It looks like you're offline.
Open Library logo
additional options menu

MARC Record from marc_columbia

Record ID marc_columbia/Columbia-extract-20221130-022.mrc:176901404:3371
Source marc_columbia
Download Link /show-records/marc_columbia/Columbia-extract-20221130-022.mrc:176901404:3371?format=raw

LEADER: 03371cam a2200697 i 4500
001 10839577
005 20140825123847.0
008 140623t20142014ne b 001 0 eng c
010 $a 2013417554
015 $a26047800$2bccb
016 7 $a016660509$2Uk
019 $a881614244
020 $a9789041141231 (cloth : alk. paper)
020 $a9041141235 (cloth : alk. paper)
035 $a(OCoLC)ocn871243597
035 $a(OCoLC)871243597$z(OCoLC)881614244
035 $a(NNC)10839577
040 $aERASA$beng$erda$cERASA$dDLC$dYLS$dUKMGB$dBEDGE$dOHX$dBTCTA$dYDXCP$dNLGGC$dOCLCO
042 $apcc
043 $ae------$an------
050 00 $aKJC3762$b.C86 2014
072 7 $aK$2lcco
082 04 $a349.497
084 $a86.82$2bcl
100 1 $aCumming, George$c(Lawyer),$eauthor.
245 10 $aExpert evidence deficiencies in the judgments of the courts of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights /$cGeorge Cumming, of the Inner Temple, Barrister.
264 1 $aAlphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands :$bWolters Kluwer Law & Business :$bKluwer Law International,$c[2014]
264 2 $aFrederick, MD :$bSold and distributed in North, Central and South America by Aspen Publishers, Inc.
264 4 $c©2014
300 $avii, 251 pages ;$c25 cm
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
338 $avolume$bnc$2rdacarrier
490 1 $aEuropean monographs ;$v89
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 245-248) and index.
520 8 $aQuestions of admissibility surrounding expert evidence have always bedevilled the judiciary. However, statutory language and rules of procedure, conscientiously interpreted and applied to the use of expert evidence, can go a long way towards achieving rectitude of decision where judgement requires knowledge not necessarily possessed by the jurists responsible for trying the case. In this remarkable work of analysis and commentary, George Cumming takes the position that the prominent international courts of Europe fail to follow their own rules of procedure in the use of expert opinion, thus potentially breaching the express right to a fair trial embodied within Article 6 (1) ECHR.
650 0 $aEvidence, Expert$zEurope.
650 0 $aAdmissible evidence$zEurope.
650 0 $aJudgments$zEurope.
650 0 $aFair trial$zEurope.
650 0 $aLaw$zEurope$xInterpretation and construction.
650 0 $aEvidence, Expert$zNorth America.
650 0 $aAdmissible evidence$zNorth America.
650 0 $aJudgments$zNorth America.
650 7 $aUE/CE Droit.$2eclas
650 7 $aUE/CE Cour de justice.$2eclas
650 7 $aCour européenne des droits de l'homme.$2eclas
650 7 $aCours suprêmes.$2eclas
650 7 $aJugements.$2eclas
650 7 $aTémoignages.$2eclas
650 7 $aExpertises judiciaires.$2eclas
650 7 $aUE/CE Traités.$2eclas
650 7 $aConvention européenne des droits de l'homme.$2eclas
651 7 $aEtats-Unis d'Amérique.$2eclas
651 7 $aCanada.$2eclas
650 17 $aRechtspleging.$0(NL-LeOCL)07864528X$2gtt
650 17 $aHof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen.$2gtt
650 17 $aEuropees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens.$2gtt
650 17 $aBewijsrecht.$2gtt
830 0 $aEuropean monographs ;$v89.
852 00 $bleh$hKJC3762$i.C86 2014