scholarly journals DEFAMATION IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE: COLLEGIALITY OF DOCTORS VS. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF DOCTORS' ACTIVITIES

Medicne pravo ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 80-85
Author(s):  
K. Y. Tereshko

The concept of defamation and the composition of defamation tort are analyzed. Foreign experience and judicial practice of defamation application are given. The need to uphold the principle of ensuring a balance between the constitutional right to freedom of thought and speech, the right to free expression of one’s views and beliefs, on the one hand, and the right to respect for human dignity, constitutional guarantees of non-interference in private and family life, judicial protection of the right to rebuttal inaccurate personal information, on the other. The defamation balance between medical collegiality and critical assessment of doctors' activity is formulated. A «defamatory balance» has been formed between the collegiality of doctors and the critical evaluation of doctors' activities, which will be achieved by the preemptive right to freedom of expression to protect the lives and health of patients, actions in the public interest in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

2010 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to provide an overview of the European Court of Justice's (‘ECJ’) past and present contribution— both procedurally and substantively—to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. While it is too early to speculate what the ECJ's contribution to this area will be under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, the latter's modifications to the ECJ's jurisdiction merit close attention. After describing how the procedural limitations that were imposed on the ECJ's jurisdiction by ex Title IV of Part Three of the EC Treaty and by ex Title VI of the old EU Treaty have been almost entirely eliminated by the Treaty of Lisbon, this article posits that not only does the latter Treaty improve significantly the judicial protection of private individuals, but it also facilitates the dialogue between the Union and the national judiciaries in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Next, the article briefly explores the special ECJ procedures which may be followed in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in cases where time is of the essence. There, it is argued that, when having recourse to these procedures, the ECJ strives to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, swift judging and, on the other hand, the preservation of a qualitative and fair judicial procedure. As to substantive issues, drawing on examples from the fields of judicial cooperation in civil matters, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is argued that the ECJ's contribution to this area is largely grounded in the protection of fundamental rights. Finally, a brief conclusion supports the contention that the ECJ's contribution to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has favoured a ‘mutual borrowing’ of concepts and principles as between this area and other fields in relation to which the EU has competences, such as the internal market and competition. The Treaty of Lisbon having entered into force, an unprecedented level of coordination between different areas of EU law on both the procedural and substantive levels is to take place. Respect for fundamental rights will definitely be a unifying factor binding them all together.


