Jump to content
IGNORED

Novak vs Australija


cedo

Da li Novak treba da dobije dozvolu da udje u Australiju  

89 members have voted

  1. 1. Da li Novak treba da dobije dozvolu da udje u Australiju

    • Da
      35
    • Ne
      29
    • Ne zanima me
      25
  2. 2. Tko je kriv za celu situaciju

    • Novak
      52
    • Australija
      47
    • Viktorija
      21
    • Teniska Asocijacija
      28
    • Kreg Tili
      17
    • Jbg
      22


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dùda said:

 

ima li neka dobra duša da ovde ostavi preprič za nas sa jeftinijim kartama ?

 

covek ispricao gore/dole sve sto su pricali team novak ljudi na forumu + forumasi iz australije

tiliju zamera sto nije seo viktoriju i federaciju i jasno izasao pred tenisere

nije iskljucio kao razumnu meru karantin (kao sto kina sada radi sa velikim takmicenjem)

ocekuje da ako kovid popusti 3-godisnji ban ne bi trebao da bude problem

brine za novaka ako ove godine svi grand slem turniri budu sledili ao

  • Hvala 1
Link to comment
Just now, Lancia said:

Kako ti to znas?

 

Krenula je sa sportistima još kao klinka, bila je u vezi sa jednim našim teniserom iz Novakove generacije pa je (pametno) procenila da je Novak daleko veći potencijal i ubola je džekpot.

 

 

  • Hvala 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dùda said:

mislim da je ovde pravo mesto za ovo 

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2022/2022fcafc0003

 

samo bih molila nekog ko dobro zna engleski a i razume se u pravo, da da ovde u kratkim crticam šta je najbitnije

 

hvala unapred :)

 

p.s.

meni je ovo baš kompliovano za čitanje :sad:

 

 

 

 

 

ovo dole ... kao sto smo i rekli

ministar ima pravo, naveli i po kom clanu zakona. dao je razloge zbog kojih ima pravo nakon promisljanja (samo njemu znanog misaonog procesa):D 

spomenuli da mozda neki drugi ministar mozda ne bi doneo takvu odluku (nisu rekli da bi taj mogao biti okarakterisan kao onaj koji vredi 5 elektora)

pozvali se na neku raniju presudu (Gummow J said in Eshetu 197 CLR at 654 [137]) koja kaze da je tesko utvrditi utvrditi kriterijum koji ce reci da je neko promisljanje razumnih umova nerazumno (i.e. ministar hawke je razuman :D ) tj. da raumni umovi mogu doci do razlicitih zakljucaka i zato je tesko utvrditi da je odluka nerazumna

 

 

Spoiler

FURTHER MATTERS

103    Considerable debate took place as to how to approach the Ministers statement of reasons in this case. We do not consider that the resolution of that debate is necessary to reach the views we have. The Minister was not obliged to give reasons, but he did so. They were evidently carefully drafted. The Court has no doubt that in respect of a matter of high public profile, care and consideration was given to the formulation of the reasons in the four days in which the Minister took to consider the matter and finalise and deliver the reasons. Nevertheless, some weight is to be given to the fact that there was no obligation to give the reasons. Further, the stricture that the reasons should not be parsed and analysed with a fine tooth comb with an eye to identification of error is always to be followed. There was a clear interrelationship among all parts of the Ministers reasons. The themes of encouragement and emulation of a sporting hero and icon run through the reasons for satisfaction as to health and good order and the public interest.

104    Parliament has made clear in s 116 that the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that presence of its holder in Australia may be a risk to the health or good order of the Australian community. The Minister reached that state of satisfaction on grounds that cannot be said to be irrational or illogical or not based on relevant material. Whether or not others would have formed that state of satisfaction and the state of satisfaction as to the public interest is a consideration not to the point. The relevant states of satisfaction were of matters which involved questions of fact, projections of the future and evaluations in the nature of opinion. As Gummow J said in Eshetu 197 CLR at 654 [137]: where the criterion of which the authority is required to be satisfied turns upon factual matters upon which reasonable minds could reasonably differ, it will be very difficult to show that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the decision in question.

105    That is the position in this case. Another person in the position of the Minister may have not cancelled Mr Djokovics visa. The Minister did. The complaints made in the proceeding do not found a conclusion that the satisfaction of the relevant factors and the exercise of discretion were reached and made unlawfully.

106    As the Court said at the conclusion of argument on Sunday, the Court was and is grateful to all counsel and solicitors for the comprehensive, erudite and clear submissions prepared under very tight time constraints, and for the economy and despatch of the oral argument. Such contributed significantly to the ability of the Court to deal with the matter in a timely way.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and six (106) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Allsop, Justices Besanko and O'Callaghan.

 

  • Wub 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...