scholarly journals Zbrodnia katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka — refleksje nad wyrokiem z 21 października 2013 roku

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 349-373
Author(s):  
Witold Kulesza
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
European Court ◽  
Communist Ideology ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Grand Chamber

The Katyń massacre before the European Court of Human Rights — reflections on the October 21, 2013 judgmentBoth the Nuremberg Tribunal in its judgment of Jan. 1, 1946 as well as the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber judgment of Oct. 21, 2013 in the case of Janowiec and Others v. Russia abstracted from a substantive decision on Russia’s responsibility for the Katyń massacre and failed to determine the consequences to be borne by the defending state, whose authorities decided upon the performance of the act in question. Contemporary Russian state denies that the murder of 22,000 Polish prisoners of war and inmates at the behest of the highest authorities of the USSR in 1940 was indeed a war crime. According to the position of the Russian government, represented before the ECHR, what took place was solely a crime committed by the administrative personnel who acted beyond their authority, the prosecution of which expired after 10 years, i.e. in 1950. The Russian side also claimed that it was not obliged to conduct an investigation on the matter and refused to disclose the content of the order to discontinue the criminal proceedings issued in 2004 to both the relatives of those who were murdered and to the ECHR. It also refused to recognize the murdered Polish prisoners of war as victims of political repression, claiming that it is unclear according to which criminal code they were sentenced to be shot. Russia’s position in denying the temporal jurisdiction of the ECHR and the ratione materiae with regard to the Katyń massacre which was in fact accepted by the ECHR in its judgment, should be subject to criticism. According to the statement of the court, Russia has not violated Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural aspect or Article 3 in its way of dealing with the relatives of the victims. The Court has lost the chance to contribute to appointing — in terms of human rights — a protection standard for a vital legal interest, which is currently the collective memory of the persecution of people because of their national, racial or religious background, ones who had become victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed in the name of Nazi or communist ideology once pursued in Europe.

ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity of a person under article 1 of the protocol no. 6: Individual interpretations of the essence and consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-267
Author(s):  
Bohdan V. Shchur ◽  
Iryna V. Basysta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Method Comparison ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual

In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations

Does the Unborn Child Have a Right to Life? The Insufficient Answer of the European Court of Human Rights in the Judgment Vo v. France

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Pichon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pregnant Woman ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
European Court ◽  
French Court ◽  
The Right

In the July 8, 2004 case of Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) dealt with the question of whether the embryo/fetus (“the fetus”) enjoys the protection of the right to life provided by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Below, a pregnant woman lost her fetus due to an error made by the attending doctor, and the Cour de Cassation, the French court of last instance, acquitted the doctor of involuntary homicide on the grounds that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the French Criminal Code. Claiming a violation of her child's right to life within the meaning of the Convention, the woman appealed to the ECtHR. The ECtHR left open the question whether or not a fetus falls within the scope of Article 2; declaring that, even assuming Article 2 was applicable to a fetus, there had been no failure by France to comply with its obligations under Article 2, because the ECtHR deemed the institution of criminal proceedings unnecessary. Rather, it considered the possibility for the applicant to bring an action for damages as sufficient and therefore found that there had been no violation of the fetus's right to life.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF NON BIS IN IDEM IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS RIGHT UKRAINE

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petro Olishchuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Court

The article analyzes the principle of non bis in idem in the context of the criminal legislation of Ukraine, as well as the identification of cases of violations of this principle by law enforcement bodies during the qualification of criminal offences and during the issue of judicial decisions. It is noted that criminal law is a branch of law that is connected with the establishment of a ban on committing a certain act under the threat of the application by the state of measures of coercion of a criminal nature. The establishment of such a ban and the determination of measures of criminal-legal coercion, as a consequence, for its violation, is potentially related to the restriction of human rights. Obviously, the restriction of these rights cannot be arbitrary and chaotic, but must be subject to certain rules, ideas, which reflect the general development of society. These include the principles of criminal law, in particular the principle of criminal law, enshrined in art. Article 61 of the Constitution of Ukraine states: “No one can be brought to legal responsibility twice for the same type of offence”. According to Article 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, “no one may be brought to criminal responsibility for the same criminal offence more than once”. The article highlights the characteristic features of the investigated principle. It is stated that its role is extremely important for the internal construction of the field of law, as well as the correct normalisation and law enforcement. There are cases of violations of this principle by law enforcement bodies during the qualification of criminal offences and during the issue of judicial decisions, on examples of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and Ukrainian judicial proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights’s case-law on the application of Article 4 of the Convention is inconsistent and, in some cases, even contradictory. The principle of non bis in idem in the resolution of the question of the inadmissibility of double incrimination ensures the observance of the rights of the person during the implementation of criminal prosecution, as well as ensures the completeness of criminal legal qualification, the individualization of criminal responsibility and punishment.

