This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
Yours Sincerely Hugh Dignon Head of Wildlife Management Unit – Scottish Government Vict o ria Qu a y , Ed inb u r gh EH6 αβχδεφγηιϕ a b c d abcdefg α 6QQ w w w .go v .s co t
pdf.
application/pdf.
225475.
Sex Matters is a charitable incorporated organisation, charity number 1207701 Registered office: 63/66 Hatton Garden, Fifth Floor Suite 23, London, EC1N 8LE
pdf.
application/pdf.
352228.
For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers from Sex Matters 28 April 2025.
Thro ug h this we ca n see that the majo rity o f vo luntary o rg anisatio ns in Sco tland see cyb er sec urity as a business prio rity ho weve r ve ry few have a cyber incident response plan and/o r adequate staff/v o luntee r cyb er training in place .
Despite this, the District Court ruled that the Government's decision to extend licenses for oil exploration and drilling did not contravene the right to a healthy environment.6London School of Economics and Political Science. (n.d.) Greenpeace Norway v. Government of Norway. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/greenpeace-norway-v-government-of-norway/" target="_blank">http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/litigation/greenpeace-norway-v-government-of-norway/</a> [accessed 17 November 2019] The case began appeal proceedings at the Oslo Court of Appeal on 5 November 2019.
In Rule 9A.4.2, for:
"such premises as the Presiding Officer may determine"
substitute:
"the premises listed in the Promoter's Statement by virtue of Rule 9A.2.3(d)(v)".
[This Rule-change is consequential on the previous one, reflecting the fact that revised Rule 9A.2.3(d)(v) now provides for the Presiding Officer's ...
However, states have wide discretion as to how they choose to balance the competing interests in this area (A, B and C v Ireland (App. No. 25579/05, ECtHR 16 Dec 2010)).
Aside from this specific statutory form of illegality, the 2011 UK Supreme Court decision in the AXA case clarified that the traditional grounds of illegality and unreasonableness did not apply to Acts of the Scottish Parliament, save in exceptional circumstances.1 AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate, AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate. (2011). [2011] UKSC 46 [2012] 1 A.C. 868; [2011] 3 W.L.R. 871; 2012 S.C.