Author(s):  
M. Asunción TORRES LÓPEZ

LABURPENA: Ikerketa honetan, jendarteari sendagaien gaineko zuzeneko publizitateaegiteak dituen arriskuen eta onuren inguruan eztabaidatu nahi da; bereziki, medikuaren agindua behar duten edo errezeta behar duten medikamentuei dagokienez. Europar Batasunak ezarri duen esparru juridikoa medikamentuen zentzuzko erabilera lortzeari begirakoa da. Horretarako, hainbat neurri hartu dira; hala nola, errezeta behar duten medikamentuen gaineko publizitatea egiteko erabateko debekua edo errezetarik behar ez duten medikamentuen gaineko publizitate-jarduerari zenbait baldintza eskatzea. Egun, bi herrialdek bakarrik baimentzen dute beren zuzenbidean publizitate mota hori egitea: Estatu Batuek eta Zeelanda Berriak. Artikulu honetan, Estatu Batuetako eredu juridikoaren berri emango dugu, bai eta publizitate-jarduera horren arriskuei eta onurei buruzko doktrina-eztabaidaren eta botere publikoek horren gainean duten kezkaren berri eman ere. Artikulu honetan, bi kontu jartzen dira mahai gainean: babesa merezi duten bi ondasun juridikoren arteko gatazka eta zein den edo izan behar den horien babes-maila. Batetik, publizitatea egiteko eskubidea eta eskubide hori adierazpen-askatasunerako oinarrizko eskubidetzat edo enpresa-askatasunerako eskubidetzat hartzea dago, eta, bestetik, osasun-eskubide izendatutakoaren babesa dago, edota norainokoa den estatuaren erantzukizuna sendagaien zentzuzko erabileran justifikatuta jarduera pribatuan esku hartzeari dagokionez. Gainera, publizitatearen erabiltzaileek informazioa edukitzeko duten eskubidearen funtsezko balorazioa aipatzen da, bai eta jarduera horrek iragartzen den medikamentuaren onuren eta arriskuen arteko bidezko oreka izan dezala eskatzeari buruzko balorazioa ere. RESUMEN: En este estudio se pretende discutir sobre los riesgos y beneficios de hacer una publicidad directa al público de los medicamentos, en especial de los medicamentos que requieren una prescripción médica o medicamentos con receta. El marco jurídico establecido desde la Unión Europea, gira en torno a la consecución de un uso racional de los medicamentos, para lo que se adoptan una serie de medidas como la prohibición absoluta de realizar publicidad de los medicamentos con receta, así como exigir ciertas condiciones a la actividad publicitaria cuyo objeto sea un medicamento sin receta. En la actualidad solo dos países permiten en su Derecho realizar esta publicidad, los Estados Unidos de América y Nueva Zelanda; damos cuenta en esta artículo del modelo jurídico estadounidense, así como del debate doctrinal y la preocupación del poder público sobre los riesgos y beneficios de esta actividad publicitaria. En este artículo se pone sobre la mesa de debate el conflicto entre dos bienes jurídicos dignos de protección, y cuál es o debe ser su nivel de protección: por una parte, el derecho a realizar publicidad y su consideración como derecho fundamental a la libertad de expresión o bien como derecho a la libertad de empresa; por otra parte, la protección del denominado derecho a la salud; y hasta dónde alcanza la responsabilidad del Estado en cuanto a su intervención en la actividad privada con la justificación en el uso racional de los medicamentos. Además, se hace referencia a la valoración sustancial del derecho a la información del usuario de la publicidad y la exigencia de que esta actividad presente un justo equilibrio entre los beneficios y riesgos del medicamento que publicita. ABSTRACT: This study aims to discuss the risks and benefits of direct-toconsumer advertising of drugs and prescription drugs. The general objetive of the regulation in the European Union is to protect the rational use of drugs , and impose on Member States a ban on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Also, when the object of publicity is others drugs, this european regulation stablishs some conditions. Currently, only in USA and New Zealand direct-to consumer advertising of prescription drugs is allowed; we explain the American System, and expose the public debat in this subject. This article presents the conflict between two constitutional right that deserve protection: on the one hand, the right to freedom of expression, also the right to freedom of enterprise or commercial freedom; on the other hand, the so-called right to health; and what is the responsability of the State regarding its intervention in the private sector justified in rational drug use. The article also refers to the right to information and the need for advertising to show a fair balance between the benefits and risks of the advertising drug.


Author(s):  
Enrique Guillen López

En este trabajo se aborda la ejecución de las sentencias del TEDH desde la perspectiva del Derecho constitucional, más concretamente del Derecho constitucional europeo. Se comienza así señalando la cualidad sustancialmente constitucional que han adquirido el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el Tribunal de Estrasburgo en un marco ordinamental caracterizado por la subsisidiariedad como instrumento óptimo para la garantía tanto del texto normativo como de las sentencias de su guardián. De aquí se deduce un tratamiento de estas últimas que pone el énfasis en la obligatoriedad de su cumplimiento. Éste es el sentido de la jurisprudencia del TEDH de modo que se ha podido hablar de la distorsión del carácter declarativo de sus resoluciones. Considerando el carácter constitucional del CEDH y del TEDH, y dada la necesidad de asegurar la eficacia de su doctrina para garantizar los derechos, se repara en el ordenamiento constitucional interno español entendiendo que es el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva (ex art. 24) como derecho a la ejecución de lo juzgado el que hace necesario un procedimiento específico como el que se establece finalmente en la LO 7/2015.This paper studies the execution in Spain of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights from the perspective of Constitutional Law, more specifically from the perspective of the European Constitutional Law. This begins by pointing out the substantially constitutional quality that both the Convention and the Court have acquired in an ordinamental framework characterized by the principle of subsidiarity as the optimal instrument for guaranteeing both the normative text and the judgments. From this we can deduce a treatment of the latter that puts the emphasis on the obligatory nature of its fulfillment. This is the meaning of the ECtHR jurisprudence so that it has been possible to speak of the distortion of the declaratory nature of its resolutions. Considering the constitutional nature of the ECHR and the ECtHR, and given the need to ensure the effectiveness of its doctrine to guarantee rights, it is focused on the Spanish internal constitutional order, understanding that it is the right to effective judicial protection (ex Article 24) as the right of having judgments executed that makes necessary a specific procedure like the one finally established in the LO 7/2015.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.


