|
|
(Photo: Juan Carlos Hidalgo/EFE) Well, as can be seen from the recent ruling, the Criminal Court reasons that it would be “indifferent” whether or not the law office was open to the public, “since in any case this opening did not extend to private areas .” where the lawyer's personal office was located. The personal office had “ clearly restricted ” access and “only accessible to colleagues or employees with whom he maintained a relationship of trust or previously authorized third parties,” notes the High Court. Thus, the fundamental right to privacy of which the lawyer was entitled and the fact that the office served as the custodian of client files that contain sensitive data that must be preserved, conferred on the lawyer, according to the recent ruling, “ the “legal power” to impose on third parties the duty to refrain from entering its interior without its permission.”
Thus, the “ unjustified invasion ” of such space by the accused, “entering premises with restricted access, put at effective risk the legal good protected by the criminal offense provided for in art. 203.1 CP, this is Phone Number Data the privacy of the lawyer .” In short, as such conduct carried out by the accused is classified as “ criminally relevant ”, the High Court declares that such a reason cannot be accepted.
For this reason, he considers that by depriving single-parent families of this right to accumulate leave, “ a neutral interpretation of the norm is not being operated , but rather this interpretation is projected negatively only or mostly on women.” The resolution emphasizes that the protection of minors must govern the application of the norm . “We are not facing an alleged discrimination due to undifferentiation, as the plaintiff seems to understand, but, far from it, before a discrimination due to differentiation, differentiation between children born in single-parent families or in two-parent families,” highlights the magistrate.
|
|
發表於 12:53:16