scholarly journals The right of access to a court in Ukraine in the light of the requirements of the Convention on Protection human rights and fundamental freedoms

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-198

This note considers the national legal provisions that regulate the procedure and features of a person’s appeal to the court to protect their rights. Taking into account the provisions of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) regarding the right to a fair trial and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on its interpretation, key threats to the effective exercise of access to justice in Ukraine have been identified. The problem of the inconsistency of the system of local general courts with the new administrative-territorial structure at the district level is highlighted. It is demonstrated how the lack of clear and understandable criteria for distinguishing the subject matter jurisdiction of cases affects the ensuring of the human right to an effective court. Particular attention is paid to the staffing of the judiciary and the low level of public confidence in the judiciary. The authors have analysed the validity of the application of such procedural restrictions as the court fee for filing a lawsuit and the classification of ‘insignificant cases’, which are impossible to appeal. On this basis, it is concluded that the existence of such restrictions on access to court cannot be considered a violation of the right to a fair trial if such restrictions are justified and proportionate to the lawful purpose of their establishment and do not violate the essence of this right. The features of the introduction in Ukraine of a lawyer’s monopoly on the representation of another person in court, as well as the practice of the ECtHR regarding the possibility of recognising such restrictions as a violation of the right to a fair trial, are analysed. Legislative initiatives to improve the motivation of decisions by the courts are highlighted. It was concluded that the provisions aimed at forming a more responsible attitude of judges to the consideration of cases and making reasoned decisions, as well as solving the problem of excessive load on judges, are a prerequisite for ensuring the right to a fair trial. Keywords: human rights and responsibilities, fair trial, access to justice, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, procedural restrictions, court jurisdiction, proportionality, legal purpose, court fees, lawyer monopoly.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Alla Demyda

The article focuses on the principle of impartiality and independence of judiciary as a part of the right to a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, an account will be taken of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of applications from national judges. The article considers the reflection of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the amendment of national legislations and the amendment of the provisions of the national constitutions regarding the principles of justice.


2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
A A Tymoshenko

The article considers the problem of respect for the right to a fair trial at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process. It is pro- posed to take into account the secondary role of pre-trial activity, whose task is to prepare materials for trial. This competitiveness for the prosecution is not allowed. Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights indicates sufficient blurring boundaries that separate statement of the facts of the presence or absence of a violation of Art. 6 of the European Convention «On Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms» (the right to a fair trial). But in any case the decision is motivated by the observance of guarantees of access to justice. Hence, any infringement of the possibi


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 208-213
Author(s):  
Sverba Y. I.

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the concept of "access to justice". The national legislation, the case law of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as academic papers have been analyzed by the author. The author concludes that there are at least two approaches to define the concept of "access to justice": broadside and restricted one. The latter is inherent in Ukraine, since the Constitution stipulates that justice in Ukraine is exercised by the courts exclusively. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights explored in this article demonstrates a broad interpretation of the right to a fair trial, as quasi-judicial authorities are often empowered to make decisions that directly affect a person's rights and obligations. Foreign researchers are more progressive in determining the concept of access to justice: the latter is considered as an intention to resolve person's legal problems, not limited with access to classical judicial protection. Even though the access to justice concept is not legally defined, it includes the core elements as legal awareness of person’s rights; lack of financial barriers to access to the court; the right to free legal aid guaranteed by the state; a fair and independent court; a reasonable time to settle a dispute, as well as the enforcement of the judgment. The state could ensure the effective access to justice only if all of the said elements are implemented. At the same time, the states have both positive (to provide the right to free legal aid) and negative obligations (not to interfere with court activities, etc.). Keywords: access to justice, justice, right to a fair trial, rule


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-467
Author(s):  
Hamdija Šarkinović

