text:
1. The present appeal depicts and, in a way, sculpts the non- acceptance of conceptual limitation in every human sphere including that of adjudication. No adjudicator or a Judge can conceive the idea that the sky is the limit or for that matter there is no barrier or fetters in one's individual perception, for judicial vision should not be allowed to be imprisoned and have the potentiality to cover celestial zones.
Be it ingeminated, refrain and restrain are the essential virtues in the arena of adjudication because they guard as sentinel so that virtuousness is constantly sustained. Not for nothing, centuries back Francis Bacon had to say thus:- "Judges ought to be more learned than witty, more reverend than plausible, and more advised than confident. Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue......Let the judges also remember that Solomon's throne was supported by lions on both sides: let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne."
2. Almost half a century back Frankfurter, J. sounded a note of caution:- "For the Highest exercise of judicial duty is to subordinate one's personal pulls and one's views to the law of which we are all guardians-those impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community, and not the victims of personal rule."
3. In this context, it is seemly to reproduce the warning of Benjamin N. Cardozo in The Nature of the Judicial process which rings of poignant and inimitable expression:- "The Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to 'the primordial necessity of order in social life'."
5. The fundamental intention of referring to the aforesaid statements may at various times in the history of law is to recapitulate basic principles that have to be followed by a Judge, for certain sayings at times become necessitous to be told and re-narrated. The present case exposits such a situation, a sad one.
6. The chronology has its own relevance in the instant case. One Dr. E. Sayedah preferred W.P No. 25785 of 2005 in the High Court of Madras for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3/2002 on the foundation that when there is no Scheduled Tribe population in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and there is no Presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution of India there cannot be any reservation for Scheduled Tribe in the said Union Territory and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant in the Original Application who was appointed solely on the base that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe was illegal.
However, the High Court declined to interfere with the appointment considering the length of service but observed that the appointee was not entitled for any reservation in promotion. The High Court also recorded certain other conclusions which are really not relevant for the present purpose. The direction that really propelled the problem is as follows:- "When it is the position that after 1931, there had never been any caste-wise enumeration or tabulation and when there can not be any dispute that there is increase in the population of SC/ST/OBC manifold after 1931, the percentage of reservation fixed on the basis of population in the year 1931 has to be proportionately increased, by conducting caste-wise census by the Government in the interest of the weaker sections of the society. We direct the Census Department of the Government of India to take all such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country at the earliest and in a time bound manner, so as to achieve the goal of social justice in its true sense, which is the need of the hour."
"6. The second respondent, has filed a counter and in paragraph 5 thereof, it is stated that the second respondent have taken up the matter with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, as the issues relating to SCs, STs and OBCs; are within the domain of that Ministry. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the instructions of the Regional Director, Chennai from the office of the second respondent, states that the petitioner will got a reply from the respondents within eight weeks from today. We hope that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner Association in all seriousness and send them an appropriate reply."
"2. Caste-wise enumeration in the census has been given up as a matter of policy from 1951 onwards. In pursuance of this policy decision, castes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have not been enumerated in all the Censuses since 1951. In Census 2011 also no question on enumeration of castes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been included. As such, the first phase of Census 2011 enumeration, namely, the Houselisting and Housing Census is commencing on the 1st of April, 2010.
The forms required for this phase of the Census has already been printed in many States and Instruction Manuals required for training the enumerators has also been finalized and printed. The second phase of Census 2011, namely, Population Enumeration, is due to be conducted in February 2011. The data gathered in the first phase (April to September 2010) is linked to the data to be collected in February-March 2011. Hence, enumerating castes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will not be possible in that phase also. As such, it is not possible to include any question relating to the enumeration of Castes other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Census of India 2011.
3. As regards the policy decision whether castes other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be enumerated, the manner in which such enumeration should be done and by whom, the matter has been referred to the nodal Ministry, i.e. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment."
9. At this juncture, it may be noticed that the Writ Petition(C) No. 132/2010 was filed before this Court by one Kishore Govind Kanhere Vidharbha and Another seeking the similar relief, which was disposed of on 13.09.2010 by passing the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as the purpose of the writ petition stands worked out, he would like to withdraw the petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
10. Presently, we shall proceed to state how the purpose of the writ petition had worked out. The respondent, R. Krishnamurthy had preferred Writ Petition(C) No. 10090/2010 which stood disposed of by Division Bench by the impugned order. As is manifest, the Division Bench has referred to its earlier decision passed in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and after reproducing the paragraph from the said judgment, opined as follows:- "Since the relief sought for in the present writ petition has already been answered in the affirmative by issuing a direction to the authorities to take all measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is also entitled to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed on the same terms."
11. Criticizing the aforesaid direction, it is submitted by Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel that the High Court on the earlier occasion had issued a direction without making the Census Commissioner as a party and further there was no justification for issuance of such a direction. As far as the impugned order is concerned, it is urged by Mr. Suri that the direction issued by the Division Bench tantamounts to interference in a policy decision as framed under Section 8 of the Census Act, 1940, (for brevity 'the Act') as amended in 1993.
Learned senior counsel would contend that the policy stipulates for carrying out the census which includes scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but not the other castes. He would urge that many a High Court have dismissed similar writ petitions and, in fact, this Court in WP(C) No. 133/2009 have declined to interfere and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It is proponed by him the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely vulnerable and hence, deserved to be lancinated.
12. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
(1) A census officer may ask all such questions of all persons within the limits of the local area for which he is appointed as, by instructions issued in this behalf by the [Central Government] and published in the Official Gazette, he may be directed to ask.
(2) Every person of whom any question is asked under sub- section(1) shall be legally bound to answer such question to the best of his knowledge or belief: Provided that no person shall be bound to state the name of any female member of his household, and no woman shall be bound to state the name of her husband or deceased husband or of any other person whose name she is forbidden by custom to mention."
(b) Male - 1/Female - 2 (c) If SC(Scheduled Caste) or ST (Scheduled Tribe) or Other? SC(Scheduled Caste)-1/ST(Scheduled Tribe)-2/Other-3"
"10. If Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Others.
16. After the Notification in the year 2010 was issued, the Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner issued the Instruction Manual for Houselisting and Housing Census. In Paragraph 1.2, the historical background has been stated. It is as follows: "Historical background of Indian Census 1.2 The Indian Census has a rich tradition and enjoys the reputation of being one of the best in the world. The first Census in India was conducted in the year 1872. This was conducted at different points of time in different parts of the country. In 1881 a Census was taken for the entire country simultaneously.
Since then, Census has been conducted every ten years, without a break. Thus, the Census of India 2011 will be the fifteenth in this unbroken series since 1872 and the seventh after independence. It is through the missionary zeal and dedication of Enumerators like you that the great historical tradition of conducting the Census uninterruptedly has been maintained in spite of several adversities like wars, epidemics, natural calamities, political unrest, etc. Participation in the Census by the people of India is indeed a true reflection of the national spirit of unity in diversity."
17. Thereafter, the Instruction Manual provides for objectives of conducting a census. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same: "1.3 India is a welfare State. Since independence, Five Year Plans, Annual Plans and various welfare schemes have been launched for the benefit of the common man. All these require information at the grass root level. This information is provided by the Census.
4. Have you ever wondered how the number of seats in Parliamentary/Assembly Constituencies, Panchayats and other local bodies are determined? Similarly, how the boundaries of such constituencies are demarcated? Well the answer to that is also the Census. These are just a few examples. Census provides information on a large number of areas. Thus, you are not merely collecting information; you are actually a part of a massive nation building activity.
5. The Houselisting and Housing Census has immense utility as it will provide comprehensive data on the conditions of human settlements, housing deficit and consequently the housing requirement to be taken care of in the formulation of housing policies. This will also provide a wide range of data on amenities and assets available to the households, information much needed by various departments of the Union and State Governments and other non-Governmental agencies for development and planning at the local level as well as the State level. This would also provide the base for Population Enumeration.
