Легітимні очікування у практиці Європейського суду з прав людини

2021 ◽  
pp. 147
Author(s):  
ТЕТЯНА ФУЛЕЙ
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

Поняття легітимних очікувань (англ. legitimate expectations) увійшло у вітчизняний науковий обіг завдяки практиці Європейського суду з прав людини (ЄСПЛ). Водночас в офіційних/автентичних перекладах його рішень, а також у науко вій літературі трапляється низка варіантів перекладу терміна на позначення цього поняття (“законне сподівання”, “правомірне очікування”, “виправдані очікування”, “легітимні сподівання” тощо), що створює ілюзію, немов би йдеться про різні юридичні явища. Неузгодженість термінології, а також потреби юридичної практики актуалізують спроби з’ясувати сутність і зміст цього юридичного феномену. Метою статті є виокремлення за результатами аналізу рішень ЄСПЛ у ключових справах, у яких ЄСПЛ розкривав концепцію легітимних очікувань, низки критеріїв, що дають змогу стверджувати про наявність в особи легітимних очікувань, які б охоплювалися сферою дії Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод (Конвенція). У практиці ЄСПЛ концепція легітимних очікувань вироблена у процесі розгляду скарг щодо ст. 1 Першого протоколу до Конвенції, і є набагато вужчою, аніж у документах Європейської комісії “За демократію через право” (Венеційська комісія), зокрема Доповіді Report on the Rule of Law 2011 р. і “Мірилі правовладдя” 2016 р., у яких легітимні очікування розглядаються як складова принципу юридичної визначеності, поряд із res judicata, обов’язковістю виконання остаточних судових рішень та іншими елементами цього принципу, і у яких ніщо не вказує на те, що вимога виконання державою обіцяного, що становить суть поняття легітимних очікувань, стосується лише майнових, економічних аспектів. Враховуючи, що Конвенція захищає існуючі права, і ст. 1 Першого протоколу до Конвенції не гарантує право на одержання майна в майбутньому, тобто захищає не гіпотетичну можливість, а наявний актив, конкретні майнові вимоги, ‘необхідно, щоб “легітимне очікування” мало більш конкретний характер, аніж просто надія’ (“Гратцінгер і Гратцінгерова проти Чеської Республіки”, § 73, “Копецький проти Словаччини”, § 49). Аналіз практики ЄСПЛ дає змогу дійти висновків, що про наявність легітимних очікувань в особи можна стверджувати лише тоді, коли на момент втручання у гарантовані Конвенцією права вже існували певні умови, яким особа відповідала. Перша група умов пов’язана із наявністю чітких і безумовних законодавчих приписів, які не є бланкетними та не потребують ухвалення додаткових законодавчих положень; якщо ж законні вимоги, які мають бути дотримані, чітко не визначені, певна правова норма не може бути застосована для обґрунтування легітимного очікування. Так само не створює легітимних очікувань зупинення дії норми, її зміна чи скасування. Наприклад, починаючи з 1 січня 2015 р. і до рішення Конституційного Суду України від 13 грудня 2019 р. № 7-р(II)/2019, в Україні жоден закон не визначав ані умов (підстав), ані порядку перерахунку пенсій за вислугу років, призначених на підставі Закону України “Про прокуратуру”. Водночас, якщо такі умови законодавчо визначені, то нестача процедур чи відсутність механізму реалізації визначеного законом права не підриває легітимних очікувань. Окрім наявності чіткого підґрунтя у національному законодавстві, для легітимного очікування необхідно, щоб особа відповідала встановленим законодавчим вимогам, і з цим пов’язана друга група умов. Третя група критеріїв стосується судової практики – зокрема, усталеною практикою національних судів може підтверджуватися існування у національному законодавстві достатнього підґрунтя для легітимних очікувань, а вимоги, підкріплені судовими рішеннями, які набули статусу остаточного, створюють борг, і відповідно – “майно” для цілей застосування ст. 1 Першого протоколу до Конвенції. Водночас справи, де вимоги заявників підтверджені рішеннями національних судів, слід відрізняти від ще не вирішених спорів, особливо за відсутності усталеної судової практики їх вирішення – незважаючи на застосовність ст. 6 Конвенції, такі вимоги найімовірніше, не охоплюватимуться сферою дії ст. 1 Першого протоколу до Конвенції.

