scholarly journals “Equality of arms” in criminal procedure in the context of the right to a fair trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 602-621
Author(s):  
Fardin Y. Khalilov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
European Standards ◽  
Mutual Relations ◽  
The Right

The level of realization of the right to a fair trial is one of the crucial indicators of democracy in any state. In order to ensure this right, all the minimum standards deriving from it must be clearly understood by law enforcement agencies and their practice must meet these standards. As equality of arms, the right to a fair trial, is not directly enshrined in the text of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter - the Convention) and is of implicit character; the issues like its essence, content and the way it should manifest in practice are open for discussion. For this reason, the focus on those issues is highly relevant. The aim of this article is, with reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter - ECHR) and the modern doctrine based on this right, to explain the role of this principle and the essence of its mutual relations with the other elements of the right to a fair trial. Selected case law of ECHR bears great interest compared with other decisions and is discussed in the form of empirical materials of the study. From the doctrinal materials, interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention and theoretical sources related to the European standards in the criminal procedure are also analyzed. The article exercises methods of dialectical comprehension; they are determinism, induction, deduction, case studies and methods of law interpretation. As a result of the study, a unique doctrinal commentary has been obtained in the context of adversariality and impartial and independent court principles of the concept of equality of arms, as well as, interaction of the minimum rights of persons subject to criminal prosecution, guaranteed by the Convention.

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.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

scholarly journals Inconsistent Adjudication – A Violation of the Right to Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-338
Author(s):  
Dragoljub Popović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Case

The ECtHR does not review decisions of national courts of the States Parties to the European Convention. However, it has developed a pattern in its case law to find a violation of the Convention on the grounds that the fair hearing lacked if there was a case law inconsistency at the level of national jurisdiction. The ECtHR case law was settled in a Grand Chamber case against Turkey in 2011. To find a violation under Article 6 of the Convention the ECtHR requires two tests. Firstly, it must establish the existence of a profound and long-standing inconsistency in the domestic case law, and secondly, the ECtHR raises the issue of a mechanism aimed at removing the inconsistency. If the mechanism does not exist, or if it applied ineffectively, the ECtHR finds a violation of human rights. The author suggests the ECtHR should revisit its jurisprudence.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

scholarly journals Predictive analytics in crime prevention and the European Convention on Human Rights: tackling risks in privacy and fair trial frameworks

2021 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Donatas Murauskas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crime Prevention ◽  
Predictive Analytics ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Conceptual Issue ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

In this paper, I discuss whether the European Convention on Human Rights provides safeguards to individuals affected by predictive analytics in crime prevention. I start with depicting a conceptual issue that worries legal scholars – the trend of law-enforcement authorities to increase their attention to crime prevention rather than traditional criminal investigations. Then, I dive into the right to privacy case-law of the European Court of Human Rights looking for the Court’s references to the threats of data processing. Lastly, I select concrete cases of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a fair trial to show that the human rights safeguards are not yet developed to frame predictive analytics in crime prevention.

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Maria Dymitruk
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.

scholarly journals The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights

Semiotica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 (209) ◽  
pp. 209-230
Author(s):  
Laura Ervo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

AbstractIn my paper, I will study the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by using discourse analysis as a method. My hypothesis is that the court has changed its line concerning the right to a fair trial (in article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights) over the last twenty years. Earlier, it always defended the rights of the accused and the authorities’ problems, for instance, in fact gathering, were recessive. The same covered the rights of the witnesses even if the court usually confessed that also the witness has their rights, which should be respected. It also stressed that authorities of course have difficulties with proof – for example – the offences that are connected with the organized crime. Still, the rights of defense were always number one and inviolate. During recent years, the line seems to have changed even if the court has not transparently said so. However, it has given some new precedents by the Grand Chamber where the rights of the defense have been limited more than before; for instance, the cases Jalloh v. Germany (11 July 2006), Gäfgen v. Germany (1 June 2010), and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. Great Britain (15 December 2011). The expressions used in case law show that the way of thinking has changed as well. Still, the changes are sometimes more hidden than transparent where discourse analysis is the only tool for catching the changes and showing differences in the thinking of the court.

scholarly journals ECtHR Decisions That Influenced the Criminal Procedure of Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-121
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
European Standards ◽  
Close Relatives ◽  
The Right

As of 2020, 70 years have passed since the day of the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which Ukraine ratified in September 1997. It was from this date that the countdown to significant democratic transformations in Ukraine and the establishment of human and civil rights and freedoms began. In this article, the authors raise relevant issues of reforming the criminal process of Ukraine in the context of European standards. The old Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine was adopted in 1960 and was in force for almost half a century. During this time, it became obsolete and bore a significant imprint of the Soviet past, which was manifest in both the bodies that conducted the trial and had primarily repressive powers and the public interests that dominated the rights and legitimate interests of those involved in criminal justice. The conditions under which the first steps aimed at realising the importance of the Convention and the value of human rights enshrined in it took place were not easy. The path of reform processes in criminal proceedings was associated with the confrontation of the Soviet past with modern transformation. It was difficult to realise the need to harmonise national legislation with European standards of human rights and freedoms and consolidate their perception as one of the necessary conditions for Ukraine’s integration into the European legal space, as well as the need for a conceptually new worldview for both the people of Ukraine and law enforcement bodies – officers, judges, and prosecutors. The authors summarise the most important decisions of the ECtHR made on complaints against Ukraine during the period of the reform of criminal procedure legislation, analyse the problems identified by the ECtHR, and illustrate how the legislator implemented the ECtHR standards in national criminal procedure legislation. They note that on the basis of the Convention and the case-law of the ECtHR in criminal procedure legislation, important principles of criminal proceedings, such as adversarial proceedings, direct examination of evidence, the right to defence, the right not to testify against oneself and close relatives, and reasonable time are legitimised. For the first time, the legislation of Ukraine has enshrined a rule on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms. A separate segment of the article is devoted to the consideration of amendments to the criminal procedure legislation regarding the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a person in respect of whom a measure of restraint in the form of custody is chosen. In order to ensure the right of a person to liberty and security, the position of an investigating judge and the institute of free legal aid have been introduced. In addition, the authors focus on the aspects of direct application of the Convention and ECtHR decisions in law enforcement practice without amending the legislation, as well as analyse the legislative perspectives arising from non-implemented ECtHR decisions. Keywords: European convention; human rights; criminal procedure; principles of criminal procedure; Ukraine; freedom from self-disclosure; the right not to testify against close relatives and family members; the right to defence.

scholarly journals The restrictions of the right to inspect the case file in Bosnia and Herzegovina in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 463-479
Author(s):  
Faruk Avdić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Case File ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedure Codes

This paper aims to assess the compliance of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file with the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The working hypothesis laid out in this paper is that the right of the prosecutor to unilaterally restrict the defense right to access the case file during the investigation and to unilaterally decide which evidence he will use as the basis for the indictment does not satisfy the requirements stemming from the right to a fair trial. The starting point of this paper is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Afterward, the paper turns to the consideration of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file. In that purpose, this paper employs normative and formal dogmatic legal methods in analyzing the particulars of its subject. The conclusion of the paper is that the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file is not in line with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. For this reason, there is a need for the amending of the Criminal Procedure Codes in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of making these Codes compliant with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in that respect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document