6. Population Enumeration provides valuable information about the land and its people at a given point of time. It provides trends in the population and its various characteristics, which are an essential input for planning. The Census data are frequently required to develop sound policies and programmes aimed at fostering the welfare of the country and its people. This data source has become indispensable for effective and efficient public administration besides serving the needs of scholars, businessmen, industrialists, planners and electoral authorities, etc. Therefore, Census has become a regular feature in progressive counties, whatever be their size and political set up. It is conducted at regular intervals for fulfilling well-defined objectives. One of the essential features of Population Enumeration is that each person is enumerated and her/his individual particulars are collected at a well-defined point of time."
18. From the aforesaid, it is graphically vivid that at no point of time, the Central Government had issued a Notification to have a census conducted on the caste basis. What is reflectible is that there is census of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but census is not done in respect of other castes or on caste basis. That apart, the instructions elaborately spell out the necessity and the purpose. It is reflectible of the concern pertaining to assimilation of certain datas that would help in nation-building, trends of population, availability of requisite inputs for planning and fostering the welfare of the country.
Be it noted, the Notifications dated 13.01.2000 and 25.02.2010 enumerate collection of many an information including household number, total number of persons normally residing in the household (persons, males, females), name of the head of the household, ownership status of the house, number of married couple(s) living in the household, main source of drinking water, availability of drinking water source, main source of lighting, latrine within the premises, type of latrine facility, waster water outlet, bathing facility, kitchen, fuel used for cooking, Radio/Transistor, Television, Computer/Laptop, Telephone/Mobile phone, Bicycle, Scooter/Motor Cycle/ Moped, Car/Jeep/Van, and availing banking services, etc. Thus, the Central Government has framed a policy and the policy, as is demonstrable, covers many an arena keeping in view certain goals and objectives.
19. As we evince from the sequence of events, the High Court in the earlier judgment had issued the direction relating to carrying of census in a particular manner by adding certain facets though the lis was absolutely different. The appellant, the real aggrieved party, was not arrayed as a party-respondent. The issue was squarely raised in the subsequent writ petition where the Census Commissioner was a party and the earlier order was repeated. There can be no shadow of doubt that earlier order is not binding on the appellant as he was not a party to the said lis.
This view of ours gets fructified by the decision in H.C. Kulwant Singh and others V. H.C. Daya Ram and others wherein this Court, after referring to the judgments in Khetrabasi Biswal V. Ajaya Kumar Baral & Ors., Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia V. Board of Revenue, Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and Tridip Kumar Dingal & Ors. V. State of W.B. & Ors. has ruled thus: "..... if a person who is likely to suffer from the order of the court and has not been impleaded as a party has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice."
20. The earlier decision being not a binding precedent, it can be stated with certitude that the impugned judgment has really compelled the appellant to question the defensibility of the same. 21. The centripodal question that emanates for consideration is whether the High Court could have issued such a mandamus commanding the appellant to carry out a census in a particular manner. The High Court has tried to inject the concept of social justice to fructify its direction.
It is evincible that the said direction has been issued without any deliberation and being oblivious of the principle that the courts on very rare occasion, in exercise of powers of judicial review, would interfere with a policy decision. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act has conferred power on the Central Government to issue Notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued Notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the Court to legislate.
The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering what we have stated in the beginning.
The courts are required to understand the policy decisions framed by the Executive. If a policy decision or a Notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the Notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be carried out by adding certain aspects.
"In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the Court. That apart this Court cannot issue any direction to the legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under out constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation. In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (SCC para 51) it has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law.
Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which it has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority. This view has been reiterated in state of J & K v A.R. Zakki. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India it was held that no mandamus can be issued to enforce an Act which has been passed by the legislature."
21. At this juncture, we may refer to certain authorities about the justification in interference with the policy framed by the Government. It needs no special emphasis to state that interference with the policy, though is permissible in law, yet the policy has to be scrutinized with ample circumspection. In N.D. Jayal and Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., the Court has observed that in the matters of policy, when the Government takes a decision bearing in mind several aspects, the Court should not interfere with the same.
22. In Narmada Bachao Andolan V. Union of India, it has been held thus: "It is now well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution."
23. In this context, it is fruitful to refer to the authority in Rusom Cavasiee Cooper V. Union of India, wherein it has been expressed thus: "It is again not for this Court to consider the relative merits of the different political theories or economic policies... This Court has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal over the policy of Parliament in enacting a law".
24. In Premium Granites V. State of Tamil Nadu, while dealing with the power of the courts in interfering with the policy decision, the Court has ruled that it is not the domain of the court to embark upon unchartered ocean of public policy in an exercise to consider as to whether a particular public policy is wise or a better public policy could be evolved. Such exercise must be left to the discretion of the executive and legislative authorities as the case may be. The court is called upon to consider the validity of a public policy only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India or any other statutory right.
25. In M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. V. State of M.P. & Ors., a two-Judge Bench opined that: ".......... The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State."
26. In State of M.P. V. Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr., after referring to the State of Punjab V. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, the Court ruled thus: "The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer or more scientific or logical or wiser. The wisdom and advisability of the policies are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless the policies [pic]are contrary to statutory or constitutional provisions or arbitrary or irrational or an abuse of power. (See Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh v. State of U.P., Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India and State of Kerala v. Peoples Union for Civil Liberties.)"
27. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noon day that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the Court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.
28. As has been stated earlier, the Central Government had issued a Notification prescribing the series of informations to be collected during the census. It covers many areas. It includes information relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and does not refer to any other caste. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to visualize that the High Court, on the first occasion, without having a lis before it in that regard, could even have thought of issuing a command to the Census Department to take all such measures towards conducting the caste-wise census in the country so that the social justice in its true sense, which is the need of the hour, could be achieved.
This, irrefragably, is against the power conferred on the court. The High Court had not only travelled beyond the lis in the first round of litigation, but had really yielded to some kind of emotional perspective, possibly paving the adventurous path to innovate. It is legally impermissible. On the second occasion, where the controversy squarely arose, the High Court did not confine to the restrictions put on the jurisdiction and further without any kind of deliberation, repeated the earlier direction.
The order is exceptionally cryptical. That apart, it is legally wholly unsustainable. The High Court, to say the least, had no justification to pave such a path and we have no hesitation in treating the said path as a colossal transgression of power of judicial review, and that makes the order sensitively susceptible.
29. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgments and orders dated 24.10.2008 and 12.5.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No. 25785/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 10090/2010 respectively are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
 BACON, Essays: Of Judicature in I The Works of Francis Bacon (Montague, Basil, Esq. ed., Philadelphia: A Hart, late Carey & Hart, 1852), pp. 58-59.

matches: V. V. V. V. v. v. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. v. v. v.


text:
Harold J. Bursztajn, MD, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is co-director of the program in psychiatry and the law at Harvard Medical School. Milo Fox Pulde, MD, practices internal medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Chestnut Hill, MA. Darlyn Prakitikulr is a premedical graduate of Princeton University. Michael L. Perlin is a professor of law at New York Law School. The authors would like to thank Thomas G. Gutheil and Robert M. Hamm for their helpful editorial comments.
Two Supreme Court rulings, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 (1999), have had a profound effect on the treatment of expert testimony in the courts. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in Daubert , articulated guidelines for admissibility of scientific expertise as testimony. Later, in 1999, in Kumho , the Court focused on the admissibility of clinical expertise as testimony.
More recently there has been increasing recognition of the inconsistency of trial courts in their construction and articulation of evidentiary standards to medical testimony. One proposed remedy is that "Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries." Kassirer JP, Cecil JS: Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts. 288 JAMA 1382, Sept. 2002.
However, in actual practice, the integrity of a clinical expert's testimony does not depend on the clinician alone. Rather, both the understanding of the retaining attorney as to what is needed to formulate an objective expert opinion, as well as the clinician's dedication to doing so, are essential. Therefore, it is important to improve communication between testifying clinical experts and the attorneys who retained them in the service of providing the finders-of-fact with the most valid and reliable clinical expertise.
In 1993, Daubert changed the medico-legal landscape. The ruling, binding on federal courts and also used as a guideline by many state courts, allowed jurors to hear evidence and weigh facts from experts whose testimony included novel scientific theories, if the case warranted — even if those theories had not gained "general acceptance" in the scientific community — as long as the testimony was "relevant" and "reliable." Daubert established that the test for expert testimony admissibility would be whether it followed the rules of the scientific method. Before Daubert , the Frye test, enunciated in Frye v. U.S. , 293 Fed.1013 ( D.C. Cir. 1923), had been the norm. Frye allowed judges to exclude evidence from expert witnesses if it had not been "generally accepted."
