scholarly journals Formation of the inadmissibility of evidence in the context of the doctrine of the «fruit of a poisoned tree»

2021 ◽  
pp. 261-265
Author(s):  
O. V Sirenko ◽  
YU. I. Doroshenko ◽  
V. V. Baranovsʹka
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Direct Connection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Model ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
History Of ◽  
The One

The articles analyze the issues of standard permissible indicators, which are the established norms of criminal procedure legislation and the formation of judicial rules of practice, which create the formation of permissible indicators. The domestic legislator establishes a system of standard permissible indicators, which, on the one hand consists largely of 232 international standards of proof, which is gaining a broader understanding, and on the other hand, is widely used in judicial practice, while the history of clarification changes some of them. A significant part of the standard allowable indicators is determined by the rules of Art. 87 of the CPC of Ukraine, devoted to the grounds for recognizing in admissible indicators obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms. The legal model of inadmissibility provided by the CPC of Ukraine tends to its counter parts in the legislation of the Romano-Germanic legal system (CPC of Germany, France), while some features of this institution were also initiated by US and British legislation, in particular, the doctrine of trees», a certain analogue of which his provided for in Part 1 of Art. 87 of the CPC. Definite understanding of the doctrine of «fruit of the felled tree», which reveals any guilt that violates the police constitutional legal citizens, which has none, but simply an in direct connection with the process of identifying, removing and recording indicators, the severity of loss of recent legal force. This means the unconditional in admissibility of available indicators for any assignment established through the collection of indicators, regardless of their nature and degree. The article reveals a number of international standards of admissible indicators sent by the European Court of Human Rights. The range of cases for which the ECtHR in the context of the Convention provides for a response to accept able indicators and the establishment of national courts is revealed. On the basis of the conducted research the system of the international standards of admissible indicators formed in practice of the ECtHR is generalized.

scholarly journals CRITERION OF A FAIR TRAIL: INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION BY NATIONAL JUSTICE

2017 ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Анатолий Ковлер ◽  
Anatoliy Kovler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Venice Commission

International standards of a fair trial were created by centuries of judicial practice and are stipulated by the international and regional pacts and conventions, as well as by the reports and opinions of the Venice Commission. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning complains against violations of a right to a fair trial are also of a great importance from the point of view of an implementation by the national courts of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights in its Article 6 “Right to a fair trial” — a “core” article of the Convention, provides such standards of a fair trial as a public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law, judgment must be pronounced publicly. Besides these standards the Convention suggests some procedural guarantees of a fair trial everyone must be informed promptly of the nature of an accusation against him, he has a right to defend himself of though legal assistance ant to examine witnesses, etc. The case-law of the European Court on Human Rights shows that practically all European countries, including Russia, have problems with the implementation of the Convention’s standards into the practice of justice. That is why the Article 6 remains the most “suggested” complain of the applicants.

GENERAL LEGAL ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF POISONED TREE FRUIT AS A MAIN ASPECT IN THE INSTITUTE'S SYSTEM OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larysa Bayrachna ◽  
◽  
Yurii Burdai ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
History Of Development ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Tree Fruit ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law

The article presents a critical analysis of the doctrine of "poisoned tree" through the prism of its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights, scientific and practical approach to its formation by the case law of Ukrainian national courts, in particular, but not limited to, the Supreme Court. Given the requirements of current procedural legislation of Ukraine. An overview of the basic standards and aspects of the standard established by the institute of admissibility of evidence in their entirety and individually. The institute of admissibility of evidence has a long history of development. To date, the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of procedural law is enshrined at the European judicial level in such judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as Gefgen v. Germany, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, and Sabelnik v. Ukraine. against Ukraine", "Nechyporuk and Yonkalo against Ukraine", "Yaremenko against Ukraine". This requirement for the admissibility of evidence is formulated in the above-mentioned Decisions quite succinctly and clearly, and is currently the subject of its implementation in both the law-making system and the law enforcement system. In the legal literature, there is still a discussion about the doctrine of "poisoned tree fruit", which is directly related to the recognition of derivatives of evidence obtained in violation of Ukrainian law - inadmissible. In the course of the study, uncertainty was found that the implementation of this doctrine is necessary only when the violation of the conditions of admissibility calls into question the reliability of the evidence. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether there is a dependence of the admissibility and reliability of the evidence or the "fruits of the poisoned tree" appear under other conditions, when the evidence is declared inadmissible, regardless of this impact on the reliability.

