scholarly journals Introduction: Safeguards and Limits of Judicial Power

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-12
Author(s):  
Ernst Hirsch Ballin ◽  
Gerhard van der Schyff ◽  
Maarten Stremler
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power

СУД ЯК УЧАСНИК КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 211-217
Author(s):  
В. В. Король ◽  
В. Д. Юрчишин
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Power ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Governmental Body ◽  
The Law

У статті зазначається, що серед учасників кримінального провадження суд посідає ви­ключне становище, оскільки тільки він є єдиним державним органом, що здійснює судову владу у визначених законом процесуальних формах. При цьому вказується, що суд по­трібно вважати встановленим законом лише за умови, що він утворений безпосередньо на підставі закону, діє в межах своєї предметної, функціональної й територіальної юрисдикції та в законному складі суду.   The article notes that among the participants in criminal proceedings the court occupies a unique position, because only it is the only governmental body which exercises the judicial power as defined by law procedural forms. It is submitted, that the court should consider the law only when it is formed directly on the basis of the law, acting within their subject, func­tional and territorial jurisdiction and legal composition of court.

Effect of the principle of proportionality in deciding whether to dismiss from position of judge

2019 ◽  
pp. 46-57
Author(s):  
Olga Yavorska
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
Special Place ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Legal Sanctions ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Judicial Protection

The article deals with violations, which are often grounds for bringing disciplinary liability of judges, as well as the enforcement of them in the form of a petition for the dismissal from position of judge. A special place in the system of legal responsibility of a judge is taken by the institute of disciplinary responsibility, the essence of which lies in the possibility of applying by a specially authorized body to an individual bearer of judicial power - judges of legal sanctions, directly provided by law, for violations in the sphere of professional activity. The institute of disciplinary responsibility is considered, the purpose of which is to solve social problems in the interests of implementing and maintaining the necessary level of efficiency of the system of judicial protection as a necessary guarantee of the protection of rights, interests and freedoms of people. The analysis of grounds for disciplinary liability of a judge and types of disciplinary punishment has been carried out. The obligatory signs of disciplinary violations that are the cause of prosecution are analyzed. It is considered about the application of the principle of proportionality to disciplinary authorities in determining the type of collection. The practice of applying the principle of proportionality of disciplinary organs in case of imposition of penalties and violation of the question of ambiguity of such practice is analyzed. The article states that with qualitatively similar offenses committed by different judges, the disciplinary bodies chose one type of collection, but in different proportions. The method of determining the principle of proportionality in differentiating the choice of terms in this type of collection for actually such mistakes seems unclear. Moreover, the use of the same principle in choosing different types of charges for virtually identical disciplinary offenses is unclear, in particular, when the repeat offense is a feature. Key words: disciplinary responsibility of a judge, principle of proportionality, disciplinary offenses, penalties, dismissal from position of judge.

Due Process, Judicial Power and Chapter III in the New High Court

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
High Court

The COVID-19 Pandemic, the Courts and Online Hearings: Maintaining Open Justice, Procedural Fairness and Impartiality

2021 ◽  
pp. 0067205X2199313
Author(s):  
Michael Legg
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Communications Technology ◽  
Design Decisions ◽  
Adoption Of Technology ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Core

The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing mandated health protections saw courts turn to communications technology as a means to be able to continue to function. However, courts are unique institutions that exercise judicial power in accordance with the rule of law. Even in a pandemic, courts need to function in a manner consistent with their institutional role and their essential characteristics. This article uses the unique circumstances brought about by the pandemic to consider how courts can embrace technology but maintain the core or essential requirements of a court. This article identifies three essential features of courts—open justice, procedural fairness and impartiality—and examines how this recent adoption of technology has maintained or challenged those essential features. This examination allows for an assessment of how the courts operated during the pandemic and also provides guidance for making design decisions about a technology-enabled future court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document