scholarly journals Human Rights Jeopardized in Turkey: Governmental and Judicial Intentions to Erode Due Process and the Right to a Fair Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-73
Author(s):  
Hasan Aydin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Organizations ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations have drawn attention to abusive persecutions, the erosion of the right to a fair trial and torture during detention in Turkey. The government has ignored or sidestepped the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) decisions pertaining to pre-trial detentions and fair trials by adding new grounds to indictments and continuing pre-trial detentions.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

coercive questioning (that is, where a suspect's silence can be used in evidence against him or her) can be used in matters under s (as amended) of the Official Secrets Act 1911. There are also wide powers under the Companies Act 1985 to require officers and agents of companies to assist inspectors appointed to investigate the company. Refusal to answer questions can be sanctioned as a contempt of court 431) and as a criminal offence 447). A person can also be required to answer questions to him or her by a acceptances of them under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The closest English law comes to creating a duty to give one's name and address is the power given to the police under s 25(3) of PACE 1984 (above). Effective abolition of the right silence The Government ignored the recommendations of the Runciman Commission and, in ss 34-37 of the CJPO 1994, effectively abolished the right to silence. 'Abolished' may be too strong a word because everyone still has the right to remain silent in the same circumstances as they did before the 1994 Act; what has changed is the entitlement of a judge or prosecuting counsel to make adverse comment on such a silence. The issue has now been addressed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The leading case is Condron v UK [2000] Crim 679. In 2000, two convicted drug dealers won a landmark ruling in Europe that the UK Government's curbs on the right to silence denied them a fair trial. The ECtHR in Strasbourg stated that, where juries are allowed to draw adverse inferences from silence under police questioning, they must be properly directed by the judge. In a key finding, it ruled that the Court of Appeal should look not just at whether a conviction was 'safe', but also at whether a defendant received a fair trial. The ruling will be likely to lead to other appeals. The case, backed by Liberty, the human rights group, was brought by William and Karen Condron, who were convicted of supplying drugs in 1995. The pair, who did not answer police questions, were jailed for four years. The ECtHR said that the jury had not been properly directed. As a result, the couple's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was breached. It awarded each defendant £15,000. Silence could not be regarded as 'an absolute right', the court said, and drawing inferences was not itself in breach of the right to a fair trial, but caution was needed. The jury should have been directed that, ' .. .if it was satisfied that the applicants' silence...could not sensibly be attributed to their having no answer, or none that would stand up to cross-examination, it should not draw an adverse inference'. The law report from Times appears below.

2012 ◽  
pp. 415-419
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Drug Trafficking ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

5. Right to liberty and right to fair trial

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the right to liberty and fair trial, which are not qualified rights but can be derogated from in times of war and emergency, and provides an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) Articles 5 and 6, the most commonly argued rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5 on the right to liberty and security of person protects individuals from unlawful and arbitrary detention, whereas Article 6 protects the rights to fair trial in both criminal and civil cases (with added protection in criminal cases). The ECtHR has expanded protection of Article 6 through its interpretation of ‘fair’ hearing and ‘civil’ rights and obligations. The chapter examines due process rights as part of UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

The Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in the Context of Employment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

‘Ordinary’ employment contracts—including those of domestic servants—have been deemed to attract diplomatic immunity because they fall within the scope of diplomatic functions. This chapter highlights the potential for conflict between these forms of immunity and the rights of the employees, and reflects on cases in which personal servants of diplomatic agents have challenged both the existence of immunity and the scope of its application. The chapter examines claims that the exercise of diplomatic immunity might violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which courts have dealt with these issues. The chapter analyses diplomats’ own employment claims and notes that they are usually blocked by the assertion of immunity, but also reflects on more recent developments in which claims had been considered which were incidental to diplomatic employment (eg Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012]).

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Procedural fairness: Between human rights law and social psychology

2021 ◽  
pp. 092405192199274
Author(s):  
Cathérine Van de Graaf
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
Justice Research ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Fair procedures have long been a topic of great interest for human rights lawyers. Yet, few authors have drawn on research from other disciplines to enrich the discussion. Social psychological procedural justice research has demonstrated in various applications that, besides the final outcome, the manner in which one’s case is handled matters to people as well. Such research has shown the impact of procedural justice on individuals’ well-being, their acceptance of unfavourable decisions, perceptions of legitimacy and public confidence. The ECtHR has confirmed the desirability of these effects in its fair trial jurisprudence. Thus far, it remains unclear to what extent the guarantees offered by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair trial) coincide with the findings of empirical procedural justice research. This article aims to rectify this and uncover similarities between the two disciplines.

Access to Court v State Immunity

2003 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Voyiakis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of McElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK, and Fogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.

Bulgarian Military Courts and the Right to a Fair Trial

De Jure ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilmira Ilieva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines the organization and functioning of Bulgarian military courts to determine to what extent they are compatible with fair trial standards. The guarantees and institutional requirements for providing the right to a fair trial are analyzed in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This research is focused on the issue whether Bulgarian military courts could provide a fair trial, held by an independent and impartial court, mainly with regard to civil citizens. For the purpose of the research is scrutinized the ECHR Judgment from 28.11.2019 on the case Mustafa vs. Bulgaria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document