scholarly journals Certain Aspects of Proceedings in Cassation Instance in Ensuring a Fair Trial to a Person

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 241
Author(s):  
Inga Kudeikina ◽  
Sandra Kaija
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Multidisciplinary Perspective ◽  
The Right

The right of a person to a fair trial is absolute. This right has a long democratic history, without which no democratic society can be imagined. Without this constitutional scope, the right to a fair trial is the basis for the sustainable development of society, as it ensures legal stability. Litigation in the cassation instance is on the top of right-to-court pyramid. The cassation instance is the last instance in the national judicial system, the decisions of the cassation instance are not subject to appeal; secondly, the court ruling in the cassation instance constitute case law, which is an important auxiliary source of law. This confirms that litigation in the cassation instance is one of the most important tools in securing the right to have a court hearing. The extent of the quality of the legal framework regulating cassation litigation points to the right to a fair trial overall. The study focuses on the issues of cassation litigation. The issues of the right of parties to file a cassation appeal (cassation protest) in civil and criminal cases as well as the jurisdiction of the court in deciding the admissibility of a cassation appeal (cassation protest) are analyzed within the multidisciplinary perspective. The aim of the research is to study the legal framework, which determines the right of a party to submit a cassation appeal (cassation protest) in civil and criminal case in the context of court jurisdiction, when deciding on whether to adopt it in order to make proposals for enhancement of the legal framework. There were used the descriptive, analytical and deduction-induction methods as well as the methods of interpretation of legal norms. Using these methods, legislation and the views of legal scholars were analyzed, and conclusions were drawn.  Keywords: cassation, court proceedings, right to a fair trial

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.

scholarly journals The Securing a Claim in the Context of Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of the Latvian Experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 281
Author(s):  
Andrejs Gvozdevičs
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Inductive Methods ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides for the right of everyone to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. An important guarantee, such as the enforcement of a court judgment, is also enshrined in human rights theory and practice, as unenforced judgments pose a threat to legal stability, which is one of the fundamental basis for the sustainable development of society. The institute of law of the securing a claim serves in cases where execution of the future judgment may be impossible or made substantially more difficult. The aim of the research is to study the legal framework, which determines the regulations of the securing a claim in Latvia in order to make proposals for enhancement of the legal framework. The research deployed descriptive, analytical and deductive-inductive methods as well as the methods of interpretation of legal norms. Using these methods, legal acts, views of legal scientists and case law were reviewed and analyzed, and subsequently conclusions and recommendations were made. Analyzing the development of the securing a claim it can be admitted that this institute of law in Latvia has problems as the application of the securing a claim in court practice within the framework of limited adversarial and dispositivity principles, as well as shortcomings in the theoretical foundations of the securing a claim which are based on the findings of legal scientists of the last century. As a result of the research, the author drew the conclusions, that Latvia does not make sufficient use of the long-standing successful procedural solutions for securing a claim in others states, such as court mortgages, bank guarantee or mortgage of the plaintiff to secure the defendant's losses, defendant's protection letter to protect against unjustified securing a claim, a possibility to secure a claims which are not financial in nature and many more that can make legal regulation of the securing a claim more modern and effective.

Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 794-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Charles Edward Ruck Keene ◽  
Annabel Lee
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Current Controversy ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Ethical Consensus

This article, prompted by an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics by Charles Foster, and the current controversy surrounding the case of Vincent Lambert, analyses the legal and ethical arguments in relation to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The article analyses the legal framework through the prism of domestic law, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and examines the challenge to the ethical consensus made by Foster. It concludes that the right approach remains a version of the approach that has prevailed for the last 25 years since the decision in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland[1993] AC 789, refined to reflect that that there is now, and rightly, a much more limited place for judgments made about the ‘burden’ of treatment or the quality of life enjoyed by the person made on the basis of assumptions about that person as a category as opposed to investigation of that person as an individual human being.

scholarly journals The Damage Caused to the Environment in the Context of the Sustainable Development of Society

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Inga Kudeikina ◽  
Sandra Kaija
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Value ◽  
Favourable Environment ◽  
The Right

