yardstick

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

English[edit]

Etymology[edit]

yard +‎ stick

Noun[edit]

yardstick (plural yardsticks)

Wikipedia has an article on:
Wikipedia
Yardstick.jpg
  1. A measuring rod thirty-six inches (one yard) long.
  2. (figuratively) A standard to which other measurements or comparisons are judged.
    • 2008 April 8, Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, “Attacks in Baghdad spiked in March, U.S. data show”, in International Herald Tribune, 2008 April 8 edition, “Africa & Middle East” section,
      Attacks against civilians in the capital remained relatively unchanged: 69 in March from 62 in February. ¶ However, another yardstick, the number of civilian deaths tracked by the Iraqi government, shot up last month after several months of decline.
    • 2013 January 29, European Court of Human Rights, Röman v. Finland[1], number 13072/05, marginal 52–53:
      While performing the “balancing of interests test” in the examination of cases concerning limitations on the institution of paternity claims, the Court has taken a number of factors into consideration. For instance, the particular point in time when an applicant becomes aware of the biological reality is pertinent. The Court will therefore examine whether the circumstances substantiating a particular paternity claim are met before or after the expiry of the applicable time-limit (see, for instance, the cases of Shofman v. Russia, cited above, §§ 40 and 43; and Mizzi v. Malta, cited above, §§ 109-111, concerning disavowal of paternity claims). Furthermore, the Court will examine whether or not an alternative means of redress exists in the event that the proceedings in question are time-barred. This would include, for example, the availability of effective domestic remedies to obtain the re-opening of the time-limit (see, for example, Mizzi v. Malta, cited above, § 111) or exceptions to the application of a time-limit in situations where a person becomes aware of the biological reality after the time-limit has expired (see Shofman v. Russia, cited above, § 43).
      The yardstick against which the above factors are measured is whether a legal presumption has been allowed to prevail over biological and social reality and if so whether, in the circumstances, this is compatible, having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the State, with the obligation to secure effective “respect” for private and family life, taking into account the established facts and the wishes of those concerned (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 40). For example, the Court has found that rigid limitation periods or other obstacles to actions contesting paternity that apply irrespective of a putative father’s awareness of the circumstances casting doubt on his paternity, without allowing for any exceptions, violated Article 8 of the Convention (see, Shofman v. Russia, cited above, §§ 43-45; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mizzi v. Malta, cited above, §§ 80 and 111-113; Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, §§ 45-47, ECHR 2006‑XI (extracts); and Tavlı v. Turkey, no. 11449/02, §§ 34-38, 9 November 2006).
    • 2017 October 3, European Court of Human Rights, Silva and Mondim Correia v. Portugal[2], number 72105/14 20415/15, marginal 58:
      The Court has taken a number of factors into consideration in performing the “balancing of interests test” while examining cases concerning limitations on the institution of paternity claims. For instance, the specific point in time when an applicant becomes aware of the biological reality is pertinent. The Court will therefore examine whether the factors substantiating a particular paternity claim were met before or after the expiry of the applicable time-limit. Furthermore, the Court will examine whether an alternative form of redress exists in the event that the proceedings in question are time-barred. This would include, for example, the availability of effective domestic remedies to obtain an extension of the time-limit or exceptions to the application of a time-limit in situations where a person becomes aware of the biological reality after the time-limit has expired (Phinikaridou, cited above, § 54). The yardstick against which the above factors are measured is whether a legal presumption has been allowed to prevail over the biological and social reality and if so whether, in the circumstances, this is compatible with the obligation to secure “effective” respect for private and family life, taking into account the margin of appreciation left to the State and the established facts and the wishes of those concerned (ibid. § 55).

Derived terms[edit]

Translations[edit]