The paper deals with property, which is guaranteed by Article 58 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The constitutional-law concept of the right to property in Montenegro is broader than the traditional civil law concept, as it includes all real rights, as the European Court under the notion of property, in addition to the usual, includes all acquired rights of a person. The autonomous concept of property and possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was separately covered, consisting of three rules: principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions, deprivation of possessions, and control of the use of property. The application of the text of justification of interference with property in the case law of the European Court is explained, which includes the text of legality, the text of a legitimate aim in the general or public interest and the text of proportionality. However, the case law of the ordinary courts in the field of guarantees of property rights, constitutional and convention’s is not harmonized with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and represents one of the main tasks of the Constitutional Court in the coming period. The Constitutional Court of Montenegro follows the concept of property enshrined in the Constitution and gives the property meaning as the constitutional and convention human right guaranteed by the Constitution, and its inviolability as one of the fundamental values of the constitutional order, although the case law of the Constitutional Court has not fully and always been coherent with the aforementioned principles.


2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 353-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hilson

Abstract The aim of this chapter is to provide an initial attempt at analysis of the place of risk within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, where appropriate, the Commission, focusing on the related issues of public concern and perception of risk and how the ECHR dispute bodies have addressed these. It will argue that, for quite some time, the Court has tended to adopt a particular, liberal conception of risk in which it stresses the right of applicants to be provided with information on risk to enable them to make effective choices. Historically, where public concerns in relation to particular risks are greater than those of scientific experts—nuclear radiation being the prime example in the case law—the Court has adopted a particularly restrictive approach, stressing the need for risk to be ‘imminent’ in order to engage the relevant Convention protections. However, more recently, there have been emerging but as yet still rather undeveloped signs of the Court adopting a more sensitive approach to risk. One possible explanation for this lies in the Court’s growing awareness of and reference to the Aarhus Convention. What we have yet to see—because there has not yet been a recent, post-Aarhus example involving such facts—is a case where no imminent risk is evident. Nevertheless, the chapter concludes that the Court’s old-style approach to public concern in such cases, in which it rode roughshod over rights to judicial review, is out of line with the third, access to justice limb of Aarhus.


2019 ◽  
Vol 584 (9) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czyż

The right to a fair trial, rules on deprivation of liberty are important standards in the entire procedure of dealing with juveniles, from detention to the end of court proceedings. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights cited in the article illustrate what are the problems with complying with this standard in practice in several European countries, including Poland. It seems that one of the reasons may be declarative, apparent treatment of the rights of child/juvenile, especially when it concerns procedural rights. Teaching a young person respect for the law and responsibility for his behaviour requires subjective treatment so that he can feel, on his own example, the operation of a system based on clear, predictable, understandable rules.


2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Gilles Cuniberti

In Sabeh el Leil v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (‘‘ECtHR’’ or ‘‘the Court’’) ruled for the second time that a contracting state had violated the right to a fair trial afforded by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘‘Convention’’) by denying access to its courts to an embassy employee suing for wrongful dismissal on the grounds that the employer enjoyed sovereign immunity. The ECtHR had first ruled so a year earlier in Cudak v. Lithuania, where the plaintiff was also an embassy employee.


2021 ◽  
pp. 159-170
Author(s):  
Majida Lubura

A basic human right - the right to life, even today faces numerous questions when it comes to its scope. One of those questions is the issue of the right to abortion, which is the subject of numerous controversies among lawyers, philosophers, medical workers, theologists, as well as among citizens in the broadest sense. Debates that exist in various scientific disciplines indicate the complexity of these issues that needs to be legally regulated at the domestic and international level. For that reason, it is necessary to follow and study the judgments of international bodies that have been passed in connection with this issue. As the most developed system of Human Rights protection has been established within the European Convention on Human Rights, and at the same time the most relevant for our country, in this paper the author studies the current practice of the European Court of Human Rights related to the right to abortion. It is evident, from the case law presented in this paper that the Court had a very delicate and difficult task to balance between diametrically opposing rights and interests of various interested parties. The Court's judgments show a consensus only regarding the question of the existence of the right to abortion in cases where the right to life and health of women is endangered. Opponents of abortion claim that in this case, it is not the right to abortion, but the right to life of a woman and that only then an abortion is allowed and justified to be performed, as well as that it is a conclusion that can be deduced from the Court's case law. However, the author of this paper believes that even though the practice of the court is quite neutral, it still tends more towards granting the right to safe abortion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document