論文代寫價格-《環境影響評估條例》的案例分析

論文代寫價格-《環境影響評估條例》的案例分析。CEIC根據第14(3)條有權暫停或取消環境許可證。如果CEIC發現繼續為一個項目提供環境許可證可能導致對環境的福利，例如人民、動植物，產生更有害的狀況，則可以取消這種做法。與第一次頒發環境許可證時的原始狀態相比，必須證明一種更加偏見的立場。在這種背景下，上訴法院的法官表示，由於以下原因，必須更有目的性地構建更具偏見性的詞語(Bruun, 2013)。法官所指的更有目的性的使用，是指該詞必須在《環境影響評估條例》的範圍內使用，而不應簡單地指環境影響評估委員會有權簡單地取消環境許可證，因為與頒發許可證時相比，現在的動物數量更多。在更有偏見的立場下取消環境許可證的權力是一項非常重要的權力，在適當的時候不能濫用這項權力。在非常節約的狀態下使用這種權力是必要的。

Flora and fauna are as such very collective terms, so dismissing of a permit cannot just take place based on this, it was necessary for there to be proper assessment done to check if the increase in these collective concepts indeed changes a pre-existing assessment drastically reeling that the ‘more prejudicial’ standpoint is met. It is necessary to have adequate proof to show that relevant flora and fauna are affected so adversely so as to cancel permit immediately.

Why was the Director of EPD’s decision found not to have been Wednesbury unreasonable?
Wednesbury unreasonableness is identified as the criteria that are required for the assessment of an application in the context of a judicial review (Rivers, 2006). This is usually required when the court is going to make a decision that would have an impact on the public. Now according to this, doctrine called the Wednesbury unreasonableness, some decision or statement could be called as Wednesbury unreasonable. For the decision to be called as such it had to be so irrational or unreasonable that any other reasonable and sane person whose actions are also reasonable would not make this decision. The reasonableness test was established in the Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 and has been applied in such contexts. Now the applicant has alleged that the Director Decision was Wednesbury unreasonable because some of the statements were seen to be highly misleading or had inadequate information presented in it.
The Judge held that the Wednesbury unreasonableness criteria cannot be held for the director. It was stated that the director could not assume that the habitat would have spotted seahorses in large numbers just because the place has a few seahorses. Thus, it would be a reasonable assumption to understand that Plover Cove where the seahorses were spotted, which need not necessarily mean that there is a significant population. Given this context, it could be held that director was not quite unreadable to consider that the statement was misleading. He could not be Wednesbury unreasonable as he cannot consider the presence of one or two of the seahorses as a large ecological impact assessment. Any reasonable person with a reasonable form of thinking would not assume, one or two sightings would mean there is a significant population. Therefore, the judge rejected the claim made that the director of the Environmental protection department was Wednesbury unreasonable
Why did the Appeal Court rule the CE’s decision in Council was not illegal?
The CE’s decision in council is not illegal. This is because the contention made by the applicant that the CE had failed to assess for whether there were changes impact to flora and fauna that were being more prejudicial could not be proven. Additionally, the CEIC has worked under the guidance and information as provided from different contexts. Material that were presented by the EIA, the EP and the AFCD surveys were all included in decision making, hence the CE decision making had a proper interpretation of the ‘more prejudicial’ undertaking. Since they were following the rules, the CE action hence was not illegal.

留學生論文寫作提升，可以找美國論文代寫Advanced Thesis平臺機構，美國論文代寫Advanced Thesis平臺機構經過多年的經營與磨礪，已經發展成為一家專業的美國論文代寫平臺機構，而且碩士論文代寫價格公平合理，擅長寫作科目廣泛，有碩士論文代寫、美國代寫、essay代寫、assignment代寫等論文服務，良好的口碑和信譽、豐富的論文代寫經驗值得留學生選擇和信賴！