scholarly journals Issues concerning divorce in European Court of Human Rights case law

2020 ◽  
pp. 228-232
Author(s):  
Oleksandra Bilyk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Favourable Outcome ◽  
The Other ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Polish Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

The article deals with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the individuals’ possibility to dissolveone’s marriage in general and other issues related to divorce.Starting with the case of Johnston and Others v. Ireland (1986) ECHR made it clear that a right to divorce cannot be derived fromArticle 12 of the Convention (Right to marry). The Court stated that drafters of the Convention had no intention to include in Article12 any guarantee of a right to have the ties of marriage dissolved by divorce. On the other hand, in case of F. v. Switzerland (1987)ECHR stated that if national legislation allows divorce, which is not a requirement of the Convention, Article 12 secures for divorcedpersons the right to remarry without unreasonable restrictions.In more recent cases the Court dealt with issues concerning the lengthy divorce proceedings that impaired applicants’ right tomarry again. In this aspect the Court would not exclude that a failure to conduct divorce proceedings within a reasonable time could incertain circumstances raise an issue under Article 12 of the Convention. However, in such cases the Court emphasizes more on the issueof the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in light of the failure of the domestic authorities to conduct the divorce proceedingsefficiently.Another side of divorce proceedings was reviewed in case of Babiarz v. Poland (2017) where the applicant complained that byrefusing to grant him a divorce the authorities had prevented him from marrying the woman with whom he had been living and had achild. The situation arose due to the provisions of Polish law that a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the partywhose fault it was that the marriage had broken down, if the other party refused to consent. In the Court’s view, if the provisions of theConvention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing a possibility, under domestic law, of obtaining divorce, they cannot, a fortiori, beinterpreted as guaranteeing a favourable outcome in divorce proceedings instituted under the provision of that law allowing for adivorce.

Extradition of a Person: The National Law of Ukraine and the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana H. Fomina ◽  
Volodymyr I. Galagan ◽  
Zhаnnа V. Udovenko ◽  
Serhii Ye. Ablamskyi ◽  
Yana Yu. Koniushenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
The Right

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.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 381-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Spielmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Law

AbstractThe doctrine of the national margin of appreciation is well established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In applying this essentially judge-made doctrine, the Court imposes self-restraint on its power of review, accepting that domestic authorities are best placed to settle a dispute. The areas in which the doctrine has most often been applied will be presented here, looking at various examples from case law. After a brief overview of the doctrine’s origin, the analysis will focus on the situations in which the margin has been allowed or denied. Does it relate merely to factual and domestic-law aspects of a case? What is the scope of the margin of appreciation when it comes to interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights? What impact does an interference (whether disproportionate or not) with a guaranteed right have on the margin allowed? Is there a second-degree or ‘reverse’ margin of appreciation, whereby discretionary powers can be distributed between executive and judicial authorities at domestic level? Lastly it is noteworthy that Protocol No 14, now ratified by all Council of Europe Member States, enshrines in Article 12—at least to some extent—an obligation to apply a margin of appreciation. One essential question remains: by allowing any margin of a certain width, is the European Court simply waiving its power of review or is it attributing responsibility to the domestic courts in the interest of a healthy subsidiarity?

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Maria Dymitruk
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.

The Right to a Public Trial under Maltese Criminal Law

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-147
Author(s):  
Kevin Aquilina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

This paper attempts to answer whether section 24(2) of the Maltese Official Secrets Act conforms, or is in conflict, with the right to a public hearing under section 39(3) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It reviews case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to a public hearing and concludes that Strasbourg case law has developed to allow restrictions upon this right even if they are not written down in this Convention. On the other hand, from a comparative exercise carried out with seven similar laws to the Maltese Official Secrets Act, it transpires that the Maltese provision is unique, does not find any counterpart in these seven laws surveyed and, worse still, appears to conflict with Article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention.

scholarly journals Effective Remedy for Excessive Length of Proceedings: A Macedonian Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-78
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Effective Length ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
European Court ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right

In the spirit of Latin maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium, it is claimed that the right to an effective remedy permeates the entire European Convention human rights system, giving it a real and effective dimension. An argument is also made for a right to a trial within a reasonable time, meaning that an excessive length of proceedings can be remedied as well. As the principle of subsidiarity lies at the heart of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the establishment of an effective remedy before the national bodies/authorities is required. In the light of these general considerations, while celebrating the 70th anniversary of the European Convention of Human Rights, the underlying idea of this article is to highlight the fundamental standards of assessing the effectiveness of the remedies with regard to the length of proceedings established in European Court of Human Rights case-law. The focus is placed on the development, current status and functioning of the remedy for excessive length of proceedings in North Macedonia as a Member State of the Council of Europe. The article attempts to answer the question of whether the legal remedy for excessive length of proceedings that exists in Northern Macedonia can be considered effective within the meaning of the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights case-law. Keywords: a right to a trial within a reasonable time; excessive length of proceedings; undue delays; an effective remedy; an effective length-of-proceedings remedy; ECtHR case-law; jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of North Macedonia.

The right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Educational Organizations ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

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”.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document