THE HUMAN RIGHTS FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIARY IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS: INSTITUTIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-225
Author(s):  
V.V. MOVCHAN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
System Control ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Protection

The article reveals the theoretical aspects of administrative legal proceedings, as one of the forms of the exercise of judicial power, the features and significance of the administrative judicial process in the mechanism of protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the analysis is given of the constitutional foundations of the human rights function of the judiciary, its essence and content, procedural actions. The author reveals the historical aspects of the formation and development of judicial protection in Russia, oreign experience and models of administrative justice are considered, the importance of administrative proceedings in the implementation of the human rights function of the judiciary in the Russian Federation when considering disputes with the participation of public authorities and citizens and the exercise of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens is revealed. The author substantiates the advantages of the judicial administrative process as a procedural form of implementation of the human rights function of the judiciary and the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection, analyzes the reform of the judicial system of the judicial system, the creation of courts of appeal and cassation in the system of arbitration and general jurisdiction, substantiates the conclusion that the reform of the system of courts of general jurisdiction created organizational and judicial framework for the specialization of judges and court proceedings, the system of institutional intra-system control of the legality and validity of judicial acts, institutionally and functionally ensured the implementation of the human rights function of the judiciary and the availability of judicial protection in the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Application of measures to ensure the claim in administrative proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 168-172
Author(s):  
Т. О. Tour
Keyword(s):  
System Analysis ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Further Development

The article, based on the methodology of system analysis, considers the application of measures to ensure the claim in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine. Judicial protection includes various components, including procedures for reviewing decisions and actions or inaction of public authorities. The institute of securing a claim on an administrative claim, which was formed in administrative proceedings, is the result of a discussion on the formation of a European system of administrative justice in Ukraine. It is established that the mechanism of securing a lawsuit in an administrative lawsuit has a pronounced positive effect on achieving the key goal and objectives of administrative proceedings. This applies to ensuring legality and discipline in the system of public administration, elimination of violations by officials of public authorities. The applied mechanism promotes full realization of the right of subjects directly involved in public legal relations to judicial protection from illegal actions and decisions accepted by the public power and its officials, on realization of full and effective protection of the rights, freedoms and lawful interests of physical and legal persons. The institute of securing the claim can be considered as a logical conclusion of the procedure of establishing the public-law specialization of the procedural provision of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the plaintiff. It is determined that the allocation of security of the claim as a special institution in the system of administrative proceedings is explained by the following factors: security measures, typical for the exercise of judicial power; the specifics of the legal environment, where the prerequisites for the existence of institutions of administrative law, for the emergence of public disputes, the further development of which occurs in the implementation of administrative powers of public authorities in relation to all other persons involved in administrative relations.

scholarly journals GUARANTEES OF ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

Introduction. Administrative proceedings for Ukrainian administrative law, as well as for the administrative law of most post-Soviet states, are a relatively new legal phenomenon. This presupposes the existence of many problems of its formation, which are connected, in particular, with the socio-political transformations that are still going on. These are, first of all, such problems as the formation and legislative consolidation of the legal basis for guaranteeing access and protection in the administrative court. Unhindered access to court and access to justice are necessary conditions for the exercise of the constitutional right to judicial protection. The main results of the study. Access to justice is one of the prerequisites for the establishment of this branch of government as a full-fledged and self-sufficient mechanism for the protection of human rights and freedoms. The Constitution of Ukraine laid the foundations for the formation of access to justice, stipulating that recourse to the court for the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is guaranteed directly on the basis of the Basic Law. The influence of international normative legal acts on the development of national legislation regulating a person's right to apply to an administrative court for protection was considered. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees the right of a person to judicial protection and appeal against decisions, actions or omissions of public authorities, local governments, officials and officials. Administrative justice is called upon to implement this provision. Conclusions. The article determined that the right to appeal against decisions, actions or omissions of public authorities, local governments, officials and officials, a component of which is the right to go to court (right to access to court proceedings), is not abstract, but has a connection. connection with the right of a particular person in whose interests the trial is taking place, and with his conviction that the state, represented by public authorities and local governments, officials and officials have unlawfully interfered with his rights or freedoms. The obligatory feature of a public law dispute was that a person believes that there is a violation of his rights and freedoms as a result of the performance or non-performance of government functions. In order to go to court, a person who is a plaintiff must have a substantive legal interest in resolving a public law dispute. The article highlighted and analyzed some problems of ensuring access to justice by administrative courts in resolving public law disputes. His own vision for solving and eliminating the problems of access to justice in administrative proceedings is offered.