scholarly journals Legal Certainty

2021 ◽  
pp. 185-201
Author(s):  
Viktor Smorodynskyi
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Venice Commission

Legal certainty is considered in the paper not only as one of the general principles of law and one of the requirements of the Rule of Law, but also as a fundamental feature and condition of the significance of law and its instrumental value in general. In this regard, the definitions of the Rule of Law conception and the lists of its components proposed by Western philosophers and theorists of law and by the Venice Commission are analyzed. Elements of the principle of legal certainty such as legislation and case law accessibility, legal acts’ predictability, principles of case law unity, legitimate expectations, res judicata, the European concept of autonomous interpretation and the American doctrine of uncertainty of law are covered. By analyzing and synthesizing theoretical concepts of the principle of legal certainty, the practice of its interpretation and application by European and national courts, the connections between it and other general principles of law (in particular – principles of legality and reasonableness), this principle plays a key role in the Rule of Law implementation in the national legal system.

Revisiting Res Judicata and Lis Pendens in Investor-State Arbitration

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Magnaye ◽  
August Reinisch
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Identity Test

Questions concerning res judicata and lis pendens in investment arbitration proceedings remain a subject of academic discussions, particularly with regard to the application of the “triple identity test”. The necessity of a more coherent approach to the matter is a pressing issue amidst the criticisms of the investor-state arbitration system as a whole. Finding viable solutions to prevent multiple/parallel proceedings and contradicting decisions is crucial in further strengthening the rule of law in investment arbitration.

scholarly journals LEGAL DEFINITION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-68
Author(s):  
Ellada Balayan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Legal Science

Introduction. In modern legal science, the category of “legal certainty” is understood and interpreted in different ways. Opinions and approaches of scientists differ in designating the type, nature, elements, regulatory burden and the full content of the idea of legal certainty. The significance of the principle of legal certainty in the context of the protection of human rights cannot be considered without taking into account the influence of Roman law on it. The idea of establishing the rule of law for the “expulsion of all injustice” and contradictions is relevant in modern law. Without a broad interpretation of the principle of res judicata, human rights violations cannot be avoided. Purpose. The purpose of the research is to analyze the nature, content of the normative burden of the category “legal certainty”, various theories and approaches to determining its place in the doctrine of constitutional law, in general, in the context of protecting human rights and freedoms, in particular. Methodology. The methodological basis of the study is scientifically developed and applied in practice, the main scientific methods, such as the dialectical method of cognition, which allows you to analyze all phenomena and processes in their development, the relationship and interdependence, as well as general scientific and private scientific methods, analysis, specific historical, logical historical, systemic, comparative legal and other methods. The theoretical basis of the study is the work of domestic and foreign experts of constitutional law, the theory of state and law, international law, as well as other areas of legal science. The material of a scientific article is based on the study of various scientific sources: monographs, dissertations, scientific articles, materials of scientific and practical conferences, etc. Results. The category of “legal certainty” in the doctrine is considered in different contexts. The unity of opinion in the legal doctrine exists solely to indicate the important role and significant place of the principle of legal certainty in law-making and law enforcement activities of the state. The normative burden of legal certainty is interpreted more meaningfully, since it covers not only the elements of the supposed stability and clarity of the current legal regulation or the essence of the principle of res judicata, but also the consistency, clarity of the entire system of law, the constancy of law enforcement, the practice of the activities of the judiciary, the integrity and compliance of prescriptions law and legal culture and consciousness of all subjects of legal relations to these requirements. Conclusion. To avoid violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as well as non-compliance with the constitutional guarantees of their state, including judicial, defense, to ensure the most harmonious state of legal stability of the individual, society and the rule of law is possible only with the application of this approach.

8. Substantive unlawfulness

2021 ◽  
pp. 287-331
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This chapter shows that judges must substitute their own judgment for that of an administrative authority on some issues, in order to give effect to the principle of legality. When there is reason for non-deferential judicial review, deference would mean abandoning the rule of law. The more interventionist grounds on which judges will control the substance of some decisions—relevance, proportionality, and legitimate expectations—may involve little deference, depending on the type of decision and the context in which it is made. Each of these interventionist doctrines gives the judges the opportunity to do justice for a claimant and to improve public administration. For the very same reasons, each doctrine poses a danger that the judges will make themselves into surrogate administrators by overextending the grounds of judicial review.