In 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted. FRE 702 represented a direct challenge to Frye by stating that expert testimony would be admissible as long as it assisted whoever was responsible for determining the facts of a case — usually a jury. The testimony no longer had to meet the "general acceptance" standard. However, defense-oriented critics asserted that Rule 702 allowed experts to present shoddy or "junk science" to juries in support of plaintiff injury claims.
Daubert was decided at a time when "novel" no longer meant "suspect," and the Supreme Court specified in Daubert that the following five factors should be considered in assessing the reliability of scientific testimony: 1) whether the expert's hypothesis has been tested; 2) whether there has been peer review and publication of the methodology; 3) the frequency of erroneous results; 4) standards controlling the technique's operations; and 5) acceptance of the methodology in the scientific community.
Under Daubert , judges were assigned a "gatekeeper" role to determine whether the expert's methodology was sound. In civil cases, post- Daubert courts are more likely to exclude challenged expert evidence than they had been before under the Frye standard. Dixon and Gill (2001) found that challenged expert evidence was excluded about 50% of the time pre- Daubert . Saks M, Faigman D: Expert Evidence After Daubert . 1 Ann Rev Law and Social Science 105, (2005). That figure rose to as much as 70% in years post- Daubert . Dixon L, Gill B: Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision (2001). Daubert's requirements, when implemented, have thus had profound implications for both medical experts and lawyers.
Though Daubert signaled the intent of the court to establish explicit scientifically based rules of admissibility and hold the testimony of medical experts to a higher standard, the reality of the practical application of these rules suggests that we have not come far from the comments of Judge Hand in 1901: "No one will deny that the law should in some way effectively use expert knowledge wherever it will aid in settling disputes. The only question is as to how it can do so best." Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony. 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40 (1901).
It took the Kumho ruling to extend Daubert from scientific to clinical expert opinion formulation and testimony: "The objective of [the Daubert gatekeeping] requirement is to ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony. It is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, [should employ] in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."
Kumho did more than simply restate the holding of Daubert . It held that the Daubert "gatekeeping" obligation applies to both testimony based on "scientific" knowledge, as well as that based on "technical" and "other specialized" knowledge. In making the gatekeeping determination, the trial court "may" consider one or more of the five specific Daubert factors if it will help ascertain whether the testimony is "reliable." Overall, Kumho found that the test for reliability is flexible and that " Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts in every case … Rather the law grants a district court the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as it enjoys in respect of its ultimate reliability determination."
Commentary on Kumho has been mixed. While some have applauded Kumho for admitting certain expert evidence rather than simply banishing it as non-science; others have also raised concerns about the role of judges, and how Kumho may in effect be replacing the word of experts with the word of judges: "Together, Daubert and Kumho Tire do a remarkably clear job of commanding judges to properly scrutinize fields, presumably including the forensic identification sciences, before admitting opinions from those fields' practitioners. But one can never underestimate the ingenuity of judges in finding ways to evade rules that tell them to do something that would lead to a result contrary to the one suggested by their intuitions.” Saks MJ: Banishing Ipse Dixit: The Impact of Kumho Tire on Forensic Identification Science. 57 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 880, 880 (2000).
Others have been less receptive to Kumho . One observer, by way of example, saw Kumho as an effective undoing of Daubert : "[T]he Daubert factors may or may not be relevant to the reliability of the proffered expert testimony. The problem, though, is that Kumho leaves judges with almost no guidance about how to determine whether such testimony is reliable." Haack S: Defending Science Within Reason. 254 (2003). However, it should be noted that Kumho does emphasize the need for corrigibility — or correctibility — rather than a simple "it is because I say so."
In its emphasis on making transparent and thus corrigible the process by which existing data is connected to offered opinion, Kumho is well in tune with current clinical practice standards. Medical experts now practice in a climate in which the previously private world of doctor and patient has come alive with the sounds of doctors justifying their decisions to a variety of third parties as well as with increasingly informed and mistrustful patients. The Internet information explosion, reduction of time with patients and the need to justify decision- making to nonclinical third parties have placed greater emphasis on patient education and the corrigibility of clinician reasoning. However, it is important to note that, while physicians should make use of the current best available external evidence about medical care (as the practice of evidence based medicine calls for), such physicians also need to be wary of turning this practice into a substitute for actually assessing the primary literature and understanding its validity. Physicians need to be able to change their minds, to update, revise, and discover and then justify their opinions as new reasons are offered, data introduced and analyses completed. In effect, clinicians now often practice in a consultative mode where transparency of clinical judgment and accountability under conditions of clinical uncertainty are the rule. Without this transparency, mistrust and suspicion would pervade the doctor- patient relationship, for what is not transparent is too often assumed to be biased or corrupt. Thus, it is important for physicians to be able to articulate the basis of their clinical reasoning to patients, colleagues, and third parties. No longer can clinicians simply be silent, or when a clinical opinion is challenged, simply respond with an "it is because I say so" paternalism.
It is imperative that experts follow the highest standards of their profession while preparing to testify and when testifying. Experts must be objective, independent, and preserve their integrity in an adversarial process. They must avoid conflicts of interest and testify accurately and appropriately. This is critical if expert testimony is to be regarded as reliable.
If Daubert / Kumho demands that the expert's testimony represent both the clinical evidence and medical facts, then the expert must have credible experience in the practice of medicine, knowledge and familiarity with the legal process and standards, and the ability to offer a valid translation of clinical decision-making fundamentals into a meaningful forensic opinion. An active clinical and consulting practice, teaching experience and an in-depth understanding of the relevant facts, analyses, methods and controversies is important. Being able to update the nature and degree of certainty of one's clinical formulation is also a critical attribute for the expert who successfully fulfills the post- Daubert / Kumho standards.
The practice of evidence-based medicine and thrust of Daubert are the same — the methods used to reach a conclusion must be scientifically accurate, valid and applicable to the case at hand. Experts and their retaining attorneys need to realize that the new federal and state court mandates demand their opinions have strong foundation, and may only be admissible if the opinions follow the methodological rules of clinical decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, and are reliable and relevant. Experts need to understand the principles of clinical evidence and clinical reasoning, apply them to each case and incorporate them in their opinion formulation. For example, substitute the word "case" for "patient" or "patient's illness" and the practice recommendation quoted here sounds remarkably like the Daubert court's recommendations for expert testimony and can be applied in other situations: "Does this diagnostic hypothesis adequately explain all the patient's clinical findings? Is this hypothesis pathophysiologically coherent? Does this diagnostic hypothesis provide the best fit to the pattern of the patient's illness? Is there no hypothesis that is simpler? Is this diagnostic hypothesis robust to attempts to falsify it? Does this diagnostic hypothesis best predict the subsequent course of the patient's illness?" Kassirer JP, Kopelman RI: Learning Clinical Reasoning. 32 (1991).
Expert witnesses must understand that they function as teachers and educators, and the effective performance of their role demands a unique combination of oral and written communication skills and the ability to relate to many different audiences. The expert needs to maintain objectivity, yet must also maintain ongoing dialogue with the retaining attorney and experts from other disciplines so as not to "lose sight of the forest for the trees." Experts must be able to articulate a clear, concise, coherent, and compelling narrative with respect, authenticity and sincerity to the triers of fact of the case. This means paying attention to both the stated content of the testimony and the manner in which it is offered. Content is most effectively communicated through an in-depth knowledge. The expert must conduct a thorough review and analysis of the data and be familiar with the totality of the facts, conflict as to facts, and the literature, and be meticulous in detail, organization, and reasoning. Effective experts understand that testimony is an ongoing educational workshop with the judge and the jury. Experts who communicate and collaborate with attorneys can ensure that on direct questioning the attorney asks the fundamental questions that permit them to simply yet deeply present their analyses. Furthermore, the expert must be able to carefully analyze and anticipate how any direct examination testimony can be distorted on cross. In a consultative role experts can also provide insights that enable the attorney to more effectively cross-examine opposing witnesses.
