scholarly journals Brak obowiązku uzasadnienia i uzasadnienie skrócone a prawo do sądu

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwona Rzucidło-Grochowska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The Other ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Special Element ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Opinions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Different Sources

The right to fair trial and access to the court is interpreted by European Court of Human Rights in a wide manner. Amongst these rulings, there are numerous judicial opinions, where ECHR addesses the problem of giving grounds for judicial decisions (not mention explicitly in the Convention). Out of that reason we may say that there is possible to notice special element of the general right to due process – right to obtain grounds for judicial decisions. This particular right has many aspects and – at least at the first glance – seems to impose the duty to prepare justifications without exceptions. In practice the situation is yet quite different. ECHR approves some limitations of this duty, that migh arise from different sources. In other words, shortened justifications and lack of the duty to justify may be, under some conditions, compliant with standards set forth by the Convention. The clou of this matter is proportionalization of the justifying process, as well as considering of arguments pro and contra fulfilling maximum standard. Sometimes it is therefore possible that guaranteeing the right to fair trial may be overcome by another values (like promptness of receiving a decision, better governance of judges‘ time and effort, etc.). Considering this issue in a wider perspective, we, hence, cannot try to maximalize one aspects of a standard because, if it may cause obstacles in meeting another elements slocated within it the other rights’ domain.

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.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krešimir Kamber ◽  
Lana Kovačić Markić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
World Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the Covid-19 (coronavirus) to be a pandemic. To combat the pandemic, many countries had to adopt emergency measures and some of these measures have affected the judicial system, especially the functioning of courts. The pandemic has been characterised as far as the judiciary is concerned by complete or partial closure of court buildings for the parties and for the public. It is clear that the functioning of national judicial systems has been severely disrupted. This limited functioning of courts impacted the individuals’ right to a fair trial guaranteed, in particular, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this article is to examine the manner of the administration of justice during the Covid pandemic and its impact on the due process guarantees. Focus is put on the extent to which different Covid measures, in particular remote access to justice and online hearings have impacted the guarantees of the right to a fair trial and the due process guarantees in general, notably in detention cases. In this connection, the article provides a comparative overview of the functioning of the European legal systems during the pandemic. It also looks into the way in which the two European courts – the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union functioned, as well as the way in which the Croatian courts, including the Constitutional Court, organised their work during the pandemic. The article then provides an insight into the issue of online/remote hearings in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the Croatian Constitutional Court’s case-law. On the basis of this assessment, the article identifies the differences in the use of remote/online hearings between and within jurisdictions. In conclusion, the article points to some critical considerations that should be taken into account when devising the manner in which any Covid pandemic experience with the administration of justice (notably with regard to remote/online hearings) can be taken forward.

Rectitude Rights and Legitimacy: Reassessing and Reforming the Privilege against Self-Incrimination in English Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 24-73
Author(s):  
Ian H. Dennis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Formal Restriction ◽  
Critical Phase ◽  
English Law ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

The privilege against self-incrimination has always attracted controversy. Legal historians continue to disagree over its origins, and its justification has been keenly debated ever since Bentham's famous attack on it as a misguided concession to the guilty. This debate has recently entered a new and critical phase as the result of diametrically opposed developments by, on the one hand, the courts and legislature in England and, on the other, by the institutions of the European Convention of Human Rights. These developments can be summarised by saying that whereas the trend in England has been towards attrition and formal restriction of the privilege, the European Court of Human Rights has been reconstituting the privilege as an implicit element of the right to a fair trial under article 6.1 of the European Convention. The European decisions have the potential for significant expansion of the privilege, and they call into question the validity of several of the English developments.

5. Right to liberty and right to fair trial

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the right to liberty and fair trial, which are not qualified rights but can be derogated from in times of war and emergency, and provides an overview of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (ECHR) Articles 5 and 6, the most commonly argued rights before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 5 on the right to liberty and security of person protects individuals from unlawful and arbitrary detention, whereas Article 6 protects the rights to fair trial in both criminal and civil cases (with added protection in criminal cases). The ECtHR has expanded protection of Article 6 through its interpretation of ‘fair’ hearing and ‘civil’ rights and obligations. The chapter examines due process rights as part of UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA).

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.

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.

Bulgarian Military Courts and the Right to a Fair Trial

De Jure ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilmira Ilieva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

This article examines the organization and functioning of Bulgarian military courts to determine to what extent they are compatible with fair trial standards. The guarantees and institutional requirements for providing the right to a fair trial are analyzed in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This research is focused on the issue whether Bulgarian military courts could provide a fair trial, held by an independent and impartial court, mainly with regard to civil citizens. For the purpose of the research is scrutinized the ECHR Judgment from 28.11.2019 on the case Mustafa vs. Bulgaria.

7. Due Process, Liberty and Security of the Person, and the Right to a Fair Trial

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Foster
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Question And Answer ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Bullet Point ◽  
The Right

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offer the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, diagram answer plans, caution advice, suggested answers, illustrative diagrams and flowcharts and advice on gaining extra marks. Q&A Human Rights and Civil Liberties offers expert advice on what to expect from your human rights and civil liberties exam, how best to prepare, and guidance on what examiners are really looking for. Written by experienced examiners, it provides: clear commentary with each question and answer; bullet point and diagram answer plans; tips to make your answer really stand out from the crowd; and further reading suggestions at the end of every chapter. The book should help you to: identify typical law exam questions; structure a first-class answer; avoid common mistakes; show the examiner what you know; make your answer stand out from the crowd; and find relevant further reading. This chapter covers due process, liberty, and security of the person, and the right to a fair trial, including articles 5, 6, and 7 of the ECHR and their application to matters such as prison discipline, police powers, and the fight against terrorism.

7. Due Process, Liberty and Security of the Person, and the Right to a Fair Trial

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Foster
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Question And Answer ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Bullet Point ◽  
The Right

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offer the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, diagram answer plans, caution advice, suggested answers, illustrative diagrams and flowcharts, and advice on gaining extra marks. Concentrate Q&A Human Rights & Civil Liberties offers expert advice on what to expect from your human rights and civil liberties exam, how best to prepare, and guidance on what examiners are really looking for. Written by experienced examiners, it provides: clear commentary with each question and answer; bullet point and diagram answer plans; tips to make your answer really stand out from the crowd; and further reading suggestions at the end of every chapter. The book should help you to: identify typical law exam questions; structure a first-class answer; avoid common mistakes; show the examiner what you know; make your answer stand out from the crowd. This chapter covers due process, liberty, and security of the person, and the right to a fair trial, including articles 5, 6, and 7 of the ECHR and their application to matters such as prison discipline, police powers, and the fight against terrorism.

Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in juvenile cases. Selected cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 584 (9) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czyż
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Entire Procedure

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document