The Obligation to Investigate and to Cooperate with Investigations of Unlawful Cross-Border Killings under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan A. G. Talmon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Cross Border

scholarly journals Sixty-six Communicated Applications Vs. the Russian “Foreign Agents Act” at the European Court of Human Rights: a Global Dispute Resolution Mechanism in the Making?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Wiersma
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
European Convention ◽  
North Caucasus ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
European Court ◽  
Made In

I outline and discuss in this article all the communicated cases that challenge the Russian “Foreign Agents Act”, which are available at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. In total, sixty-six proceedings are currently ongoing before the Court. The first application was made in 2013, the most recent in 2018. Russia has to respond to complaints by an expansive number of (members of) NGOs (such as Ecodefence, Levada Centre, North Caucasus Environmental Watch and Eco-Logica).Remarking on the need to search for a responsive and viable mechanism of formal dispute resolution in the cross-border funding of NGOs context, L.H. Mayer (2018; in 'Globalization Without a Safety Net: The Challenge of Protecting Cross-Border Funding of NGOs', Minnesota Law Review, 102(3), p. 1265) has put forth to especially look at member state funded mechanisms such as regional human rights agreements. The ECHR likely holds the best option for a level-playing field in this context, although a fully tested outcome is lacking at the moment.I look into comparative materials from the Court's decisional law related to Freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - ECHR), including the applicability of the freedom to receive and impart information. I also sketch how some other Articles of the Convention are interlinked. The term “political activity” is central to the arguments raised. I discuss separately how that term could be treated in light of the case law of the ECtHR about Article 16 of the ECHR at the end of this paper. In the conclusion, I sum up the remarks made in order to address the importance of these cases advancing at the ECtHR.

The Request for Mutual Assistance and the European Investigation Order – Is the Modern Legal Assistance Instrument Better than its Predecessor

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
Mutual Assistance ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
International Response ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractEuropean evidence law is a quite sensitive topic and has always been the cause of much debate by practitioners and academics. Theoretical and physical borders do not matter for transnational crime. The intensive mobility of people and the evolution of world trade with goods and services create favorable conditions for the cross-border crime to develop. Therefore, it is of a great importance to take far-reaching steps to an upgraded mechanism for obtaining evidence in and from the Member States. This article examines the application of two mutual legal assistance instruments – the request for mutual assistance, which was established by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 1959, the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention of2000 with its 2001 Protocol, and Arts. 48 to 53 of the Schengen Agreement, and the European Investigation Order introduced by the Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. The main objective of this research is to emphasize the advantages and disadvantages of both judicial cooperation mechanisms. A comparative analysis of both operational tools is an appropriate way to assess which one is related to more procedural savings and how both of them deal with the protection of human rights. Thus, the modern instruments for judicial cooperation in the area of transnational evidence-gathering as an international response to crimes with cross-border dimensions can be adequately valued.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document