scholarly journals Judicial Protection of Individuals in an Administrative Procedure by Means of Administrative Proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 34-41
Author(s):  
Aleksandr I. Stakhov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Protection

The article highlights and studies judicial protection of individuals and organizations (individuals) in the administrative process as a special way of implementing justice on the appeals of citizens and their associations for the protection of their rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests in the course of Executive (non-judicial) and judicial administrative processes from the perspective of an integrative understanding of the administrative process. Taking into account the direct effect of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the legal basis for judicial protection of individuals in administrative proceedings consists of two components: 1) the constitutional basis for; 2) legal grounds. Conducted a comprehensive analysis of the legal norms that constitute the constitutional basis and a legislative basis for judicial protection of individuals in administrative process, in which: justified the constitutional right of individuals to protection in the administrative process through the administrative procedure; is General conclusion that the subject of this judicial protection are contested in courts decisions and actions (inaction) of administrativepublic bodies and officials; the author substantiates the allocation of administrative court cases on the protection of individuals in administrative proceedings, which are divided into separate categories depending on the nature of the legal consequences of disputed decisions, actions (inaction) of administrative and public authorities and officials, as well as the nature of the dispute being resolved. In accordance with art. 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation allocated administrative law and administrative procedural decisions and actions challenged in court, in administrative proceedings, is the typology that best reveals the current level of processualists administrative activities public administration, other administrative public authorities and administrative public officials operating in the Russian Federation, allows you to identify priority areas of optimization of administrative proceedings in cases of settlement of administrative law disputes.

Due Process Prior to Administrative Decisions and Effective Judicial Protection in Brazil: A New Perspective?

ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Judicial Actions

AbstractIn view of the increasing number of repetitive judicial actions in public law issues, this text proposes reconsidering the guarantees of administrative due process of law - enshrined in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 -, among them the effective independence of the administrative authorities, based on a comparative perspective between the Anglo-Saxon and Continental-European models concerning judicial protection of individual rights. The author is visibly concerned with searching for a better understanding of topics that are considered to be established dogmas in Brazilian law, such as the contradiction between the self-enforceability of administrative decisions and the need for the public authorities to initiate judicial actions against individuals; the distinction between the administrative procedure and the (judicial and non-judicial) administrative proceeding and their implications for individuals in court proceedings; impartiality without independence of the authorities in conducting a non-judicial administrative proceeding; scope of judicial review of the utilization of the margin of appreciation of factual/scientific matters in decisions made by public administrative authorities.

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

scholarly journals Abusus Iuris and the Protection of Public Interest by Administrative Authorities and (Administrative) Courts in Slovakia

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-71
Author(s):  
Peter Potasch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Universal Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

The presented paper deals with public interest in the decision-making practice of public authorities. The author also deals with the so-called abusus iuris (with focus on public law) which does not enjoy legal protection on the grounds that it is contrary to public interest. In this context, the author also points out that there is no uniform and universal definition of the concept/term of “public interest”, but that public interest as such consists of partial public interests which may sometimes even be in conflict with one another thus comparing public interest and private interest in a certain case does not always have to suffice. He also points out certain procedural burdens relating to administrative proceedings – in particular the burden of sufficient reasoning and fact-finding especially in reference to the protection of public interest by administrative authorities. The paper primarily focuses on the decision-making practice of the courts of the Slovak Republic and of the Czech Republic – both at the level of protection of public interest in administrative proceedings and of its protection in court proceedings.

scholarly journals RUSSIAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: REAL NEED OR UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-22
Author(s):  
В.А. Винокуров
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Body

Через призму обязанности государства соблюдать и защищать права и свободы человека и гражданина в Российской Федерации в статье рассматриваются правовые основы возможности образования нового суда – российского суда по правам человека. Рассмотрены существующие нормативные правовые акты, устанавливающие порядок осуществления защиты органами судебной власти прав и законных интересов граждан страны и иных лиц, проживающих в России. Использованы мнения членов Совета при Президенте Российской Федерации по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека, а также участников «круглого стола», проведенного в Общественной палате Российской Федерации и посвященного вопросам создания российского суда по правам человека. По итогам проведенного анализа сделан вывод, из которого следует, что вместо создания очередного государственного органа судебной власти следует наладить эффективную работу существующей судебной системы, для чего сформулированы конкретные предложения. Through the prism of the state's obligation to respect and protect human and civil rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation, the article examines the legal basis for the possibility of forming a new court – the Russian Court of Human Rights. The existing normative legal acts establishing the procedure for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens of the country and other persons residing in Russia by the judicial authorities are considered. The opinions of the members of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, as well as the participants of the "round table" held in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation on the establishment of the Russian Court of Human Rights were used. Based on the results of the analysis, it is concluded that instead of creating another state body of judicial power, it is necessary to establish the effective functioning of the existing judicial system, for which specific proposals are formulated.

