Interpretarea si aplicarea dreptului UE si a Conventiei pentru apararea drepturilor omului si a libertatilor fundamentale in cererile privind trimiterile preliminare in fata instantelor din Rommnia (Interpretation & Application of EU Law and of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Requests for a Preliminary Ruling by Courts and Tribunals of Romania)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Mihail Sandru ◽  
Constantin-Mihai Banu ◽  
Dragos Calin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

The Strasbourg Court on the Dayton Constitution: Judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22 December 2009

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 22 December 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: the Court) issued a judgment on the applications filed by two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dervo Sejdić and Mr Jakob Finci. It found a violation of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Protocols to the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated the applicants' rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

scholarly journals NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND COURTS’ JURISPRUDENCE

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
International Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.

scholarly journals Remedies and Sanctions for Non-compliance with Aspects Regarding the Authorization and Conduct of Special Methods of Supervision and Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Solid Base ◽  
Technological Evolution ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
One Step

Using special methods for surveillance and research is no longer a social novelty, considering that both the technology and the criminality have a long existence. It is also important to mention the fact that the dynamics of the regulation of this institutions had as a base two premises: first, as normal, the ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the second premise was the constant technological evolution. Regarding this last aspect, on a solid base it was considered that “the technical surveillance means will always be one step ahead of the legislation”. Concerning the perspective of the analysis regarding the existence and the implementing necessity of the legislation, we can easily conclude that these methods, techniques presents, de plano an intrusive character.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document