... Yet make it tangible. As when consulting to a fellow clinician, experts have to pass the "dinner companion" test or the truth of their opinions will not resonate with the jury or influence the outcome. In other words, the expert must be able to make clear to the layman that his testimony is reliable and can be trusted. On one hand, testifying experts need to exhibit sufficient commitment to their opinions to meet the level of medical or clinical certainty expected from one clinician consulting to another. On the other hand, clinical commitment and medical certainty are not satisfied by unsupported statements from the expert. The validity, reliability and relevance of the expert's method need to be illustrated in a meaningful manner. The expert's report is the most tangible evidence of the expert's methods.
"Heuristics" is a cognitive psychology construct that refers to the implicit rules of thumb of reasoning that individuals use to oversimplify complex information-processing tasks. On one hand, the use of these heuristic devices may be helpful in making complex decisions in real time. Garb H: Clinical Judgment and Decision Making. 1 Ann. Rev. Clin. Psychol 67 (Apr. 2005). However, used out of context, heuristics can cause decision- makers to ignore or misuse items of rationally useful information, leading to distorted and systematically erroneous decisions. For example, as a result of the over-reliance on the "vividness" heuristic, one single, vivid, memorable case can swamp a mountain of abstract, colorless, yet relevant data. Heuristics also have implications for the different ways in which judges and juries approach the decision-making process, particularly given the fact that judges are more likely to follow precedent while juries are more likely to follow group decision- making patterns. A major pitfall in group decision-making is the vulnerability to a risky shift to vivid examples. If ordinary people's judgments are distorted by cognitive biases, then experts prepared with staggering statistics or other striking examples have the capacity to take advantage of the vividness heuristic and influence the jurors' decisions.
Judges are also vulnerable to the use of heuristics. In particular, an individual judge may be especially susceptible to the "anchoring and adjustment" and conservatism heuristics. The "anchoring and adjustment" heuristic is characterized by the decision- maker coming to a provisional judgment on the basis of the testimony heard first, and then adjusting his or her opinion on the basis of later testimony. The result is that the earlier testimony remains dominant and pervades the decision-maker's entire decision-making process. Related to the anchoring heuristic is the conservatism heuristic. In anchoring, a decision- maker is influenced by earlier examples, and anchoring does not typically occur when the interval between these examples is long and filled with other judgments or items. In conservatism, on the other hand, the decision maker will continually be influenced by an opinion he believes he held earlier, even though he may or may not have. In many areas of the law, research reveals that the use of such heuristic devices "permeates both the trial and the appellate processes." Perlin ML: Pretexts and Mental Disability Law: The Case of Competency. 47 Univ. of Miami L. Rev. 625, 659 (2003).
It is essential that expert witnesses insulate themselves from the "pernicious" use of such heuristics in their testimony. Perlin ML: There's No Success Like Failure and Failure's No Success At All: Exposing the Pretextuality of Kansas v. Hendricks . 92 Northwestern Univ. L. Rev. 1247 (1998). Being cognizant of the presence of heuristic devices, and how they are used can be extremely important in challenging the methodology of opinion formulation of a clinician expert.
While these guidelines are imperfect at best, they are aimed at mitigating some of the confusion faced by clinicians retained as experts in the post- Kumho era. The clinical expert faces many challenges, and must balance the need to demonstrate their validity as scientists with the need to be able to communicate with laypersons in a cogent manner. These guidelines serve as an attempt to help in this endeavor.
Kumho has had a tremendous impact on the role of the testifying clinical expert in helping the finder of fact's pursuit of justice. In the post- Daubert / Kumho world, there are more incentives to identify and use qualified clinical experts and to collaborate with them; Daubert / Kumho challenges to exclude or limit expert testimony, the increased complexity of clinical decision-making and information and the growing sophistication of judges and jurors secondary to the dissemination of knowledge by the media and Internet, all contribute to the need for guidelines distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable expert evidence.
Although alternatives to the current system have been suggested, few seem feasible to apply. It has been recommended that, in complex cases, judges use their own "experts" or expert panels to assist in deliberations. Walker L, Monahan J: Scientific Authority: The Breast Implant L itigation and Beyond. 86 Virginia L. Rev. 801 (2000). There is no guarantee, however, that courtappointed experts will be free from bias. Although the challenges for the judicial system in evaluating complex technical and scientific issues are formidable, court-appointed experts "pose risks, due primarily to outmoded confidence in the certainty of science and assumption about the neutrality of experts who are free of party allegiances." Deason RE: Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference. 77 Oregon L. Rev. 59 (1998). Critics have pointed out that the use of designated panels of experts or specialized courts undermines the "checking function of the adversary system." Moreover court appointment tends to confer upon court-appointed experts, some of whom may have subtle yet substantial conflicts of interest that even they themselves may not be aware of, the halo of judicial infallibility. By the same token, the blind use of clinical guidelines as a gold standard has to be avoided in light of the emerging data as to conflicts of interest due to potential vested interests of guideline authors or their being funded by third parties (managed care organizations, pharmaceutical companies) which may have a stake in the process and content of formulation of such guidelines. Taylor R, Giles, J: Cash Interests Taint Drug Advice. 437 Nature 1070 (2005).
Experiments have been performed to ascertain the conditions under which judges accept expert advice. In a study by Swol and Sniezek (Van Swol LM, Sniezek JA: Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Expert Advice. 44 Br J Soc Psychol 443 (Sept. 2005)), two experiments were performed to determine factors that could increase the utilization of expert advice. In the first experiment, five factors were examined: 1) the judge's trust in the adviser; 2) adviser confidence; 3) adviser accuracy; 4) the judge's prior relationship with the adviser; and 5) the judge's power to set payment to the adviser. In the second experiment, trust was examined without the role assignment to judge or adviser. The study found that expressions of high confidence by the advisers increase the acceptance of advice, and that even when participants communicated freely, face-to-face, written expressions of confidence were the best predictors of advice acceptance.
As for evidence, it is also worth noting that there has been a split in the federal appellate circuits in the construction of Daubert in subsequent cases. For example, regarding social framework evidence, while the Third Circuit in Heller v. Shaw Indus. , 167 F. 3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999) adopted a relatively open approach and has allowed a good deal of clinical judgment to support the opinion, the Fifth Circuit in Black v. Food Lion Inc. , 171 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1999) took a more strict approach, and only allows opinion on medical causation that is supported by considerable research.
While Daubert has had a profound effect on clinical experts and lawyers, some plaintiffs' attorneys and their advocates have claimed Daubert to be unnecessarily burdensome, and have even gone as far as to say that Daubert has had a substantial negative effect on the plaintiff, noting that it adds substantially to the quantum of evidence that a plaintiff must introduce, and to the power of the judge to affect the outcome of the trial. Lakoff G: A Cognitive Scientist Looks at Daubert. 95 Am J Public Health 114 (2005). On the other hand some defense-oriented commentaries decried the persistence of Frye in a variety of state courts. Bernstein D: Quackspertise. The Wall Street Journal , Sept. 30, 2006, at A9.
Variability of rule and interpretation aside, attorneys and judges who possess some of the same attributes that are indicative of clinical expertise are also in the best position to do justice. These include being open to learning new facts, making well founded inferences, and a renewed commitment to open and candid communication and collaboration.
As the complexity of cases increases it is even more critical that attorneys provide the clinical expert with a complete database of discoverable information with a realistic timetable so the expert can review and analyze both the medical facts and relevant literature in order to develop an opinion that is transparent and corrigible. Clinical experts need to be prepared to engage in a transparent and corrigible opinion formulation process focused on achieving the requisite degree of medical or clinical certainty (most often, more likely than not) rather than to simply offer opinions. Attorneys must eschew clinical experts whose testimonies are based on such opinions. Clinical experts also need to anticipate how their testimony can be distorted on crossexamination and be prepared to address such distortions. In this new post- Daubert / Kumho environment attorneys and judges will find most helpful those experts who are able to articulate not merely their opinion but the process by which they employed their expertise in data review and analysis and methods of inference to formulate their opinion to the requisite degree of professional certainty required by the finder of fact.
By making clear in a report the reasoning and analysis which is at the heart of an opinion formulation, the twin goals of allowing for earlier dispute resolution and for preparation of testimony which can withstand Daubert - or Frye - based challenges if the case goes to trail can each be achieved.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Please read our provisions on data privacy carefully before continuing Persons who visit the website www.pizol.com of Pizolbahnen AG accept the conditions below.
