The thesis deals with wiretapping and recording of telecommunication traffic which is an indispensable instrument for law enforcement on one side, but on the other side nevertheless it intervenes in lives of wiretapped persons in a significant way. The first chapter of thesis focuses on the area of the right to privacy because to be able to assess whether the wiretaps are realized in accordance with the legislation or not, it is essential to know from a legal point of view what falls within the privacy of individuals, which single rights involve the term right to privacy, and so which rights are protected. In the following part, the term wiretapping and recording of telecommunication traffic is explained and the amendments of legislation of this institute are summarized. On the development of the amendments of legislation it can be observed the fostering of protection of right to privacy by/over time on the development of the amendments of legislation. The next part focuses on the issue of the wiretap warrant, specifically on the procedure leading up the wiretap warrant, its compulsory content according to the criminal procedural code, the test of three-degree efficiency control of lawfulness wiretap warrant, and also the jurisdiction which is really important in this issue. The last point which...

No description available.

À l’intersection du droit de la preuve, du droit disciplinaire et des droits fondamentaux, le secret professionnel du juriste est à la fois un droit fondamental des justiciables, une obligation déontologique des professionnels de droit et un principe essentiel à l’administration de la justice. Cette dernière composante – touchant à l’équité de la procédure par laquelle les citoyens font valoir leurs droits devant les tribunaux – distingue le secret professionnel du juriste des autres secrets professionnels ou obligations de confidentialité reconnues aux membres d’autres ordres professionnels. Si le secret professionnel du juriste fait place à part tant aux yeux des membres de professions juridiques que des cours de justice, se pose la question de ses modes de coexistence avec d’autres intérêts concurrents, protégés par des droits et libertés tout aussi fondamentaux, au vu de la conception de non-hiérarchie ou d’égalité des droits constitutionnels que préconise la Cour suprême du Canada. La présente thèse s’intéresse à la coexistence concrète du secret professionnel du juriste avec d’autres intérêts concurrents et constate, dans le quotidien de la pratique, une approche de délimitation qui permet de modérer le discours officiel prônant une conception absolutiste du secret professionnel du juriste. Cette approche de délimitation se substitue à l’approche de pondération en procédant, non pas à une balance des inconvénients, mais plutôt en s’attelant à un examen minutieux, au cas par cas, de la portée d’une protection a priori absolue. / At the intersection of the law of evidence, disciplinary law and fundamental rights, solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental right of litigants, an ethical obligation of legal professionals as well as an essential principle for the administration of justice. This last component – affecting the fairness of the procedure through which citizens assert their rightful claims before courts of law – serves as a distinguishing feature of the solicitor-client privilege, apart from general duties of confidentiality incumbent upon other professionals. If solicitor-client privilege attracts so high an esteem in the eyes of both legal professionals and justices, the question arises as to the coexistence thereof with other competing interests, protected by equally fundamental rights and freedoms, in view of the non-hierarchical or equality approach advocated by the Supreme Court of Canada. This thesis turns on the concrete coexistence of solicitor-client privilege with other competing interests and observes, in the daily practice, a delimitation approach which makes it possible to moderate the official discourse advocating an absolutist conception of secrecy. This limitation approach replaces the accommodation approach by carrying out, instead of a balancing of salutary vs deleterious effects, a case-by-case meticulous examination of the adequate scope to be conferred on an a priori absolute privilege.

Auditors review documented financial figures to test for their accuracy and materiality. Lawyers analyze evidential facts and records to build sound legal arguments. These parties work toward a mutual purpose: to present their clients as legitimate and compliant businesses. But what happens when the concrete facts upon which lawyers and auditors base their work are obscured by their inability to see into the future? In other words, how can these professions conjunctively handle potential future obligations brought about by contingent liabilities? This study will attempt to resolve the tensions that emerge between lawyers and auditors when tasked with estimating the likelihood and financial value of contingent liabilities. It considers the strict regulations set forth by the ABA and FASB and how each side might circumvent the guidelines to allow for better collaboration. Addressing a focal point of contention between the legal and financial professions for decades, this study will also look at past attempts at mediating the conflict as well as current proposals to alter the contingent liability disclosure process. Most importantly, it distinguishes itself from prior research by implementing firsthand arguments from professionals in each field to improve the cooperative landscape. Collectively weighing previously attempted solutions, current regulatory barriers, and professional guidance, this study proposes a three-step solution toward initiating reform between lawyers and auditors to enhance the visibility, precision, and ease of disclosing contingent liabilities.