DARBA PIEDĀVĀJUMS (Piedāvājums un CV konkurss slēgti 23.07.2011)
Apskatīt komentārus (0)
17.07.2011
The primary aim of the Global Health Rights Litigation Project is to make health rights litigation from around the world universally accessible for civil society, NGOs, lawyers, and governments seeking to promote legal accountability for the right to health. To this end, we are creating a freely accessible online database containing judgments from each jurisdiction in the world. The secondary aim is to analyse the justiciability of health rights, including vis-a-vis other rights, with the purpose of understanding the various approaches, trends, best practices, and strategies in litigating health rights around the world.
We are seeking somebody at least familiar enough with the law of Latvia, to access caselaw databases and understand legal judgments to assist us in identifying and translating judgments implicating the right to health from Latvia. For each judgment identified, we ask to complete a very brief summary (see bellow) using the case summary template, so we may understand what the case is about. Each relevant judgment will then be translated - we will pay for all translations 10.00 US Dollars per 100 words translated into English.
****************************************************************************
Example of summary:
"Case Name: Cornejo Lopez v. Guatemalan Social Security Institute Management
Citation: File 484-2007
Year: 2007
Court: Constitutional Court Legal Protection Decision Appeal
Issue: The plaintiff received a kidney transplant and afterwards she was provided with relevant medication by the Guatemalan Social Security Institute (GSSI). In the last supply, she received different medication due to a new GSSI price policy. The plaintiff alleged a violation of her right to life because she risked losing her kidney as a result of the new price policy.
Holding/Outcome: The Court held that health and life are fundamental rights. The right to health implies the right to receive adequate medical treatment. The Court held that the medication was substituted without valid reason in this instance. It held that where the time required to resolve a legal case threatens health or life, medical treatment cannot be suspended or denied. Thus, the patient had the right to continue with the first medication while the legal controversy was resolved.
Number of pages: 6"
Atpakaļ