Pizolbahnen AG, represented by its CEO Klaus Nussbaumer, operates the website www.pizol.com and is responsible for the the collection, processing and utilisation of your personal data. Pizolbahnen AG is therefore also responsible for ensuring that all data processing is carried out in accordance with the applicable law.
We attach great importance to the protection of your personal data. We take the subject of data protection seriously and pay attention to the security of your data. We comply with all the applicable statutory regulations, in particular the Swiss Federal Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Ordinance to this Act (DPAO) as well as the provisions of the Swiss Telecommunications Act (TA). Insofar as applicable ,we also comply with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union.
We feel it is important for you to know what personal data we collect on you, how this is done, how this data is processed and for what purposes. By using this website you are giving your consent to all this data processing as understood by Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. a GDPR. Please therefore read through the following information carefully.
1. What data do we process if you visit our website?
This data is collected and processed to enable use of our website (establishment of a connection), to guarantee the system’s security and stability , for improving our Internet offering and for internal statistical purposes. The IP address is used in particular to record your visit and make default settings (e.g. language) based on this visit. The IP address is also stored so we can respond appropriately to attacks on our network infrastructure. It is for all these purposes that we have a justified interest in this data collection and processing in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR.
Finally, we would like to draw it to your attention that we also use so-called cookies, tracking tools and social media plug-ins for visits to our website (you will find further information on these in Sections 5 to 8) and that collected data can be forwarded to third parties in Switzerland and/or abroad (you will find further information on this in Sections 9 and 10).
2. What data do we process if you use the Pizolbahnen AG contact form?
We will mark the relevant mandatory data. If this information is not supplied it can hinder the provision of our services. The notification of other information is voluntary and has no effect on the use of our website. We only this data to reply to your contact enquiry in the best way possible and on a personalised basis. This is also in our justified interest in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR. You can withdraw your consent to this data processing at any time. This is explained in more detail in Section 12.
3. What data do we process if you subscribe to our Newsletter?
These details are necessary for processing the data.
NIGANO IT e.U. assists us in sending out our Newsletter. You will find the provisions on data privacy of NIGANO IT at https://nigano.com/datenschutzerklaerung. Please also read through these provisions on data privacy carefully. Our Newsletter can also contain a so-called web beacon or similar technical tools. A web beacon is an invisible graphic, 1x1 pixel in size, which is linked to the user ID of the respective Newsletter subscriber.
Recourse to corresponding services enables us to analyse whether the emails containing our Newsletter have been opened. It also enables the click behaviour of the Newsletter recipient to be recorded and analysed We use this data for statistical purposes and to improve the content and structure of the Newsletter. This enables us to improve the targeting of the information and offers in our Newsletter towards the individual interests of the respective recipient. The web beacon is deleted if you delete the Newsletter. If you want to disable tracking pixels in our Newsletter , please adjust your email programme settings so that no HTML is displayed in messages.
By registering, you are giving us your consent to process the data supplied for the regular dispatch of the Newsletter to the address you have given us, as well as for the statistical analysis of the user behaviour so we can improve the Newsletter. This consent forms the legal basis for the processing of the above-mentioned personal data in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. a GDPR. The above-mentioned analysis purposes also constitute our justified interest in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR.
A link is shown at the end of each Newsletter via which you can unsubscribe from the Newsletter at any time. If you de-register, all your related data in our system will be deleted.
4. What happens to your data if you make a booking, order or reservation with third parties via our website?
The relevant mandatory details are marked in each case. This involves information which is necessary for being able to deliver the booking services. The provision of other information is voluntary and has no effect on the use of our website or the booking services. We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the data you enter is normally also collected directly and stored by the provider of a booking service and/or forwarded to the provider by us. Insofar as the provider of a booking service then independently further processes the collected data, the provisions on data privacy of the respective provider shall apply and we would ask you to also consult these. The legal basis for this data processing lies in the fulfilment of a contract in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. b GDPR.
5. Which of your data will be collected and processed for advertising purposes?
In the section below, we would like to show you which of your data is collected and processed for advertising purposes and how this is done. All of this data processing is carried out on the basis of a justified interest in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f GDPR, in this context our interest lies in particular in the analysis and evaluation of the use of our website. By using our website you are also giving us your consent to this data processing in accordance with Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. a GDPR.
Data which we collect on you if you visit our website is analysed. So-called cookies may also be used for the corresponding processing (for more details see Section 6). The analysis of your user behaviour can lead to the creation of a so-called user profile. The user data is only combined with pseudonyms, but never with non-pseudonymous personal data.
In order to facilitate personalised marketing in social networks, we incorporate so-called remarketing pixels from Facebook and Twitter. If you have an account with an incorporated social network and on the date you visit the website are logged in to this network, this pixel links the site visit with your account. If you wish to prevent this link being created you must log-out from your respective account before visiting the site. You can also create further settings for the advertising in the respective social networks in your user profile.
This website uses Google Analytics, a web analysis service of Google Inc. («Google»). Google Analytics uses so-called «cookies», text files which are stored on your computer and enable you to carry out an analysis of the use of the website. The information generated by the cookie on your use of this website (including your IP address) is transferred to a Google server in the USA where it is stored. Google will use this information to analyse your use of the website, to compile reports on the website activities for the website operator and to render services connected with the use of the website and the Internet. Google may also transfer this information to third parties if this is a legal requirement or insofar as third parties process this data on behalf of Google. On no account will Google link your IP address with other Google data. You can prevent cookies from being installed through a corresponding setting in your browser software ; we would however point out that in this case you may not be able to fully utilise all the functions of this website. By using this website you agree that the data collected on you can be processed by Google in the manner described above and for the above-mentioned purpose.
As a user of this website, you herewith acknowledge that the operator of this website , its vicarious agents, representatives, affiliated companies, managing directors , management, employees and shareholders accept no liability in connection with the collection, transmission, processing and analysis of the above-mentioned data and consequently no claims of any kind for damages in this respect can be asserted against these natural persons and legal entities.
6. What are cookies and what are they used for?
Cookies are small data elements that can send a website to your browser to assist you better in the use of database-supported systems. You do however have the option to adjust the settings in your browser in such a way that it informs you when you receive a cookie or automatically rejects it. This means you can personally decide whether or not to accept it.
7. What are social media plugins and what are they used for?
The social media plugins described below are used on our website. The plugins on our website are disabled as standard so they don’t send any data. By clicking on the corresponding social media button you enable the plugin. If these are enabled your browser establishes a direct link with the servers of the respective social network as soon as you download one of our websites. The content of the plugin is transmitted from the social network straight to your browser which incorporates it into the website. The plugins can be subsequently disabled by clicking on them. You will find further important information in the respective data privacy policies of the social networks listed below.
Social plugins from Facebook are used on our website to enhance the personalisation of our web presence. This is an offering from the US company Facebook Inc., 1601 S. California Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
We use the «Like» button in this context. By incorporating these plugins, Facebook receives information that your browser has downloaded the corresponding page of our website, even if you do not have any Facebook account or are currently not logged into Facebook. This information (including your IP address) is transmitted from your browser directly to a Facebook server in the USA where it is stored.
If you are logged into Facebook, Facebook can directly assign the visit to our website to your Facebook account. If you interact with the plugins , for example by clicking the «Like» button, the corresponding information will also be transmitted directly to a Facebook server in the USA where it is stored. The information will also be published on Facebook and displayed to your Facebook friends.
Facebook can use this information for advertising and market research purposes and for the demand-based design of the Facebook pages. To this end, Facebook creates user, interest and relationship profiles , e.g. in order to analyse your use of our website in respect of the adverts merged-in for you on Facebook, to inform other Facebook users about your activities on our website and to provide additional services associated with the Facebook usage.
If you do not want Facebook to assign data collected via our website to your Facebook account you must log-out of Facebook before visiting our website. For details on the purpose and scope of the data collection and the further processing and use of the data by Facebook, as well as your rights and settings options in this respect, please refer to Facebook’s information on data privacy.
