বুধবার, ১৩ জুন, ২০১২

Domicile (law)

Domicile (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (i.e., if that person has moved to a different state, but has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely). A corporation’s place of domicile is equivalent to its place of incorporation.
Traditionally many common law jurisdictions considered a person's domicile to be a determinative factor in the conflict of laws and would, for example, only recognize a divorce conducted in another jurisdiction if at least one of the parties were domiciled there at the time it was conducted.

Outline of the concept

In early societies, there was little mobility but, as travel from one state to another developed, problems emerged: what should happen if different forms of marriage exist, if children become adult at different ages, etc.? One answer is that people must be given a connection to a legal jurisdiction, like a passport, that they carry with them wherever they go. Hence, if according to the laws of their domicile a person has the right to marry multiple spouses, the marriages should not alternate between valid and invalid every time they cross a state boundary where the laws are different. If someone is an infant and therefore has reduced contractual capacity, that will tend to apply wherever they go. Furthermore, when a person dies, it is the law of their domicile that determines how their will is interpreted, or if the person has no valid will, how their property will pass by intestate succession.
Domicile should be distinguished from nationality which is the relationship between an individual and a country. Where the state and the country are co-extensive, the two may be the same. However, where the country is federated into separate legal systems, nationality and domicile will be different. For example, one might have American nationality and a domicile in Texas, or British nationality and a domicile in Scotland. Further, one can have dual nationality but not more than one domicile at a time. A person may have a domicile in one state while maintaining nationality in another country. Unlike nationality, no person can be without a domicile even if stateless.
Domicile is distinct from habitual residence where there is much less focus on future intent. Domicile is being supplanted by habitual residence in international conventions dealing with Conflict and other private law matters.
“Domicile” has a somewhat technical legal meaning in common law jurisdictions and should not be confused with: (1) “Domicile” in civil law jurisdictions. (2) “Domicile” in EU regulations and international treaties (where a definition often overrides the common law sense of domicile). (3) “Domicile” in ordinary English usage.
The rules determining domicile in common law jurisdictions are based on case law in origin. Most jurisdictions have altered some aspects of the common law rules by statute, the details of which vary from one jurisdiction to another. The general framework of the common law rules has however survived in most jurisdictions and is in outline as follows:

Domicile of origin

Dicey states the common law rule thus:
Every person receives at birth a domicile of origin:
(a) A legitimate child born during the lifetime of his father has his domicile of origin in the country in which his father was domiciled at the time of his birth;
(b) A legitimate child not born during the lifetime of his father, or an illegitimate child, has his domicile of origin in the country in which his mother was domiciled at the time of his birth;
(c) A foundling has his domicile of origin in the country in which he was found.
(2) A domicile of origin may be changed as a result of adoption, but not otherwise.[1]
In some jurisdictions the status of illegitimacy has been abolished, and slightly different rules apply where parents have differing domiciles.

Domicile of choice

Dicey states the common law rule thus:
Every independent person can acquire a domicile of choice by the nation of residence and intention of permanent or indefinite residence, but not otherwise.[2]
A person abandons a domicile of choice in a country by ceasing to reside there and by ceasing to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely ( not based on the immigration status,but based on the social & moral status ), and not otherwise.
When a domicile of choice is abandoned, either
(i) a new domicile of choice is acquired; or
(ii) the domicile of origin revives.[3]
The rule that the domicile of origin revives on abandonment of a domicile of choice has been altered in some jurisdictions.

Domicile of dependency

Dicey states the common law rule thus:
The domicile of a dependent person is, in general, the same as, and changes (if at all) with, the domicile of the person on whom he is, as regards his domicile, legally dependent.[4]
In particular, during minority, a child's domicile of dependency changes to match that of the adult on whom the child is said to be dependent.

The law in specific jurisdictions

United States

Each state of the United States is considered a separate sovereign within the U.S. federal system, and each therefore has its own laws on questions of marriage, inheritance, and liability for tort and contract actions. Persons who reside in the U.S. must have a state domicile for various purposes. For example, a person can always be sued in their state of domicile. Furthermore, in order for individual parties (that is, natural persons) to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of a United States district court (a federal trial court), all the plaintiffs must have a different state of domicile from all the defendants (so-called "complete diversity").[5]

United Kingdom

The rules are in short as set out above. The Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 abolished the rule that a married woman had the domicile of her husband (with transitional rules for those married before 1 January 1974). The rules dealing with the domicile of minors differ slightly between England and Wales (governed by the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973) and Scotland (governed by Section 22 Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006). [6]

Austrian and Germany

Hauptwohnsitz is the name of the concept of main domicile in Austrian and German law.

