scholarly journals Retrospective Bankruptcy Legislation In The Practice Of The European Court Of Human Rights And Constitutional Court Of Ukraine

2019 ◽  
pp. 58-65
Author(s):  
R.B. Sabodash
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
Sufficient Degree ◽  
Effective Remedy

The paper focuses on the debtor’s contract awarded into a suspicious bankruptcy period. Special attention is paid to retrospective bankruptcy legislation according to which the debtor’s contracts may be declared invalid. The article deals with the practice of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights in the case «James and Others v. The United Kingdom» stated that the fairness of a system of law governing the contractual or property rights of private parties is a matter of public concern and therefore legislative measures intended to bring about such fairness are capable of being «in the public interest», even if they involve the compulsory transfer of property from one individual to another. Special attention is paid to cases “Melnyk v. Ukraine” in which the European Court of Human Rights requires retrospective civil legislation is not expressly prohibited by the provisions of the Convention and in certain circumstances may be justified. Therefore, the Court considers that the issue of an effective remedy is concerned, the remedy in question must already exist with a sufficient degree of certainty. The retroactive application of civil procedural law would undermine the principle of legal certainty and would be contrary to the rule of law when it deprives a person of access to a remedy which is deemed to be effective for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The issue of this paper is to show that the aim of the legislation could not have been achieved without retrospection and the author is accordingly satisfied that a reasonable degree of proportionality exists between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved because each party has access to effective remedies.

scholarly journals The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

What’s Wrong with (Some) Judges? Al-Skeini, Al-Jedda, Smith, and the Fog of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 234-267
Author(s):  
Nigel Biggar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Fragile States ◽  
Military Effectiveness ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
The Military

What is wrong with rights might lie in several places. Some accuse the very concept of a right belonging to an individual as a kind of property. Chapter 6 considered this charge and found it wanting. Instead, Chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9 identified problems in misleading connotations of talk about ‘natural rights’, the failure to reckon with the contingency of rights upon economic and political conditions, and the importation of what is paradigmatically a legal idea into ethical deliberation. An additional possibility is that problems lie not only in concepts of rights, but also in the way in which judges treat them. This is the topic of this chapter and the following one. The present chapter examines recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (Al-Skeini [2011], Al-Jedda [2011]), and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Smith [2013]), which threaten the UK’s military power. It concludes that, in these cases, the jurisprudence of the European court is vitiated by an imprudence born of a limited historical and political imagination, a culture of risk-aversion, and an ideological rights-fundamentalism. Such imprudent jurisprudence serves to weaken the military effectiveness of European States Party and their ability to support politically fragile states, to undermine states’ confidence in international treaties, and to provoke calls for states’ withdrawal from the Convention altogether.

scholarly journals UKRAINIAN COURTS AND THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2016 ◽  
pp. 68-75
Author(s):  
Victor Muraviov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Efficient Protection ◽  
Independent Functioning ◽  
Positive Effect

The article is focused on the interaction between the Ukrainian courts of general jurisdiction and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the area of the protection of human rights. There is emphasized that their independent functioning does not provide for the efficient protection of individual rights and freedoms and significantly increases the number of the judicial recourses of the Ukrainian citizens to the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the protection of human rights, which combines the functions of the constitutional control and constitutional supervision. Its activities are focused on the official interpretation on the Constitution of Ukraine. Attention is paid to the list those who may bring the actions before the Constitutional Court, which includes apart from the state bodies the natural and legal persons. The is mentioning of the issues on initiating of proceedings before the Court. Also broadly is analyzed Constitutional Court’ activities concerning the interpretation of the Constitution in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements dealing with the protection of human rights. The article stresses on the contribution of other Ukrainian courts in the affirmation of the constitutional concept of the protection of human rights and freedoms in Ukraine. The majority of resolutions of such highest judicial body in the system of courts of general jurisdiction as the Supreme Court of Ukraine concern the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. As it is emphasized in the article the independent functioning on the Constitutional Court and the courts of general jurisdiction does not provide for the cooperation between both branches of courts. Courts of general jurisdiction feel free as to the appeal to the Constitutional Court. Even when such appeals are directed to Constitutional Court the decisions of the letter are not binding to the courts of general jurisdiction. Special attention is paid to the introduction of the institute of constitutional complaint and its positive effect on the judicial mechanism of the protection of human rights in Ukraine.

