THE ANALYSIS OF THE RECENT STANDARDS OF APPLYING COMPULSORY MEASURES ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (The Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia and its Compliance with the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights)

Law and World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-162
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Article 5

The present article – “The Analysis of the Recent Standards of Applying Compulsory Measures according to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights (The Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia and its Compliance with the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights)” – discusses the recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 5 of the European Convention together with the compliance of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia in terms of applying compulsory measures.

scholarly journals Conventional and constitutional regulations of lawful detention of a person without a court decision: criminal procedure aspect

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-25
Author(s):  
Аndrew Medvid
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Article 5

The article compares the requirements for the lawful application of detention without a court decision as a criminal procedure established in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the second sentence of Article 29 part 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In particular, the content of the concept of "detention" of a person is studied, the list of subjects who have the right to detain a person without a court decision and the legal content and list of legitimate grounds for detention of a person without a court decision as a criminal procedure are studied and compared. Conventional, constitutional and criminal-procedural norms are also studied, as well as the necessity of mandatory further judicial review of the legality of the detention of a person, including the terms of such review. Based on a detailed analysis of these provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of Ukraine, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, it is established that the grounds for the detention of a person by a general entity, defined by paragraph 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and a special entity, defined by subparagraphs 1 and 2 (except subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in general, correspond to the grounds for lawful detention of a person enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, it cannot be qualified as unlawful interference with the human right to liberty and security of person. At the same time, proposals are formulated to make changes and additions to subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is also proved that the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 12 and Articles 209 and 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are critical provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine regarding the lawful application of detention of a person without a court decision. These provisions actually eliminate some shortcomings and establish the necessary legal and procedural grounds for the clarified application of the provision of the second sentence of part 3 of Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of their application developed by the European Court of Human Rights.

Extradition of a Person: The National Law of Ukraine and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana H. Fomina ◽  
Volodymyr I. Galagan ◽  
Zhаnnа V. Udovenko ◽  
Serhii Ye. Ablamskyi ◽  
Yana Yu. Koniushenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
The Right

This article aims at establishing and emulating the relevant issues surrounding the detention of person presumed of committing a criminal offense outside the territory of Ukraine in respect with the provisions adumbrated by the European Court of Human Rights. The study was conducted through the prism of national legislation and the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The issues of realization of the detainee's rights, including the right to protection, were considered separately. According to the results of the study, certain ways to improve the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine have been formulated.

CHILD ABDUCTION: RECENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Beaumont ◽  
Katarina Trimmings ◽  
Lara Walker ◽  
Jayne Holliday
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

Stages of Migration and the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-254
Author(s):  
Kristina Hatas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Destination Country ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

This case list offers a guide to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law pertaining to migration. While the case list does not cite every ECtHR decision related to migration, it offers a comprehensive overview of important instances of case law indicative of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence on migration. These are, for example, Grand Chamber decisions, or cases cited by the Court in its more recent case law. In addition to including key cases cited in the preceding chapters of this book, this list also includes cases identified in thematic case law guides of the ECHR and recent jurisprudence in the area of migration, notified by the ECHR in monthly updates. The cases are organised in thematic blocks, which in turn appear in the order in which they pertain to the different temporal stages of migration, from entering the destination country to the right to remain and the cultural and religious rights of long-term migrants.

scholarly journals Respect of the Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1533-1560
Author(s):  
Jovana Vojvodić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Private life, family life, home and correspondence represent some of the most intimate and significant aspects of human life. The focus of this paper is an analysis of the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence, as the elements of the protection of the Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The analysis was primarily conducted through research and interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights recent case law, whereby, some of the cases of the highest importance as well as the case of the Republic of Serbia as a respondent state, were specially observed.

scholarly journals Compliance with the principle of adversarial in disclosing the materials of covert investigative (detective) actions to the defense

2019 ◽  
pp. 81-89
Author(s):  
O.G. Yanovska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The defense has the right to have information about all elements of the procedural order of receiving the prosecution evidence, in particular, about the materials of the covert investigative (detective) actions (further - CIDA), which the latter intends to use against it in court. However, this right of defense is violated quite often. In addition, these issues remain unresolved at both the legislative and jurisprudence levels. The purpose of the article is to address some of the problematic issues that arise during the disclosing the materials of CIDA to the defense at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The research made it possible to draw the following conclusions from an analysis of the case-law of the national courts and of the European Court of Human Rights: 1) if the prosecution timely fulfilled the requirements of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (further - CPC of Ukraine), took all necessary and dependent measures aimed at declassification of materials that became the basis for the CIDA, but such materials were not declassified For reasons that did not depend on the prosecutor's procedural activity, there were no violations of the requirements of the said CPC of Ukraine by the prosecution. In such a case, the court shall evaluate the evidence obtained for their propriety and admissibility, as well as in combination with other evidence in the case, in accordance with the requirements of Article 94 of the CPC of Ukraine; 2) if the prosecution on his own initiative and/or at the request of the party of defense did not take the necessary measures, which depend on it and aimed at declassification of the materials which became the basis for the CIDA, in that case there is a violation of the rules of Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine the consequences provided for in paragraph 12 of this Article; 3) if in the course of criminal proceedings in court, the prosecutor's repeated request for declassification of procedural documents which became the basis for the CIDA was granted and they were at the disposal of the prosecution party, then these procedural documents as received by the prosecution party after the transfer cases before the court should be opened in accordance with part eleven of Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

The Debate about Soviet Genocide in Lithuania in the Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Dovilė Sagatienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
Soviet Occupation ◽  
European Court

Abstract Since 1990 Lithuania has been claiming that what happened there during Soviet occupation is genocide, as per the 1948 Genocide Convention, which embodies universal justice for suppressed nations and other groups. Due to Soviet actions in Lithuania throughout the periods of 1940-1941 and 1944-1990, the country lost almost one fifth of its population. The application of Lithuanian national legal regulations regarding this issue has been recently discussed in the framework of another postwar international legal instrument – the European Convention of Human Rights (1950). The goal of this article is to examine the main debates, which were revealed by the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Vasiliauskas v. Lithuania (2015) and Drėlingas v. Lithuania (2019), regarding the killings of Lithuanian partisans, including the recognition of the significance of partisans for the Lithuanian nation, the foreseeability of genocide “in part,” as well as the punishment for complicity in killing Lithuanian partisans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document