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)

Author(s):  
Margarita Simarro Pedreira

<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>

Author(s):  
Egidijus Küris

Western legal tradition gave the birth to the concept of the rule of law. Legal theory and constitutional justice significantly contributed to the crystallisation of its standards and to moving into the direction of the common concept of the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights uses this concept as an interpretative tool, the extension of which is the quality of the law doctrine, which encompasses concrete requirements for the law under examination in this Court, such as prospectivity of law, its foreseeability, clarity etc. The author of the article, former judge of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court and currently the judge of the European Court of Human Rights, examines how the latter court has gradually intensified (not always consistently) its reliance on the rule of law as a general principle, inherent in all the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, to the extent that in some of its judgments it concentrates not anymore on the factual situation of an individual applicant, but, first and foremost, on the examination of the quality of the law. The trend is that, having found the quality of the applicable law to be insufficient, the Court considers that the mere existence of contested legislation amounts to an unjustifiable interference into a respective right and finds a violation of respective provisions of the Convention. This is an indication of the Court’s progressing self-approximation to constitutional courts, which are called to exercise abstract norm-control.La tradición occidental alumbró la noción del Estado de Derecho. La teoría del Derecho y la Justicia Constitucional han contribuido decisivamente a la cristalización de sus estándares, ayudando a conformar un acervo común en torno al mismo. El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos emplea la noción de Estado de Derecho como una herramienta interpretativa, fundamentalmente centrada en la doctrina de la calidad de la ley, que implica requisitos concretos que exige el Tribunal tales como la claridad, la previsibilidad, y la certeza en la redacción y aplicación de la norma. El autor, en la actualidad Juez del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y anterior Magistrado del Tribunal Constitucional de Lituania, examina cómo el primero ha intensificado gradualmente (no siempre de forma igual de consistente) su confianza en el Estado de Derecho como principio general, inherente a todos los preceptos que forman el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, hasta el punto de que en algunas de sus resoluciones se concentra no tanto en la situación de hecho del demandante individual sino, sobre todo y ante todo, en el examen de esa calidad de la ley. La tendencia del Tribunal es a considerar que, si observa que la ley no goza de calidad suficiente, la mera existencia de la legislación discutida supone una interferencia injustificable dentro del derecho en cuestión y declara la violación del precepto correspondiente del Convenio. Esto implica el acercamiento progresivo del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a los Tribunales Constitucionales, quienes tienen encargado el control en abstracto de la norma legal.


Author(s):  
Victor Muraviov

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 487-502

487Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution of judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Russian judgments — Whether European Court of Human Rights’ judgments providing grounds for reconsideration of decision in a civil case where opposing decision of Constitutional Court existing — Russian law — Article 392(4) of Russian Civil Procedure Code — The law of the Russian Federation


Land Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 593-629
Author(s):  
Chris Bevan

This chapter examines the relationship between land law and human rights. From a distinctly land law perspective, the human rights discourse has given rise to much debate, which continues to fuel much academic commentary including recent examination of the availability of horizontal effect in McDonald v McDonald in the Supreme Court and in the European Court of Human Rights. The chapter focuses chiefly on the two most pertinent provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for land law; namely Art. 1 of the First Protocol and Art. 8 and reflects on the, at times, difficult relationship between land law and human rights.


Author(s):  
Lucy Jones

This chapter discusses the English court system, civil disputes, and alternative dispute resolution. The courts in England and Wales form a hierarchy. At the lowest level are the Magistrates’ Courts and the County Courts, then the Crown Court and High Court, then the Court of Appeal, and finally the Supreme Court. The chapter considers the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in interpreting EU law within Member States. It explains the position of the European Court of Human Rights, which deals with allegations of state breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Civil disputes arise in every area of business. An explanation of the civil procedure rules from commencing a claim to enforcement of a court judgment is provided. The chapter concludes with a discussion of alternative methods of dispute resolution including arbitration, mediation, and conciliation.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 513-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat

The Federal Republic of Germany counts among the earliest States parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It ratified the ECHR on 5 December 1952, three years ahead of Italy, and hence found itself among the original members of the treaty system when the ECHR entered into force on 3 September 1953. For the new democratic Government, it was a decision of principle to affirm its willingness to cooperate peacefully within the group of European States, submitting to an international review mechanism with regard to all of its activities. Therefore, very shortly afterwards, it accepted also the individual application under Article 25 ECHR, which at that time was not yet compulsory for all States parties. For many years under the Nazi dictatorship, Germany had brought death and destruction to its neighbours. Now, organized under a democratic and liberal constitution, the Basic Law (BL), it wanted to manifest its newfound identity as a civilized State abiding by the rule of law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosaria Sicurella

The decision of the Court of Justice in the M.A.S. and M.B. case marks a very significant step forward in the Taricco saga. It clearly shows the intention of the European Court to tone down the confrontation with the Italian Constitutional Court, while at the same time maintaining the most relevant achievement of the decision in the Taricco case, that is to say the fact to consider Article 325 TFEU as having direct effect. The author expresses quite a critical view on the solution adopted by the ECJ which finally results in a sort of “flexibilization” of the principle of legality at EU level in order to meet some of the claims by the Italian Constitutional Court. In the author's opinion, such a solution risks to undermine the overall coherence and soundness of the protection of fundamental rights at EU level, although it can appear at a first glance to boost the legality principle. A better solution could have been to develop a different reasoning relying on rights in the Charter other that the nullum crimen principle, and avoid to touch at the well-established scope of this principle as established in Article 49 Charter and also in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


Author(s):  
Silvia DEL SAZ

LABURPENA: Giza Eskubideen Europako Auzitegiaren jurisprudentziaren ondorioz, Konstituzio Auzitegiak aurreko doktrina zuzendu behar izan du. Horretarako, errugabetasun-presuntziorako eskubidearen irismena zabaldu behar izan du, eta, administrazio-ebazpen zehatzaileetatik eta zigor-epaietatik harago, kalte-ordaina ukatzen duten erabakietara zabaldu du hori, Botere Judizialaren Lege Organikoaren 294. artikuluak eskatzen duen bezalaxe, errugabetasun-presuntzioaren printzipioa ezarri ostean akusatua absolbitu egin den baina delituzko egintzak egon ez zirela frogatu ez den kasuetarako. RESUMEN: Fruto de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, el Tribunal Constitucional se ha visto obligado a rectificar su doctrina anterior extendiendo el alcance del derecho a la presunción de inocencia, más allá de las resoluciones administrativas sancionadoras y sentencias penales, a los pronunciamientos que, tal y como exige el art. 294 LOPJ, deniegan la indemnización en atención a que el acusado fue absuelto en aplicación del principio de presunción de inocencia sin que haya quedado probado que los hechos delictivos no existieron. ABSTRACT: As a result of the case law by the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court was compelled to rectify its former doctrine by broadening the scope of the right to the presumption of innocence beyond punitive administrative resolutions and criminal judgments to rulings that as art. 294 of Judiciary Act requires, deny the award of damages on the ground that the accused was acquitted due to the application of the principle of innocence without having been proved that the criminal offences did not exist.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-79
Author(s):  
Lucia Smolková

This paper analyses the case law of the Slovak Constitutional Court and the Slovak Supreme Court dealing with inspections conducted by selected Slovak administrative bodies – especially by the administrative bodies in the area of foodstuffs administration – where inspected companies complain that their rights guaranteed by the Slovak Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the protection of their business premises, have been violated. The paper thus also deals with and analyses the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and its (non)-application by the Slovak judicial bodies in their decision-making practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document