scholarly journals Application of the Balance of Probabilities Standard of Proof in Judicial Practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 227-233
Author(s):  
Illia But
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
The Uk

The paper describes key standards of proof used in common law countries: balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt,applied in judicial practice in the UK, and the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt, civil standard preponderance of evidence,and interim standard clear and convincing evidence, applied in judicial practice in the USA. The author identifies main conditions for application of the balance of probabilities standard in foreign judicial practice: 1) thisstandard is not merely a surmise based on guesses or suspicions; such surmise shall be based on certain evidence, which in total is notenough to establish presence or absence of a certain fact unequivocally; 2) the graver is an allegation, the less probable is the occurrenceof the fact, and hence it must be proved with harder evidence; 3) the less probable is an event, the more evidence there must be to provethat it might have truly occurred; 4) there is no direct connection between graveness of an allegation (consequences) and probability ofan event: some grave harmful conduct may be fairly common or, on the contrary, may happen rather infrequently.The paper identifies step-by-step implementation of standards of proof in practice of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR): at the first stage one can find references to standards of proof only in cases against the United Kingdom; at the second stagethere are judgments made on complaints against other countries, though in such judgments the ECHR does not assess standards ofproof, but merely reflects that those have been applied by national courts. At the third (contemporary) stage the ECHR only distingui -shes between application of standards of proof in criminal and quasi-criminal cases.The author concludes on the basis of study of empirical data that the balance of probabilities standard of proof is already appliedin the national judicial practice, however principles of its application in the judicial practice have not been developed yet. It is notedthat though the doctrine of the standards of proof was developed in the common law countries, application thereof does not contradictthe concept of judicial activism: an idea, according to which a decision must be made in favour of the party, whose statements are reliablenot per se, but in comparison with statements of the adverse party, enables courts to make judgments in cases when positions ofboth sides are impeccable, and evidence for unequivocal conclusions is not enough.

scholarly journals The right to a justice court: implementation of the practice of the European Court of human rights in the Ukrainian judiciary

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alina V. Denysova ◽  
Alla B. Blaga ◽  
Viktor P. Makovii ◽  
Yevheniia S. Kaliuzhna
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Functional Methods ◽  
European Court ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constituent Elements

The purpose of this study is to reveal the content of the right to a fair trial and the state of its provision in Ukraine through the prism of court decisions of Ukrainian courts of various instances and the relevant practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The methodological basis of the study is a set of philosophical and ideological, general and special scientific methods and techniques of scientific knowledge, including dialectical, systemic, structural and functional methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis. It is identified that the right to a fair trial in legal science, judicial practice is considered in its constituent elements and relevant manifestations, including fairness and publicity of the trial, compliance with the signs of independence, impartiality, legality, observance of the rule of law, equality of participants, and proceedings within reasonable time limits. Each of the elements, mentioned and features of the right to a fair trial is subject to appropriate interpretation in the context of the relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights during the review of case materials in national courts of the signatory states to the Convention.

scholarly journals Problematic issues of administrative responsibility for disrespect for court

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-30
Author(s):  
Olha Soloviova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
International Standards ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The article is devoted to the legal principles of taking administrative responsibility for disrespect for court. In the work the complex analysis of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses envisaged by Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses is carried out. The problematic issues that arise in practice when considering cases of administrative offenses for disrespect for court are outlined. The article examines the individual decisions of national courts in cases of administrative offenses for disrespect for court. The Association Agreement with the European Union Ukraine has declared its agreement to strengthen cooperation in the field of justice, freedom and security in order to ensure the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, strengthen the judiciary, enhance its efficiency, guarantee its independence and impartiality. Weaknesses of national legislation with respect to international standards of administration of justice are identified. Particular attention is paid to compliance with the principle of impartiality when imposing administrative penalties for disrespect for court. The relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have been analyzed. Suggestions were made to remedy practical problems in order to bring administrative penalties for disrespect for court into conformity with the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It was concluded that it is necessary to determine the clear jurisdiction of the courts in the consideration of cases of administrative offenses disrespect for court with the introduction of appropriate changes or procedural codes, or the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Key words: disrespect for court, administrative responsibility, impartiality, challenge (recusal) of a judge.

