scholarly journals TEISĖTŲ LŪKESČIŲ APSAUGA EUROPOS ŽMOGAUS TEISIŲ TEISMO PRAKTIKOJE

Teisė ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 135-153
Author(s):  
Audronė Gedmintaitė

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo praktikoje yra suprantama ir vartojama sąvoka „teisėti lūkesčiai“. Teisėtų lūkesčių apsaugos doktrina ir taikymo dėsningumai atskleidžiami tiriant šios doktrinos kilmę ir raidą, turinio elementus bei Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo taikomą teisėtų lūkesčių apsaugos patikros metodologiją. The article considers the ways in which the notion „legitimate expectations“ is interpreted and applied in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. It begins with the evolution of the concept of legitimate expectations and its features. This is followed by analysis of the main principles guiding the judicial review concerning the protection of legitimate expectations as they have been developed by the European Court of Human Rights.

Global Jurist ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Galliani

AbstractLife Imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract the attention of the doctrine. There are, however, significant developments in the European Court of Human Rights case law. In this paper, using a comparative methodology, we highlight the standard that, at international level, allows to consider Life Imprisonment compatible with human dignity-that is the right to a substantial judicial review. It is no longer acceptable that the ‘last word’ on the lifers’ early release is still entrusted to political power.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-153
Author(s):  
Gamze Ovacik

The term, de facto detention, refers to instances in which foreigners are held or deprived of their liberty usually with a view to preventing their entry into a country or expelling them from a country, but without implementing a legally prescribed detention regime that satisfies the criteria of the rule of law. The first type of de facto detention occurs when provisions regulating detention are absent or deficient in the legal framework. The second type takes place when domestic law sufficiently regulates detention regimes; however, the law is not duly implemented in practice. This article examines judicial practices in Turkey in both categories of de facto detention, analysing 37 Turkish court decisions with supporting case law from the European Court of Human Rights. Focusing on case law makes it possible both to track deficiencies in administrative practices and to analyse judicial response as a tool for rectifying unlawful administrative practices.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

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”.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

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.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document