scholarly journals Problematic issues of appealing against the decision of the investigating judge, the court on sending a person to a medical institution for a psychiatric assessment

2021 ◽  
pp. 328-334
Author(s):  
O.I. Tyshchenko
Keyword(s):  
Court Decision ◽  
Medical Institution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Psychiatric Assessment ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

The article reveals the problem of appealing against the decision of the investigating judge, the court on sending a person to a medical institution for a psychiatric assessment, in particular: a) it is stated that sending a person to a medical institution for assessment is a form of restriction of his or her constitutional right to liberty, which is equivalent to detention. It is proposed to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter – the CPC), which provides for the right to a separate appeal against a court decision on sending a person to a medical institution for assessment, decided in court before the court decision on the merits. The lack of possibility to appeal against such a court decision creates a potential danger of illegal restriction of a person’s constitutional right to liberty and security during their placement in a medical institution for the inpatient forensic psychiatric assessment (hereinafter – the IFPA), which violates the essence of the right to judicial protection; b) it is proved that the decision of the investigating judge, the court to send a person to a medical institution for the IFPA may limit not only the rights of the suspect, accused, but thus also affect the legitimate interests of others who do not have procedural status in criminal proceedings. It is determined the expediency of granting the right to appeal the said court decision to the victim and other persons whose interests it concerns; c) it is noted that the mechanism of prolongation of the term of the IFPA is not regulated in the domestic criminal procedural law, however judges continue it in the absence of a legislative basis. Therefore, it is expressed the scientific position on the rationality of appealing not only the decision of the investigating judge, but also the court’s decision to extend the term for sending a person to a medical institution for assessment. 

scholarly journals Access to Justice in Ukrainian Criminal Proceedings During the COVID-19 Outbreak

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 115-133
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Democratic Development ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Protection

This article examines relevant issues of criminal proceedings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments have focused their efforts on protecting democratic values and ensuring not only the rights and legitimate interests of their people, but also their lives and health. At the same time, the pandemic has affected not only the economies of countries, but also their democratic development and fundamental rights, which have always been a priority of any democratic society. Courts and law enforcement authorities have faced challenges that have been and still are adequately addressed in order to ensure that the rights and legitimate interests of those seeking judicial protection are respected. Each state independently assessed the degree of risks and the extent of permissible restrictions on the rights and freedoms of persons involved in the proceedings, so the present study analyses the different approaches that have been applied. At the same time, documents of the Council of Europe for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) have gained high importance, because they, among others, have developed tools for Council of Europe member states to address the problems of ensuring access to justice in the pandemic. The generalization and widespread discussion of such experiences is important, because it will be useful for states to further improve existing legislation, taking into account best practices. Based on a study of changes introduced in the Ukrainian legislation to prevent the spread of the coronavirus disease, conclusions are proposed about the nature and extent of the restrictions, as well as the principles on which they should be based and the guarantees to be provided. Recommendations that will contribute to improving the regulation of access to justice in criminal matters in a pandemic are also proposed. Key words: justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; access to justice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; judicial control over the protection of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of persons in criminal proceedings; the investigating judge; reasonable terms of criminal proceedings; publicity and openness of court proceedings; trial by videoconference.

11. Standing: litigation and the public interest

2021 ◽  
pp. 428-464
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act

This chapter examines standing—the entitlement to be heard by a court. No judicial process of any kind may proceed without it. In an ordinary claim, the claimant’s standing is based on his assertion of grounds for his claim to a remedy. In a claim for judicial review, the claimant does not need to assert a right to a remedy, but must have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter in dispute. The discussion covers campaign litigation, costs in campaign litigation, standing in an ordinary claim for a declaration, standing in Human Rights Act proceedings, standing for public authorities, and standing to intervene.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document