scholarly journals Ensuring the detection of property in the institute of property seizure

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (42) ◽  
pp. 236-247
Author(s):  
Anastasiia Bazhenova ◽  
Anatolii Desyatnik ◽  
Hanna Mudretska ◽  
Inna Pakipova

The article is devoted to the study of certain issues of property detection in the institution of seizure of property. On the basis of comparative legal analysis, the possibility of ensuring the detection of property using search and seizure within the Criminal Procedure Code of the past and modern Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and foreign countries was assessed. The rights of the victim under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are analyzed in terms of his/her right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law to decide his/her civil rights and obligations. The application of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine is analyzed taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the protection of human rights in relation to the rights of individuals or legal entities to peacefully own their property. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the previous provisions do not in any way restrict the right of the state to enact such laws as it deems necessary to exercise control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest. Scientific methods such as analysis, synthesis, formal-legal and comparative-legal method became the methodological basis of the research.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana H. Fomina ◽  
Volodymyr I. Galagan ◽  
Zhаnnа V. Udovenko ◽  
Serhii Ye. Ablamskyi ◽  
Yana Yu. Koniushenko

This article aims at establishing and emulating the relevant issues surrounding the detention of person presumed of committing a criminal offense outside the territory of Ukraine in respect with the provisions adumbrated by the European Court of Human Rights. The study was conducted through the prism of national legislation and the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The issues of realization of the detainee's rights, including the right to protection, were considered separately. According to the results of the study, certain ways to improve the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine have been formulated.


2020 ◽  
pp. 252-261
Author(s):  
O. Mazur

The article deals with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding evidence and evidence, which are disclosed in the provision of paragraph 3 of Article 6 “The right to a fair trial” of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the latest practice of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for admissibility of evidence and analysis of the current criminal procedural law. As you know, the attitude of the state towards the protection of human rights and freedoms is one of the indicators of its democracy. Ukraine has chosen the European Community as the main strategic vector of development. Such a vector provides for the unification of the regulatory framework in accordance with European legislation, as well as compliance by law enforcement agencies with international standards for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why, the corresponding rule is enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, providing that the rule of law in criminal proceedings is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (part 2 of article 8). A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings and the relationship of these norms with the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out. They also examined the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the admissibility of evidence in decisions in which a violation by the state of the norms of the Convention was found, and in decisions in which such a violation was not found. So, summarizing and analyzing the practice of the ECHR, we saw that the Court emphasizes that a guilty verdict cannot be generally based only on inadmissible evidence, and if such a sentence is pronounced, then this is a violation of Article 1 6 of the Convention in respect of an unfair trial. Therefore, the investigator, prosecutor, investigating judge and judge should take into account the relevant practice of the ECHR and the norms of the Convention in their procedural activities in order to avoid these violations and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in the future.


Author(s):  
Аndrew Medvid

The article compares the requirements for the lawful application of detention without a court decision as a criminal procedure established in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the second sentence of Article 29 part 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In particular, the content of the concept of "detention" of a person is studied, the list of subjects who have the right to detain a person without a court decision and the legal content and list of legitimate grounds for detention of a person without a court decision as a criminal procedure are studied and compared. Conventional, constitutional and criminal-procedural norms are also studied, as well as the necessity of mandatory further judicial review of the legality of the detention of a person, including the terms of such review. Based on a detailed analysis of these provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of Ukraine, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, it is established that the grounds for the detention of a person by a general entity, defined by paragraph 2 of Article 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and a special entity, defined by subparagraphs 1 and 2 (except subparagraph 3) of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in general, correspond to the grounds for lawful detention of a person enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, it cannot be qualified as unlawful interference with the human right to liberty and security of person. At the same time, proposals are formulated to make changes and additions to subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is also proved that the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 12 and Articles 209 and 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are critical provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine regarding the lawful application of detention of a person without a court decision. These provisions actually eliminate some shortcomings and establish the necessary legal and procedural grounds for the clarified application of the provision of the second sentence of part 3 of Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of their application developed by the European Court of Human Rights.


