scholarly journals НЕКИ АСПЕКТИ ПРАВА НА СУДСКУ ЗАШТИТУ ЛИЦА СА МЕНТАЛНИМ СМЕТЊАМА У ПОСТУПКУ ЛИШЕЊА ПОСЛОВНЕ СПОСОБНОСТИ - ПРАКСА ЕВРОПСКОГ СУДА ЗА ЉУДСКА ПРАВА

TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 581
Author(s):  
Dušica Palačković ◽  
Sanda Ćorac
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Mental Disabilities ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The paper analyzes certain important aspects of the procedural position of persons with mental disabilities in the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity. Regardless of the normative framework, both international and national, which largely protects the rights of this sensitive group of people, a significant number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights and decisions in which Contracting States are declared responsible indicate that there is a problem of their procedural position that is principally conditioned by applying (or not applying) the procedural safeguards provided by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or the right to a fair trial. Although this right is guaranteed for all civil and criminal procedures and for all persons, the special features of persons with mental disabilities also determine the particularities in the application of the right to a fair trial in the court procedures in which these persons are involved. Therefore, we could talk about formulated specific standards that essentially elaborate one of the key concepts of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - "reasonable adaptation", as well as a direct link to the need for a specific application of the already mentioned Article 6 of the European Convention. The standards that follow from the application of Article 6 are numerous and the analysis of all from the aspect of protecting the rights of persons with mental disabilities is not possible in the paper of this volume, and therefore, special attention was given to the right of these persons to initiate and conduct the procedures for deprivation of legal capacity, personal participation and representation in that procedures.

The European Court of Human Rights: Sabeh El Leil v. France

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Wrongful Dismissal

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.

scholarly journals Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial Pre-Trial Stage Criminal Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
A A Tymoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article considers the problem of respect for the right to a fair trial at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. It is pro- posed to take into account the secondary role of pre-trial activity, whose task is to prepare materials for trial. This competitiveness for the prosecution is not allowed. Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights indicates sufficient blurring boundaries that separate statement of the facts of the presence or absence of a violation of Art. 6 of the European Convention «On Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms» (the right to a fair trial). But in any case the decision is motivated by the observance of guarantees of access to justice. Hence, any infringement of the possibi

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.

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Access to Court v State Immunity

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.

Bulgarian Military Courts and the Right to a Fair Trial

De Jure ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilmira Ilieva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines the organization and functioning of Bulgarian military courts to determine to what extent they are compatible with fair trial standards. The guarantees and institutional requirements for providing the right to a fair trial are analyzed in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This research is focused on the issue whether Bulgarian military courts could provide a fair trial, held by an independent and impartial court, mainly with regard to civil citizens. For the purpose of the research is scrutinized the ECHR Judgment from 28.11.2019 on the case Mustafa vs. Bulgaria.

Does Self-isolation Violate the Right to Liberty? An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ Practice in Light of the Ukrainian Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Yana Litins’ka ◽  
Oleksandra Karpenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Stress Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
Rapid Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

Abstract COVID-19 became a stress-test for many legal systems because it required that a balance be found between rapid action to prevent the spread of the disease, and continued respect for human rights. Many states in Europe, including Ukraine, chose to enforce an obligation to self-isolate. In this article we review what the obligation to self-isolate entails in the case of Ukraine. We also analyse whether such an obligation should be viewed as a deprivation or a mere restriction of liberty, and if it is permissible under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of the European Union con cerning the right of asylum

10.12737/5251 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Габриэлла Белова ◽  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
Мария Хаджипетрова-Лачова ◽  
Maria Hadzhipetrova-Lachova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The authors analyze certain cases considered in recent years by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of European Union in Luxembourg and associated with providing of asylum to the third country nationals. In individual EU member states there are huge differences in the procedures and protective mechanisms for asylum seekers in their access to work, as well as in the use of mechanism of forced detention. Due to accession of the EU to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU should comply the standards set by the Council of Europe. The authors analyze the new approach of the Strasbourg Court in decision MSS v. Belgium and Greece unlike other "Dublin" cases. They also consider certain new judgements of the Court of European Union in Luxembourg, some of which were accepted in order of urgent prejudicial production.

scholarly journals Jawność postępowania sądowego w świetle Europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka

Radca Prawny ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 11-42
Author(s):  
Janusz Roszkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Open Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Case Files ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Openness of court proceedings in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights The subject of this article is the right to open court proceedings as guaranteed in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The most important elements of this right are: the right to participate in a court hearing, the right to access to the case files and the right to acquaint with the ruling. This right applies not only to the parties to the proceedings, but also – albeit to a lesser extent – to every citizen. The text discusses the findings of the doctrine and the European Court of Human Rights, at times criticizing them especially with regard to the too narrow definition of the obligation to publicly announce the judgment. In addition, the article analyzes the extent to which the Polish law encourages openness in civil, criminal and judicial-administrative procedures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document