THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN A STATE GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF LAW

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-109
Author(s):  
T.V. Lukash
Author(s):  
Catherine Dupré

AbstractThe 2018 CJEU ruling in LM highlighted the importance of judicial independence for the rule of law and protection of the right to fair trial. In so doing, the judgment raised problematic questions about the relationship between Article 2 values and the EU Charter rights, and their connection with mutual trust. This chapter considers these issues through the lens of human dignity, which is both the first foundational value under Article 2 and the first right in the EU Charter. By discussing how the LM judgment raises the constitutional status of the right to a fair trial, this chapter argues that a focus on human dignity could effectively link Article 2 values with EU Charter rights and facilitate assessment of their respective breach.


Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith

This chapter discusses the right to be recognized as a person before the law; the equality of persons before the law; the prohibition on retroactive penal legislation; the position of courts under the law; the presumption of innocence; and those rights that accrue primarily to accused persons. It argues that the right to equality before the law is one of the major embodiments of the freedom from discrimination advocated by the United Nations. The right to a fair trial and the equality of arms of parties to a legal dispute are fundamental to the operation of the rule of law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (31) ◽  
pp. 151-162
Author(s):  
Adam Szymacha ◽  
Kamil Rogalski

The purpose of the article/hypothesis: The presented article focuses on a new resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court I FPS 1/21. In this resolution an assessment of instrumental initiation of criminal fiscal proceedings in order to suspend the running of the limitation period of a tax liability has been undertaken. The Supreme Administrative Court assessed that administrative courts have the right to examine the legitimacy of initiation of such proceedings. This position is important insofar as it also touches upon the issue of the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to property and legal certainty. The main aim of this article is to check the impact of this resolution on described fundamental rights. Methodology: This article will use the comparative law method. Especially the case law of different courts will be shown. The dogmatic-legal method will also be used as an auxiliary. Results of the research: This resolution is crucial for the fundamental right for fail trial. It has also impact on the right to property and principle of legal certainity. It may also be some element that strengthens the rule of law.


Author(s):  
Stanisław Biernat ◽  
Paweł Filipek

AbstractIn the LM ruling, the Court of Justice developed the Aranyosi and Căldăraru test and indicated it as the one to be applied for the assessment of judicial independence and fair trial guarantees in the context of executing European Arrest Warrants. Although serious threats to the rule of law and judicial independence in some EU countries, like Poland, have been documented over recent years, no warrant has so far been definitely rejected as a consequence of the application of the LM test, although there are cases in which the execution of warrants to Poland has been suspended. This naturally raises questions as to whether the mechanism proposed by the Court responds to the need of protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding judicial independence. In this contribution we evaluate the mechanism devised by the Court, taking into account the available judicial practice after the LM ruling. We point out that the almost automatic transfer of a mechanism proposed to evaluate the functioning of a prison system to that evaluating a fair trial and judicial independence has not been fully successful. The mechanism proposed by the Court reveals a number of problematic issues and proves to be insufficient and not entirely adequate to assess judicial independence and guarantees of a fair trial.


Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith

This chapter discusses the right to be recognized as a person before the law; the equality of persons before the law; the prohibition on retroactive penal legislation; the position of courts under the law; the presumption of innocence; and those rights that accrue primarily to accused persons. It argues that the right to equality before the law is one of the major embodiments of the freedom from discrimination advocated by the United Nations. The right to a fair trial and the equality of arms of parties to a legal dispute are fundamental to the operation of the rule of law.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 138-148
Author(s):  
S F Afanasiev

The article in the light of the draft Concept for the unification of procedural law-legislation, as well as future development and adoption of Code of civil procedure of the Russian Federation examines the question of the right to a fair trial in civil cases and its elements. It is emphasized that the right to a fair trial is not in its aims-ness declarative, its content is diverse and includes organic municipal, institutional, procedural and special part that should be taken into account by the domestic legislator in the course of further reforming and improving civil procedural law.


Author(s):  
Tetiana Tsuvina

The article is devoted to the interpretation of the principle of rule of law in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The concept of the rule of law, along with democracy and human rights makes up the three pillars of the Council of Europe and is endorsed in the Preamble to the ECHR. The Preamble to the ECHR states that the governments of European countries are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law. The rights most obviously connected to the rule of law include: the right of access to justice, the right to a fair trial, the legal principle that measures which impose a burden should not have retroactive effects the right to an effective remedy, anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty etc. The author concludes that there is an expediency of grouping separate requirements of the rule of law in the practice of the ECtHR around concepts, which are concluded to be elements of the rule of law in a democratic society. Such elements of the rule of law in the practice of the ECHR are recognized as legality, legal certainty, fairness of a trial and the priority of human rights. Legality supposes that authorities need a legal basis for measures which interfere with a right of an individual, as well as quality requirement for the law such as accessibility, foreseeability and no arbitrariness. Legal certainty encompasses foreseeability in application of the law; non-retroactivity of legislation; the principle of res judicata; mandatory execution of court decisions and consistency of judicial practice. Fair trial requirements devoted into two groups: general requirements (access to court, independent and impartial tribunal, execution of court decisions etc.) and requirements for criminal proceedings (presumption of innocence, principle nullum crimen sine lege etc.) It is noted that the legality, legal certainty, fairness of a trial are formal requirements of the rule of law, thus the priority of human rights is a substantive (material) requirement of the rule of law. The aforementioned testifies to the natural-legal approach that the ECHR is guided by in interpreting the rule of law in its practice, understanding it primarily as the rule of human rights.


ICL Journal ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Jasiak

AbstractLegislatures sometimes interfere in judicial proceedings when they expect the outcome to be politically undesirable. The resulting ad hoc laws are applicable in cases known in advance, although they may appear to be neutral, general and prospective. Such laws force the courts to decide the case in favor of the State, making continued litigation pointless for the other party. Legislation of this kind may seriously threaten the rule of law, fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial and the separation of powers. In this article, recent examples will be presented, explaining and comparing the position of the European Court of Human Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court.


Author(s):  
Mariіa Konstantinovna Kulava

Within the presented article, taking into account already existing achievements of scientists, the concept, the main features of the principles of state administration of the executive system of Ukraine are defined. The principles of activity of executive bodies bodies according to the current legislation of Ukraine are determined. A brief description of the principles is presented, namely: the rule of law, legality, compulsory, independence, justice, impartiality and objectivity, discretion, transparency and openness of executive proceedings and its fixation by technical means, the reasonableness of the time limits for enforcement proceedings, the proportionality of enforcement measures and the amount of claims for decisions, the right to appeal decisions, actions or omissions of state executives, private performers. It is established that in general the principles of executive proceedings in the investigated normative acts are duplicated, in addition to the principles of independence and the right to appeal decisions, actions or inaction of state executives, private performers. The actual vision of the principles of public administration of the executive system of Ukraine is determined. The opinion on the need to supplement the list of principles with the following: the principle of equal competition between state and private performers through the balance between them; the principle of responsibility of the executive system bodies, their officials and private executors for damage caused as a result of violations of regulatory requirements; the principle of introducing effective incentives for voluntary implementation of decisions; the principle of professionalism and competence. Also, within the submitted article, it is stated that the use of the terms “principles” and “principles” in the Laws of Ukraine “On Bodies and Officials Performing Enforcement of Court Decisions and Decisions of Other Bodies”, “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which are adopted simultaneously and regulated, are unjustified, identical social relations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document