People's Republic of China

A domiciled individual is defined as one who, by reason of the individual’s permanent registered address, family, and/or economic interests, habitually resides in China. A PRC national with a Chinese passport or a Domicile registration is likely to be deemed as domiciled in China - whether resident in China or not - and therefore attract liability for individual income tax on worldwide income.[7]

References

1.                          ^ Conflict of Laws, Dicey Morris & Collins, 14th ed., para 6R-025.
2.                          ^ Conflict of Laws, Dicey Morris & Collins, 14th ed., para 6R-033.
3.                          ^ Conflict of Laws, Dicey Morris & Collins, 14th ed., para 6R-033 and 6R-074.
4.                          ^ Conflict of Laws, Dicey Morris & Collins, 14th ed., para 6R-078.
5.                          ^ Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards, 194 U.S. 377 (1904).
6.                          ^ Taxation of Non-Residents and Foreign Domiciliaries 10th ed 2011, James Kessler QC (for UK law).
7.                          ^ "China". Retrieved 2012-03-05.

শনিবার, ২৬ মে, ২০১২

Sexual harassment in Bangladesh


Languages

Bangladesh: University students' victory in sexual harassment case

Source: WLUML Networkers

The High Court gave a landmark judgment today in the first application of its Sexual Harassment Guidelines pronounced on 14 May.

One year ago, in May 2008, four women students at Jahangirnagar University made complaints of serial sexual harassment against their teacher and the Chairperson of the Drama Department, Sanowar Hossain Sunny. The University appointed three separate inquiry committees, which examined witnesses and issued reports with clear findings against the teacher. During this period, the students continued to face threats and harassment.

In September 2008, the University announced that Sunny was ‘exonerated of all charges of sexual harassment as they had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt’. Later the University also proceeded to pass orders of temporary expulsion against four of the women complainants, and two male students who had given evidence in their favour.
Prof Sirajul Islam Chowdhury and others filed a public interest petition challenging the University’s decision and actions. Later the victim-complainants and the two other students also became parties to the petition (Prof Sirajul Islam and others v Jahangirnagar University and others Writ Petition 9414 of 2008).
Today the High Court held that the decisions taken by the University to exonerate Sunny on the one hand, and to expel the students on the other, were both without lawful authority. It also directed the University to hold a fresh inquiry into the incident, with independent persons, on the basis of the new Guidelines on Sexual Harassment pronounced in BNWLA v Bangladesh . Citing judgments of the Supreme Courts of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the Court held that corroboration was not always required to prove allegations of sexual violence, and further that the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ could not be applicable in cases of this nature, relating to disciplinary inquiries regarding allegations of sexual harassment. The Court also noted that Jahangirnagar University authorities had failed ‘for reasons best known to themselves’ to adopt their own guidelines on sexual harassment, and therefore in the absence of any applicable law, the High Court’s new guidelines should be applied to any fresh inquiry.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddiqi passed the judgment today.
The writ petition was filed by eminent citizens Prof. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury and Kamal Lohani, and three human rights organisations, Ain o Salish Kendra, Nijera Kori and Kormojibi Nari.[1] Four women students of Jahagirnagar University who had made complaints of sexual harassment, and two others who gave evidence, were also joined as petitioners during the course of the hearing.
Sara Hossain, with Ramzan Ali Sikder, Ainun Nahar Lipi and Abantee Nurul appeared for the public interest petitioners. Ruhul Quddus Babu appeared for the students.
Background
Complaints: In May 2008, four women students submitted written complaints of serial sexual harassment against Asst Prof Sanowar Hossain Sunny of the Drama and Dramatic Theory Department. The University set up a preliminary inquiry committee, and then a further verification committee both of which made prima facie findings against the teacher. On consideration of their reports, the Syndicate established a Full Inquiry Committee under Section 44 of the Jahangirnagar University Act. This report was submitted to the Syndicate which passed a decision in September to exonerate the said teacher of all charges of sexual harassment on the ground that in the absence of eyewitnesses these had not been ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’. This decision was passed despite clear findings by each Inquiry Committee against the teacher, including findings by the Final Inquiry Committee of misconduct against the teacher, and that his behaviour was ‘wholly improper and unbefitting of a teacher’ and recommending action against him. The University, despite having powers to do so, had never suspended the teacher pending inquiry.
Appeals filed by the students to the Chancellor of the University, also the President of the country, went unheeded. Expulsion and Threats: In October, the University then reinstated the teacher. Following his return to the campus, and an altercation with students, the accused teacher made a complaint against six students (two of whom were among the women who had made complaints against him and two of whom were male students who had given evidence against him). The Syndicate moved the same day to pass orders of temporary expulsion on these six students. A section of the Jahagirnagar University Teachers Association then held processions and meetings demanding the immediate expulsion of the students, and refused to hold classes unless action was taken. Some of these teachers were at the same time involved in the disciplinary proceedings against the students.
During this entire period, the victim complainants and others witnesses had been subjected to repeated threats and warned that unless they stopped pursuing their claims against the teacher, they would face dire consequences. These threats were reported to the University Authorities but no action was taken.
High Court Orders: On 27 October, the High Court issued a Rule Nisi on the University and also stayed the orders of temporary expulsion passed on the students. It asked Jahangirnagar University Authorities to show cause among others as to why its to exonerate Sanower Hossain Sunny should not be declared to be without lawful authority and why a fresh inquiry should not be held into the matter. It also stayed operation of the orders of the Syndicate suspending six students of the University including four of the women who had originally made complaints against this teacher and two other who had given evidence against him.
The University in its response to the Court stated that it had acted with ‘due process’ and justified the action taken against the student victims of sexual harassment. As a result of the High Court’s orders, it submitted copies of the reports of the three Inquiry Committees to the Court.
Sexual Harassment Guidelines: It should be noted that calls for formulation of Guidelines on Sexual Harassment had first come from students and teachers of Jahagirnagar University, in the wake of earlier incidents of serial sexual harassment, from more than ten years ago, involving both teachers and students as perpetrators. Although the JU Syndicate had mandated the framing of such Guidelines, it ultimately failed to adopt these Guidelines.
In the meantime, in 2008, the University Grants Commission, in the context of the new reports of sexual harassment surfacing at JU and Dhaka University, and in response to calls from women’s organisations, including Bangladesh Mohila Porishod, set up a drafting committee to prepare new Guidelines. This Committee drew heavily on the Jahangirnagar draft, and revised it following consultations with civil society organisations and academics. But ultimately the Education Ministry failed to adopt the Guidelines the decision. Earlier this month, it held that it would not proceed with the UGC guidelines, but instead called on each University to frame its own rules and regulations - leaving victims of sexual harassment with no effective redress. In this context, the High Court's Guidelines in Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v Bangladesh, pronounced on 14 May 2009, have filled a much needed gap in the law, and today's judgment shows how they can be immediately utilised to open up new possibilities for legal protection and also to hold authorities responsible for creating a violence free educational environment.
For further information, please contact
Sara Hossain, 01713 031828, sarahossain@gmail.com
Ruhul Quddus, 01711 434891
[1] Represented by Sultana Kamal, ED, ASK, Khushi Kabir, Coordinator, Nijera Kori and Shirin Akhter, President KN respectively.