IDEAS FOR STRENGTHENING SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY IN REVIEW OF REGIONAL REGULATIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 505
Author(s):  
Muh Risnain
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Procedures

AbstractThe problem of judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court is a serious academic and practical issue that needs to be resolved after the issuance of the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015. There are two problems in this paper, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court, secondly, how is the concept of the Supreme Court judicial review carried out through renewal of procedural law Trial Judicial Review in the Supreme Court? Based on the discussion above, we can conclude two things, first, the legal implications of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 137 / PUU-XIII / 2015 on the institutional and legal procedures for judicial review of regional regulations in the Supreme Court are the stronger and increasing authority of judicial review in Supreme Court. This decision ended the dualism of review of local regulations from judicial review by the Supreme Court and executive review of regional regulations by the Ministry of Home Affairs to only a judicial review by the Supreme Court, also potentially increasing the number of cases of judicial review in the Supreme Court. Second, the concept of the implementation of a judicial review by the Supreme Court is carried out through legal renewal of the judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court by including several important substances, related to hearings that are open to the public, the existence of a preliminary examination, hearing, verdict and decision making that are more open and fair.Keywords: Regional Regulation, Judicial Review, and Reformation  ABSTRAKProblem judicial review Perda di Mahkamah Agung menjadi persoalan akademik dan praktikal serius yang perlu dipecahkan pascakeluarnya putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015. Terdapat dua masalah dalam tulisan ini, pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung, kedua, bagaimanakah konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung?. Berdasarkan pembahasan di atas maka dapat disimpulkan dua hal , pertama, implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah konstitusi Nomor 137/PUU-XIII/2015 terhadap kelembagaan dan hukum acara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung adalah semakin kuat dan meningkatnya kewenangan judicial review di mahakamah agung. Putusan ini mengakhiri dualisme review perda dari judicial review oleh MA dan executive review perda oleh kemendagri menjadi hanya judicial review oleh Mahkamah Agung, juga berpotensi meningkatkan jumlah perkara judicial review perda di mahkamah agung. Kedua, konsep pelaksanaan judicial review perda oleh mahkamah agung dilakukan melalui pembaharuan hukum acara persidangan judicial review di mahkamah agung dengan memasukan beberapa substansi penting, terkait sidang yang terbuka untuk umum, adanya proses pemeriksaan pendahuluan, pemeriksaan persidangan, pembuktian dan pengambilan putusan yang lebih terbuka dan fair.Kata Kunci : Peaturan Daerah, JudicialReview, dan Pembaharuan.

La exclusiva función del actual recurso de casación contencioso-administrativo ante el Tribunal Supremo

2017 ◽  
pp. 303-328
Author(s):  
Miren Josune Pérez Estrada
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Application Of Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
New System

LABURPENA: Lan honetan kasazio-errekurtsoaren araubide berriak ekainaren 21eko 7/2015 Lege Organikoa indarrean jarri ondoren indarrean dagoen administrazioarekiko auzien jurisdikzioan dauzkan ondorioak aztertzen dira. Sistema horren protagonista berriaren azterketa eta xedea, kasazio-interesaren kontzeptu zehaztugabea eta Auzitegi Gorenaren administrazioarekiko auzien salaren hautazko iritzia jorratzen dira. Bestalde, zuzenbidearen aplikazioan uniformetasunaren teknika ezartzeak dakartzan arriskuak jasotzen dira. Zalantzan jartzen da sistema berria, Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiak benetako babes judizialari dagokionez errekurtsoa eskuratzeari buruz daukan doktrina erreferente hartuta eta zuzenbidea aplikatzeko berdintasunaren, segurtasun juridikoaren eta independentzia judizialaren printzipioetan dauzkan alboko kalteei buruz hausnartzen da. Azken batean, oso gutxik eskuratu ahalko duten sistema esklusibo bat aztertzen da. RESUMEN: En este trabajo se analizan las consecuencias del nuevo régimen del recurso de casación, en el orden jurisdiccional contencioso-administrativo, vigente tras la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 7/2015, de 21 de junio. Se aborda el estudio y finalidad del nuevo protagonista de este sistema, el concepto indeterminado de interés casacional y su apreciación discrecional por la Sala de lo contencioso-administrativo del Tribunal Supremo. Además, se recogen los peligros que entraña la instauración de la técnica de la uniformidad en la aplicación del derecho. Se cuestiona el nuevo sistema tomando como referente la doctrina del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre el acceso al recurso en relación con la tutela judicial efectiva y se reflexiona sobre los daños colaterales en los principios de igualdad en la aplicación del derecho, seguridad jurídica e independencia judicial. En definitiva, se examina un exclusivo sistema al que muy pocos tendrán acceso. ABSTRACT: This work analyzes the consequences of the new regime of the appeal in cassation for the contentious administrative order, in force after the entry into vigour of Organic Act 7/2015 of June 21st. We deal with the study and purpose of this new player in this system, the undefined concept of interest in appeal and its discretionary assessment by the Contentious-administrative chamber in the Supreme Court. Besides, hazards related to the implementation of the uniformity in the application of law technique are set out. The new system is disputed taking the European Court of Human Rights doctrine as a reference regarding the access to judicial review in connection with an effective remedy and we reflect on the collateral damages upon principles of equality in the application of law, legal certainty and judicial independence. In short, we examine an exclusive system accessible to too few.

