directive to have direct effect on the member

health, also good functioning of market-Thus ensuring safety and performance of medical devices (Regulatory Framework, 2017). These regulations consisted of three directives: • Council directive 90/385/EEC on active implantable medical devices (AIMDD) (1990) • Council directive 93/42/EEC on medical devices (MDD) (1993) • Council directive 98/79/EC on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDMD) (1998) On 26th September 2012, the proposal for the new regulations of

provision of EU law has horizontal direct effect it can be enforced by an individual in a national court’ . Indirect effect is that where ‘obligation on national courts to interpret national law consistently with EU law’. It may be used where the directive is incapable of horizontal direct effect. State liability can overcome the limitations of direct and indirect effect, it ‘provides a right to damages where a Member State has breached EU law, causing loss to the applicant.’ The question of whether

application of the doctrine of direct effect, and possibly the application of indirect effect and state liability if require in pursuant of invoking the EU Transfer of Pensions Directive (TPD) in a UK national court (NC) in light of the UK’s national legislation which evidently fails to completely encompass the directive. Directives are a secondary source of European Union (EU) legislation which in accordance with Art 288 of the EC: are binding on the EU Member States (MSs) to which it is addressed; they

private use and could storage onto other format without infringing. Here, a number of music industry bodies sought a judicial review on the basis that Section 28B failed to provide a fair compensation to right holders. Article 5(2)(b) of InfoSoc Directive permits member states to came up with private copy exception if the copy for private use caused no more than minimal harm to copyright holders, otherwise compensation would be payable. In UK, government create an exception which caused zero or