You can see the Twitter plugins (tweet button) on the Twitter logo on our site. You will find an overview on the tweet button under the following link http://dev.twitter.com/. If you have enabled social plugins a direct link will be established between your browser and the Twitter server. This informs Twitter that you have visited our site using your IP address. If you click on the Twitter «tweet button» whilst you are logged into your Twitter account, you can link the content on our pages to your Twitter profile. This will enable Twitter to assign the visit to our pages to your user account. We would point out that as the site provider we are not informed about the content of the data transmitted or its use by Twitter. You can find further information on this under the following link http://twitter.com/privacy.
If you do not want Twitter to be able to assign the visit to our pages please log-out from your Twitter user account.
8. Is data forwarded to third parties?
We only forward your personal data to third parties if you have given your express consent or if there is a legal obligation to this, or if this is required for the assertion of our rights, in particular for the assertion of claims arising from the relationship between you and Pizolbahnen AG. In addition, we forward your data to third parties insofar as this is required within the framework of the use of the website, for the provision of the services you request as well as for the analysis of your user behaviour as described above.
Insofar as this is required for the above-mentioned purposes, the data can also be forwarded abroad. If our website contains links to third party websites, after clicking on this link Pizolbahnen AG has no further control over the collection, processing, storage or use of personal data by third parties and, insofar as this is legally permissible, accepts no responsibility or liability for this.
9. Is data transmitted abroad?
For the purpose of completeness, we would like to point out that in the USA the US authorities employ monitoring measures which generally allow for the storage of all personal data on all persons whose data has been transmitted to the USA from Switzerland. This is done without differentiation, restriction or exemption, on the basis of the pursued aim and without any objective criteria, enabling the US authorities to access the data and subsequently use it for very specific, strictly limited purposes which is used to justify the intervention associated both with the access to this data and its use. We would also like to point out that in the USA there is no legal recourse allowing you to access the data relating to you or to have data corrected or deleted and/or no effective legal protection against the general rights of access of US authorities.
We feel it is important to draw your attention to this legal and factual situation so that you can make a correspondingly informed decision on giving your consent to the use of your data.
We would also like to draw the attention of users domiciled in a member state of the EU to the fact in the view of the European Union, the USA does not provide a sufficient level of data protection – on the basis, amongst other things, of the issues mentioned in this section.
We employ appropriate technical and organisational security measures in order to protect your personal data stored with us against manipulation, partial or total loss and against unauthorised access by third parties. Our security measures are improved on a continual basis to reflect the state-of-the-art.
It is important for you to keep your payment information (especially credit card data) confidential at all times. We recommend closing the browser once you have ended your communication with us, particularly if you use a computer jointly with other persons.
We also take internal company data protection very seriously. Our employees and contracted service companies have been obligated to secrecy and compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
in order to meet our statutory obligations.
We store data connected with the conclusion or performance of a contract for a longer period as this a stipulated requirement of our statutory storage obligations, as contained for example in accounting regulations and tax law. Under these regulations, business correspondence, contracts concluded and receipts must be stored for up to 10 years. Insofar as we no longer require this data for the implementation of the services for you, the data will fundamentally be blocked. This means that the data can then only be used for accounting and tax purposes.
You have the right to request information on your personal data stored with us, free of charge. You also have the right to have incorrect data corrected and your personal data deleted, providing this is not in contravention of any statutory storage obligation or contradicts permission which allows us to process the data. Under Articles 18 and 21 GDPR you also have the right to demand a limit on the data processing and not to allow your data to be processed. You also have the right to demand that we return the data that you have sent to us (right to data portability). On request, we will also notify a third party of your decision. You have the right to be sent the data in a standard file format.
If data processing is based on your consent, you can revoke this consent at any time.
You can contact us for the above-mentioned purposes via the email address info@pizol.com. You can also inform us what should happen with your data after your death by giving us corresponding instructions. We can, at our discretion, require proof of identity to process your request. If you contact us we will endeavour to reply as quickly as possible and take the steps you requested.
If you are domiciled in an EU state, you have the right to complain to a Data Protection Supervisory Authority at any time.
The entire content of the www.pizol.com website is copyright protected. All rights are owned by Pizolbahnen AG (hereafter referred to as the author) or third parties. The elements on the www.pizol.com website are only freely accessible for browsing purposes. The copying of the material or parts thereof in any written or electronic form whatsoever, is only permitted with the inclusion of express reference to www.pizol.com. The reproduction, transmission, modification, linking or use of the www.pizol.com website for public or commercial purposes without the prior written consent of the author is prohibited.
The various names and logos on the www.pizol.com website are registered, protected trademarks. No part of the pizol.com website is designed in such a way as to constitute the granting of a licence or a right of use of an image, a registered trademark or a logo. The downloading or copying of the pizol.com website or parts thereof does not constitute the transfer of any rights whatsoever to software or elements on the pizol.com website. The author reserves all rights to all elements on the www.pizol.com website, with the exception of rights belonging to third parties.
Although the author has taken every care to ensure the reliability of the information contained on the www.pizol.com website on the date of publication, neither the author nor his/her contractual partners gives an express or implied assurance or guarantee (including to third parties) regarding the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information on www.pizol.com. Opinions and other information on the pizol.com website can be changed at any time without prior notice.
The author accepts no responsibility for the functions on the www.pizol.com website and gives no guarantee that the functions will not be interrupted or that the www.pizol.com website or the respective server is free of viruses or other harmful elements.
Any liability of the author (including for negligence) for direct, indirect or consequential losses resulting from accessing the elements of the www.pizol.com website or its use or the inability to access or use these elements or arising from the linkage with other websites, is excluded.
The www.pizol.com website contains links to third party websites which may be of interest to you. Enabling these links might take you away from the www.pizol.com website or extracts from third party websites might be displayed within the environment of the www.pizol.com website. The author has not carried out any checks on the third party websites linked to the www.pizol.com website and is not responsible or liable in any way whatsoever for the content or functioning of these third party websites. This applies regardless as to whether you leave the www.pizol.com website when enabling a link or whether the display appears within the the environment of the www.pizol.com website, even if, in the latter case, a third party website is not readily visible to the information provider. The establishment of this link or visiting of third party websites is carried out exclusively at the user’s risk.
This page was last amended on 06. June 2018. If you have any questions or comments on our legal notices or data privacy please contact us by going to datenschutz@pizol.com.

matches:
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6


text:
GEROTTO'S INNOVATIONS AT BAUMA 2019 | Gerotto Federico S.r.l.
Gerotto Federico S.r.l. presents two new robots at the main three-year event for construction machines.
Three years after the last edition, which achieved record numbers for visitors and exhibitors from all over the world, Munich is ready again for Bauma, the main international event for the construction and mining industry.
The Bull - ROV UNDERWATER, a remote controlled Mini Robot Excavator equipped with heavy duty pumps, perfect for particularly complex dredging operations; Gerotto designed and created it together with Dragflow (exhibiting on booth #227, Hall A6), a company specialized in the production of pumps and dredging systems.
Easy Dozer, a remote radiocontrolled mini dozer developed for maintenance and cleaning of tanks and construction sites.
The two newcomers will be at the side of the well known Lombrico, Gatto and Dozer RC on booth #703, hall C4 at the exhibition that will open its doors from the 8th to the 14th of April.
Our Sales Department is waiting for you at Bauma to show you in real life the Mini Robot Excavators designed and produced by Gerotto, to explain their countless applications in the construction and mining industry, and to tell you about the made-in-Italy method that forms the basis for every product by Gerotto Federico S.r.l.
Subscribe to the newsletter for updates from Gerotto Federico S.r.l.
In accordance with the European Regulation 679/16 EU Reg., we hereby provide you with the necessary information regarding the processing of personal data that you have provided. This information is provided pursuant to Art. 13 of the European Regulation on the protection of personal data.
1. The "Holder of the Treatment"
This is the company Gerotto Federico S.r.l., VAT registration number 00308900281, with registered office in Via Croce n. 26, Campodarsego (PD), e-mail address: privacy@gerotto.it.
The treatment will be carried out with both manual, computerized and telematic tools, in compliance with the rules in force and the principles of correctness, lawfulness, transparency, relevance, completeness and non-excess, accuracy and with organization and processing logics strictly related to the purposes pursued, and in any case in order to ensure the security, integrity and confidentiality of data processed, in compliance with organizational, physical and logical measures provided for by the provisions in force.
