scholarly journals On Taking DNA Reference Samples - Comment to the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 14 April 2020 in the Case of Dragan Petrović v. Serbia, Application no. 75229/10

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 423-429
Author(s):  
Violetta Kwiatkowska-Wójcikiewicz ◽  
Józef Wójcikiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
European Court ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Reference Samples

The comment deals with the evaluation of (not only) Serbian law concerning taking body samples for DNA examinations. The authors share the arguments of the dissenting opinion from the judgment in question that the phrase “other medical procedures” was at that stage sufficient for such a procedure. A comparative analysis of the Polish law is also conducted.

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

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.

European Court of Human Rights and the Bulgarian Judicial System

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.

scholarly journals Zakres wolności sumienia i wyznania

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 211-226
Author(s):  
Anna Korzeniewska-Lasota
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Conscience ◽  
European Court ◽  
Individual Aspect ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Normative Content

On the basis of the Polish law and court rulings, the author tries to establish in an individual aspect a normative content of individual freedom of conscience and religion (its scope). In her discussion she refers primarily to the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, which complement the normatively defined sphere of liberty in question.

scholarly journals Jawność postępowania sądowego w świetle Europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka

Radca Prawny ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 11-42
Author(s):  
Janusz Roszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Open Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Case Files ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Openness of court proceedings in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights The subject of this article is the right to open court proceedings as guaranteed in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The most important elements of this right are: the right to participate in a court hearing, the right to access to the case files and the right to acquaint with the ruling. This right applies not only to the parties to the proceedings, but also – albeit to a lesser extent – to every citizen. The text discusses the findings of the doctrine and the European Court of Human Rights, at times criticizing them especially with regard to the too narrow definition of the obligation to publicly announce the judgment. In addition, the article analyzes the extent to which the Polish law encourages openness in civil, criminal and judicial-administrative procedures.

scholarly journals Problem religijnego wychowania dzieci w poniemieckim prawie II Rzeczypospolitej

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-26
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Władysław Tarkowski ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
German Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Current Line ◽  
Second Republic ◽  
Mixed Marriages ◽  
European Court ◽  
Entire Country ◽  
Polish Law

We are witnessing mass migrations. Far more than a million Ukrainians, people close to Poles, ethnically and culturally, constantly live and work in Poland. Likewise, the multitude of Poles are continually abroad. Frequently members of different religions marry each other (or analogous informal relationships are established), they have children and want to raise them religiously or instil them a different worldview. What religion or worldview should their mutual children receive in case of their parents’ differences in beliefs? Paternalistic Prussia issued casuistic regulations regarding this. Initially, they were based on rather just assumptions, but quickly took the anti-Polish form. The reborn Second Republic of Poland decided that until the implementation of the Polish law, unified in the scale of the entire country, the post-annexation regulations should apply temporarily in the areas of their existing application. No unequivocal answer how religiously (ideologically) mixed marriages should raise their children in this respect has been provided in Polish law since 1946, that is, from the unification of Polish family law. In order to find a solution of this issue within comparative law studies, we should look at post-German law and jurisprudence of the Second Republic of Poland, particularly at indirectly assessing them judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hoffmann v. Austria. This ruling shaped the current line of jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It was issued by a minimal majority of votes: 5 to 4, with 4 dissenting opinions. The point of view presented in it has been more widely accepted with time. The Court’s ruling in the case of Palau-Martinez v. France, which repeatedly invoked this judgment, was adopted by 6 votes to 1, with only 1 dissenting opinion.

The concept of hate speech - a comparative analysis of the approaches of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Gülnaz Rəfail qızı Ələsgərova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Exhaustive List

Providing an opportunity for society to develop and progress, freedom of speech is surely one of the vital conditions for sustainable democracy. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and exhaustive list of limitations are delineated by many jurisdictions. In Europe as well it is still subject to accepted restrictions designed to prohibit incitement to hatred or conflict with other human rights. This article discusses approaches to hate speech as a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of speech. The article is dedicated to a comparative analysis of the case law of the ECHR and the provisions of the Recommendations adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe. In particular, the author tries to find a clear distinction between speech that is not welcome by the majority of society and the prohibition of hate speech. Key words: freedom of speech, hate speech, standards of Council of Europe, European Court on Human Rights, context of speech, call for violence

scholarly journals Human Rights and Protection against Eviction in Anti-social Behaviour Cases in the Netherlands and Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Vols ◽  
Marvin Kiehl ◽  
Julian Sidoli del Ceno
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Social Behaviour ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Human Rights requires that any person at the risk of losing their home should be able to have the proportionality of the eviction determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 echr. Consequently, member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to implement a minimum level of protection against the loss of the home. This paper analyses how the requirements are implemented in Dutch and German tenancy law with a focus on eviction cases concerning anti-social behaviour. With the help of a comparative analysis several methods of implementing the European requirements are identified. The Netherlands and Germany seem to comply technically with the requirements because of national built-in proportionality checks. However, it is questionable whether the European requirements really improve the position of tenants or whether they should be characterised primarily as a procedural hurdle that courts have to meet.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document