Social Justice & Human Rights

Social Justice & Human Rights
BRIF addresses issues related to good governance, transparency in local government, social justice and human rights. We support and advise rural underprivileged people (particularly women) on legal matters such as dowry, divorce and culturally complex family affairs. Other social inequalities are addressed through advocacy, legal education, legal aid and other support services. Awareness of women and child trafficking and child labour has been raised through community discussion, educational leaflets and posters.
  
Land Rights: Bangladesh's economy is reliant on its land, having a higher percentage of land used for cultivation than any country in the world. There are currently 57% of Bangladesh's population (Samata) who own no or less than 50 decimals of land (rendering them functionally landless), and that number is increasing. Given the lack of adequate earning opportunities for the landless, it is they who are the most exposed to poverty and hardship, facing the greatest barriers to self-reliance. Rural people are the most vulnerable to landlessness' worst effects, as they are reliant on the land for income, food and security. However, 4.2 million acres of land is currently under state ownership (khas land), and is potentially available to be claimed for cultivation by those with no land. In practice, the vast majority of landless people are unaware that they are eligible to make a claim, while establishing rights over the khas land is a complex process open to conflict and corruption. Flaws in the land administration system also significantly contribute to violent land-based disputes. Women who are divorced or widowed are further exposed to exploitation of their land rights by their husband's family, and in many cases are left destitute when unable to assert their rights. Similarly, there are many cases where sons do not allow their sisters to inherit their legal share of land after the death of their father. As long as the number of landless continues to grow, Bangladesh's economy will remain fragile and the majority of its people will remain in poverty.

Land and Agrarian Network for Development (LAND) Project: The LAND project was set up in June 2004 with assistance from Samata and the UK Department for International Development, to assist rural people with the process of claiming land. The Land team raises awareness among the landless poor of their right to khas land, and helps them through the land administration system. Support from the project gives beneficiaries the power and the contacts to mobilize their claim, while the team liaises with local authorities to identify the land available and co-ordinate the process. They are on hand to help beneficiaries who have low levels of literacy in filling out the forms, to negotiate on their behalf with officials, and to mediate community conflicts. The project also lobbies local government about the issues of the landless poor and advocates the rights of those without land to give them more legal support. The team particularly works with women who have been exploited by their families, raising awareness within the community of women's right to land, and supporting those affected in asserting their rights.
WWW.GOOGLE.COM

রবিবার, ২০ মে, ২০১২

Govt. Forms of Bangladesh

সর্বাধিক ব্যবহৃত ফরম



ব্যবহারের শর্ত | গোপনীয়তার নীতিমালা
উন্নয়নে, একসেস টু ইনফরমেশন প্রোগ্রাম, প্রধানমন্ত্রীর কার্যালয়