For the purposes expressed in this information, only non-special personal data will be processed. In order to use the services offered or to make requests, it may be necessary to register by filling in a special registration form, or by first contact.
The personal data provided will be processed, in compliance with the conditions of lawfulness ex art. 6 of Reg. UE 2016/679, for the following purposes: forwarding of newsletters, related to events, exhibitions, promotion of services and promotional communications in general.
The express consent of the Interested party is the legal basis for the treatment, pursuant to art. 7 of Reg. EU 2016/679. The procedures for revoking the consent are very simple and intuitive, it is sufficient to contact the Data Controller by using the contacts provided in this Information notice.
Personal data will normally not be transferred to countries outside the European Union. If there is a need to transfer them to a country outside the EU, the data will be transferred to third countries and/or international organizations for which the European Commission has intervened with an adequacy decision (art. 45 Reg. EU 2016/679).
The collected personal data will be stored in a form that allows the identification of the interested party for a period of time not exceeding the achievement of the purposes for which the personal data are processed. In particular, the storage of personal data provided depends on the purpose of processing: for the purpose of requesting to receive the newsletters via e-mail, the storage period will be twenty-four (24) months.
No data will be disclosed in any way. Your data may be communicated to specific recipients such as public authorities or public bodies for the fulfilment of legal obligations to which the Data Controller is subject, and any other public body entitled to request data, in the cases provided for by law or persons authorized to process such data under the authority of the Data Controller, as well as through data controllers linked to the Data Controller by specific contract, for example: companies that provide services for the management of the computer system and telecommunications networks and consultancy to the Data Controller. The updated list with the identification details of the Data Processors may be requested at any time by you from the Data Controller.
Your data will be processed by the Data Controller within the territory of the European Union. In the event that for technical and/or operational reasons it becomes necessary to make use of parties located outside the European Union, the transfer of personal data, limited to the performance of specific processing activities, will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Regulation. All necessary precautions will therefore be taken in order to guarantee the most complete protection of your data by ground such transfer on the basis on: (i) decisions of adequacy of the third country recipient expressed by the European Commission; (ii) adequate guarantees expressed by the third party recipient pursuant to Article 46 of the Regulation; (iii) the adoption of binding corporate rules.
We inform you that you have the right to access your personal data, to rectify, to delete and, if necessary, to be forgotten, to limit the processing of your personal data, to transfer your data and to object at any time to the processing of your personal data. We also inform you that you have the right to revoke your consent to the processing of your data at any time, without prejudice to the lawfulness of the processing based on the consent given prior to revocation (Art. 7 paragraph 3 of the GDPR). Pursuant to Article 77 of the Regulation, you have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State in which you are habitually resident, working or in the place where the alleged breach occurred. In order to exercise your rights or for any request or need relating to this information notice, please contact us at the following e-mail address: privacy@gerotto.it.
Following its mission and values, Gerotto Federico S.r.l. undertakes to protect all natural persons data with due regard for identity, human dignity and fundamental freedoms stated by Constitution in line with Regulation EU 679/2016 (hereinafter “GDPR”) regarding the processing of human subject’s personal data and the free move of such data.
The “Controller” is Gerotto Federico S.r.l., VAT registration number 00308900281 with its registered office in Via Croce n. 26, Campodarsego (PD), email address: privacy@gerotto.it.
Data protection is based on principles contained on this document which Gerotto Federico S.r.l. undertakes to spread, respect and make them respect to its employees, associates and recipients or third parties with which it work as part of its activities and mission.
This policy is addressed to www.gerotto.it users (“website”) and to all human data subjects in relation to their business (hereinafter data subject and user).
The access to different website divisions and/or any other requests of information or services by users will be subjected to inclusion of personal data whose processing will be done in compliance with GDPR.
For the use of specific services, specific policies will be provided to the user from time to time as well as specific consents will be asked, if necessary, for the personal data processing.
The current policy is given specifically for the website and not for other websites consulted by users through links recalled inside the present website.
The term personal data is referred to the definition contained in article 4, par. 1) of GDPR, namely, any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (data subject); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier, or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person.
GDPR statues that, before personal data has been processed (following article 4, par. 2) of GDPR), processing means any operation or set of operation which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated or alternation, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction) it is necessary to inform the subject which required data belongs about purposes, reasons of the data processing and the way in which they are used.
Personal data shall be communicated to subjects, “recipients”; art. 4 par. 9) of GDPR defines recipients as a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or another body, to which personal data are disclosed, whether a third party or not.
Personal data shall be communicated to specific subjects (authorized subject as laid down in art. 4 par. 10 of GDPR) considered as natural or legal person, public authority, agency or body other than the data subject, controller, processor and person who, under the direct authority of the controller or processor, are authorised to process personal data.
Inter alia, following art. 4 par. 9 if GDPR, public authorities which may receive personal data in the framework of a particular inquiry in accordance with Union or Member State law shall not be regarded as recipients.
In this regard, the aim of current document is to supply, in a simple and intuitive way, all due and useful information in order to ensure the promoter providing, consciously and informed, personal data and requiring/achieving explanation and/or correction at any time.
Computer systems and programs responsible for this portal functioning get personal data which transfer occurs implicitly in respect of web communication protocol, according to their operations and for as long necessary for the connection.
The information are collected in order to combine them with data subjects but, because of their nature, they would identify visitors (e.g. IP address), domain names of terminals used, requests scheduled, etc.
Data, immediately erased after their processing, are used limitedly for the purpose of obtaining anonymous statistic information about web usage and to control their proper functioning. Web contacts details are not stored for no longer than 7 days, unless potential cybercrime against websites.
No data of the service will be communicated or spread.
The dispatch, optional, explicit and voluntary of personal data required to have access to services and get requests by email, means the subsequent purchase by the controller of sender’s addressee and any other personal data which will be processed to answer the requests or the service supply as well as for making linked activities and respect legal obligations (e.g. about tax matters). Total, partial or incorrect data transfer will determine not only the impossibility on using required services but also, in some cases, to fulfil legal duties.
In order to enjoy services presented, it should be necessary to register by filling an appropriate registration or first contact form (“Form”).
Data transfer stated inside the abovementioned form is required in order to complete registration process specifically for data marked with asterisk (*); consequently, total, partial or incorrect data inclusion overturns the registration and therefore doesn’t allow enjoy the services.
Personal data will be processed both with manual, informatics and telematics systems in compliance with current legal obligations and principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, completeness and non-exceed, minimisation of data and accuracy with organisation and processing strictly linked with the aims pursued and, however, in accordance with current organisational, physical and logical measures. Such measures will be implemented and increased following technologic development in order to guarantee protection, availability and integrity of data processed.
User navigation data are proceeded limitedly for obtaining statistic information about website usage.
The controller states he does not adopt decision likely to affect data subject based only on automated processing of his personal data. All the decision-making process involved with purposes of the abovementioned processing are made by human intervention.
Personal data will be processed only for the achievement of the specific purpose; consequently personal data processed by third parties will be limited to specific aims. Personal data will not be disclosed.
Your personal data will be processed inside EU territory. If subjects based outside EU will be necessary for data processing, the transfer of Your data, limited to specific processing activities, will be regulated in compliance with what stated in par. V of GDPR. All the due precautions will be adopted in order to guarantee the maximum protection of Your personal data basing the processing: (i) on adequacy decisions of third countries recipient stated by European Commission; (ii) on appropriate guarantees expressed by third party recipient following art. 46 of GDPR; (iii) on the adoption of binding obligations for the company.
The controller will process personal data given and referred to promotional purposes in order to send other information linked with their activities and products supplied by the controller himself. Such communication shall be made by email, mobile phone, i.e. advertising products in the homes’ subject. Specific consent may be necessary for this specific purpose (art. 6, par. a) GDPR.
Marketing communication activities will not be processed without specific consent for this purpose.
Personal data released for the abovementioned purposes will be stored for no longer than 10 years and, anyway, until the withdrawal of Your consent. As GDPR requires, when the subject gives the consent for the personal data processing for one or more of the purpose for which it is required, he will be able to revoke it totally/partially without prejudice for the lawfulness of the processing based on released consent before the withdrawal at any time.
