Введите слово или словосочетание на любом языке 👆
Язык:
Перевод и анализ слов искусственным интеллектом ChatGPT
На этой странице Вы можете получить подробный анализ слова или словосочетания, произведенный с помощью лучшей на сегодняшний день технологии искусственного интеллекта:
- как употребляется слово
- частота употребления
- используется оно чаще в устной или письменной речи
- варианты перевода слова
- примеры употребления (несколько фраз с переводом)
- этимология
Что (кто) такое R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis - определение
R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
R (on the application of GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence.
Waters v Comr of Police for the Metropolis
UK LEGAL CASE
Waters v Metropolitan Police; Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Waters v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
is a UK labour law case concerning victimisation for alleging rape, and whether the employee could claim this amounted to sex discrimination. It now falls under the Equality Act 2010 section 27.
R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
2000S BRITISH COURT CASE
R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v Central Criminal Court; R (British Sky Broadcasting Ltd) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; R v Comr of Police of the Metropolis, ex p British Sky Broadcasting Ltd
was a 2014 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The court held that as inter partes proceedings created a lis between the parties (per Lewes), equal treatment (per Al Rawi) meant that ex parte evidence in general could not be adduced.
Википедия
R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis
R (on the application of GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence.
