A Comparative Analysis of the Rights of Migrants in Detention - Focusing on the Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Download Full-text

The Material and Procedural Aspects of Non Bis In Idem Principle in Proceedings on Administrative Offenses

Administrative law and procedure ◽

10.18572/2071-1166-2021-4-39-42 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 39-42

Author(s):

Artem R. Nobel ◽

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Russian Federation ◽

Criminal Procedure ◽

European Court ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Administrative Responsibility

The essence of the principle of one-time administrative responsibility is considered, its concept and proposals for improving the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are formulated. The conclusions are based on the provisions of the legislation on administrative offenses, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, a comparative analysis of the current criminal and criminal procedure legislation. The operation of the principle non bis in idem in proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses is revealed by highlighting the material and procedural elements that make up its content.

Download Full-text

European Court of Human Rights and the Bulgarian Judicial System

Vocational Education ◽

10.53656/voc21-61evro ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (6) ◽

pp. 535-544

Author(s):

Aleksandur Kirkov ◽

◽

Ana Andonova ◽

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Essential Feature ◽

Methodological Approach ◽

Scientific Work ◽

Global Scale ◽

Judicial System ◽

European Convention ◽

National Courts ◽

European Court

Bulgaria ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1992, as such this European act has become part of our domestic legislation. Explaining in detail the differences and similarities between the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Bulgarian judicial system, we will actually see how much they are similar. This is the purpose of the present study - comparative analysis in all aspects: territorial jurisdiction, legal jurisdiction, including procedurally legitimate persons to file complaints, procedural issues, stages of the process, court decisions and appeals. The first and most important task of the study is to get acquainted in detail with our European rights, as well as their judicial protection. On the other hand, the knowledge of the European judicial mechanisms leads to the expansion of our national horizons in a supranational perspective, to opportunities for professional realization outside the borders of the country, on a European and global scale. The research method used in the present scientific work is the comparative analysis. The methodology we refer to in preparing the analysis is based on a predetermined methodological approach and structure in conducting the analysis. The methodological approach itself includes a general overview of the legal framework, regulating the administration of justice in national courts and at European level. An essential feature of the approach used is to compare the two established legal systems, at home and in Strasbourg, at all levels, to explore links and interdependencies possible differences. Expected results: acquainting the Bulgarians with their European rights, as in case of violation of these rights, learning about the mechanisms for their protection in court. Conclusions and summaries: Bulgaria is part of the common European framework. As such, its citizens are Bulgarians, but also Europeans. Namely, as Europeans, they have rights that are guaranteed to them by Europe and that should be respected in Bulgaria. Failure to respect these European rights creates conflicts that should be resolved by both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

Download Full-text

ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity of a person under article 1 of the protocol no. 6: Individual interpretations of the essence and consequences

Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine ◽

10.37635/jnalsu.28(3).2021.257-267 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 28 (3) ◽

pp. 257-267

Author(s):

Bohdan V. Shchur ◽

Iryna V. Basysta

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Method Comparison ◽

Scientific Basis ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

European Court ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

International Obligations ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

The Individual

In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations

Download Full-text