scholarly journals Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System in the European Union through Private Prosecutions: Issues Emerging from the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 107-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Countries ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

Private prosecutions are one of the ways through which crime victims in many European countries participate in the criminal justice system. However, there seems to be a reluctance at the Council of Europe level to strengthen a victim’s right to institute a private prosecution. In a 1985 Recommendation, the Committee of Ministers stated that ‘[t]he victim should have the right to ask for a review by a competent authority of a decision not to prosecute, or the right to institute private proceeding.’ Later in 2000 in the Recommendation Rec (2000)19 on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system, the Committee of Ministers calls upon Member States to ‘authorise’ victims to institute private prosecutions. Directive 2012/29/eu of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 is silent on private prosecutions. The dg Justice Guidance Document related to the transposition and implementation of Directive 2012/29/eu of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 discourages private prosecutions. However, private prosecutions take part in many European countries. It is thus important to highlight some of the issues that have emerged from different European countries on the issue of private prosecutions. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights shows that private prosecutions take place in many European countries. This article, based on case law of the European Court of Human Rights, highlights the following issues with regards to private prosecutions: the right to institute a private prosecution; who may institute a private prosecution? private prosecution after state declines to prosecute; state intervention in a private prosecution; and private prosecution as a domestic remedy which has to be exhausted before a victim of crime approaches the European Court of Human Rights. The author argues that there is a need to recognise the right to private prosecution at the European Union level.

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.

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.

Extradition Between European and African Countries: Overcoming the Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-319
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
African Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Although EU states use the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the purpose of surrendering a person who is accused of committing an offence or who has been convicted of an offence, they use extradition when dealing with countries outside the EU. However, they use surrender when dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Thus, extradition is one of the ways in which African and European countries (especially EU members) are cooperating in the fight against crime. Case law from courts in some African and European countries and from the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, shows that extraditions between African and European countries have been delayed or hampered by allegations of human rights violations in the requesting state. These allegations have focused on mainly two rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from torture. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the extradition of a person should not go ahead if his or her trial was or will amount to a flagrant denial of justice or where there is a real risk of being subjected to torture. Although African courts and international human rights bodies have also held that extradition should not go ahead where there is a real risk that the person will be subjected to torture or where his/her trial will be unfair, they have not adopted the ‘flagrant denial of justice’ test. The case law also shows that some people have challenged the legal basis for their extradition. This article highlights this case law and suggests ways in which some of the challenges associated with extradition could be overcome. The article demonstrates that courts in some African and European countries have considered the nature of extradition enquiries. In some countries, such as Kenya, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings of a special type. There is consensus that extradition enquiries are not civil proceedings.

La spinta verso una legislazione europea comune sul diritto di conoscere le proprie origini genetiche / The push towards common European legislation with respect to the right to know one’s genetic origins

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-761
Author(s):  
Gianluca Montanari Vergallo ◽  
Natale Mario Di Luca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Anonymous Birth ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Genetic Origins ◽  
The Right

A venti anni dalla sua approvazione, la Convenzione di Oviedo necessita di un aggiornamento. Infatti, non affronta la questione del diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa di conoscere l’identità dei donatori di gameti. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha recentemente stabilito che: a) il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini biologiche è tutelato dall’art. 8 della Convenzione dei diritti dell’uomo; b) tale diritto deve essere bilanciato con quello della madre biologica di rimanere anonima (c.d. parto anonimo). Al fine di trovare tale bilanciamento, una possibile soluzione consiste nel richiedere ai giudici di convocare la madre per chiederle se intende revocare l’anonimato. Se la madre ribadisce la propria originaria intenzione di rimanere sconosciuta, il Tribunale non può consentire al figlio di conoscere la sua identità. Gli autori analizzano anche altre due questioni non prese in considerazione dalla Corte europea: a) l’equilibrio tra il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini e quello dei donator di gamete all’anonimato; b) se tale diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa vincoli i genitori legali a rivelargli le modalità del concepimento. Tali problemi e l’importanza degli interessi in gioco inducono gli autori a sostenere che la scelta di usare il citato art. 8 come criterio di giudizio non è affatto ottimale. Appare preferibile affrontare queste questioni attraverso un aggiornamento della Convenzione di Oviedo o comunque con modalità tali da arrivare ad una regolamentazione che sia uniforme all’interno dell’Unione europea. ---------- Twenty years since it was opened for signature, the Oviedo Convention needs updating. It does not deal with the issue of the donor-conceived children’s right to know the identity of the gamete donors. The European Court of Human Rights has recently stated that: a) the right to know one’s biological background is protected by article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights; b) such a right must be balanced with the biological mother’s right to anonymity (anonymous birth). In order to find such balancing, a possible solution might be to require judges to summon mothers to ask them whether they would like to reverse their decision to be anonymous. If the mother reaffirms her intention to remain unknown, the court may not allow the child to learn of her identity and contact her. The authors also analyze two other issues not taken into account by the European Court: a) the balancing between the right to know one’s origins and the gamete donors’ right to anonymity; b) whether the donor-conceived children’s right to know would make it mandatory for legal parents to disclose conception procedures. These problems and the importance of the interests at stake induce the authors to argue that the choice to keep using the above mentioned article 8 as yardstick is far from ideal. It appears to be far preferable to deal with these issues while updating the Oviedo Convention or in such a way as to incentivize the enactment of legislation that would be uniform throughout the European Union.

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

THE MINORS IN PENAL SYSTEMS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 0-0 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylwia Gwoździewicz
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Specific Interaction ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
A Minor

In foreign jurisdictions, various models of responsibility for juvenile offenses are adopted. In many countries, like Poland, entirely separate regulations in this field are adopted (England and Wales, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Scotland, Switzerland, Sweden). In other countries like (Slovakia, Belarus, Estonia, Greece to 2003, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Russia, Slovenia, Ukraine), there are specific rules of responsibility of minors included in criminal codes and codes of criminal proceedings. Different solutions in this regard are partly due to the different traditions of legal systems, and partly due to various axiomatic justifications formulated in these matters. Review of legislation on minority in selected European countries: Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic shows that in terms of the approach to the problem of minority in all legal systems, specific interaction of children and young people who come into conflict with the criminal law are included, as well as those that show signs of corruption, making their proper personal and social development threatened. Adoption of selected concepts of minors legislation, however, does not mean more or less severe approach to the liability of minors.Both discussed issues the theoretical and practical ones, are the subject of the deliberations beneath, their structure includes: <br/>1. Problems of minors in the European countries <br/>2. Minors in Polish criminal justice system <br/>3. Minors’ responsibility in Slovakian criminal justice system <br/> 4. Czech criminal justice system in relation to a minor

Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in juvenile cases. Selected cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 584 (9) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czyż
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Entire Procedure

The right to a fair trial, rules on deprivation of liberty are important standards in the entire procedure of dealing with juveniles, from detention to the end of court proceedings. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights cited in the article illustrate what are the problems with complying with this standard in practice in several European countries, including Poland. It seems that one of the reasons may be declarative, apparent treatment of the rights of child/juvenile, especially when it concerns procedural rights. Teaching a young person respect for the law and responsibility for his behaviour requires subjective treatment so that he can feel, on his own example, the operation of a system based on clear, predictable, understandable rules.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document