scholarly journals Gender Equality Principle: Application in ECtHR’s Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-95
Author(s):  
Svitlana Karvatska ◽  
Ivan Toronchuk ◽  
Alyona Manyk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Gender Discrimination ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
The One

The article is devoted to analyzing the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which concerned the issue of gender equality, distinctive features of the application of a gender equality principle by the ECtHR. Based on a study of ECtHR's rulings, it is noted that the concept of gender equality as one of the objectives of the Council of Europe has been applied by the ECtHR since the early 1990s. The ECtHR's approaches to dealing with gender equality cases are characterized both through the prism of non-discrimination (applying Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights in combination with other articles) and through complaints about violations of rights guaranteed by other ECHR articles. The analysis shows that, on the one hand, ECtHR emphasizes that gender equality is considered as one of the critical principles of the ECHR. However, on the other hand, significant difficulty in gender discrimination cases is the Court's possibility to refuse to analyze the case in the context of Article 14th content of the Convention. The possibility of giving the Court to states a vast margin of appreciation in determining domestic policies on gender equality is ambiguously manifested in judicial practice. The conclusion states that the need to ensure gender equality can be considered by the ECtHR as a legitimate aim and can serve as an appropriate basis for interfering with the exercise of certain rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention.

The Internationalization Of Human Rights And The Importance Of Normative Dialogues Between International And National Courts

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 137
Author(s):  
Mariane Morato Stival ◽  
Marcos André Ribeiro ◽  
Daniel Gonçalves Mendes da Costa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Differences Of Opinion ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Human Rights Discourse

This article intends to analyze in the context of the complexity of the process of internationalization of human rights, the definitions and tensions between cultural universalism and relativism, the essence of human rights discourse, its basic norms and an analysis of the normative dialogues in case decisions involving violations of human rights in international tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and national courts. The well-established dialogue between courts can bring convergences closer together and remove differences of opinion on human rights protection. A new dynamic can occur through a complementarity of one court with respect to the other, even with the different characteristics between the legal orders.

Comparative Views on the Right to Vote in International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Dothan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Elections ◽  
The Way

There is a consensus about the existence of an international right to vote in democratic elections. Yet states disagree about the limits of this right when it comes to the case of prisoners’ disenfranchisement. Some states allow all prisoners to vote, some disenfranchise all prisoners, and others allow only some prisoners to vote. This chapter argues that national courts view the international right to vote in three fundamentally different ways: some view it as an inalienable right that cannot be taken away, some view it merely as a privilege that doesn’t belong to the citizens, and others view it as a revocable right that can be taken away under certain conditions. The differences in the way states conceive the right to vote imply that attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to follow the policies of the majority of European states by using the Emerging Consensus doctrine are problematic.

To Discriminate in Order to Fight Discrimination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dolores Morondo Taramundi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Main Technique ◽  
Antidiscrimination Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Paradoxical Results ◽  
Conflicts Of Rights

This chapter analyses arguments regarding conflicts of rights in the field of antidiscrimination law, which is a troublesome and less studied area of the growing literature on conflicts of rights. Through discussion of Ladele and McFarlane v. The United Kingdom, a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the chapter examines how the construction of this kind of controversy in terms of ‘competing rights’ or ‘conflicts of rights’ seems to produce paradoxical results. Assessment of these apparent difficulties leads the discussion in two different directions. On the one hand, some troubles come to light regarding the use of the conflict of rights frame itself in the field of antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to the main technique (‘balancing of rights’) to solve them. On the other hand, some serious consequences of the conflict of rights frame on the development of the antidiscrimination theory of the ECtHR are unearthed.

Transnational constitutional aspects of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-174
Author(s):  
GEIR ULFSTEIN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Not Given ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Legal Order

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court operating in the international legal order. Its judgments are not given direct effect in national law. In this sense we have a system of legal pluralism between international and national law. But the ECtHR has constitutional effects in national law through the weight placed on the Court’s practice by national courts. Therefore, constitutional principles are applicable in the interaction between the ECtHR and national courts. This article discusses the transnational constitutional aspects of the Court, and how this should guide the roles of, respectively, the ECtHR and national courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document