Author(s):  
Guido Raimondi

This article comments on four important judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights in 2016. Al-Dulimi v. Switzerland addresses the issue of how, in the context of sanctions regimes created by the UN Security Council, European states should reconcile their obligations under the UN Charter with their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the fundamentals of European public order. Baka v. Hungary concerns the separation of powers and judicial independence, in particular the need for procedural safeguards to protect judges against unjustified removal from office and to protect their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary is a judgment on the interpretation of the Convention, featuring a review of the “living instrument” approach. Avotiņš v. Latvia addresses the principle of mutual trust within the EU legal order and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.


Author(s):  
Dirk Voorhoof

The normative perspective of this chapter is how to guarantee respect for the fundamental values of freedom of expression and journalistic reporting on matters of public interest in cases where a (public) person claims protection of his or her right to reputation. First it explains why there is an increasing number and expanding potential of conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and media freedom (Article 10 ECHR), on the one hand, and the right of privacy and the right to protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR), on the other. In addressing and analysing the European Court’s balancing approach in this domain, the characteristics and the impact of the seminal 2012 Grand Chamber judgment in Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 1) are identified and explained. On the basis of the analysis of the Court’s subsequent jurisprudence in defamation cases it evaluates whether this case law preserves the public watchdog-function of media, investigative journalism and NGOs reporting on matters of public interest, but tarnishing the reputation of public figures.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Nemţoi ◽  

Established as a personal right, the right to free speech implies obligations and duties, which may generate possible restrictions. Freedom of expression works correctly in a legal framework when it comes to a legitimate aim in a state law. Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention explains the conditions under which the right to freedom of expression is justified by the need to protect certain public interests (such as those relating to national security, the territorial space of the state, public order, the prevention of crimes, the protection of health and social morals, the guarantee of authority and the impartiality of the judiciary) but also to protect certain private interests, such as reputation and the rights of others. persons or the need to prevent the publication of secret information. This paragraph basically authorizes states to take certain measures to protect those interests, which materialize through rules and normative rules of the right to conscience, opinion and freedom of expression States enjoy a margin of appreciation for establishing the need for such reactions in a state governed by the rule of law, but in the end it is also up to the European Court of Human Rights to rule on the compatibility of interference with the provisions of the Convention, assessing on a case-by-case basis if the interference arises as a result of the urgent social issues and whether it is fair.


Author(s):  
Vyacheslav Kurchenko

In the article, the causes of judicial errors are discussed. The author examines the possibilities of imposing discipline sanctions on judges for their errors, considers a range of questions. In particular, should a judge seek the truth while hearing a case? Is a judge responsible for not only his or her errors but also for the errors of investigators, experts, and other participants of a proceeding? The author indicates various types of judicial errors and comes to a conclusion that gradual accumulation of ordinary or insignificant errors in the judge’s activity inevitably leads to systematic (or unordinary) errors. They indicate that the judge is unfair or incompetent. Drawing on personal professional experience and judicial practice, positions of the Russian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, the author makes a link between judicial errors and the quality of justice. He emphasizes that the judge should follow the legal rules concerning adjudication and maintain his or her level of competence.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.


Obiter ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melody Musoni

The focus of this note is to analyze whether the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill provides a harmonization between search and seizure and the constitutional right to privacy. This will be achieved by discussing the State powers of search and seizure in cyberspace vis-à-vis the right to privacy as envisaged in the Protection of Personal Information Act. Further, this note investigates whether the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill achieves the purpose of combatting cybercrimes without the infringement of the right to privacy. Subsequently, the article provides plausible recommendations on how the State should lawfully conduct searches and seizures of articles related to cybercrimes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document