Deontological Grounds for the Principles of Administrative Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Brown
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Kantian Principle ◽  
Equal Concern ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Administrative Justice

Section I invokes the ideal of the rule of law as another possible source of normative support or grounding for my principles of administrative justice for the management of legitimate expectations. Following on from this, Section II looks into the Kantian principle that agents ought to be treated never purely as means but always as ends in themselves. Section III turns to Ronald Dworkin’s idea that governments have a fundamental duty to treat citizens with equal concern and respect, as yet another potential normative ground for my principles of administrative justice. Finally, Section IV puts onto the table but ultimately rejects a possible objection to both the Liability Precept and the Secondary Duties Principle based on the deontological values of democratic majoritarianism and equality.

scholarly journals Authentic interpretation of legal norms: theoretical aspec

2021 ◽  
pp. 215-220
Author(s):  
M. V. Osiadla
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Norm ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Law

The article examines the problem of interpretive activity in the law enforcement process, which is due to the need to clarify the content of the legal norm. The issue of interpretation in the process of application of legal norms is considered, as the modern Ukrainian legislation is not regulated and contains internal conflicts. The article describes the types of official normative interpretation, in particular, as authentic, legal, departmental. The use of interpretation in the law enforcement process as an opportunity to understand the essence of legislative terms,ensuring equal application by all subjects of public relations, which involves compliance with the principle of legitimate expectations and the rule of law. Keywords: interpretation, application, authentic interpretation, casual interpretation.

scholarly journals LEGAL CERTAINTY IN THE ASPECT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

2021 ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
H. Ostapenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
State Government ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Mandatory Requirement ◽  
Legitimate Expectations

The article addresses the analyses of adherence to the legal certainty principle while the local government exercises its powers, which are enlarged during the reform of decentralization. It is stated that while the powers belonged to state government, the adherence of the legal certainty principle was found as very important to protect citizens from unpredictable and unequal treatment. So as soon as the powers were handed over to local government the protection of legal certainty principle still remains actual. Legal certainty requires clarity and legibility of legal provisions, limitation of discretive powers, promulgation and publication of legal acts in advance etc. These elements must be adhered realizing local powers. One of the elements legal certainty requires is protection of the legitimate expectations of citizens. A number of court decisions which are analyzed in the article prove that breaking of legitimate expectations happens frequently. Emphasis is made on preventing such practices and on the need to respect legal certainty as a mandatory requirement of the rule of law. The necessity of observance of the requirements of legal certainty at promulgation of acts by local self-government bodies and making the citizens know about them is determined.

Ch.2 Modern Applications of the General Principles of Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kotuby Charles T ◽  
Sobota Luke A
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Contractual Obligations

The purpose of this chapter is to define the general principles of law as they have been applied in national courts and international tribunals. For instance, the very concept of the law requires good faith adherence to contractual obligations (pacta sunt servanda) and the good faith exercise of legal rights. States as well as private parties are also precluded from contradicting their actions (estoppel) or abusing their rights, thereby defeating the legitimate expectations of another. Nor may they benefit from their own wrong or be unjustly enriched at another’s expense. All parties are liable for acts caused by and attributable to them, and the concept of responsibility requires that the consequences of their wrongful act be wiped out. In their various iterations and permutations, these exemplary principles are the logical consequences of the rule of law and the foundation of every legal order.

8. Substantive fairness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Authority ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Principle Of Legality

This chapter shows that judges must substitute their own judgment for that of an administrative authority on some issues, in order to give effect to the principle of legality. When there is reason for non-deferential judicial review, deference would mean abandoning the rule of law. The more interventionist grounds on which judges will control the substance of some decisions—relevance, proportionality, and legitimate expectations—may involve little deference, depending on the type of decision and the context in which it is made. Each of the interventionist doctrines gives the judges the opportunity to do justice for a claimant and to improve public administration. For the very same reasons, each doctrine poses a danger that the judges will make themselves into surrogate administrators by overextending the grounds of judicial review

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document