Georgia v. Russia (I)

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Bjorn Arp
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On July 3, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered its judgment in Georgia v. Russia, concerning Russia’s collective expulsion of a large number of Georgian nationals between October 2006 and January 2007. The Court held that Russia had violated several provisions of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention or ECHR), in particular Article of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR (prohibition of collective expulsions). Because the Russian government had failed to cooperate with the Court by providing relevant information, the Court also found a violation of Article 38 of the ECHR, which obliges states to furnish “all necessary facilities” for the effective conduct of the Court’s investigation of the case. The Court deferred its decision on the question of “just satisfaction” under Article 41 pending further submissions by the parties. This was the first of three interstate proceedings that Georgia has brought against Russia under the special procedure of Article 33, and it is the first decision on the merits of these cases.

scholarly journals Human Rights Waiver in Criminal Proceedings in Terms of the European Court of Human Rights: ‘Russian Cases’

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 50-58
Author(s):  
Irina Chebotareva ◽  
Olesia Pashutina ◽  
Irina Revina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Widespread Occurrence ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The article investigates the general position of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility and validity of the waiver of rights, the features of the European mechanism for protecting human rights in case of the waiver of the right; studies the case-law practices in criminal cases of the Court in relation to Russia where the Court considered the presence/absence of the waiver of the right. The practice of the ECHR reveals the widespread occurrence of human rights violations in the Russian criminal proceedings with the alleged waiver of the right in the framework of criminal procedure. These includes the situations when the Government claimed that the Applicant had waived his/her right and the Applicant did not agree with this fact and insisted that he had been deprived of the opportunity to exercise his/her right. According to the ECHR, violations of human rights established in the Convention are related not only to shortcomings in the legal system but also to improper law enforcement that does not comply with the Convention requirements. Based on the analysis of the ECHR’s general approaches to the waiver of the right, the authors revealed the compliance of the Russian criminal procedure with the requirements of the Court to the waiver of the right and the guarantees established for it. To achieve the objectives in the HUDOC database of the European Court, using search requests we identified cases against Russia considered by the Chamber and the Grand Chamber, in which the ECHR examined the issue of the presence/absence of the waiver of the right in the criminal procedure. As a result, 40 judgments in which the Court directly considered the issue of the presence/absence of the waiver of the right in the criminal procedure in Russia were selected. We studied and analysed the selected judgments.

European Court of Human Rights: review of the Grand Chamber judgment of 21 January 2021 in the case of Georgia v. Russia (II) (application no. 38263/08)

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-24
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Buffer Zone ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Administrative Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Grand Chamber

In the judgment in Georgia v. Russia (application no. 38263/08), the European Court of Human Rights examined the existence of effective control over the territory where the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia took place. Applying the concept formulated in the case Bankovich and Others v. Belgium (application no. 522207/99), the Grand Chamber determined that Russia had not exercised jurisdiction in the affected territory during the period of active hostilities. However, after the ceasefire, the Chamber found an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the Russian Federation. In light of the evidence’s full weight, the Chamber found an administrative practice for which the Russian Federation was responsible. As the European Court found, the administrative practice in question contravened several articles of the Convention and its Protocols in terms of the killing of civilians, torching and looting of houses in Georgian villages in South Ossetia and the “buffer zone” (violation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention); Conditions of detention of Georgian citizens and the humiliating acts to which they were exposed (violation of Article 5 of the Convention); torture of Georgian prisoners of war detained by South Ossetian forces (violation of Article 3 of the Convention); and the inability of Georgian nationals to return to their respective homes (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention). The Chamber also found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention regarding the Russian Federation’s failure to effectively investigate the alleged crimes committed in the affected territory. The argument of a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention was rejected.

scholarly journals DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS AS MANDATORY ELEMENT OF JUDICIAL CONTROLIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

2019 ◽  
pp. 284-294
Author(s):  
O. Plakhotnik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Draw Conclusion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
And Function

The purpose of this article is opening of necessity of application of ECHR practice in the decisions of the investigating judge to increase the value of judicial control over the observance of rights, freedoms and interests of individuals in criminal proceedings. The article includes analysis of the current legislation on the definition of judicial review at the pre-trial investigation stage. Judicial control is revealed through the powers of the investigating judge in criminal proceedings. There were examined opinions of scientists in relation to determinations of judicial control and function of investigation judge on the stage of pre-trial investigation. It is possible to draw conclusion from the analysis of the last scientific researches, that expansion of scopes of judicial control in a criminal production, it is a next step to rethink the value of judicial control in criminal proceedings. Decisions taken by the investigating judge should be based on the principles of legality and rule of law. The conclusion about the need to study the application of ECHR investigating judges to strengthen the role of the court at the stage of pre-trial investigation and reduction of procedural errors that can become new ECHR judgments against Ukraine. Judicial statistics and decision of consequence judges content are analysed with the use of practice of ECHR for 2018 and beginning 2019 years. Out of analysis of judicial statistics a conclusion is made that tendency on application of practice of ECHR in 2019 is slowly, but grows. The necessity of wide use of practice of ECHR courts is examined during realization of judicial control in a criminal proceedings. The estimation is given to expansion of the list of proceedings that must be carried out with the permission of the investigating judge. It is analyzed the shortcomings of the application of the ECHR practice courts and disadvantages such as the decision by the investigating judge ruling, not under criminal procedural rules. The practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is analysed. It is given the risks of the work of the investigating judge, who can relate to undue interference in the work of law enforcement. It is noted the decision of the ECHR “Volokhi against Ukraine” dated November 2, 2006. It is concluded that the judicial review of the investigative actions should also include the application of the ECHR practice, and application of ECHR in the activities of the investigating judge at the pre-trial investigation stage is a prerequisite for respect for the rule rights in criminal proceedings and the strategic task for Ukraine. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, court control, criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals THE EROSION OF THE SALDUZ DOCTRINE IN THE CASES OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND BEUZE V. BELGIUM

