The Crucifix and the Court in Strasbourg: Press Reaction in Italy to a European Court Decision: Diego Contreras

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Press Reaction ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
European Court

DIRECTIVE 93/13 AND THE ‘PRICE TERM EXEMPTION’: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ‘MARKET FOR LEMONS’ RATIONALE

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 933-963 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Current Account ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Market For Lemons ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court

AbstractIn the light of the Supreme Court decision in OFT v Abbey National on unarranged overdraft fees in current account contracts, this article analyses the price term exemption at the heart of Directive 93/13 in its European context, and on a comparative basis. It argues for an interpretation in line with the ‘market for lemons’ rationale, which best fits the regulatory outline of Directive 93/13, and the European Court of Justice's case law. Under this approach, only those contract terms that are subject to the correcting forces of markets and competition are part of the ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and should be exempt from assessment of fairness under Directive 93/13.

scholarly journals Fulfillment of the Conditions of Law no. 302/2004 on the European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Nicolae Silviu Pana
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework “Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did”. Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: “from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure” (European Court of Justice, 2016).

Lautsi vs. Italy: Questioning the Majoritarian Premise

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nahshon Perez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Decision Point ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
European Court

Abstractin 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) published its seminal decision in theLautsi vs. Italycase, arguing that the requirement in Italian law that all public schools will display crucifixes in each classroom does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision gave rise to a storm of reactions. The goal of this article is to argue, that the ECHR used “majoritarianism” in an under-theorized way and/or unattractive way, and that this usage of the concept can be identified in other cases as well (see the highly controversialDahlab vs. Swiss, ECHR). Demonstrating the procedural, monopoly based and circularity problems within the ECHR decision point to potential ways to criticize the court decision, without taking sides in the heated and highly divisive debate between so called “neutrality supporters” and (roughly) “endorsed church — majoritarian supporters,” sides of the debate surrounding “Lautsi.”

scholarly journals To the question about the possibility of using the results of the operational search activities in criminal proceedings

2020 ◽  
pp. 180-185
Author(s):  
N. A. Mikhailichenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The article analyzes the issue of the lack of proper legal regulation of requirements for the results of operational-search activities used in the field of criminal proceedings. A separate place is given to the problem of assessing the presented results of operational-search activities. On the basis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, a solution to this problem is proposed. At the same time, the provision is taken as a basis that any, in direct or indirect form, affecting the constitutional rights of citizens in the course of operational-search activities, entails the need to obtain a court decision for such activities. The question of the need to reform the criminal legislation is outlined. 

scholarly journals Conventional and constitutional regulations of lawful detention of a person without a court decision: criminal procedure aspect

2021 ◽  
pp. 16-25
Author(s):  
Аndrew Medvid
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Article 5

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.

scholarly journals Events Matter: Extraction of Events from Court Decisions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin Filtz ◽  
María Navas-Loro ◽  
Cristiana Santos ◽  
Axel Polleres ◽  
Sabrina Kirrane
Keyword(s):  
Gold Standard ◽  
Conditional Random Fields ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Information Tools ◽  
European Court ◽  
Extraction Mechanisms ◽  
Timeline Generation

The analysis of court decisions and associated events is part of the daily life of many legal practitioners. Unfortunately, since court decision texts can often be long and complex, bringing all events relating to a case in order, to understand their connections and durations is a time-consuming task. Automated court decision timeline generation could provide a visual overview of what happened throughout a case by representing the main legal events, together with relevant temporal information. Tools and technologies to extract events from court decisions however are still underdeveloped. To this end, in the current paper we compare the effectiveness of three different extraction mechanisms, namely deep learning, conditional random fields, and rule-based method, to facilitate automated extraction of events and their components (i.e., the event type, who was involved, and when it happened). In addition, we provide a corpus of manually annotated decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which shall serve as a gold standard not only for our own evaluation, but also for the research community for comparison and further experiments.

scholarly journals The role of the European Court of Human Rights in ensuring appropriate and effective protection of a fair court in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 82-88
Author(s):  
Nadiya Khrystynchenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The State ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
And Control

The article deals with the study of the practice of the European Court of human rights on liability and control over non-enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine. The study notes the importance of the issue of enforcement of court decisions that have entered into legal force. In particular, it is indicated that such an act falls under the qualification of Article 6 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – a violation of the right to a fair trial. The European Court of human rights has repeatedly noted in its decisions the seriousness and scale of this threat to Ukraine. It has been noted that the percentage of enforcement of court decisions has never exceeded 40-45%, and in some years, it has decreased to critical values of 5-10%. The purpose of the article is to analyze the practice of the ECHR on liability and control over non-enforcement of court decisions in Ukraine and provide recommendations for improving this situation. It has been concluded that in Ukraine there is a problem of a persistent recurring nature – excessive length of enforcement or non-enforcement of court decisions, which is a violation of the rights guaranteed by the ECHR to a fair trial and to respect for property. Despite the fact that the ECHR has repeatedly pointed out the execution of a court decision as part of a trial, this position of the ECHR is still not always properly taken into account in Ukraine. Enforcement of a court decision is part of states ' obligations to ensure access to justice under Article 6 of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. A person who has a court decision against a state or local government body is not required to initiate additional procedures to implement this decision. Unconditional implementation of such a decision should be guaranteed by the state. In order to improve the situation in the area under study, it is advisable to review the current legis-lation that ensures the implementation of court decisions, and continue reforming the civil service. Ap-propriate actions should be carried out in cooperation between the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and other responsible executive authorities. It seems appropriate to create a government commission to improve the work of the state executive service.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document