GENERAL LEGAL ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF POISONED TREE FRUIT AS A MAIN ASPECT IN THE INSTITUTE'S SYSTEM OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larysa Bayrachna ◽  
◽  
Yurii Burdai ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
History Of Development ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Tree Fruit ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law

The article presents a critical analysis of the doctrine of "poisoned tree" through the prism of its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights, scientific and practical approach to its formation by the case law of Ukrainian national courts, in particular, but not limited to, the Supreme Court. Given the requirements of current procedural legislation of Ukraine. An overview of the basic standards and aspects of the standard established by the institute of admissibility of evidence in their entirety and individually. The institute of admissibility of evidence has a long history of development. To date, the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of procedural law is enshrined at the European judicial level in such judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as Gefgen v. Germany, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, and Sabelnik v. Ukraine. against Ukraine", "Nechyporuk and Yonkalo against Ukraine", "Yaremenko against Ukraine". This requirement for the admissibility of evidence is formulated in the above-mentioned Decisions quite succinctly and clearly, and is currently the subject of its implementation in both the law-making system and the law enforcement system. In the legal literature, there is still a discussion about the doctrine of "poisoned tree fruit", which is directly related to the recognition of derivatives of evidence obtained in violation of Ukrainian law - inadmissible. In the course of the study, uncertainty was found that the implementation of this doctrine is necessary only when the violation of the conditions of admissibility calls into question the reliability of the evidence. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether there is a dependence of the admissibility and reliability of the evidence or the "fruits of the poisoned tree" appear under other conditions, when the evidence is declared inadmissible, regardless of this impact on the reliability.

scholarly journals El nuevo motivo del recurso de revisión (especial referencia en el orden jurisdiccional penal) = The new reason for the review remedy (special reference in the criminal jurisdiction order)

2016 ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Margarita Simarro Pedreira
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Mention ◽  
Optimum Solution

<p>El presente trabajo tiene por objeto el estudio de las reformas operadas tanto en la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, a través de la Ley 7/2015 de 21 de julio, como en la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, mediante la 41/2015 de 5 de octubre, en relación con la inclusión de un nuevo motivo de recurso de revisión como medio de ejecución de las sentencias dictadas por el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, tan polémica hasta ahora, y que supone concluir con una previsión legal expresa (al igual que en otros Estados miembros del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos), un largo camino iniciado jurisprudencialmente desde la sentencia del Constitucional en el caso Barberá, Messeguer y Jabardo hasta el Pleno no Jurisdiccional del Tribunal Supremo de 21 de octubre de 2014 en el que se optaba por el recurso de revisión como el cauce más adecuado para la ejecución de sentencias del Tribunal Europeo. Igualmente en esta investigación se analiza el ámbito de extensión de la novedad a otros órdenes jurisdiccionales, con especial referencia al penal, los requisitos para poder acudir a esta vía y las deficiencias funcionales que en la práctica pueden llegar a surgir.</p><p>The present Project is seeking to research the reforms operated both in the Organic Law on Judicial Power, by means of Law 7/2015 of July 21st, and the Criminal Procedure Code conducted through Law 41/2015 of October 5th, regarding the inclusion of a new plea of revision, as a mean to execute the sentences dictated by the European Court of Human Rights, so controversial until now, wich entails to conclude with a new legal stipulation (like other members of the European Convention on Human Rights), a long road that began with the sentence of Constitutional Court on the case Barberá, Messeguer and Jobardo, to the Non-Jurisdictional Plenary of the Supreme Court of October 21st, 2014, in which an application for review was selected as the optimum solution for the execution of sentences in European Court. Likewise, in this research, the field of spreading of novelty to other court orders is analyzed, with a special mention to the criminal one, in addition to requeriments and deficiencies that may arise i practice.</p>

scholarly journals Application by courts of judgments of the constitutional court of the russian federation and the European Court of Human Rights in one case

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-133
Author(s):  
A. V. Chaykina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation

The paper deals with the problem of the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights in the same civil case. The problem is caused by the uncertainty of the hierarchy of these sources of law in terms of international and national law. The issue of non-fulfillment of ECtHR judgments was considered from the point of view of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. The author analyzes foreign practice on the execution of judgments of the ECHR. In particular, the author analyzes the practice of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, having faced with the contradiction of the fundamental norms of the state with the ECtHR judgments.The mechanisms to balance the legal positions of these courts have been revealed. The author suggests considering Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as one of the possible means to eliminate the contradictions between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the ECHR. The procedure of advisory opinions, from the point of view of the author, may make it possible to coordinate the legal positions of the ECHR and the national practice of applying the Rome Convention to the stage of submitting a complaint of Russian citizens to the ECHR.

Analysing the Irish Supreme Court judgement of Sweeney v Governor of Loughan House Open Centre and Others in the light of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-55
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
English Law

The majority of Irish nationals transferred from abroad to serve their sentences in Ireland are transferred from the United Kingdom. Likewise, the majority of foreign nationals transferred from Ireland to serve their sentences in their countries of nationality are transferred to the United Kingdom. This means that the United Kingdom is Ireland’s major prisoner receiving and sending country. In July 2014 the Supreme Court of Ireland held that an offender who had been sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment in the United Kingdom and transferred to serve his sentence in Ireland must be released after serving in Ireland the custodial sentence he would have served had he not been transferred to serve his sentence in Ireland. To reach this conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act and to the relevant English law. This article highlights the implications of this judgement for the transfer of offenders between Ireland and the United Kingdom in particular and other countries in general. In order to put the discussion in context, the article first deals with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the transfer of offenders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document