scholarly journals Application of the principle of proportionality in judicial practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 302-306
Author(s):  
S.E. Fedik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Norm ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The modern concept of reforming procedural legislation in Ukraine has set before law enforcement and law enforcement agencies a number of tasks for a smooth transition from the normative-act to the precedent method of law enforcement. Moreover, such a position is directly enshrined in the procedural legislation of Ukraine, in particular in Part 4 of Art. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which states: - "The Court applies in cases the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and its protocols, approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law." [1]. It is this article of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine that the legislator indirectly obliges the judicial authorities of Ukraine to use both norms of international law (represented by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and its protocols) and court decisions of the European Court. on human rights, which are expressed in the practice of this court in the consideration of cases by this international judicial institution. The very provision of the above-mentioned article of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine declares the actual transition from the rules of normative-legal procedure of law application to the principles of precedent legal system, where the source of law is not only normative-legal act but also court decision. An important condition for the correct application of a rule of law or a court decision is the correct interpretation of a legal norm, or a whole normative legal act, as well as judicial precedent. Interpretation of legal norms involves a combination of objective and subjective, and depending on the purposes of interpretation in this process, respectively, its two stages are correlated - clarification and explanation. And if the process of interpretation is aimed only at the interpreter's understanding of the content of the legal norm, then clarification is an independent process of cognition. When the goal is to bring the content of the legal norm to third parties, the clarification and explanation are stages (stages) of a single, inseparable process. This process is inherent in all types of legal activity - lawmaking, law enforcement, law enforcement, systematization and legal education, and in a legal society the interpretation of legal norms is a stabilizing factor in the process of regulating social relations, enhances legal norms, strengthens legality, protects human and civil rights [2, P. 5-6].

scholarly journals Conventional and constitutional regulations of lawful detention of a person without a court decision: criminal procedure aspect

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-25
Author(s):  
Аndrew Medvid
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Article 5

The article compares the requirements for the lawful application of detention without a court decision as a criminal procedure established in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the second sentence of Article 29 part 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In particular, the content of the concept of "detention" of a person is studied, the list of subjects who have the right to detain a person without a court decision and the legal content and list of legitimate grounds for detention of a person without a court decision as a criminal procedure are studied and compared. Conventional, constitutional and criminal-procedural norms are also studied, as well as the necessity of mandatory further judicial review of the legality of the detention of a person, including the terms of such review. Based on a detailed analysis of these provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of Ukraine, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, it is established that the grounds for the detention of a person by a general entity, defined by paragraph 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and a special entity, defined by subparagraphs 1 and 2 (except subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in general, correspond to the grounds for lawful detention of a person enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, it cannot be qualified as unlawful interference with the human right to liberty and security of person. At the same time, proposals are formulated to make changes and additions to subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is also proved that the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 12 and Articles 209 and 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are critical provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine regarding the lawful application of detention of a person without a court decision. These provisions actually eliminate some shortcomings and establish the necessary legal and procedural grounds for the clarified application of the provision of the second sentence of part 3 of Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of their application developed by the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals Provocation of a crime in the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights and in the national judicial system

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 334-339
Author(s):  
Zubrytska M. V.
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Activity ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights contain clear criteria for distinguishing provocation of a crime that violates the requirements of paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, from lawful conduct in the use of secret methods in criminal proceedings: 1) verification of the validity of the provocation (material criterion of provocation); 2) the procedure for reviewing the complaint on provocation (procedural criterion of provocation); 3) methodology of assessment of the European Court of Human Rights. When considering a defendant's complaint about the presence of signs of provocation in the actions of law enforcement agencies, national courts must establish the following procedural criteria: 1) whether there were grounds for monitoring the commission of the crime; 2) what is the measure of interference of law enforcement officers in the commission of a crime; 3) the nature of the actions to which the accused was subjected. In the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, examples of provocation to commit a crime are, in particular, the following: law enforcement on its own initiative contact with the applicant in the absence of objective suspicion of his involvement in criminal activity or propensity to commit a criminal offense; 2) renewal of the proposal by law enforcement officers, despite the previous refusal, to insist, exerting pressure. Based on the analysis of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, it was concluded that a new presumption has actually appeared in the criminal law of Ukraine - provocation of a crime. The basis for it is Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, as well as the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of provocation. The presumption of provocation of a crime is that an accused who has stated that he committed a crime under the influence of provocative actions of law enforcement officers cannot be prosecuted unless the investigation and the court establish otherwise. In national jurisprudence, courts most often considered the following situations as provocation of a crime: detection of a crime in the absence of objective information about the preparation for the commission of a crime or the beginning of its commission; inciting (pushing) a person to commit a crime through active and persistent actions; violation of the procedural order of conducting procedural actions. Keywords: provocation of a crime, provocation of bribery, incitement, initiative, exposing a crime.