2019 ◽  
pp. 81-89
Author(s):  
O.G. Yanovska

The defense has the right to have information about all elements of the procedural order of receiving the prosecution evidence, in particular, about the materials of the covert investigative (detective) actions (further - CIDA), which the latter intends to use against it in court. However, this right of defense is violated quite often. In addition, these issues remain unresolved at both the legislative and jurisprudence levels. The purpose of the article is to address some of the problematic issues that arise during the disclosing the materials of CIDA to the defense at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The research made it possible to draw the following conclusions from an analysis of the case-law of the national courts and of the European Court of Human Rights: 1) if the prosecution timely fulfilled the requirements of Article 290 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (further - CPC of Ukraine), took all necessary and dependent measures aimed at declassification of materials that became the basis for the CIDA, but such materials were not declassified For reasons that did not depend on the prosecutor's procedural activity, there were no violations of the requirements of the said CPC of Ukraine by the prosecution. In such a case, the court shall evaluate the evidence obtained for their propriety and admissibility, as well as in combination with other evidence in the case, in accordance with the requirements of Article 94 of the CPC of Ukraine; 2) if the prosecution on his own initiative and/or at the request of the party of defense did not take the necessary measures, which depend on it and aimed at declassification of the materials which became the basis for the CIDA, in that case there is a violation of the rules of Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine the consequences provided for in paragraph 12 of this Article; 3) if in the course of criminal proceedings in court, the prosecutor's repeated request for declassification of procedural documents which became the basis for the CIDA was granted and they were at the disposal of the prosecution party, then these procedural documents as received by the prosecution party after the transfer cases before the court should be opened in accordance with part eleven of Article 290 of the CPC of Ukraine.


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”.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-69
Author(s):  
Diah Ratri Oktavriana ◽  
Nasiri Nasiri

This research is a normative research. One of the fulfillment of human rights is justice in equalizing the position of every citizen before the law, as stated in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The right to equality before the law or what is commonly referred to as equality before the law is a principle that provides recognition and protection of human rights for every individual regardless of one's background. Therefore, it is true that Law Number 16 of 2011 concerning Legal Aid for People Who Are Less Capable to Guarantee Constitutional Rights of Citizens for Justice and Equality before the Law emerged. Legal aid is a legal service provided by advocates to the community seeking justice In the realm of criminal cases, the provision of legal assistance is described in Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code which explains that in the interests of defense, a suspect or defendant has the right to receive legal assistance from one or more legal advisers during the time and at each level of examination. The provision of legal assistance must be based on the principle of equality before the law as stated in the explanation of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law. From the various analyzes that have been carried out, in the perspective of Islamic criminal law it can be concluded that the principle of equality before the law as described in Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code is equivalent to an order to provide legal aid which in Islamic criminal law is spelled out in Surah Al-Maidah verse 2 which states that as a fellow humans are ordered to help each other as a form of horizontal worship to fellow humans (habl minan-nas). In addition there are many more both in the Al Qur'an and the hadith of the prophet regarding the application of the principle of equality before the law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 1539-1544
Author(s):  
Volodymyr V. Marchenko ◽  
Inna I. Kilimnik ◽  
Alla V. Dombrovska

The aim: The aim of the study is to examine the blockchain technology in the field of healthcare, to analyze the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, to analyze the key positions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECHR) in the field of human rights to privacy, to analyze the European Union (hereinafter – EU) secondary legislation regarding the supply of medicines, prospects for the blockchain usage in order to protect human rights to privacy and improve the quality of medicines. Materials and methods: Scientific works that are devoted to the outspread of digital technologies in healthcare, the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR’s practice on the protection of human rights to privacy, the provisions of the EU secondary legislation that regulate the supply of medicines are studied. The methodology of this article is based on comparative and legal analysis techniques and includes system-structural method, method of generalization, method of analysis and synthesis as well. Conclusions: The blockchain technology in medicine and pharmacology will increase the level of protection of human rights to healthcare quality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrijela Mihelčić ◽  
Maša Marochini Zrinski

The authors analyse the national protection from emissions, in the first place, a property law component of this regime. Domestic regulation of the protection of property rights from harassment was brought in the perspective of the protection that the European Court of Human Rights provides for the right to live in a healthy environment, primarily through the protection of rights under Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (right to respect for private and family life and home). In the context of the latter, the authors have analysed the interpretative methods used by the European Court and explored the following features: the requirement that environmental and environmental impacts and disturbances violate the Convention right, that is, the existence of a specific Convention causal link; the category of minimum level of severity; oscillation of the "quantum" of minimum level of severity within conventional "fluctuations"; and the scope (and type) of protecting the right to live in a healthy environment through the paradigm of the positive / negative obligations of the Contracting States.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document