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-122
Author(s):  
Faruk H. Avdić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Defense Attorney ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The so-called Salduz doctrine that concerns the right to a fair trial and the right to the defense attorney emerged from the case of Salduz v. Turkey, decided on the part of the European Court of Human Rights where the Grand Chamber found the violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In this connection, the aim of this paper is twofold. In the first place, the paper aims to demonstrate how the European Court of Human Rights has overturned the two main tenents of the so-called Salduz doctrine derived from its landmark case of Salduz v. Turkey in its later Judgments delivered in the case of Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom and the case of Beuze v. Belgium. The two tenets derived from the Salduz doctrine being examined in the paper are the right to access to the defense attorney as a rule during pre-trial proceedings and the absolute exclusionary rule. In the second place, the paper aims to offer a critique of the standard of compelling reasons employed in the Ibrahim Judgment. In order to achieve its aim, this paper primarily analyses the jurisprudence of the European Human Court of Human Rights in the cases of Salduz v. Turkey, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, and Beuze v. Belgium. Besides, the paper also touches upon other judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to its subject. The paper in question, therefore, primarily relies on the case-law method in achieving its aims. The paper concludes that in overturning the Salduz doctrine in relation to aspects examined in the paper, the European Court of Human Rights has exacerbated the legal standing of the person against whom criminal proceedings are being conducted.

scholarly journals The European Court of Human Rights as Part of Criminal Procedural Legislation of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-244
Author(s):  
О. С. Розумовський ◽  
О. О. Кочура
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

The author has studied the issue of the origin and formation of the European Court of Human Rights after the Second World War, steps in the establishment and development of this Court, as well as the actions of the Member States to consolidate the development of the European Court of Human Rights at specialized conferences with the support of the Committee of Ministers. The list of regulatory and legislative acts adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for the establishment of the rule of law in regard to the understanding of human rights in the activities of Ukrainian courts has been researched. Since the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has become part of national legislation after its ratification by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, more detailed study should be conducted regarding the urgent task of fully understanding the content of this international treaty and the main mechanisms for implementing its norms. The author has analyzed the implementation of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the example of its specific decisions into criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine by applying the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its activities and problematic aspects of their practical implementation. Particular attention has been paid to the study of problematic aspects of the use of these decisions in practice by highlighting the rulings of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued in 2019. The author has analyzed the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in regard to the conducted secret (search) actions by law enforcement agencies with further disclosure ob obtained evidence to the defense party; it has been also pointed out that the right to disclose evidence contained in criminal proceedings is not absolute to the defense and may be limited only in cases when there are the interests of national security, information protection or witness protection concerning the methods and forms of law enforcement agencies’ activity. The author has made propositions to resolve certain situations related to the implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Ukraine.

scholarly journals DISTURBED PRECEDENTING OF THE LAW IN PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Blagojević
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Criminal Sentencing ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic

The subject of this paper is one model developed in practice of theCourt of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is related to unconstitutional retroactiveimplementation of incrimination crimes against humanity. Foundationsof this problem are laid in the decisions of Hague Tribunal, andthen in the decisions of the European Court for Human Rights. These decisionsare afterwards accepted without any critique in practice of the Courtof Bosnia and Herzegovina in criminal proceedings led regarding this incrimination.This is the model of disturbed precedenting of the law. In thepaper this problem has been clarified by the author on one case from theCourt practice, which unfortunately is not the only example in reality. Theessence of this problem is in the Court sentencing verdicts reached againstindividuals. Namely, assertions that widespread and systematic attackagainst civilian population is carried out by the Army and Police of the Republicof Srpska are expounded in these verdicts, but not confirmed by validproofs and arguments. This is the way for criminal sentencing of not onlyindividuals (natural persons) but the Republic of Srpska as well, withoutenabling it to defend itself from such unfounded accusations. When theCourt of Bosnia and Herzegovina is trying to find arguments for such verdictsin the decisions of the Hague Tribunal and in the decisions of theEuropean Court of Human Rights, it is defective since decisions of these internationalinstitutions are defective as well. All this in final can cause seriousconsequences against the Republic of Srpska, which (these consequences)can be not only of criminal nature but of constitutional nature aswell.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document