scholarly journals The role of the European Court of Human Rights in ensuring appropriate and effective protection of a fair court in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 82-88
Author(s):  
Nadiya Khrystynchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
And Control

The article deals with the study of the practice of the European Court of human rights on liability and control over non-enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine. The study notes the importance of the issue of enforcement of court decisions that have entered into legal force. In particular, it is indicated that such an act falls under the qualification of Article 6 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – a violation of the right to a fair trial. The European Court of human rights has repeatedly noted in its decisions the seriousness and scale of this threat to Ukraine. It has been noted that the percentage of enforcement of court decisions has never exceeded 40-45%, and in some years, it has decreased to critical values of 5-10%. The purpose of the article is to analyze the practice of the ECHR on liability and control over non-enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine and provide recommendations for improving this situation. It has been concluded that in Ukraine there is a problem of a persistent recurring nature – excessive length of enforcement or non-enforcement of court decisions, which is a violation of the rights guaranteed by the ECHR to a fair trial and to respect for property. Despite the fact that the ECHR has repeatedly pointed out the execution of a court decision as part of a trial, this position of the ECHR is still not always properly taken into account in Ukraine. Enforcement of a court decision is part of states ' obligations to ensure access to justice under Article 6 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. A person who has a court decision against a state or local government body is not required to initiate additional procedures to implement this decision. Unconditional implementation of such a decision should be guaranteed by the state. In order to improve the situation in the area under study, it is advisable to review the current legis-lation that ensures the implementation of court decisions, and continue reforming the civil service. Ap-propriate actions should be carried out in cooperation between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and other responsible executive authorities. It seems appropriate to create a government commission to improve the work of the state executive service.

Battles Over Symbols: The “Religion” of the Minority Versus the “Culture” of the Majority

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Symbol ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
European Tradition ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.

The Strasbourg Court on the Dayton Constitution: Judgment in the case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 22 December 2009

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber

On 22 December 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: the Court) issued a judgment on the applications filed by two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dervo Sejdić and Mr Jakob Finci. It found a violation of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Protocols to the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated the applicants' rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

scholarly journals Problems of the Russian Legislstion Improvement and Practice of its Applicatoin Based on the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (in the Spfere of the Administrative Coersion)

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-39
Author(s):  
Viatcheslav Viatcheslavovich Gavrilov ◽  
◽  
Olga Eugenievna Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article is devoted to the issues of the implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights into the Russian legal system. The sphere of administrative coercion and administrative liability was chosen as a practical material for this research. The authors stress the role and importance of the ECHR practice for the improvement of Russian legislation, outline problems and difficulties of the implementation of the ECHR judgments in this sphere.

scholarly journals Suživot negatorijske zaštite od imisija i prava na život u zdravoj životnoj sredini

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Regulation

The authors analyse the national protection from emissions, in the first place, a property law component of this regime. Domestic regulation of the protection of property rights from harassment was brought in the perspective of the protection that the European Court of Human Rights provides for the right to live in a healthy environment, primarily through the protection of rights under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life and home). In the context of the latter, the authors have analysed the interpretative methods used by the European Court and explored the following features: the requirement that environmental and environmental impacts and disturbances violate the Convention right, that is, the existence of a specific Convention causal link; the category of minimum level of severity; oscillation of the "quantum" of minimum level of severity within conventional "fluctuations"; and the scope (and type) of protecting the right to live in a healthy environment through the paradigm of the positive / negative obligations of the Contracting States.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document