The procedures for withdrawing the consent are simple and intuitive: it is necessary to contact the controller and/or the joint controllers by using contacts set out in this policy.
In addiction and for simplicity, when You receive emails by the controller that are not of Your concern anymore, You will not receive any other communication by clicking on the button unsubscribe set at the bottom of the same or through the contacts for which the consent has been collected (SMS, mail, email, phone calls, social media).
As stated by art. 15 of GDPR, data subject shall have the right to access his personal data, to obtain the rectification and updating, if incomplete or incorrect, to obtain the erasure when the collecting has been done unlawfully, to object to the processing of any personal data for specific and legal reasons.
Right of access (Article 15 GDPR): data subject has the right to obtain from the controller the confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data and the following information: (a) the purposes of the processing; (b) the categories of personal data; (c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organisations; (d) where possible, the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored, or, if not possible, the criteria used to determine that period; (e) the existence for the right to request from the controller rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing of personal data concerning the data subject or to object to such processing; (f) the right to lodge a compliant with a supervisory authority; (g) where the personal data are not collected from the data subject, any available information as to their source; (h) the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, referred to in Article 22 (1) and (4) and, at least, in those cases, meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.
Right to rectification (Article 16 GDPR): the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the rectification of inaccurate personal data. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have the incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement.
Right to erasure (Article 17 GDPR): data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies: (a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which the were collected or otherwise processed; (b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6 (1), or point (a) of Article 9 (2), and where there is no other legal ground for the processing; (c) the data subject object to the processing pursuant to Article 21 (1) and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21 (2); (c) the (d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed; (e) the personal data have to be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subjected; (e) the personal data have been collected in relation to the offer of information society services referred to in Article 8 (1). Where the controller has made the personal data public ad is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data.
Right to restriction of processing (Article 18 GDPR): the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller restriction of processing where one of the applies: (a) the accuracy of the personal data is contested by the data subject, for a period enabling the controller to verify the accuracy of the personal data; (b) the processing is unlawful and the data subject opposes the erasure of the personal data and requests the restriction of their use instead; (c) the controller no longer needs the personal data for the purposes of the processing, but they are required by the data subject for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; (d) the data subject has objected to processing pursuant to Article 21 (1) pending the verification whether the legitimate grounds of the controller override those of the data subject. Where the processing has been restricted under paragraph 1, such personal data shall, with the exception of storage, only be processed with the data subject’s consent or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims or for the protection of the rights of another natural or legal person or for reasons of important public interest of the Union or of a Member State.
Right to data portability (Article 20 GDPR): the data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the personal data have been provided providing written authorisation.
Right to lodge a complaint to supervisory authority: Without prejudice to any other administrative or judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State of his or her habitual residence, place of work or place of the alleged infringement if the data subject considers that the processing of personal data relating to him or her infringes this Regulation.
The data subject shall exercise the abovementioned right by addressing the controller.
A: to respond to your requests for contact and information, to send offers regarding the products and services requested to the Data Controller and to carry out all communication activities always linked to respond to your requests for contact and offer.
B: to send promotional communications, offers and corporate advertising material.
C: to profile, with the express consent of the interested party, his/her behaviour, habits and propensity for additional services offered in order to improve services.
D: legitimate interests of the Data Controller, such as the right of defence in court.
For the purposes of letter A, the legal bases are the contractual or legal obligations to which the Data Controller is subject or the legitimate interest of the latter. The Personal Data provided are necessary to supply the services and all the activities related to the execution of the contract, as well as to comply with the applicable laws, failure to provide them, even partially or incorrectly, could make it impossible to fulfill the contractual obligations and the law. The legal basis for the purposes referred to in letters B, C is the prior express consent of the interested party. These communications may be made by sending e-mails, by telephone, or by sending advertising material, by message or even through social networks. Failure to give consent for these specific purposes has the sole consequence of not being able to carry out the activities of commercial communication, sending newsletters or profiling. Failure to give consent for these specific purposes has the sole consequence of not being able to carry out the activities of commercial communication. The data provided for the above purposes will be stored for the period necessary for each purpose and, in any case, until the consent of the interested party is revoked. In fact, as provided for by the EU Regulation, if the Interested Party has given his consent to the Treatment of Personal Data for one or more purposes for which it was requested, he may, at any time, revoke it in whole and/or in part without prejudice to the lawfulness of the Processing based on the consent given before revocation.
The procedures for revoking the consent are very simple and intuitive, just contact the Data Controller using the contact channels provided in this information notice.
The legal basis for the purpose referred to in letter D is the protection of the legitimate interests of the Holder including the defense in court. Also in this case, the principle of non excess will be applied, in relation to the timing of the judicial defense.
For purposes A and D, the consent of the interested party is not required, while for purposes B, C consent will be required, which remains revocable at any time.
Personal Data will be processed for a period of time equal to the minimum necessary, i.e. until the termination of any pre-contractual and contractual relations in place with the Data Controller, taking into account the terms of legal prescription, the data will be stored for no more than 10 years from the end of the relationship that coincide with the civil terms, except for the time necessary for the protection of the legitimate interests of the Data Controller. In any case, the principles of necessity, proportionality and not excess will be applied.
7. With respect to the rights of the Interested party: Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 77 of the GDPR.

matches:
Art. 13
art. 6
art. 7
art. 4
art. 4
art. 4
art. 46
art. 15


text:
We are happy to present the third interim Stat Pack for October Term 2012. This edition features updates for each of our charts, including the popular “Opinions by Sitting” table and Justice Agreement tables. You can download the full Stat Pack here.
The Stat Pack reveals several interesting trends, some of which are discussed below.
Majority Opinion Authorship: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Ginsburg have dashed ahead of their peers in the race to release opinions before the end of June. Both Justices have five majority opinions, compared to four opinions for Justices Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Kennedy and Alito trail slightly with three majority opinions each. The Chief Justice and Justice Ginsburg, who have ten majority opinions between them, have written opinions in nine unanimous decisions and only one divided cases. Justice Kennedy is the only Justice who has not yet written an opinion in a case that was decided with a unanimous judgment.
December produced an unusual distribution of majority opinions. The Court heard nine oral arguments that sitting, which ordinarily would mean that each Justice would be assigned to a single majority opinion. But Justice Ginsburg has already authored two majority opinions for that month – L.A. County Flood Control and Auburn Regional – while both Justices Scalia and Alito have yet to author any. The only remaining outstanding case from that month, Vance v. Ball State University, was likely assigned to one of the two Justices who have yet to write a majority opinion for the month, but the question remains: Why did Justice Ginsburg author two opinions for December? The most common explanation for a skewed distribution is the loss of a majority opinion, but both of Justice Ginsburg’s cases had unanimous judgments, making it unlikely that she took over the majority lost by another Justice.
Pace of Grants: The Court is following a strong pace of grants with 17 cases granted through April. In recent years, that pace is matched only by the rate at which cases were granted during OT10.
Pace of Opinions: In contrast to the strong pace of grants, the Court is following a more sluggish pace of opinions. It has released 39 merits opinions through April, including 36 opinions after argument and three summary reversals. Ironically, the slow pace of opinions for OT12 is matched only by the similarly slow pace paved during OT10.
The fastest opinion so far this Term from argument to opinion has been Gunn v. Minton, which was decided in only 35 days. The slowest opinion has been Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which was decided in 198 days. Fisher v. University of Texas, the affirmative action case, is the oldest outstanding case; even if it is decided at the next opinion day, May 13, it will have taken 215 days between oral argument and opinion.
Advocates: The list of top advocates is filled with many of the usual suspects and features a few new faces. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has argued more cases than any one else: 8. He is followed by Bancroft PLLC partner Paul Clement with 7 arguments and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan. Three advocates from private practice had 4 arguments: David Frederick, Gregory Garre, and Seth Waxman. Two advocates from private practice had 3 arguments: Lisa Blatt and SCOTUSblog’s own Tom Goldstein.
New faces on the repeat-player list include Michigan’s Solicitor General, John J. Bursch, who argued two cases this Term to bring his total to five arguments (all coming in the last three Terms). Bert Rein, a seasoned litigator and co-founder of the law firm Wiley Rein LLP, argued his first two cases before the Supreme Court during OT12 and also argued two of the biggest cases of the Term, Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder.