Constitutional Judgment of Court in case of Restrictions on the Right to Access to Justice Due to State Immunity

2021 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 1-52
Author(s):  
Esther Song
Keyword(s):  
Access To Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Right

ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-23
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

In its judgment No. 238/2014 the Italian Constitutional Court, whilst appearing to show respect for the ICJ’s 2012 judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, makes notable criticisms of that judgment and insists on its own role in the progressive development of international law in the field of State immunity. In particular, the main legal argument of the Constitutional Court, based on the fundamental and inviolable character of the right of access to justice in constitutional law, can also be used, although modified to some extent, in international law. The Court’s argument can also resolve the possible conflict between the international norm of State immunity, on the one hand, and the international norms on fundamental human rights and access to justice, on the other. The present contribution seeks to demonstrate that: (a) the right of access to justice and the connected right to reparation for violations of fundamental human rights are established by two customary international norms; (b) there is a potential conflict between these norms and the norm of State immunity; (c) this conflict becomes real and concrete when the limits on access to justice and reparation laid down by immunity are unjustified in accordance with the rule of “equivalent protection”; and (d) the solution to that conflict derives from the normative superiority of the customary norms on access to justice and reparation (being peremptory in nature when functionally linked to the violation of fundamental human rights) over the norm of State immunity. The judgment of the Constitutional Court, utilizing legal reasoning that can also translate to the level of international law, demonstrates that osmosis may occur between the arguments used in constitutional and international law, and that today there is growing interaction between the domestic and international legal orders and their common values. The law of human rights, placed at the very center of the Constitutional Court’s judgment, is the field in which this community of values emerges most clearly.

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.

Ius Humanitatis and the Right to Reparation for International Crimes in Foreign Domestic Courts

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Core Element ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Humanitarian Ethics ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.

Simoncioni v. Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).

Summary judgment — Quo vadis?

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Thino Bekker
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Core ◽  
Golden Opportunity ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The Right ◽  
Summary Judgment ◽  
Made In

The summary judgment procedure in South African law provides for a speedy judgment in favour of a deserving plaintiff where it can be shown that the defendant does not have a triable defence. In 2019 the Rules Board made certain drastic amendments to the procedure of summary judgment in the high court. In this article the historical development of the procedure of summary judgment will be discussed, and the new amendments to rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court critically evaluated. It will be argued that the amendments to rule 32 were unnecessary and that it may diminish the right to access to justice in civil disputes. It will, however, also be argued that there are some merits in the critique raised by the Rules Board in relation to rule 32 and that the Rules Board missed a golden opportunity to overhaul the entire summary judgment procedure in a more sensible manner and in line with the core constitutional values of s 34 of the Constitution. It will be argued that rule 32 should be replaced in its entirety by a new, more streamlined procedure, and some recommendations for legal reform will be made in this regard.

scholarly journals Advocacy as a tool for the realization of the fundamental right of a person to professional legal assistance

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 240-243
Author(s):  
P. Badzeliuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Profession ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

This article is devoted to the study of the implementation of the fundamental right of a person to professional legal assistance through the vectors of influence of the bar, the role of the human rights institution in the mechanism of such a right and its place in public life.An effective justice system provides not only an independent and impartial judiciary, but also an independent legal profession. Lawyers play an important role in ensuring access to justice. They facilitate the interaction between individuals and legal entities and the judiciary by providing legal advice to their clients and presenting them to the courts. Without the assistance of a lawyer, the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy would be irrevocably violated.Thus, the bar in the mechanism of protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is one of the means of self-limitation of state power through the creation and active functioning of an independent human rights institution, which is an active subject in the process of fundamental rights. The main constitutional function of the state is to implement and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, and the constitutional and legal status of the legal profession allows it to actively ensure the rights of civil society as a whole and not just the individual. Effectively implement the human rights function of the state by ensuring proper interaction between the authorities and civil society, while being an active participant in the law enforcement mechanism and occupying an independent place in the justice system.Thus, the activities of lawyers are a complex manifestation of both state and public interest. After all, it is through advocacy and thanks to it that the rule of law realizes the possibility of ensuring the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Advocacy, on the one hand, has a constitutionally defined state character, and on the other hand, lawyers should be as independent as possible from the state in order to effectively protect citizens and legal entities from administrative arbitrariness. Thus, the bar is a unique legal phenomenon that performs a state (public-law) function, while remaining an independent, non-governmental self-governing institution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document