The opportunity to use the tangible resources of our planet – water, air, subterranean depths – secure the existence of our civilization. Despite the existence of private property and the division of ownership of tangible resources between natural and legal persons, the resources required for life are objectively determined by the very life form. Any living creature needs air, water and subterranean depths. They are the common value of the mankind. The right to live in a favourable environment is recognized as the basic right of each individual, of each member of the public. A significant aspect is the high quality environment, which includes specific standards and requirements for the quality of air, water and subterranean depths. This is necessary in order to ensure the legal protection of the environment, balancing the rights of private owners and society as a whole. The protection of the environment is the subject matter of the legal framework. The key challenge for the protection of the environment is to find an opportunity to balance the economic development and the sustainable development of the environment, which is why the greatest attention should be allocated to the questions that relate to the prevention and compensation for the damage caused to the environment. Keywords: environment, damage caused to the environment, sustainable development

scholarly journals Odpowiedzialność za środowisko w orzecznictwie indyjskim

2020 ◽  
pp. 33-45
Author(s):  
Iwona Florek
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Clean Environment ◽  
Health Quality ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

Environmental protection policy is the domain of every country withservices ratifed in international agreements. India sets its own developmentdirection in this respect. The judiciary also plays an important role in thesystem of common law as a tool for defning the legal framework. India applies environmental principles which follow international environmentalprotection. The purpose of this paper is to present legal provisions in thefeld of environmental protection in the Republic of India and the state anddirection of case law with particular emphasis on the role of man, his health,quality of life and the right to live in a clean environment.

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.

scholarly journals Reasonable time frame in bankruptcy proceedings: Analysis of cases from the judicial practice of the Commercial Court in Niš

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (90) ◽  
pp. 97-118
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Mojašević ◽  
Aleksandar Jovanović
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Reasonable Time Frame ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time, which took effect in 2016, has created the conditions in our legal system for the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, as one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and related international documents. Although the legislator does not explicitly provide for the application of this Act in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, it has been used in judicial practice as a mean for the bankruptcy creditors to obtain just satisfaction in cases involving lengthy bankruptcy proceedings and a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The subject matter of analysis in this paper is the right to a trial within a reasonable time in bankruptcy cases. For that purpose, the authors examine the case law of the Commercial Court in Niš in the period from the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2019, particularly focusing on the bankruptcy cases in which complaints (objections) were filed for the protection of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The aim of the research is to examine whether the objection, as an initial act, is a suitable instrument for increasing the efficiency of the bankruptcy proceeding, or whether it only serves to satisfy the interests of creditors. The authors have also examined whether this remedy affects the overall costs and duration of the bankruptcy proceeding. The main finding is that there is an increasing number of objections in the Commercial Court in Niš, which still does not affect the length and costs of bankruptcy. This trend is not only the result of inactivity of the court and the complexity of certain cases but also of numerous external factors, the most prominent of which is the work of some state bodies.

scholarly journals Pravni položaj poštenog i nepoštenog posjednika u odnosu na vlasnika stvari

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 527-543
Author(s):  
Jadranko Jug
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Basic Method ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Basic Characteristics ◽  
The Right

This paper deals with the problems related to the legal position of honest and dishonest possessors in relation to the owner of things, that is, it analyses the rights belonging to the possessors of things and the demands that possessors may require from the owners of things to whom the possessors must submit those things. Also, in contrast, the rights and requirements are analysed of the owners of things in relation to honest and dishonest possessors. In practice, a dilemma arises in defi ning the essential and benefi cial expenditure incurred by honest possessors, what the presumptions are for and until when the right of retention may be exercised for the sake of remuneration of that expenditure, when the statute of limitations expires on that claim, and the signifi cance of the provisions of the Civil Obligations Act in relation to unjust enrichment, management without mandate and the right of retention, and which provisions regulate these or similar issues. The answers to some of these dilemmas have been provided in case law, and therefore the basic method used in the paper was analysis and research of case law, especially decisions by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. The introduction to the paper provides the basic characteristics of the concept of possession and possession of things, and the type and quality of possession, to provide a basis for the subsequent analysis of the legal position of the possessor of a thing in relation to the owner of that thing.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document